eisfeld

Which is hilarious. The senators already pushed against the house in the PM vote and now the house wants more than a third of senators to agree to remove the power of the senators? Fat chance.

Exactly. Takes them less time in his private jet to hop over to Singapore for a meet than it takes some locals to travel by bus to see their family inside Thailand. It's all just a power play.

He claimed before he only wants to be with his grandchildren and is ready to face justice. That was of course very interesting timing as the government would have just changed. Well apparently that wasn't exactly the truth. He thought the new government would protect him and he is after all not ready to face justice now that his protection has not materialized (yet). Poor manipulating billionaire.

China ranks higher than Singapore for expats? Yea right. Kenya better than Switzerland? Bahrain in the top 10? Pulled that ranking right out of where the sun doesn't shine.

The selection of the next 250 senators does not follow the same procedure as was done under the NCPO. There are no 50 directly and 50 reserve list selections. The selection will happen on Amphoe, Changwat and then national level. https://www.ect.go.th/ect_en/download/article/article_20210806135906.pdf

The Senators can only serve one term and it ends next year. There's no job for life.

Honda has motorcycle schools. For a newbie they have the basics theory etc. Then after getting the license I"d recommend doing the more advanced courses at the Safety Riding Park. There are other professional schools available as well.

Bribing and even extorting members of government is a pretty serious attack on a nation. I hope they will investigate and prosecute those responsible. Heavy stuff but somehow not surprising.

Apparently at 22 years old she is also not an adult who should make their own decisions? A bit too much control. At some point you can give your kids advice but you can't tell them what to do anymore.

Both though have only small parts within Europe. Most of Russia and Turkey is in Asia. Don't think most people would call Russians or Turks european. Though there is this weird thing with Turkey trying to be part of the EU which has stalled. They are also dancing on two weddings with Russia and EU.

If a quorum is defined by needing a certain number of votes from eligible voters then voting abstain or no has the exact same effect because the outcome is dictated by "voted yes" or "didn't vote yes". Both abstain and "no" fall under "didn't vote yes". If instead in a voting system the quorum is defined by the number of yes votes from the total number of votes then abstain would have a different meaning.

*Eastern Europe

Having seen threads and posts by the OP I'd say both actually apply.

The constitution is actually quite easy to read. Section 190 specifies the appointment of judges. https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2017-05/CONSTITUTION+OF+THE+KINGDOM+OF+THAILAND+(B.E.+2560+(2017)).pdf

This is not true. They have been de-listed from the SET. They are still registered. You could easily look that up in the DBD.

See my last comment. The constitution speaks of ownership of or shareholding in "mass media business". All these words are important, not just some.

The key word is business. The common interpretation of business is a commercial activity that is done on a regular basis. There's no exact definition of when something is considered to be done on a regular basis but writing a few books is very far from that. Laws rarely are exhausting in covering all the nuances that exist in the real world and so judges have to apply their own... judgement ????

Punishment is being removal from these official positions. For example Section 101.

It's a completely ridiculous complaint because the law only prohibits owning or being shareholder in a mass media business. Writing a book has nothing to do with that.

The constitution says you can't hold any shares whatsoever. So by the letter of the law he has a problem because it's not very nuanced. But the spirit of the law intends to prevent people from abusing their power via mass media to influence elections which one can't accuse Pita of violating. So the question will be if the court will apply common sense or punish him on technicalities.

I don't think it's 100% clear if ITV should be seen as being active in media or not. They are raking in dozens of millions of Baht a year so it's doing *something*. But it's beside the point because nowhere in the relevant law does it speak about active vs inactive company. Instead the court should IMHO consider the small size of the shareholding and throw the case out because Pita doesn't hold enough to excert any control which is what the spirit of the law tries to prevent. The other stuff like the company being inactive, him being a nominee for some of the shares, him having transferred them now etc help paint a picture but that's it.

Well that's just more claims and not subtantiating your prior ones or any of the new ones. I'm happy to engage in a discussion but if you tell people they are talking rubbish and making various claims about what Thai law says then better be prepared to subtantiate your claims. PS: why so emotionally charged?

You could start by substantiating your claims. Google is your friend too.

Sorry but it seems a bit you drank too much of the koolaid. If he is the executor and assigned to him then yes they are in his name. That there is a separate contract (the will) makes him a nominee and the heirs the beneficial owners. As he is one of the heirs, that makes him also beneficial owner of part of those shares. You are incorrect in stating that shares in a company that is involved in a court case can't be sold. This is not the case unless the court issues an order specifically prohibiting this. ITV has been delisted from the SET so they can't *publicly* be traded there. But it's perfectly fine to privately sell the shares. IF he transferred the shares to someone else (his family as claimed) then there should be a papertrail to prove that.