ManofReason

Diluting the votes of the rural northerners is the only reform that will prevent PTP from continuing to win elections. It is the only reform the PDRC could bring in that would allow the Democrats to "win" an election. All the "corruption" and "Thaksin is evil" stuff is just a smoke screen. They thought that taking away half the senate from the electors in the last constitution would allow them to maintain control of the permanent institutions and thus be able to still exert pressure on the government of the day to do their bidding, no matter who was in power. They clearly thought wrong and now they want to illegally seize power again and enact reforms that further disenfranchise voters. The principle of 1 man 1 vote is the only thing that the PDRC is truly opposed to - the rest is negotiable.

Can you link to anything that indicates that the PDRC is against "One man, One vote" in any of their proposed reforms?

As far as I'm aware the PDRC has published nothing, not a single thing, all we get are rants about corruption, Thaksin is the boogeyman and Yinglucks' vagina. Everyone outside of Sutheps' inner circle has absolutely no idea what the reforms are that he wishes to force upon the land and whom he intends to put into his "good people council". Quite insane really that anybody would support the idea of handing a nation over to such a madman. So, if nobody knows what the PDRC are really planning to do how can I say that they are against the principle of 1 man 1 vote? Easily, their past form in changing the senate from being a fully elected chamber in the 1997 constitution to becoming only a 1/2 elected chamber in the 2007 constitution was a direct assualt on 1 man 1 vote democracy. Secondly it is quite obvious that as long as elections are held the overwhelming majority of voters in the populous north will continue elect "Red" governments, given the fact that those in the PDRC Yellow faction look down upon the northern buffalo and will never stoop to treating them as equal citizens (or even human beings) the elite side will never win a 1 man 1 vote election as they will never put forward a raft of policies that will benefit the sub-humans. The only way for this minority mob to ever hold government with at least a veneer of legitimacy is to implement a system similar to Hong Kong i.e. to eliminate 1 man 1vote. Thirdly, the banners and chants of the mob for the government to "respect my taxes" is an argument that says because I am richer than you and pay more in taxes than you I have more rights to decide who should run the country and how it should be run. A large proportion of Thais pay no tax at all and a great many PDRC Yellows believe this is a justification to disenfranchise their fellow citizens.

So I repeat, the only way for the PDRC Yellows to bring an end to the cycle of the Red governments being legally elected by the rural voters and then the being illegally tossed out by the urban PDRC Yellows is to eliminate the principle of 1 man 1 vote.

Apart from Crushdepth and TVgerry the usual crew seem to have gone awol over this story

Good..

A bunch of newcomers have appeared in their stead.

Curious.

Normally they pounce on each story within minutes and one has to wade through the rhetoric for 2-3 pages before any sensible comments get made but not on this story.

Something up?

People who voice their opinion against the government are not, by and large, as obsessed about Suthep and the PDRC as the pro-government side would like to believe.

The PDRC did a sensible thing, there's no point in blocking streets when the Thaksin administration is in a dead spiral of its own. Specially in view of the continuous deaths and injuries of protestors and bystanders caused by "third hands".

Now let's see if Yingluck own up to her request of ending the protests as a condition to have a live, one on one, debate.

wouldn't an election be the best out come, you know where everybody in the country eligible gets the one vote one person. Best form of debating on who gets to run the country, or should those making up the smaller minority be given 2 votes each so as to give them a chance and because they think they are better educated than the majority and therefore superior.

Back when this all started a satirical site (it may have been Not the Nation), did a piece on how under Sutheps reformed politics, inhabitants of Is a an and the northern provinces were only going to be counted as 2/7 of a person each both in votes and for government expenditure. Like so many such pieces it was both very funny, and rather barbed.

Your post and that piece may closer to truth than many think.

On a personal note, a suspicion that this is one of the drivers of the whole protest movement has certainly coloured my view of it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Diluting the votes of the rural northerners is the only reform that will prevent PTP from continuing to win elections. It is the only reform the PDRC could bring in that would allow the Democrats to "win" an election. All the "corruption" and "Thaksin is evil" stuff is just a smoke screen. They thought that taking away half the senate from the electors in the last constitution would allow them to maintain control of the permanent institutions and thus be able to still exert pressure on the government of the day to do their bidding, no matter who was in power. They clearly thought wrong and now they want to illegally seize power again and enact reforms that further disenfranchise voters. The principle of 1 man 1 vote is the only thing that the PDRC is truly opposed to - the rest is negotiable.

Yep.... You won't face any more opposition to completing the elections, enough data has now been leaked to confirm that the elections will be voided by the constitutional court and fresh elections held of which the PTP and YL will no longer have caretaker power, and the Dems will absolutely walk into power.

Oh happy days.

The PTP might lose in those circumstances, but I doubt that the Democrats will win. The majority of Thai voters want government spending more evenly spread, meaning out of Bangkok http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report, The elites and the Bangkok voters, who the Democrats are dependent on, want the spending to stay in Bangkok.

Oh, and the Democrats have been calling the majority of the voters buffaloes for too long. Not a good campaign strategy.

Lets put this into context. question . where is the bulk of the government based?

"General government final consumption expenditure (formerly general government consumption) includes all government current expenditures for purchases of goods and services (including compensation of employees). It also includes most expenditures on national defense and security,"

"As the economy has grown over the past three

decades, production has become more concentrated

in the central region and in Bangkok due to proximity

to the port and related supply chains. As production

has become concentrated, the government has made

infrastructure investments and provided social and

ancillary public investments to support the

productive sectors. In addition, as Bangkok is the

administrative capital of the unitary

government and

the major capital city, most of the administrative and

planning functions have been centralized there. As a

result there has been a concentration of public

spending in Bangkok"

source: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/05/09/000333037_20120509003158/Rendered/PDF/685510ESW00PUB0y0Note0master0120501.pdf

And, shortly after that paragraph, using your own source:

"Figure 3 shows that although Bangkok accounts for about 17 percent of population and 25.8 percent of GDP, it benefits from about 72.2 percent of total expenditures. This is in sharp contrast to the Northeast which accounts for about 34 percent of population and 11.5 percent of GDP, but received only 5.8 percent of expenditures. Even correcting for the fact that Bangkok is the administrative capital for the country, such concentration of expenditures is extreme."

After that the paper explains the importance of increasing investment in the north and northeast.

So yes, it is natural for Bangkok, the capital, to have higher per capita government spending than the rest of the country. However per capita government spending in Bangkok almost 25 times that in the northeast is indefensible. It also helps explain why Thaksin is so popular in the north and northeast and so loathed in Bangkok, when he took office Bangkok received 90% of investment spending; from the online February 1, 2014 online Economist http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21595453-both-sides-stand-must-back-down-or-risk-their-countrys-disintegration-way-out.

So once again, unless the Democrats want to include promises of significantly more investment in the north and northeast, I can't see them winning an election. Even if they do make that promise, the past buffalo statements will probably hurt their credibility.

Ouch, that shutdown has gotta sting quite a bit casualbiker

All 4 people.

Pipkins, that's a short post

You clearly can't count.

It was a 6 million word quote.

dam_n, I must be getting blind

I have a system.

I use 1 word for every protestor in the street.

(I get the Nation to do the counting for me)

[by having a half appointed senate that is responsible for appointing judges (which in turn appoint unelected senators) doesn't help the situation - this needs to change and when it does the judiciary will be on the way to becoming truly independent. PTP actually tried to reform the judiciary in this exact manner and look what it got them.

Perhaps that is because contrary to your suggestion, the reforms that PTP were proposing, wouldn't have in fact led to a more independent judiciary, but rather a judiciary PTP could better control. Why else do you think they were pursuing it? For the good of the country?! For democracy?! Please...

Sent from my i-mobile IQ XA using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It is currently a system where permanent institutions of state a never accountable to the general population. The senate should be fully elected so that the political appointments it makes are reflective of the will of the electorate. What possible argument is there to deny the people the right to choose who shall govern them?

Could it be, Suthep was told. We can protect you better if you are in one place?

All 4 people.

*Deleted posts edited out*

Manofreason is right. The arm chair activists do not know reality other than what TV or the bias press tells them (which they believe as the Gospel).

3 days ago at about 3 PM I went to Paragon and walked around the Ratchaphrasong area and you could hear the music blaring coming from a solitary guitar player shown on the Jumbotron. He was playing for an audience of Farangs, and vendors. No wonder the cameras were not trained for one second on the audience. A really a laughable sight.

I hung around until 5 and all one could see were the pitiful performers getting their 15 minutes of fame in front of a smattering of Thai senior citizens and the small crowd of Farangs and vendors; totaling both 4 or 5 times more than the "protestors". There were veritable walls of cases of bottled water as high as 2 meters. Areas dedicated to storage of provisions and equipment. Dozens on 10 wheel trucks were parked alongside the main confluences ready to load equipment or people. What I saw was deep pockets financing a grand scale operation to support a feeble attempt to protest.

After what I witnessed for the better part of 2 hours, the only change I would made to Manofreason comment would be to put Suthep's protesters in 2 phone booths were they would be hanging out in comfort.

AIS phone booths please.

If Prayoth thought a coup could work it would have happened already. He knows it won't because the reds aren't going to roll over and play dead this time around. Last time they played dead, in 2010, they ended up dead about a hundred of them. This time if the army rolls tanks they're going to face armed resistance, which the generals have little stomach for. First, there'll be a horizontal split in the army and then maybe the country.

As for the courts doing dirty, I seriously doubt it this time. The kangaroos need the generals covering their backs before issuing edicts like "You can't be PM because last night we saw you cooking on TV".

So, it might all actually end well. Yingluck and PTP will stay in power but definitely chastened so no more amnesty-like bills to be shoved down people's throats, Thailand will pick itself and get back to its merry ways, and, hopefully, Suthep will die of a heart attack as he blows through his new-found riches in Poseidon's luxury suite.

You seriously believe that will happen? The deals being done now will not include Thaksin and his Thai Rouge. Suthep is the Trojan horse, his job is almost complete. The Shins are finished

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

HIs job is almost done? What job was that? To lead an ever dwindling, paid for mob of southerners into the streets of Bangkok to attempt to destroy the economy of Thailand from major corporations down to street vendors (who live hand to mouth), enable unauthorised "guards" to man handle, harass and kidnap innocent citizens, deny the public access to public spaces, screw up the cities already troubled traffic, destroy Thailands' international reputation as the Land of Smiles and the world's greatest tourist destination, start the chain of events that would lead to the deaths of 4 innocent children and at least 2 police officers (and nearly blow the legs of another), assault innocent Thais trying to exercise their democratic right to vote, provide a revenue stream for the ridiculous fat slob Michael Yon, to lead a circus of clowns to continuously blow those bloody annoying whistles and last but not least to line his own pockets with "donations"?

Perhaps his job was to open the eyes of the Thai population to the REAL world.Ii think he has done that admirably. Farmers standing up to the government, the average Thai seeing through the bullshit that has been handed to them for decades. Yep he has done his job. Now someone else will take over - but I bet it won't be a Shin.

Now that the eyes of the Thai population have been opened to the real world, do you think the Democrats will dare to contest an election? And if they do actually have the balls to front up and unsurprisingly lose again I guess the next question is once they've lost what will their new an acronym and shirt colour be for their next mini mob in the street adventure?

But this is beside the point, I repeat, should the fact that corrupt verdicts have been handed down in the past justify the continuation of corrupt verdicts? I would of thought this was a no brainer question for you as I thought the whole (disingenuous) purpose for the PDRC existing was to fight all forms of corruption. Thailand needs impartial institutions just as much as it needs honest politicians! 2 - 0

Absolutely agreed. But you speak as if all verdicts are now going against the Shinawatras and as if they have become the victims. Just the fact that they have been able to continue running the country for over two years with a fugitive convicted criminal who doesn't even live in the country, shows that all the cards aren't stacked against them. If this was a Democrat government being run in the same way, you and all the reds would be saying, "see the Dems can get away with blatant law breaking" and you'd say, "if this was Thaksin's party it would have been dissolved as soon as it had been elected what with all those blatant banners boasting "convicted criminal thinks, we do". But it was Thaksin's party and they weren't dissolved. They have been allowed to run the country, in spite of clearly breaking laws from day one.

I don't believe the courts have ever disbanded or removed from office a Democrat government. Is this because they are all angels? A quick look at Suthep's biography answers that question. The problem for the courts is that once you lose your reputation it is very hard to regain it. I don't think anyone can have too much faith in any of the upcoming verdicts (even if they are actually the correct verdicts) because of the past shenanigans. By having a half appointed senate that is responsible for appointing judges (which in turn appoint unelected senators) doesn't help the situation - this needs to change and when it does the judiciary will be on the way to becoming truly independent. PTP actually tried to reform the judiciary in this exact manner and look what it got them. For the record, prior to the 2007 constitution being "voted" in Abhisit himself voiced his disapproval of the unelected senate, though he was comforted by the (false) assertions from the coup government that it could easily be altered, via parliament at a later date.

1. For anyone who truly wants to know the truth, it doesn't take much effort to find out who orchestrated the dodgy verdict in Thaksin's favour in 2001. I freely admit if Thaksin could have done his own dirty work he would have - that is obvious to all - but he couldn't so he didn't. It was a Yellow own goal. There are numerous internet sources, you can even find quotes from some of the judges in the case explicitly stating who the behind the scenes player was that pulled the strings in favour of Thaksin. If the Thaksin regime could actually ride roughshod over the judiciary as you are claiming why on earth did they allow so many verdicts to go against them in future cases? 1 - 0

The argument that if Thaksin were able to ride roughshod over the judiciary, why did he allow verdicts to go against him, can equally be applied to your own version of events. If this all powerful mysterious third hand has been controlling the outcome of all cases, why has it allowed certain cases to go in his favor, even fairly recent ones? The answer is that power and influence has shifted about over the years. In the early period, Thaksin exerted much more of it, and the result was what we saw during the assets trial. The verdict was a farce but he embraced it. Never once have I heard him complain about it. In the later years, his power base went down and the tentacles of his influence reduced, as evidenced in the land trial, which although he was guilty of, (along with guilty of attempted bribery, a matter you seem to ignore, along with the courts who simply handed the money back and charged the lawyers involved, as if the client was oblivious), the crime in the general scheme of things was not that great, and had this been back in 2001, his power would have taken care of things. It didn't. And so began the squealing, echoed even to this day by people like you. Squealing not of being innocent I hasten to add, (although having said that, you'll probably now stoop down and attempt it), but of being the poor victim of political motivation?! The horror of it!

I lean towards believing that things went down a different way. The powers that had run the country in the preceding decades thought Thaksin was the right choice for Thailand and used their influence to nurture him into power. A proven CEO who could enrich the nation and the elite with his expertise. When they belatedly realised that Thaksin wasn't going to sit back and be their puppet, that he would in fact completely ignore them and run the show how he saw fit - even if certain decisions contradicted the elites wishes and hurt them financially. They then removed their behind the scenes support and began a campaign to do all they could to remove him completely from the Thai political system. And here we are today in the situation that we are in, Thaksin has an electoral majority and the Yellows have the institutions in their pocket.

The questions to be asked are:

What can come from the talks. One side wants to so change the system that it keeps power in the hands of a minority - we know who make up that. Which means that they won't accept a democratic system based upon one man one vote. Will the other side acquiesce?

How to make the independent agencies and courts unbiassed and independent - and how long will it take?

Will corruption reduce if the current government is toppled? Or might the looting even increase given that events have shown that a future hold power may be less than secure - so 'make hay while the sun shines'?

What I don't understand about the Yellow side of the show is the catch-22 situation they're putting themselves in.

They a trying to usurp power by claiming that they will eliminate corruption when in office, but the reason they want to be in power is to be able to continue on with their corrupt practises of the past. Go figure?!

'The court ordered the former prime minister to have Patcharawat reinstated within 60 days after the final verdict is made.' And just how is he going to do that?

Isn't this is the most bizarre, surreal and unbelievable place you ever heard of. Hollywood couldn't come up with this stuff. How the f*** can he possible do what the courts ask of him. Things like this are the exact reason why I love this place so much.

Absolutely! How the powers behind the scenes must truly regret forcing the judges to change their verdicts and acquit Thaksin of what he was clearly guilty of. Remember, Thaksin himself did not have the authority to change the verdict himself - that came from elsewhere. As for the moaning - 2 wrongs don't make a right. What is the argument here? Because the courts handed down a corrupt verdict in 2001 all verdicts can now be corrupted?

Remember, Thaksin himself did not have the authority to change the verdict himself

What are you talking about? Didn't have authority? What has authority got to do with it? When people in positions of power, such as Thaksin, apply pressure or exert influence on the justice system, it has nothing to do with them having authority. It has everything to do with them abusing power. And that is exactly what he did in 2001. Denying this and blaming it all on some third hand is absurd. What next? Was it some third hand that made him stuff lunch boxes with money and attempt to bribe judges?

As for the moaning - 2 wrongs don't make a right. What is the argument here?

The argument here is that you bemoaning the fact that the justice system has in the past 13 years denied Thaksin of 30 more months at the trough that he was in fact entitled to, is nonsense because the justice system gave him five extra years at the beginning of his political career that he never should have had. Also, from the time in which he was found guilty and convicted of two years in prison, he should not have had anything to do with politics or the running of this country. And yet he has. And even if you disagree with what he was found guilty of, and of course you do, the punishment alone for a former PM attempting to bribe judges in such a brazen fashion, would in any properly functioning justice system, be much greater than a 2 year sentence and would also include a life time ban from politics.

1. For anyone who truly wants to know the truth, it doesn't take much effort to find out who orchestrated the dodgy verdict in Thaksin's favour in 2001. I freely admit if Thaksin could have done his own dirty work he would have - that is obvious to all - but he couldn't so he didn't. It was a Yellow own goal. There are numerous internet sources, you can even find quotes from some of the judges in the case explicitly stating who the behind the scenes player was that pulled the strings in favour of Thaksin. If the Thaksin regime could actually ride roughshod over the judiciary as you are claiming why on earth did they allow so many verdicts to go against them in future cases? 1 - 0

2. The justice system didn't give Thaksin anything - the voters of Thailand gave Thaksin the authority to rule and they did so 3 times with Thaksin in charge and twice more as the puppet master. But this is beside the point, I repeat, should the fact that corrupt verdicts have been handed down in the past justify the continuation of corrupt verdicts? I would of thought this was a no brainer question for you as I thought the whole (disingenuous) purpose for the PDRC existing was to fight all forms of corruption. Thailand needs impartial institutions just as much as it needs honest politicians! 2 - 0

I had a very interesting chat with a high ranking politico yesterday (father of a friend).

His firm advice was for this Sunday ''stay at home'' and ''avoid Bangkok..!!

Now this news has broken that the ''Bangkok Shutdown'' has been quickly abandoned.....

Coincidence..??

Time will tell. If nothing happens will you come back and let us know that you told the high ranking father of a friend politico that he's full of shi...

Somchai was elected Prime Minister. Members of parliament are direct representatives of the people. As it would be impractical for every citizen to vote on every bill before parliament, MP's are elected to represent and cast votes on behalf of their constituents. Somchai was elected Prime Minister, by the people, through their parliamentary representatives.

Comparing Abhisits' and Somchas' rise to the Prime Ministership is a little false as you have omitted that fact that the political party that represented the majority of the electorate was disbanded, on trumped up charges, by the courts and other political parties were strong-armed into backing Abhisit. If this weren't a coup, the proper thing to do would have been for Abhisit to immediately call for new elections returning the power to decide who shall govern back to the people - he did not do this. Here is a question for you, having usurped power and denied the people why did Abhisit not enact the reforms the Democrats are now demanding? I would suggest that reforms and Red Shirt corruption aren't their primary concern - they just want to hold indefinite power by any means.

As for caretaker status, it is simply a convention that prevents the sitting government from abusing its position for advantage during an election or committing future governments to policies or actions whilst the electorate decides who shall run the country. All else remains the same. You seem to think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government - it's not, it's perfectally constitutional.

Why do you hate Thai people so much that your slur their courts in favor of a convicted felon who 'self-exiled' himself instead of fighting the charges against him?

An independent judicial system is critical to having a functioning modern nation state.

To give an example palatable to your political leanings, Thaksins' 2001 acquittal is proof enough that things aren't working quite as they should be in the courts.

I could ask of you, why do you hate the Thai people so much as to support a movement that disenfranchises them of their democratic rights and denies them an impartial judicial system. Or, why do you hate the Thai people so much that you are actively trying to destroy the political organisation that the majority of the population have repeatedly chosen (read elected) to lead the country and implement policies that will improve their standard of living?

For the record I don't hate the Thai people, in reality my feelings are quite the opposite, I want to see the best for them, their children and their future

generations.

How is it good for the Thai people to be governed by a fugitive, convicted felon, guilty of corruption in office, who governs Thailand through his unqualified clone, from Dubai? How is it good for Thai people to be governed by a government that enriches itself at the cost of the future of millions of rice farmers? This government has spent itself into deep debt and nothing to show for it. They haven't fixed the most important thing when the came to power which is flooding, They haven't improved people's lives but raised prices on the poor through inflation. The majority may have to change their minds about this government when most of its MPs are banned for forging legal documents to send to the Senate for approval and cabinet members sent to prison or 'self-exiled' on corruption convictions. Less than 48% of the voters in the areas that voted even bothered to show up and the current government got less than half the votes they got in 2011 so you are talking out of your a......

Interesting that you mention elections. Although you and me may both obnoxiously think we each know what is good for the Thai people, the truth is that they and they alone know what's best for them and the way they express their desires is through voting in elections. Why try to deny them the opportunity to speak for themselves, why not trust them to make their own decisions as to who can run the country to improve their daily lot in life. Any who does anything to actively disenfranchise any individual Thai voter can not be said to love the Thai nation or its people.

Somchai was elected Prime Minister. Members of parliament are direct representatives of the people. As it would be impractical for every citizen to vote on every bill before parliament, MP's are elected to represent and cast votes on behalf of their constituents. Somchai was elected Prime Minister, by the people, through their parliamentary representatives.

Comparing Abhisits' and Somchas' rise to the Prime Ministership is a little false as you have omitted that fact that the political party that represented the majority of the electorate was disbanded, on trumped up charges, by the courts and other political parties were strong-armed into backing Abhisit. If this weren't a coup, the proper thing to do would have been for Abhisit to immediately call for new elections returning the power to decide who shall govern back to the people - he did not do this. Here is a question for you, having usurped power and denied the people why did Abhisit not enact the reforms the Democrats are now demanding? I would suggest that reforms and Red Shirt corruption aren't their primary concern - they just want to hold indefinite power by any means.

As for caretaker status, it is simply a convention that prevents the sitting government from abusing its position for advantage during an election or committing future governments to policies or actions whilst the electorate decides who shall run the country. All else remains the same. You seem to think that a caretaker government is somehow an illegitimate form of government - it's not, it's perfectally constitutional.

Why do you hate Thai people so much that your slur their courts in favor of a convicted felon who 'self-exiled' himself instead of fighting the charges against him?

An independent judicial system is critical to having a functioning modern nation state.

To give an example palatable to your political leanings, Thaksins' 2001 acquittal is proof enough that things aren't working quite as they should be in the courts.

I could ask of you, why do you hate the Thai people so much as to support a movement that disenfranchises them of their democratic rights and denies them an impartial judicial system. Or, why do you hate the Thai people so much that you are actively trying to destroy the political organisation that the majority of the population have repeatedly chosen (read elected) to lead the country and implement policies that will improve their standard of living?

For the record I don't hate the Thai people, in reality my feelings are quite the opposite, I want to see the best for them, their children and their future

generations.

Now that Sutherp is clearing the roads, TV Red posters will start complaining about the obstruction of pedalling boats in the park.

I think most complaints about Suthep was about how much of a corrupt little shouty idiot that he is.

There was nothing honourable about what he stood for, no matter how many pretenses he bleated behind as time went on.

You people amaze me, always throwing the attention away from government wrongs. What would you say if you didn't have Suthep and Abhisit to fall back on and blame.

Prevention always better than cure, transparency over 3 years and there would be NO problems, sums it up, that's all there is to it. If you people cannot see it you would not make sound friends.

Abhisit had nearly 3 years when the courts through out the elected government back in 2008. Did nothing.

As for the wrongs - the best course of action is to start with correcting the larger ones and work your way towards the smaller ones. This is why the focus is on the Abhisit, Suthep, PDRC, Democrat side of the show. Any minor PTP infractions can be remedied after the serious stuff is sorted.

Now that Sutherp is clearing the roads, TV Red posters will start complaining about the obstruction of pedalling boats in the park.

I must admit it would have been much more convenient for all if instead of Lumpini Park Suthep had moved his mob to the nearest phone booth.

Wow, you are so witty.

I know. The real kicker is the underlying truth that the protest numbers have dwindled so much and so quickly that in the not to distant future they would probably literally fit into a phone booth.

Now that Sutherp is clearing the roads, TV Red posters will start complaining about the obstruction of pedalling boats in the park.

I must admit it would have been much more convenient for all if instead of Lumpini Park Suthep had moved his mob to the nearest phone booth.

You could be more original than repeating your previous rally at Nana phone booth comment.

?