Thai Protesters Defy State Of Emergency

[moresomekl]

The Abhisit regime came in existence through abuse of power by the military and then abuse of power by a court , both having no business banning a political party in any country that calls itself democratic .

You are confused. Your sentence should be 'vote-buying should have no business in a political party that would like to call itself democratic'. Hence the irony of the Red Shirts.

Vote buying is done by individuals not by a whole political party . I have no problem with impeaching those that did it , provided the same applies for all parties , including dems . No reason to ban a party .

[euro82]

Get's boring, reading the same old converations over and over again. Does anyone have any current pictures of the protests? I'd never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but I am starting to miss Koo

I put some here if you are interested: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyrilleandres/

Im going back there now. Hope Ill get some nice content

Thank you. But perhaps less editorial-style posed pics and more news-style in the coverage?

I mean, an old couple in red is cute, but says nothing about the demonstration, its impact, how wide-spread it is, what is going on in a time-line etc etc.

Thanks in advanced.

ok I have some in stock too, I will put them later

[moresomekl]

Will Thaksin make it back to Thailand???

I know the women, children and old folks are preventing the governement from forcefully dispersing the crowds, but if it does not do something, we might as well have the red shirts running this country. They would put a welcome mat out at the airport for Thaksin. Then the proverbial sh*t would hit the fan, as the yellow shirts would have to play the role of enforcement of the State of Emergency government. Still, the man might be booking his flight from who knows where back to Suvarnabhumi as I type this!

Well if Thaksin is coming back , which i doubt , then he should do it now .

Given the track record of Abhisit in controling the army and the police , he stand

a fair chance of resuming a normal life

[khunjamespittman]

If you are going to bust up a protest, need to do it from the very beginning. Too bloody late now.

It is hard now, but your bias is transparent. There was no reason to break up the initial phase of the protests. They were peaceful and lawful and of course peaceful lawful protests are a wonderful thing and would only be oppressed by a dictator. Abhisit is no dictator! However, the protests morphed into the illegal with incidents of violence, and wildly strong VERBAL THREATS of violence from the actual LEADERS of the red shirts. Again, no leader of any civilized democratic nation would tolerate a protest at the point it becomes a dangerous, unruly, mob. It is a hard choice but the obvious need is for Abhisit to act against this anarchy or sadly if he cannot or will not, he needs to step down. There is clearly a national consensus in Thailand supporting Abhisit to do this hard thing now. That doesn't mean the government actions should be or need to be violent. That is purely up to the rioters. If they react peacefully to this new situation, everything will be OK. If they resist violently, well, what do you think?

Jingthing, you post a lot and have lots of personal opinions of the character of other people.

You seem to be very short on facts. You use a lot of hyperbole. You call people you don't even know names.

I wouldn't be surprised if you had never been out on the streets of Bangkok during the demonstrations. I hve been there and many other have also and let me inform all the TV readers the words that you are writing are false. Yes, there has been some very narrow confrontation but in all credible ( not the junk you dream up) there has been a high level of provatation against the opposition demonstrators.

It would be nice if you, Jingthing, would put forward some rational ideas instead of fanning the flames to exacerbate the problem.

[anotherpeter]

The Abhisit regime came in existence through abuse of power by the military and then abuse of power by a court , both having no business banning a political party in any country that calls itself democratic .

You are confused. Your sentence should be 'vote-buying should have no business in a political party that would like to call itself democratic'. Hence the irony of the Red Shirts.

Vote buying is done by individuals not by a whole political party . I have no problem with impeaching those that did it , provided the same applies for all parties , including dems . No reason to ban a party .

The law was clear. When the executives are caught red handed, the party gets disbanded.

Not all the party MPs get banned, only the executive and those involved in the vote buying.

Democrat MPs that were found to be vote buying were also banned. But there was no evidence of the Democrat Executive being involved in any electoral fraud.

The court case involving donations to the Democrats may be proven, but I don't know if that automatically means Democrat party disbanding.

Ofcourse the red shirts will shout "Double Standards" if that case is not proven or if the Democrats are not disbanded, even though it is a different situation, different laws, and differnt punishments.

[khunjamespittman]

The Abhisit regime came in existence through abuse of power by the military and then abuse of power by a court , both having no business banning a political party in any country that calls itself democratic .

You are confused. Your sentence should be 'vote-buying should have no business in a political party that would like to call itself democratic'. Hence the irony of the Red Shirts.

Vote buying is done by individuals not by a whole political party . I have no problem with impeaching those that did it , provided the same applies for all parties , including dems . No reason to ban a party .

That is absolutely correct. Some on all sides broke some laws. What we have witnessed is not prosecutions of specific individuals for specific crimes but prosecution, convictions and punishment by association. I don't think you'll find that in any legitimate lawbooks. If anyone knows of any such laws please cite the specifics when I can get copies.

[LuckyLew]

Any one know where I can get a good beef burger??

Reading the same old stuff in these posts is making me hungry

Thanks

LL

[FatherF]

Just watching some of the rally (On-line) there is some American dressed in red, on stage talking to the protesters through an interpretor! Whatever next? I thought that it was illegal for farang to get actively involved in Thai politics?

FF

[favre04]

All of this, and yet the Baht still doesn't budge.

It must be bullet-proof.

[moresomekl]

The Abhisit regime came in existence through abuse of power by the military and then abuse of power by a court , both having no business banning a political party in any country that calls itself democratic .

You are confused. Your sentence should be 'vote-buying should have no business in a political party that would like to call itself democratic'. Hence the irony of the Red Shirts.

Vote buying is done by individuals not by a whole political party . I have no problem with impeaching those that did it , provided the same applies for all parties , including dems . No reason to ban a party .

That is absolutely correct. Some on all sides broke some laws. What we have witnessed is not prosecutions of specific individuals for specific crimes but prosecution, convictions and punishment by association. I don't think you'll find that in any legitimate lawbooks. If anyone knows of any such laws please cite the specifics when I can get copies.

Yes concurr . I dont think any such legitimate lawbook exist .

[anotherpeter]

Vote buying is done by individuals not by a whole political party . I have no problem with impeaching those that did it , provided the same applies for all parties , including dems . No reason to ban a party .

That is absolutely correct. Some on all sides broke some laws. What we have witnessed is not prosecutions of specific individuals for specific crimes but prosecution, convictions and punishment by association. I don't think you'll find that in any legitimate lawbooks. If anyone knows of any such laws please cite the specifics when I can get copies.

Yes concurr . I dont think any such legitimate lawbook exist .

There was a law book, that had a clear law. The PPP executive chose to ignore that law and got caught. Is that clear?

[Redsunset]

Just watching some of the rally (On-line) there is some American dressed in red, on stage talking to the protesters through an interpretor! Whatever next? I thought that it was illegal for farang to get actively involved in Thai politics?

FF

How do you know he/she was an American?

[Redsunset]

Any one know where I can get a good beef burger??

Reading the same old stuff in these posts is making me hungry

Thanks

LL

Some awesome burgers in New York City delis at Midtown....

[Jingthing]

Just watching some of the rally (On-line) there is some American dressed in red, on stage talking to the protesters through an interpretor! Whatever next? I thought that it was illegal for farang to get actively involved in Thai politics?

FF

How do you know he/she was an American?

Don't know in this case, but sometimes you can tell for sure by accent. Of course some Americans have a more neutral accent and could be Canadian or even a fluent Dutchman, etc.!

I am very happy to hear that my USA government has come out with a strongly worded statement spanking the law breaking red shirts for their illegal actions, such as attacking parliament.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Jingthing

[Redsunset]

Will Thaksin make it back to Thailand???

I know the women, children and old folks are preventing the governement from forcefully dispersing the crowds, but if it does not do something, we might as well have the red shirts running this country. They would put a welcome mat out at the airport for Thaksin. Then the proverbial sh*t would hit the fan, as the yellow shirts would have to play the role of enforcement of the State of Emergency government. Still, the man might be booking his flight from who knows where back to Suvarnabhumi as I type this!

Well if Thaksin is coming back , which i doubt , then he should do it now .

Given the track record of Abhisit in controling the army and the police , he stand

a fair chance of resuming a normal life

lols! Truer words were never spoken.... hel_l, Osama bin Laden could waltz in here untouched!!!!

[Redsunset]

Just watching some of the rally (On-line) there is some American dressed in red, on stage talking to the protesters through an interpretor! Whatever next? I thought that it was illegal for farang to get actively involved in Thai politics?

FF

How do you know he/she was an American?

Don't know in this case, but sometimes you can tell for sure by accent. Of course some Americans have a more neutral accent and could be Canadian or even a fluent Dutchman, etc.!

I am very happy to hear that my USA government has come out with a strongly worded statement spanking the law breaking red shirts for their illegal actions, such as attacking parliament.

Yes.. I wonder what Obama would do if protesters stormed the White House? What do you think???

[chadintheusa]

Congratulations to the army for not getting drawn into a fight with the Reds. Despite grenade attacks which have injured soldiers they have not lashed out. The police and the army are responsible for protecting Thai citizens. Therefore no one should be surprised to find weapons at Government house. The soldiers there have a duty to perform and they should be armed to do it. It is the Reds that have no business running around the city with guns and grenade launchers. The soldiers and police have been given a tough job to do in the face of a mob that has no respect for the law, and no respect for the citizens of Bangkok. I hope they continue to do their duty and I for one won't fault them for defending themselves when the time comes and the Reds attack them.

[favre04]

Just watching some of the rally (On-line) there is some American dressed in red, on stage talking to the protesters through an interpretor! Whatever next? I thought that it was illegal for farang to get actively involved in Thai politics?

FF

How do you know he/she was an American?

Don't know in this case, but sometimes you can tell for sure by accent. Of course some Americans have a more neutral accent and could be Canadian or even a fluent Dutchman, etc.!

I am very happy to hear that my USA government has come out with a strongly worded statement spanking the law breaking red shirts for their illegal actions, such as attacking parliament.

Yes.. I wonder what Obama would do if protesters stormed the White House? What do you think???

He'd blame it on Bush.

[steveromagnino]

Yes concurr . I dont think any such legitimate lawbook exist .

You mean the Constitution...this is where it specifically addresses this point.

Section 237. A candidate in an election who commits an act or causes or supports another person to act in violation of the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators or regulations or notifications of the Election Commission which resulting in the election not to be honest and fair, his right to vote at an election shall be suspended under the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators.

If it appears convincing evidence, through an act of the person under paragraph one, that the President or an executive board of director of a political party connives or neglects at such commission or such commission is known to him but he fails to deter or revise such commission for the maintenance of honest and fair election, it shall be deemed that such political party doing an act for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by means which is not in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution under section 68. In such case, if the Constitutional Court orders to dissolve such political party, the right to vote at an election of the President or the executive board of directors of a political party shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date such order is made.

Using your logic, would be similar to saying, if a company employee starts bribing officials and directors turn a blind eye, then the company should not fear any consequence, as only the employee is responsible. In fact the entire basis of corporate law looks at the relationship of directors and whether they should have known (not if they actually knew) regarding actions of staff. The employee, the directors and the company are responsible.

PPP were fully aware of this, but did it anyhow, because they were sure they could change the constitution fast enough to not face the consequences. Incidentally, Samak kept doing the TV show and breached both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, as both prohibit paid employment outside of working as a govt official. Not many people mention that bit - he knew he was not allowed to run his political show masquarading as a cooking show, also the fact he did it helps explain why he was the least hard working PM we've had; he literally did nothing, so I suppose at least we can look back at his gaeng and think well at least he produced that :-) He was sure, I guess, that he would be able to change that one as well.

It doesn't matter much whether you consider this to be a legitimate law book or not. The current constitution is all we have at the moment, and it sure is funny that all agree it should be changed, although we don't agree yet what. That still doesn't give people or parties the right to just assume that laws don't apply to them just because they don't like them.

If the PPP feel that the constitution doesn't apply to them at all, perhaps they can go and do whatever they want, since no laws apply at all right?

Hold up, yep, that's what they are doing now :-)

[Jingthing]

Yes.. I wonder what Obama would do if protesters stormed the White House? What do you think???

That's simple. There would be blood. And they would know that. And they would never try it in the first place!

[webfact]

Pheu Thai to seek court injunction against emergency rule

BANGKOK: -- The Pheu Thai Party has appointed a legal team to petition for a judicial intervention to repeal the state of emergency declared on Wednesday by the government, its MP Surapong Towijakchaikul said on Thursday.

"Pheu can not stand on the sidelines anymore," he said.

Surapong said his party's legal team is expected to submit the petition with the Central Administrative Court seeking the injunction against the enforcement of emergency rule.

The legal team will also seek the Constitution Court ruling on the constiionality of the state of emergency, he said.

-- The Nation 2010-04-08

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[ovaltina]

The SOE was inevitable from day one, because there was no agreement or middle ground for one reason ; the Red cause is causeless by definition, they want things that are already being implemented by the Democrats, it is just that they want all these things & free phones & icecreams, not tomorrow but today. Even when offered early elections they couldn't decide before finally saying no. They simply don't have a cause. Look at the footage yesterday of the boneheads kicking the gates of the govt. in, and then just standing there, not having any thing to say.

They don't have any demands to make, they do not have a cause.

The idea that they are improving the lives of poor Thais is self-contradictory ; they have damaged the Thai economy hugely in 3 weeks, which negatively effects the poor most. They have made the lives of normal working-class Bangkok citizens harder & impacted on the small business-person who is not wealthy to begin with.

Try and do anything beurocratic in Thailand and then imagine how slow it is for Abhisit to implement to effective mass-improvements for the poor. Then look at the Reds shouting 'we want it yesterday!'. They have no patience. It is for shame.

And, in common with every other wasteful, causeless, angry shambles in history, they attract drunks, meth-heads, 'hard-man' wannabe vigilantes, and bleeding-heart western women who think this is Ethiopia or somewhere that has a tyrannical ruler who hates his people, these so-called 'disparate coalition' of protestors start to arrive from all over the world. Grown men who still play with Action Men, 'weekend warriors' from USA and Europe, so-called Anarchists who in truth will remove the black mask & end up working for their rich Daddy's Law Firm in a few years when their acne has subsided. Internet revolutionaries who just want to see stuff burn & people get shot on TV so they can knowledgeably comment on what type of gun it was & how innocent people getting blown away is OK because it is ushering in a bright new dawn where potato-farmers can somehow be open-heart surgeons overnight.

In the middle, unfortunate people who got bribed to attend this pointless, angry & belligerent circus, low-paid Bangkok office workers who can barely afford their rent & food even under normal conditions, and now have trouble even getting to work through the jams.

There is only one winner in this idiocy, and that is a laughing billionaire sitting on his pool-chair sipping cocktails and hoping he gets more opprtunities to indulge his certifiable mental illness at the expense of poor Thais both rural and urban.

Edited April 8, 2010 by ovaltina

[anotherpeter]

Pheu Thai to seek court injunction against emergency rule

BANGKOK: -- The Pheu Thai Party has appointed a legal team to petition for a judicial intervention to repeal the state of emergency declared on Wednesday by the government, its MP Surapong Towijakchaikul said on Thursday.

"Pheu can not stand on the sidelines anymore," he said.

Surapong said his party's legal team is expected to submit the petition with the Central Administrative Court seeking the injunction against the enforcement of emergency rule.

The legal team will also seek the Constitution Court ruling on the constiionality of the state of emergency, he said.

-- The Nation 2010-04-08

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

This is the party that most of the reds voted for (ex-PPP MPs).

AND THEY ARE STANDING ON THE SIDELINES????

Edit: Are the reds going to vote for any of them in the next election if they don't do something to help their cause?

Edited April 8, 2010 by anotherpeter

[webfact]

CAPO Reiterates Need for Emergency Decree

During an official press conference by the Center for the Administration of Peace and Order (CAPO), Army spokesman Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd reiterated the need for the Emergency Decree to be invoked. He's also denied rumors that the administration is planning to launch a violent crackdown on the red-shirt protesters and plans to announce a curfew.

Meanwhile, acting Government Spokesperson Panithan Wattanayakorn also explained that the Emergency Decree will not affect the lives nor place any restrictions on the movement of foreigners in the Kingdom.

He's also explained how the decree will not have any significant impact on foreign visitors in Thailand. He added that the decree will allow the government to restore normalcy in the Kingdom and take action against media outlets that broadcast provocative messages. A special hotline number has been set up to help answer questions about the Emergency Decree. For foreigners wishing to inquire about Emergency Decree contact Foreign Affairs Min hotline at 02-575-1023.

CAPO also urged supporters of the red-shirt protesters not to travel to Bangkok. It's also revealed that, according to its latest estimates, the number of red-shirt protesters have significantly declined both at Pan Fah and at Ratchaprasong intersection.

-- Tan Network 2010-04-08

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[brianb1944]

If you are going to bust up a protest, need to do it from the very beginning. Too bloody late now.

It is hard now, but your bias is transparent. There was no reason to break up the initial phase of the protests. They were peaceful and lawful and of course peaceful lawful protests are a wonderful thing and would only be oppressed by a dictator. Abhisit is no dictator! However, the protests morphed into the illegal with incidents of violence, and wildly strong VERBAL THREATS of violence from the actual LEADERS of the red shirts. Again, no leader of any civilized democratic nation would tolerate a protest at the point it becomes a dangerous, unruly, mob. It is a hard choice but the obvious need is for Abhisit to act against this anarchy or sadly if he cannot or will not, he needs to step down. There is clearly a national consensus in Thailand supporting Abhisit to do this hard thing now. That doesn't mean the government actions should be or need to be violent. That is purely up to the rioters. If they react peacefully to this new situation, everything will be OK. If they resist violently, well, what do you think?

Sounds (reads) about spot on.

[brianb1944]

The SOE was inevitable from day one, because there was no agreement or middle ground for one reason ; the Red cause is causeless by definition, they want things that are already being implemented by the Democrats, it is just that they want all these things & free phones & icecreams, not tomorrow but today. Even when offered early elections they couldn't decide before finally saying no. They simply don't have a cause. Look at the footage yesterday of the boneheads kicking the gates of the govt. in, and then just standing there, not having any thing to say.

They don't have any demands to make, they do not have a cause.

The idea that they are improving the lives of poor Thais is self-contradictory ; they have damaged the Thai economy hugely in 3 weeks, which negatively effects the poor most. They have made the lives of normal working-class Bangkok citizens harder & impacted on the small business-person who is not wealthy to begin with.

Try and do anything beurocratic in Thailand and then imagine how slow it is for Abhisit to implement to effective mass-improvements for the poor. Then look at the Reds shouting 'we want it yesterday!'. They have no patience. It is for shame.

And, in common with every other wasteful, causeless, angry shambles in history, they attract drunks, meth-heads, 'hard-man' wannabe vigilantes, and bleeding-heart western women who think this is Ethiopia or somewhere that has a tyrannical ruler who hates his people, these so-called 'disparate coalition' of protestors start to arrive from all over the world. Grown men who still play with Action Men, 'weekend warriors' from USA and Europe, so-called Anarchists who in truth will remove the black mask & end up working for their rich Daddy's Law Firm in a few years when their acne has subsided. Internet revolutionaries who just want to see stuff burn & people get shot on TV so they can knowledgeably comment on what type of gun it was & how innocent people getting blown away is OK because it is ushering in a bright new dawn where potato-farmers can somehow be open-heart surgeons overnight.

In the middle, unfortunate people who got bribed to attend this pointless, angry & belligerent circus, low-paid Bangkok office workers who can barely afford their rent & food even under normal conditions, and now have trouble even getting to work through the jams.

There is only one winner in this idiocy, and that is a laughing billionaire sitting on his pool-chair sipping cocktails and hoping he gets more opprtunities to indulge his certifiable mental illness at the expense of poor Thais both rural and urban.

Hmmm very credible, well done

[moresomekl]

Yes concurr . I dont think any such legitimate lawbook exist .

You mean the Constitution...this is where it specifically addresses this point.

Section 237. A candidate in an election who commits an act or causes or supports another person to act in violation of the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators or regulations or notifications of the Election Commission which resulting in the election not to be honest and fair, his right to vote at an election shall be suspended under the organic law on election of members of the House of Representatives and acquisition of senators.

If it appears convincing evidence, through an act of the person under paragraph one, that the President or an executive board of director of a political party connives or neglects at such commission or such commission is known to him but he fails to deter or revise such commission for the maintenance of honest and fair election, it shall be deemed that such political party doing an act for the acquisition of the power to rule the country by means which is not in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution under section 68. In such case, if the Constitutional Court orders to dissolve such political party, the right to vote at an election of the President or the executive board of directors of a political party shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date such order is made.

Using your logic, would be similar to saying, if a company employee starts bribing officials and directors turn a blind eye, then the company should not fear any consequence, as only the employee is responsible. In fact the entire basis of corporate law looks at the relationship of directors and whether they should have known (not if they actually knew) regarding actions of staff. The employee, the directors and the company are responsible.

PPP were fully aware of this, but did it anyhow, because they were sure they could change the constitution fast enough to not face the consequences. Incidentally, Samak kept doing the TV show and breached both the 1997 and 2007 constitutions, as both prohibit paid employment outside of working as a govt official. Not many people mention that bit - he knew he was not allowed to run his political show masquarading as a cooking show, also the fact he did it helps explain why he was the least hard working PM we've had; he literally did nothing, so I suppose at least we can look back at his gaeng and think well at least he produced that :-) He was sure, I guess, that he would be able to change that one as well.

It doesn't matter much whether you consider this to be a legitimate law book or not. The current constitution is all we have at the moment, and it sure is funny that all agree it should be changed, although we don't agree yet what. That still doesn't give people or parties the right to just assume that laws don't apply to them just because they don't like them.

If the PPP feel that the constitution doesn't apply to them at all, perhaps they can go and do whatever they want, since no laws apply at all right?

Hold up, yep, that's what they are doing now :-)

Then taking your argument of an employee and his directors how can you explain that when dems MP were caught buying votes or other irregularities the entire dem party was not banned ?

Also how can you accept that as a result of such ruling banning a party in power , the ppl need not to be consulted in a general election ?

Or do you you consider them as culprits of such act as well ?

[TAWP]

Then taking your argument of an employee and his directors how can you explain that when dems MP were caught buying votes or other irregularities the entire dem party was not banned ?

Also how can you accept that as a result of such ruling banning a party in power , the ppl need not to be consulted in a general election ?

Or do you you consider them as culprits of such act as well ?

Do you actually read the posts as they are addressed to you?

It has been stated several times, if an executive member of an party is caught buying votes etc - in any way breaking the election laws - then the whole party will be deemed to have gained from it and it will be dissolved. Only the executives and the offending persons will be banned from their positions of MP however.

If a non-executive member is caught it is not proven that the inner circle knew about it and as such it is not considered proven that it was something the party sanctioned and knowingly gained from, hence only the offending member is banned.

Easy as pie, no?

[way2muchcoffee]

Then taking your argument of an employee and his directors how can you explain that when dems MP were caught buying votes or other irregularities the entire dem party was not banned ?

Also how can you accept that as a result of such ruling banning a party in power , the ppl need not to be consulted in a general election ?

Or do you you consider them as culprits of such act as well ?

Do you actually read the posts as they are addressed to you?

It has been stated several times, if an executive member of an party is caught buying votes etc - in any way breaking the election laws - then the whole party will be deemed to have gained from it and it will be dissolved. Only the executives and the offending persons will be banned from their positions of MP however.

If a non-executive member is caught it is not proven that the inner circle knew about it and as such it is not considered proven that it was something the party sanctioned and knowingly gained from, hence only the offending member is banned.

Easy as pie, no?

It should be easy as pie to understand. But that wouldn't fit with their rhetoric. So you shall be ignored and the same lies will be repeated, no matter if they already know the truth. The truth has no part in their game plan.

Edited April 8, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

Then taking your argument of an employee and his directors how can you explain that when dems MP were caught buying votes or other irregularities the entire dem party was not banned ?

Also how can you accept that as a result of such ruling banning a party in power , the ppl need not to be consulted in a general election ?

Or do you you consider them as culprits of such act as well ?

Do you actually read the posts as they are addressed to you?

It has been stated several times, if an executive member of an party is caught buying votes etc - in any way breaking the election laws - then the whole party will be deemed to have gained from it and it will be dissolved. Only the executives and the offending persons will be banned from their positions of MP however.

If a non-executive member is caught it is not proven that the inner circle knew about it and as such it is not considered proven that it was something the party sanctioned and knowingly gained from, hence only the offending member is banned.

Easy as pie, no?

Am quoting

Using your logic, would be similar to saying, if a company employee starts bribing officials and directors turn a blind eye, then the company should not fear any consequence, as only the employee is responsible. In fact the entire basis of corporate law looks at the relationship of directors and whether they should have known (not if they actually knew) regarding actions of staff. The employee, the directors and the company are responsible

So now if a non executive member of a party commits bribes then it should be assumed that the party management knows about it , if they dont know is irrelevant they still are responsible since they are the executives , the management .

You cant have it both ways .

Again I repeat why when dems are caught bribing regardless on whether they are executive or not , the management is not held reponsible and the party banned ?

Its easy as pie . Do you understand my question ?

And dont tell me because the law says so .