cleopatra2

I must have missed something . Has there been amendments to the constitution that i am unaware of/ According to section 109 of the constitution the outgoing Senators remain in position untill the new senators are appointed. There is also the issue the opposition can nominate a candidate. The longer time passes the more apathy will encumber the population.

The Senators stay in place beyond their term untill new Senators appointed.

This is laughable. MF will support a PM candidate that will not touch section 112. But we're willing to hamper their own PM nomination by insisting on section 112 amendment. If amendment of section 112 is such a principle stance within MF how can they support a PM candidate that has stated they will not touch section. 112

Equally there was a MP who was disqualified for owning 1 share . Nobody can be confident how a court will rule. With regards the AIS shares the EC initially disqualified the candidate , which was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Ok I understand that Pita could as executor be holding the shares. However this raises the question why did Pita continue to hold the shares as executor untill after the election. Under Thai inheritance laws Pita would be the owner of at least part of the shares if no will left to state otherwise. I do not know all the details but am leaning towards that Pita was the true owner of the shares.

Do the Senators not stay in position beyond their term untill new Senators appointed.

Given that PTP have stated they will not touch section 112 . How can MF justify staying in the coalition , considering the recent PM nomination principles that section112 is cornerstone of their election promises

If that is the case why did the MF party leave out of the MOU the section 112 amendment.

So is amending section 112 more important than MF party promise to give pensioners 3000 baht every month.

Of course it's possible. There are 500 seats to be won.

I would agree if MF had won sufficient seats without needing a coalition . Is it right that he should sacrifice all his other policies for amending section 112. Why does he hold amending section 112 so sancrement at the expense of others. I would prefer he compromised on section 112 ,( don't fight the battles you cannot win) and implemented the issues that improve the Thai people.

The numbers 1.57 1.61 etc in first column are the light refraction index. Simply put they reflect how the thickness of lens will be. The other numbers prefixed with sph and cyl are the prescription.

Have they not considered if the proposal is successful and the Senators no longer have a vote. The MF and PT coalition will collapse. Neither will need each other to form a government . Both MF and PT could nominate a candidate for PM solely relying on gaining votes from other MPs.

Pesonally I think this is a mistake. I do not believe there will be a 3rd vote. Pita will be challenged during the 2nd vote, and a new PM will be selected and MF put opposition.

If Pita is nominated then I think the opposition will nominate Prawit. In such a battle I see only one outcome the House will vote Prawit to be PM. For the Senators it appears MF and Pita stance on S112 is toxic.. MF have to either eliminate the Senators vote by adding another party to the coalition , even if it is against the members wishes. After all none of the existing coalition have agreed to support any amendment of S112

The issue for me is Pita is constantly moving on the share ownership. Pita's initial response that he did not own the shares. Or through public statements inferred non ownership. Now he is saying nobody warned him. Pita kinds of acknowledges without actually stating , that he might have owned the shares.

The outgoing PM will not be clinging onto power. If Pita cannot be PM then there is no reason why another candidate from the coalition can be put forward. The issues I see now is that whoever nominates Pita risks their own party dissolution if Pita is found guilty. The real question is following the previous FF party issues. How did MF allow this to arise without taking mitigating measures. Appears somewhat naive , incompetent in the circumstances to only nominate 1 PM candidate.

At the time one of the scenes were shot the UKs legal definition of a child was 16.

Under Thai law to Publish a person /company needs to register and recieve approval from the authorities. Consequently to cease being a publisher a formal request to de register is required. Now I have no details of if the books are published or not in Thailand or any registeration by Pita

Whilst books are media, the issue is not authoring the book From the complaint lodged it is publishing the books. From the complaint it looks like the allegation is Pita authored and then published the books himself. This would then make Pita a publisher of media

I am aware of what Pita has stated publicly. However the holding of the shares as executor whilst applying for MP is undermined by the transfer after the election. The transfer of the shares makes little sense when taking alongside public statements. Pita's defence still remains the same whether the shares were transfered or not. Namely he is not the owner and/or itv is not a media company. If Pita possesed the power to transfer the shares then why did he wait until after the election. Under Thai inheritance laws Pita would be entitled to part of the share allocation. However if Pita's defence is going to be ( and I have no indication this is so), it was a mistake. And on realizing the mistake took action to rectify, then transferring the shares would make sense. The issue that it is an attempt to thwart his leadership is relevant and predictable. Therefore why would Pita provide his political enemies with such ammunition.

I understand the argument Pita only held them as executor. However if Pita did not own the shares why were they listed as his assets on required asset declaration to the NACC

The issue will be , that there will be a request for Pita to be suspended from carrying out any parliamentary duties whilst the Court adjudicates.

I think in the case if American Beauty, it is Thora Birch who at age 16 appeared in a nude scene at her bedroom window. The law requires the image to be sexual indecent (UK) . Since the UK classification board granted the movie a rating then possessing owning the movie would not be unlawfull. The criteria is to establish if the imagery is sexually indecent. A nude picture in itself does not constitute sexually indecent . A number of other factors are needed to be taken into account.

I have not seen these movies so cannot give an opinion. However why do you think they would fall foul of the law