jayboy

At no stage more than 150,000 according to independent sources.To make generous allowance for error, say 200,000.Claims of 500,000 let alone millions are absurd.I don't understand the need to lie since it was an impressively large crowd at its peak, even if numbers have dwindled since.

A

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The Bangkok Post estimated about 350,000 in a detailed analysis in December. (article was something like "59,000 or 1 million")

I said independent sources .There were never anything like 350,000.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Which independent sources are you referencing? Several sources were simply using figures provided by the authorities, and we all know how reliable they are with any numbers.

You assertion that there was (note third person singular) never anything like 350,000 is based on what?

ps - we don't know what you said. We can only read what you write on this forum.

You are welcome to believe any number you like; the approximate numbers involved can be ascertained by anybody not blinded by prejudice.Do your own research.The ludicrous numbers quoted though unbelievable form part of the Suthep shtick to suggest the protests represent the whole country.They don't.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

If you want to believe the crowds were in high hundreds of thousands or millions you are at liberty to do so.I note you can't quite bring it on yourself to state it openly, preferring to rely on silly questions

Not every foreign reporter counts every protester.They make rough estimates based on experience.No serious source came up with a figure of more than 200000 at the highest point.

What you forget is that foreign reporters have (unlike you) have no allegiance to one party or the other.They don't care whether the crowd is large or small.

I omitted your Bangkok Post reference because I wasn't responding to it.No link was provided for the usual reasons and you made no effort to summarise the content.Finally the BP as a partisan paper (occasional guest opinion pieces apart) is not reliable on matters like this anyway.

I gave you the title of the article. Don't you know how to search?

You accuse people of lying because they mention an article that says there were 350,000? And you do that without even bothering reading the article?

That says a hell of a lot about you!

Yet another fib.I made no such accusation for the reason you state.

I don't spend my day glued to the keyboard.If you can't provide a link, provide a summary.

I note (again) you can't quite bring yourself to endorse an absurdly high crowd number.Go on, it'll make you feel better.What is it to be 500000 or 5000000?

But please no more faux 'searching for knowledge" posts on the subject.

Foreign reporters usually get their detail from other internal sources.

.

Another lie

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Are you suggesting that all foreign reporters go out and count everyone, or do they go to every protest location and estimate?

I noticed that you took the effort to take out my suggestion to read the article before calling anyone a liar.

If you want to believe the crowds were in high hundreds of thousands or millions you are at liberty to do so.I note you can't quite bring it on yourself to state it openly, preferring to rely on silly questions

Not every foreign reporter counts every protester.They make rough estimates based on experience.No serious source came up with a figure of more than 200000 at the highest point.

What you forget is that foreign reporters have (unlike you) have no allegiance to one party or the other.They don't care whether the crowd is large or small.

I omitted your Bangkok Post reference because I wasn't responding to it.No link was provided for the usual reasons and you made no effort to summarise the content.Finally the BP as a partisan paper (occasional guest opinion pieces apart) is not reliable on matters like this anyway.

I said independent sources .There were never anything like 350,000.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What do you consider independent?

Easier to identify those not independent,namely local media outlets and individuals with an axe to grind and no particular attachment to honesty.

Foreign reporters with no dog in the fight provided estimates in region 75,000 to 150,000.

As earlier noted it was a huge crowd and perhaps after current drop off might get larger again after ill considered SOE.

So why lie?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Foreign reporters usually get their detail from other internal sources.

.

Another lie

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I said independent sources .There were never anything like 350,000.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What do you consider independent?

Easier to identify those not independent,namely local media outlets and individuals with an axe to grind and no particular attachment to honesty.

Foreign reporters with no dog in the fight provided estimates in region 75,000 to 150,000.

As earlier noted it was a huge crowd and perhaps after current drop off might get larger again after ill considered SOE.

So why lie?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

It was pretty obvious a few weeks ago that they didn't have wide support. That point was made very clear when they started lying about the number of protesters, trying to turn 75000 into 6 million.

6 Million sounds too many. But it was definitely more than 75.000 surely somewhere between 500.000 and 5.000.000. There are the videos made from the air and all streets, places, sois were packed full with people on 7 places.

All our staff went there and just 2 customer called that day as most of our frequent customer closed office or had just emergency staff there (1-2 people).

At no stage more than 150,000 according to independent sources.To make generous allowance for error, say 200,000.Claims of 500,000 let alone millions are absurd.I don't understand the need to lie since it was an impressively large crowd at its peak, even if numbers have dwindled since.

A

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The Bangkok Post estimated about 350,000 in a detailed analysis in December. (article was something like "59,000 or 1 million")

I said independent sources .There were never anything like 350,000.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

It was pretty obvious a few weeks ago that they didn't have wide support. That point was made very clear when they started lying about the number of protesters, trying to turn 75000 into 6 million.

6 Million sounds too many. But it was definitely more than 75.000 surely somewhere between 500.000 and 5.000.000. There are the videos made from the air and all streets, places, sois were packed full with people on 7 places.

All our staff went there and just 2 customer called that day as most of our frequent customer closed office or had just emergency staff there (1-2 people).

At no stage more than 150,000 according to independent sources.To make generous allowance for error, say 200,000.Claims of 500,000 let alone millions are absurd.I don't understand the need to lie since it was an impressively large crowd at its peak, even if numbers have dwindled since.

A

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I see. The first author says that if the reds give up Thaksin and Thaksinism then the yellows will forgive them (and maybe even stop calling them khwais). Very magnanimous.

But exactly why should the people who have benefited from his policies give up on Thaksin? Access to cheap health care, loans, farm support, etc. - Thaksinism or populism, whatever you want to call it - has transformed the lives of millions in rural Thailand.

So, why should these people give up on Thaksin or Yingluck or the clan they see as the first to not treat them as second-class Thais born only to serve on Bangkok plantations?

I would suggest Suthep and the Dems contemplate why they're in the electoral wilderness and devise policies that'll bring them back by way of the ballot box. It's not impossible. If Thaksin could do it, so can they.

Riding in behind tanks may seem an appealing short-cut but the power will be short-lived too.

You raise a very good point.Both the authors are from the very high echelons of Thai society.As their letter suggests they are civilised and decent human beings with their hearts in the right place.Certainly they are also quite correct that all sides will need to compromise.But there is a slightly troubling note to the letter which is somewhat as the French say "de haut en bas", an element of condescencion if you like.It's not really for two very upper class types to suggest to the Thai majority how it should reform itself.The shoe should be on the other foot, to wit the old elite should be considering how to reform itself before the Thai people are won over by some politician, far more threatening than Thaksin.And once again all need to be rerminded the current conflict is not really about Thaksin at all.

And as a lesser issue, Cod isn't really representing the redshirt position at all.He is an old fashioned Whig (my favoured political stance incidentally).To make the letter compelling Somtow should have written it with a redshirt leader as co-author,

Jonathan Head is just making pathetic excuses for his blatantly pro-Thaksinite presentations. Best to restrict him to 30 seconds because he does an even worse job, if he gets more time.

A couple of weeks ago he was given a few minutes and moved on from shots of the "ultra-royalist" (sic) protestors in Bangkok to a well groomed,obviously overseas educated woman pretending to be a farmer spouting perfect English in an idyllic rural setting. He has totally lost the plot.

Time for another round of cost cuts at the BBC. Please let Jonathan go and just use stringers in Thailand like most other news services. It's not very important to British viewers and this garbage is an utter waste of the BBC's limited resources.

You are talking nonsense.I have already posted Khun Anand Panyarachun's view that Jonathan Head is one of the finest foreign journalists working in Thailand, and I accord his opinion rather higher than yours.You are also lying about JH's pro-Thaksin presentations.If you mean he does not succumb to the Suthep inspired hysteria, he is simply doing his job as a journalist.Bit I suspect you have no evidence at all.I have seen several reports in which he did not mince words about Thaksin's weaknesses and crimes.You are also lying or perhaps too dense to understand that the report from the North East (Thai reporters tend not to bother leaving Bangkok to talk to redshirts) was genuine.

Sorry, but isn't this just a puff piece by the Nation so that it can justify its criticisms of foreign media? Their journo attended the recent FCCT meeting and came away with the unenlightening thoughts that Yingluk is evasive and that Thainess is important.

Much of the foreign mainstream media is biased, and yet even the Thai media is afraid to express exactly why that is the case because it would open up a huge can of worms - hence the comfort blanket of Thainess. If you want some lengthy articles then try the Land Destroyer blog and Alt Thai News, plus any links from the sites.

It is also worth remembering that journalists have to follow their paymaster's editorial line or they will find themselves as independents. Look at any major news story in any country around the world; read a few mainstream media corps and a smattering of alternative sites. Then you'll see that the aim of news is not to tell the truth but to construct a narrative that their audience must believe in. A critical mind will believe nothing but instead construct their own map.

Voltaire's quote rings true throughout the ages: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Why do you recommend Land Destroyer and Alt Thai News? Isn't that the output of the crazed Tony Cartulucci (not his real name, he's from India or Pakistan), fan of North Korea and President Assad etc - conspiracy theorist extraordinairre and all purpose crackpot.

Like I said, don't believe anything. However, this discussion seems to be about how apparently difficult it is to write insightful articles on Thai politics. Those blogs have a large back catalogue of articles and numerous links to external sources. You may not like how he joins the dots, but at least there is a large canvas. On Cartalucci himself, a simple search will reveal counter-articles; interestingly, many do not dispute his claims but charge him with telling only half the story. This is still better than the mainstream that gives out mere shadows. I do not expect balance from any party (mainstream or alternative) but can achieve balance through multiplicity.

I think that for an individual several steps removed from "the truth" yet having to live through some turmoil, the most important thing is to put together a reasonably accurate map of the situation. This does not necessarily require knowing every covert agreement, but it does need a multiplicity of sources and some thinking for oneself. I have no personal political belief and no flag to fly, but I am concerned about the safety and quality of life of myself and my family, and so my map of the situation is geared towards the relative evolution of freedoms and repressions - not always obvious from the surface news. I just hope the alarm bells don't go off too late.

(BTW the term "conspiracy theory" was invented in the 1960s as a derogatory term that the corporate mainstream media could use against anybody who gets close to the truth. A very good review of this can be found in a chapter in Sythetic Terror by Tarpley - I think one of the best books on the subject, sold on the back of 911 but over half of it is a history of confirmed covert actions, especially the "anni di piombo" (years of lead) in Italy.)

Sorry don't buy it.Cartalucci as a source cannot be taken seriously.The internet is swarming with these conspiracy theorists.If you consider him useful to invoke, so be it.You mention 9/11:needless to say Cartalucci sees it as an inside job.

Sorry, but isn't this just a puff piece by the Nation so that it can justify its criticisms of foreign media? Their journo attended the recent FCCT meeting and came away with the unenlightening thoughts that Yingluk is evasive and that Thainess is important.

Much of the foreign mainstream media is biased, and yet even the Thai media is afraid to express exactly why that is the case because it would open up a huge can of worms - hence the comfort blanket of Thainess. If you want some lengthy articles then try the Land Destroyer blog and Alt Thai News, plus any links from the sites.

It is also worth remembering that journalists have to follow their paymaster's editorial line or they will find themselves as independents. Look at any major news story in any country around the world; read a few mainstream media corps and a smattering of alternative sites. Then you'll see that the aim of news is not to tell the truth but to construct a narrative that their audience must believe in. A critical mind will believe nothing but instead construct their own map.

Voltaire's quote rings true throughout the ages: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Why do you recommend Land Destroyer and Alt Thai News? Isn't that the output of the crazed Tony Cartulucci (not his real name, he's from India or Pakistan), fan of North Korea and President Assad etc - conspiracy theorist extraordinairre and all purpose crackpot.

I have never seen a serious foreign journalist suggest the current conflict in Thailand is a straight forward class war.Indeed all tend to stress that though there may be elements of this, it is much more complicated than that.Yet Thai sources,even intelligent and civilised ones like SP Somtow, always say foreign journalists take this simple minded view.Beats me.

What is a little odd additionally is the prevailing view that while foreigners cannot usually comprehend the unique Thai nature of the current problem, there is still much angst and excitement at what they write.I would have thought that of one believes foreigners can never "get" it, they should just be ignored.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

What's wrong with speculating? is it harming anyone? Do you watch such programs as CSI series, and speculate as to who the perp was?

I don't believe for one minute you have never watched a crime thriller, and based on what you've seen, made deductions (speculated) as to the outcome??

It's not harming anyone I could see your point if this was being discussed with a couple of REAL Detectives, but it's not, it's a bunch of guys analysing a video, and making their observations known, For example I don't see any towel, I see a flag , I don't see anything bounce and hit the vehicle either, so people see things very differently, does it matter who's right and who's wrong? No, will it make a difference to the investigation? .No, is it harming you in any way ? NO..

Have a nice day!!

Nothing wrong with it at all.My point was more that when speculation only aligns itself with a particular political position, nobody should object when this is pointed out.

As to harm done, none at all.This is a forum (political discussion anyway) for expatriates with too much time on their hands..full of sound and fury but signifying not very much.We are all guilty of taking ourselves too seriously sometimes.

Excuse me, why don't you direct this to the ones making the most egregious accusations here? You know, the ones stating as a fact that a yellow shirt is seen on the video throwing a grenade right next to the vehicle they are driving, for example.

It's a matter of general principle.It's pointless speculating on details until a thorough investigation is complete.In particular it's unhelpful for those with a political axe to grind providing harebrained theories that magically dovetail with their own prejudices.The example I provided was a notorious offender and you have mentioned other examples.The principle's the same.Let's see what the evidence shows and this might take a little time

I am commenting on what I have seen on the video. You're the one bringing politics into it.

When you "see" and report on something which doesn't accord with your narrow political prejudice, I might revise my position.But until then my comments stand.

The difficulty that foreign correspondents are having with Thailand is precisely what Jonathan Head says - that the complexity of the situation here cannot possibly be condensed into a short time-frame - let alone 30 seconds. In this article, a journalist describes the difficulty in " getting through " to Yingluck in interview, while being flanked by a sea of male aides desperate to know if she is struck by how pretty the prime minister is - comes right to the heart of two key, related issues. As Yingluck is a proxy PM - a puppet, so to speak - her appearance, her prettiness - occupies a much larger dynamic of the package than would otherwise be the case. If she can't speak, that makes it even more important. If she doesn't understand what's going on, an even greater role than that still. Her English has improved - to her credit - though not to a considerable degree. But she is further handicapped by generalities, avoiding searching questions, and generally says nothing that a four year old girl could not be coached to mimic in a day. Journalists are hardened creatures. They know a smoke-screen when they see one. And yet - Yingluck poses special challenges in today's journalistic world. She's truly impossible to interview, as anyone who has seen them can attest, with the journalists clearly trying to enter what seems to be an unfathomable space. She's like George W. Bush without the intellect.

You want to make it all about Yingluk or would like to expand it to include Mr heads to head with Siri or Abhisit etc etc ? they are all a nightmare to talk to.

Ms Pedrosa is streets ahead of J.Head when it comes to HONEST journalism. question, Abhisit a nightmare to talk to ??? I would have thought he is one of the best English spoken Thai to interview, and pretty honest.

Head has prepared questions same as any journo he works for the BBC the British brainwashing corporation so yea i agree hes not too fantastic, as to Abhisit ive always found him smug weak and I admit he makes my skin crawl and has done for many years, bit like Taksin did when he arrived on the scene tbh call it a gut feeling, both pale into insignificance tho when it comes to Suthep i just know with every fibre that one isnt as smart as either of the other two and far far more dangerous for it.... imo

Interviewing Abhisit is problematic.He was very evasive and unconvincing in BBC Hardtalk interviews, initially with Zinab Badawi when he became PM and then later with Stephen Sackur.And yet, and yet..it's impossible not to admire many things about him.I feel it's also quite wrong to put him in the same category as unpleasant human beings like Thaksin and Suthep.It's almost like a Shakesp[earian tragedy with Abhisit - attractive personally, highly intelligent, well educated and devoid of corruption BUT sometimes ungracious, weak in judgement and too ready to compromise his integrity and align with morally ugly forces to advance his cause.

On Jonathan Head I once had the privilege (in 2009 from memory) of discussing his abilities with Anand Panyarachun,universally respected as a statesman.Khun Anand thought he (Jonathan Head) was the best foreign journalist operating in Thailand - though he also mentioned they had been to the same English public school so perhaps he was a bit biased in his admiration.

I agree. After watching it a few times, it seems pretty clear the grenade was thrown from the car. The guy then opens the door and runs like hell. So it should be pretty dam_n easy to figure who was in the car as it was in the procession....

Why would he run like hell after the explosion if he was the one that threw it? Particularly, why would he run through the area where the explosion occurred?

I would politely suggest that you refrain from speculating on details.Your political opinions alone - as opposed to dispassionate scrutiny of facts - seem to determine your refusal to contemplate the possibility this was a "false flag" incident (despite the circumstantial video evidence).

Before making a complete fool of yourself I suggest we let the authorities do their job.

Excuse me, why don't you direct this to the ones making the most egregious accusations here? You know, the ones stating as a fact that a yellow shirt is seen on the video throwing a grenade right next to the vehicle they are driving, for example.

It's a matter of general principle.It's pointless speculating on details until a thorough investigation is complete.In particular it's unhelpful for those with a political axe to grind providing harebrained theories that magically dovetail with their own prejudices.The example I provided was a notorious offender and you have mentioned other examples.The principle's the same.Let's see what the evidence shows and this might take a little time

I agree. After watching it a few times, it seems pretty clear the grenade was thrown from the car. The guy then opens the door and runs like hell. So it should be pretty dam_n easy to figure who was in the car as it was in the procession....

Why would he run like hell after the explosion if he was the one that threw it? Particularly, why would he run through the area where the explosion occurred?

I would politely suggest that you refrain from speculating on details.Your political opinions alone - as opposed to dispassionate scrutiny of facts - seem to determine your refusal to contemplate the possibility this was a "false flag" incident (despite the circumstantial video evidence).

Before making a complete fool of yourself I suggest we let the authorities do their job.

So now police have Dem known fleeing scene. Now what Supreme Leader? Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Unless thing s have changed, the BIB are seeking a Dem MP's aide who owns the pickup. That's it, full stop.

If there is any substance to Democrat/Yellow involvement, it is very far from being a "full stop."

I don't think it's helpful to speculate on details however while the official investigation is under way.

Many confused and unintelligent responses to my earlier post.Nobody is suggesting that this government is not without its faults and I do not have any obligation to defend it.If it is as incompetent, corrupt and incompetent as claimed it can be voted out by the Thai people at the general election in a few weeks time. But of course giving the Thai people a voice is exactly what the old guard fear.Thus the strategy is to create conditions of confusion and enlist the partisan efforts of the EC,CC and NACC to destabilise and destroy the elected government.The dullards who bleat conspiracy theory should keep quiet until it is evident the slow and silent judicial coup has no legs.Until that point all the evidence points the other way. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

"The dullards who bleat conspiracy theory should keep quiet"

What, you are not going to explain this vast conspiracy between "the EC,CC and NACC to destabilise and destroy the elected government"?

And here I was hoping about hearing a nice story.

My point was that if the government falls through the impact of judicial intervention, my critics should not dismiss my comments as a 'conspiracy theory".Corruption is a curse in Thailand and nobody would disagree it should be tackled, but it is not, despite protestations, the root cause of the current conflict.Look at the nature of leadership of the street protests!The current government is certainly losing popularity so why don't the forces opposed to it work for a victory in the coming general election?

Are you trying to say that if this government is found guilty of its obvious corruption, it's all somebody else's fault, or to use the phrase of the day, the charges are "politically motivated"? It's downfall won't be simply the cause and effect of crime and punishment, it will be a "judicial coup"?

No, I'm saying (please pay attention) that corruption is not the cause of the current conflict.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Many confused and unintelligent responses to my earlier post.Nobody is suggesting that this government is not without its faults and I do not have any obligation to defend it.If it is as incompetent, corrupt and incompetent as claimed it can be voted out by the Thai people at the general election in a few weeks time. But of course giving the Thai people a voice is exactly what the old guard fear.Thus the strategy is to create conditions of confusion and enlist the partisan efforts of the EC,CC and NACC to destabilise and destroy the elected government.The dullards who bleat conspiracy theory should keep quiet until it is evident the slow and silent judicial coup has no legs.Until that point all the evidence points the other way. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

If it's corrupt, then what is the problem with it being investigated by the NACC?

There is no "problem.I was merely pointing out the context,specifically how the courts and the NACC form part of the effort to undermine electoral democracy in Thailand now that the folly of military coups is widely accepted.

If the NACC determines and proves corruption, that is for the good.But the context cannot be ignored (though I expect the prejudiced and the dullards will do just that).

If the NACC determines and proves corruption, the government supporters will still be shouting "Judicial Coup" from the roof tops.

Let's wait and see what hard evidence emerges before rushing to judgement.Much of the criticism has simply been based on political dislike of the subsidy element but this is not in itself illegal or corrupt - just questionable economics.

Many confused and unintelligent responses to my earlier post.Nobody is suggesting that this government is not without its faults and I do not have any obligation to defend it.If it is as incompetent, corrupt and incompetent as claimed it can be voted out by the Thai people at the general election in a few weeks time. But of course giving the Thai people a voice is exactly what the old guard fear.Thus the strategy is to create conditions of confusion and enlist the partisan efforts of the EC,CC and NACC to destabilise and destroy the elected government.The dullards who bleat conspiracy theory should keep quiet until it is evident the slow and silent judicial coup has no legs.Until that point all the evidence points the other way. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

If it's corrupt, then what is the problem with it being investigated by the NACC?

There is no "problem.I was merely pointing out the context,specifically how the courts and the NACC form part of the effort to undermine electoral democracy in Thailand now that the folly of military coups is widely accepted.

If the NACC determines and proves corruption, that is for the good.But the context cannot be ignored (though I expect the prejudiced and the dullards will do just that).

Why ? If they can get corrupt officials indited and banned that is so much more rewarding then to beat them in a vote. Saying voting is the answer is like saying i got voted into power so i can be corrupt. (red thinking)

Corruption and law breaks by this government should be seen separate from voting, they broke the law prosecute and punish them. Not hold a popularity contest. Now if democrats of whoever are in power and corrupt id support you too to get them to justice. Why forgive it.. why not go after it and root it out instead of letting them off by loosing a vote.. If you dont punish them and make them accountable things will never change.

I have absolutely no problem with a non partisan judicial system punishing politicians found guilty of corruption.But I do object to directed judicial activism as an alternative to democratic politics.Popular victory at a general election doesn't give the government a blank cheque and it must be subject to a variety of checks and balances.But popular support received through a general election is a basic requisite, without which there can be no proper mandate.

I have absolutely no problem with a non partisan judicial system punishing politicians found guilty of corruption

Good for you, and something we can agree on, the problem is:

But I do object to directed judicial activism as an alternative to democratic politics.

That's invariably your reaction to any wrong doing by Thaksin and his proxies, it's always political prosecution first and pontificating about non partisan justice second.

Why won't you start by proving that the allegations are groundless and politically motivated and then move on to complain about judicial activism?

I very much doubt whether the allegations are groundless.But they are not the reason for the the current conflict which is a struggle for power.Judicial activism has become very significant since the military coup option for the old guard no longer seems possible.

Many confused and unintelligent responses to my earlier post.Nobody is suggesting that this government is not without its faults and I do not have any obligation to defend it.If it is as incompetent, corrupt and incompetent as claimed it can be voted out by the Thai people at the general election in a few weeks time. But of course giving the Thai people a voice is exactly what the old guard fear.Thus the strategy is to create conditions of confusion and enlist the partisan efforts of the EC,CC and NACC to destabilise and destroy the elected government.The dullards who bleat conspiracy theory should keep quiet until it is evident the slow and silent judicial coup has no legs.Until that point all the evidence points the other way. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

"The dullards who bleat conspiracy theory should keep quiet"

What, you are not going to explain this vast conspiracy between "the EC,CC and NACC to destabilise and destroy the elected government"?

And here I was hoping about hearing a nice story.

My point was that if the government falls through the impact of judicial intervention, my critics should not dismiss my comments as a 'conspiracy theory".Corruption is a curse in Thailand and nobody would disagree it should be tackled, but it is not, despite protestations, the root cause of the current conflict.Look at the nature of leadership of the street protests!The current government is certainly losing popularity so why don't the forces opposed to it work for a victory in the coming general election?

Why ? If they can get corrupt officials indited and banned that is so much more rewarding then to beat them in a vote. Saying voting is the answer is like saying i got voted into power so i can be corrupt. (red thinking)

Corruption and law breaks by this government should be seen separate from voting, they broke the law prosecute and punish them. Not hold a popularity contest. Now if democrats of whoever are in power and corrupt id support you too to get them to justice. Why forgive it.. why not go after it and root it out instead of letting them off by loosing a vote.. If you dont punish them and make them accountable things will never change.

I have absolutely no problem with a non partisan judicial system punishing politicians found guilty of corruption.But I do object to directed judicial activism as an alternative to democratic politics.Popular victory at a general election doesn't give the government a blank cheque and it must be subject to a variety of checks and balances.But popular support received through a general election is a basic requisite, without which there can be no proper mandate.