Thailand's Democrats Seek Ban On Thaksin Party

[Skywalker69]

How stupid can you get. Being banned means they cannot serve in office. It doesn't mean they have to wear muzzles on their mouths.

Being banned means that they can't be INVOLVED in politics, NOT only that they cannot serve in office.

Even more dangerous. It won't make them go away.

Maybe they need to be put in jail, just to make sure they stay out of politics ... as the law states that they must do.

Statement of the day!!!!

[geriatrickid]

Gosh, I still don't have an answer.

Do the people defending the complaints against PTP honestly believe that the motive is based solely on the accusers' love of Thailand, an respect for the rule of law and respect for the electoral process?

Or is the reluctance to respond because people know that the complaints are all about harrassment?

Lots of fanciful statements, but not one definitive answer that states that the Democrats are motivated by their respect for the law. Interesting.

If you aren't prepared to enforce electoral law, why bother with elections at all? Why not just point a gun at people's heads next time? He with the most guns wins. Oh wait you think that's wrong...

...so why aren't you prepared to have electoral law enforced?

I am fully supportive of enforcing electoral laws. However, proper law enforcement requires judgement and common sense. Many of the allegations seem to me petty harrassment. Do you even know what the complaints relate to? Do you know who is involved? It seems to me that you do not.

According to published reports, as of June 30 the Election Commission had received a total of 111 direct complaints about alleged campaign violations of which around 51 related to allegations of slander and/or "intimidation" by candidates. A reliable Bangkok newspaper reported that only 17 alleged cash handouts in return for votes, four complained of candidates organising food and social gatherings to gain support, 20 alleged government interference and non neurality, and 19 were related to campaign billboards and campaign rallies. Although these complaints were accompanied by evidence, in many cases, it is argued to be flimsy and unreliable. As of that date, there were also 410 anonymous complaints made via the EC's call center and/orwebsite with no supporting evidence.

The Thai Financial Post on July 3 reported that the were 185 complaints of electoral fraud and another 1,929 complaints made via the call center and/or website. Most of the reported fraudulent acts are allegations of vote buying or allegations of bias by state officials.

If there are legitimate serious breaches, then I certainly have no issue with the enforcement of the law I fully support the enforcement. What I do not support is launching a witch hunt based upon unfounded allegations The demand for zero tolerance is hypocritical. Those foreigners making the demand certainly do not obey the law 100% of the time. I'd wager that some of TVF's fiercest proponents of "upholding" the law are themseves not fully compliant with the laws concerning visas, land ownership, investments or other activity. And yet here they are holier than thou preaching the gospel according to the all knowing farang. I can't wait until there is an enforcement effort undertaken on visas and land ownership. A lot of the whiners will have something to really whine about then.

" Many of the allegations seem to me petty harrassment. Do you even know what the complaints relate to? Do you know who is involved? It seems to me that you do not."

Well pardon you for your arrogance. CD has posted extensively on this subject, but only you know the facts and intentions, and get to decide if the matter is petty or not.

Yes, there are a large number of complaints, but the subject of the OP was clear , obvious and well -documented, but petty in your view. Not in the view of others though.

Your last paragraph can only described as moral equivalence. Love or hate him, Bill O'Reilly is correct that it has no place in logical argument.

Still waiting for answers GK. none come to mind?

I provided some very clear answers. I provided the allegation count, something that none of the hang'em high crowd even considered or looked at. . What part about allegations with no evidence provided did you not get? There are several hundred complaints made without any substantive evidence. And yet, you want all of these complaints treated as evidence of a violation of the election rules. I don't know what the reference to CD means.

I see from your other comments that you have a dislike of "managers". Well, move the chip off your shoulder and get a grip on reality. No organization, no system can function when there is an attempt to ensure 100% absolute complaince. Common sense has to be applied. In my workplace we have some very exacting rules and regulations. However, our goal is to ensure a certain level of compliance is met and that serious infractions are not committed. Some rules are more important than others. I appreciate that you probably have never had management responsibilities, so you maybe not understand the concept, but that's how it works in the real world.

When there are literally hundreds of complaints brought with many baseless and unfounded, then the question does indeed have to be asked as to the motives. And you still have yet to provide a clear answer as to the motives. I am sure there are legitimate complaints, I do not dispute that. However, when politically affiliated groups or persons bring a complaint of "slander" because they didn't like the speech someone gave because an alternative opinion was presented then it speaks to the mind set of the complainant. When someone complains because "there were two whole hogs bbqed" and voters were being offered the hogs, it might violate the letter of the law, but is hardly a serious oofense worthy of the fuss.i You can keep on clinging to your "the law must be obeyed" position, but for those of us that have to get things done there must be a commonsense approach applied. I commend you on your law and order approach and I hope for yoursake you are 100% compliant with every rule in the book because one day you might be on the receiving end of such treatment.

[473geo]

Drawing a zero tolerance to corruption line in the sand,

not allowing an moral equivocation or historical grievances

color the actual use of law should be sacrosanct as a basis f

or implementing Democracy correctly.

It is a benchmark for the implementation and functioning of

checks and balances which is inherent to democracies proper.

Oh, they got away with it i the past!

Oh, stopping it now, is a 'double standard'.

Oh, they had guys doing the same thing.

None of these arguments can be allowed in a proper democracy with the rule of law.

Draw the line in the sand and prosecute ALL instances,

and those that meet the standards of proof WILL get punished.

Do it now, and not delayed, because it wasn't done properly in the past,.

From now on rule of law, and learn to deal with it, ar fall.

And who is paying all these people who can smother the line with enough eyes and ears to catch every little infraction?

Your stringent view looks nice on paper, but do you actually believe it's humanly possible?

This is a valid point, because if there are not prosecutions for all law breaking activities, prioritisation becomes a fixture in the process, and the whole ideal collapses

[ajarnmark]

We all knew this was going to happen!

Sure we all knew that losers will cry... n they do now...

[animatic]

Drawing a zero tolerance to corruption line in the sand,

not allowing an moral equivocation or historical grievances

color the actual use of law should be sacrosanct as a basis f

or implementing Democracy correctly.

It is a benchmark for the implementation and functioning of

checks and balances which is inherent to democracies proper.

Oh, they got away with it i the past!

Oh, stopping it now, is a 'double standard'.

Oh, they had guys doing the same thing.

None of these arguments can be allowed in a proper democracy with the rule of law.

Draw the line in the sand and prosecute ALL instances,

and those that meet the standards of proof WILL get punished.

Do it now, and not delayed, because it wasn't done properly in the past,.

From now on rule of law, and learn to deal with it, ar fall.

And who is paying all these people who can smother the line with enough eyes and ears to catch every little infraction?

Your stringent view looks nice on paper, but do you actually believe it's humanly possible?

If you do NOT start where I am saying,

then it is a slippery slope of equivocation from then onward and downward.

The law is the law, not selective application as a standard,

but the law as the standard.

Not saying they smother the line.

But if something becomes obvious don't let it slide.

Judges are for determining the grey areas of laws pro or con,

not mandates or historical grievances as an excuse for inaction.

By the way we all pay for law enforcement Farang in Thailand or Thai,

it's a basic cost lof living expense; noting that humans are involved.

It's when we pay for it and NOT get it that I take exception.

Edited July 10, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

I provided some very clear answers. I provided the allegation count, something that none of the hang'em high crowd even considered or looked at. . What part about allegations with no evidence provided did you not get? There are several hundred complaints made without any substantive evidence. And yet, you want all of these complaints treated as evidence of a violation of the election rules. I don't know what the reference to CD means.

I see from your other comments that you have a dislike of "managers". Well, move the chip off your shoulder and get a grip on reality. No organization, no system can function when there is an attempt to ensure 100% absolute complaince. Common sense has to be applied. In my workplace we have some very exacting rules and regulations. However, our goal is to ensure a certain level of compliance is met and that serious infractions are not committed. Some rules are more important than others. I appreciate that you probably have never had management responsibilities, so you maybe not understand the concept, but that's how it works in the real world.

When there are literally hundreds of complaints brought with many baseless and unfounded, then the question does indeed have to be asked as to the motives. And you still have yet to provide a clear answer as to the motives. I am sure there are legitimate complaints, I do not dispute that. However, when politically affiliated groups or persons bring a complaint of "slander" because they didn't like the speech someone gave because an alternative opinion was presented then it speaks to the mind set of the complainant. When someone complains because "there were two whole hogs bbqed" and voters were being offered the hogs, it might violate the letter of the law, but is hardly a serious oofense worthy of the fuss.i You can keep on clinging to your "the law must be obeyed" position, but for those of us that have to get things done there must be a commonsense approach applied. I commend you on your law and order approach and I hope for yoursake you are 100% compliant with every rule in the book because one day you might be on the receiving end of such treatment.

You contradict yourself very well from paragraph to paragraph.

Must be a lifestyle choice, because it can't be logic at work.

Some rules take absolute compliance and others get by on relativist complacence.

Glad I don't work for your company. Situational ethics to make a profit, forget actual ethics that's for the weak and honest. Perfect fit for Thailand commerce.

A certain level of compliance must be met,

ie the lowest possible one to keep the bottom line black.

ie the one that keeps everyone politically happy regardless of the moral turpitude involved.

Hey it's only business, sorry about the kids college fund.

Oh gee sorry your province will get screwed now,

the boss doesn't like you leaders.

Edited July 10, 2011 by animatic

[dmcguire70]

Drawing a zero tolerance to corruption line in the sand,

not allowing an moral equivocation or historical grievances

color the actual use of law should be sacrosanct as a basis f

or implementing Democracy correctly.

It is a benchmark for the implementation and functioning of

checks and balances which is inherent to democracies proper.

Oh, they got away with it i the past!

Oh, stopping it now, is a 'double standard'.

Oh, they had guys doing the same thing.

None of these arguments can be allowed in a proper democracy with the rule of law.

Draw the line in the sand and prosecute ALL instances,

and those that meet the standards of proof WILL get punished.

Do it now, and not delayed, because it wasn't done properly in the past,.

From now on rule of law, and learn to deal with it, ar fall.

And who is paying all these people who can smother the line with enough eyes and ears to catch every little infraction?

Your stringent view looks nice on paper, but do you actually believe it's humanly possible?

Spot on Dum Farang!

[rixalex]

I appreciate that you probably have never had management responsibilities, so you maybe not understand the concept, but that's how it works in the real world.

Rather patronizing.

When there are literally hundreds of complaints brought with many baseless and unfounded, then the question does indeed have to be asked as to the motives.

Motives are a complete irrelevance. Nobody is asking that question but you - nobody with a care about law anyway. If hundreds of complaints are baseless and unfounded, and being declared as such by investigations, my only question is why are the complainants wasting their time? Still, a waste of time or not, people should have the right to complain. Taking the right away is not a move towards more open democracy, it's the opposite.

it might violate the letter of the law, but is hardly a serious oofense worthy of the fuss.

This could almost be a PTP slogan. Perhaps though too much honesty isn't always a good thing. Well not if this is the way you think.

Edited July 10, 2011 by rixalex

[rixalex]

We all knew this was going to happen!

Sure we all knew that losers will cry... n they do now...

What we didn't know was that winners can cry too... n now we do...

[whybother]

I provided some very clear answers. I provided the allegation count, something that none of the hang'em high crowd even considered or looked at. . What part about allegations with no evidence provided did you not get? There are several hundred complaints made without any substantive evidence. And yet, you want all of these complaints treated as evidence of a violation of the election rules.

Most of the "hang-em high" posts are coming from those who don't think the Democrats should have registered a complaint.

There are hundreds of registered complaints, and each of them will be investigated to determine if there is enough evidence or not. How do you know if they have substantive evidence.

On the face of it, the complaint by the Democrats DOES have substantive evidence, but it will be up to the EC to determine if that is enough to ban the PTP.

No "hang-em high". Just investigate and apply the law if necessary.

[473geo]

Can the democrats be disbanded for bringing a banned politition into their campaign........I refer of course to their attempt to put across the point that if you vote PTP you are voting for amnesty for Thaksin..........were they not attempting to sway the vote(and failed) using a person who is apparently not allowed to be involved? Could they be seen as participating in the involvement of Thaksin, a banned polititian? just a thought

[whybother]

Can the democrats be disbanded for bringing a banned politition into their campaign........I refer of course to their attempt to put across the point that if you vote PTP you are voting for amnesty for Thaksin..........were they not attempting to sway the vote(and failed) using a person who is apparently not allowed to be involved? Could they be seen as participating in the involvement of Thaksin, a banned polititian? just a thought

... and a very far fetched thought.

[Siam Simon]

Then again if the totality of the evidence is significantly different and significantly more damning to the accused, then being consistent is not proper. Just because it is the same law doesn't mean the facts to be judged are the same, or that an over lay of similarity means the outcome should be exact.

Let the facts as found stand on their own merits, and the judgment reflect those facts.

The basic questions are:

Was there enough actual evidence to convict Newin for collusion with the Dems?

Apparently not. It seems Newin stays far enough in the back ground not to leave a paper trail or direct links. Is this right, no, but is this convict-able... seems not.

Is there significantly more evidence to use against Thaksin?

Well:

Thaksin Thinks, PTP Does. Is the sales pitch for the whole campaign.

Any time Thaksins aims are/were 'misstated' by PTP mps or leadership,

one word from Thaksin or via Noppadom and they change,

turn on a dime to his way.

Thaksin announces Yingluck, Yingluck is installed.

Thaksin says Minkwan takes the censure lead, he does,

Minkwan doesn't win Thaksin shoves himn to the bootm of the pile again.

Hopeful mp candidates rush to Thaksins side and great expense,

hoping for his nod to their campaigns.

New mps rush to Thaksin after their election,

before lucrative cabinet posts are assigned.

Thaksin rally posters across the country linking Thaksin to the PTP,

MORE pictures of Thaksin than any of the candidates, except his sister.

And on and on.

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Pretending that the Friends Of Newin aren't really the friends of Newin is simply wasting bandwidth on this forum. Instead of prevaricating, do you think that they are or aren't? A yes or no answer will suffice.

[Siam Simon]

Drawing a zero tolerance to corruption line in the sand,

and not allowing any moral equivocation or historical grievances

color the actual use of law, should be sacrosanct as a basis

for implementing Democracy correctly.

It is a benchmark for the implementation and functioning of

checks and balances which is inherent to democracies proper functioning.

Oh, they got away with it in the past!

Oh, stopping it now, is a 'double standard'!.

Oh, they had guys doing the same thing!

We tried to convict them and they got off!

None of these arguments can be allowed in a proper democracy with the rule of law as reasons to NOT try and investigate or prosecute a probable crime.

Draw the line in the sand and prosecute ALL probable instances,

and those that meet the standards of proof WILL get punished.

Do it now, and not delayed; because it wasn't done properly in the past,.

From now on rule of law, and learn to deal with it, or fall.

Noble sentiments. Ones that you never expressed wrt the Dem-led coalition.

[jdinasia]

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Pretending that the Friends Of Newin aren't really the friends of Newin is simply wasting bandwidth on this forum. Instead of prevaricating, do you think that they are or aren't? A yes or no answer will suffice.

It's not what you know, it is what you can prove. It certainly is never "what you think" in a court. PTP used the same tactic against the Dems and Newin. The difference is they should have simply used it against Newin, since Newin obviously didn't run the Democrat party. Why didn't they go straight at Newin? Oh yeah, he was with them first

Did Newin set policy for the Dems? No

Did Newin issue statements on behalf of the Dems? No

Did Newin even stand at the forefront of BJT? No, not really.

Is Newin the defacto-leader of BJT? Yes.

Should BJT fall for it? Yes but it doesn't matter as they are going down anyways.

Could it be proven in a court of law that Newin is the de facto leader of BJT? Probably not.

The term "Friends of Newin" was coined as the name of a faction inside PPP (which became PTP)

Now ,, back to our original topic ... Hitting PTP with the Thaksin leadership scandal will reduce their effectiveness (PTP's) in the coming months. Actiong as the opposition in parliament it is the duty of the Dems to keep PTP honest.

[whybother]

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Does the fact that they got a parliamentary majority mean that it's OK if they broke the law to get it?

Pretending that the Friends Of Newin aren't really the friends of Newin is simply wasting bandwidth on this forum. Instead of prevaricating, do you think that they are or aren't? A yes or no answer will suffice.

It's not a question as to whether "The friends of Newin" are friends of Newin. The question is, was enough evidence to convict Newin with collusion with the Dems.

Of course, based on your first statement, seeing as the Dem coalition got a parliamentary majority, it doesn't matter if they broke the law, does it?

[dmcguire70]

The Illuminate in here will never accept the Thai peoples decision,no matter what u say.

[rixalex]

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance,

I don't think they were either forthright or honest at all. One week it was all the "Thaksin thinks, Puea Thai acts" sentiments - "a vote for us is a vote for Thaksin" type stuff, then the next week they would swing to the "Thaksin doesn't make decisions, we do", followed by "this is nothing to do with Thaksin". All a game trying to play to as much of the electorate as they could. Don't have a problem with that. But don't pretend they were being honest. This is election campaigning.

[OzMick]

I am fully supportive of enforcing electoral laws. However, proper law enforcement requires judgement and common sense. Many of the allegations seem to me petty harrassment. Do you even know what the complaints relate to? Do you know who is involved? It seems to me that you do not.

According to published reports, as of June 30 the Election Commission had received a total of 111 direct complaints about alleged campaign violations of which around 51 related to allegations of slander and/or "intimidation" by candidates. A reliable Bangkok newspaper reported that only 17 alleged cash handouts in return for votes, four complained of candidates organising food and social gatherings to gain support, 20 alleged government interference and non neurality, and 19 were related to campaign billboards and campaign rallies. Although these complaints were accompanied by evidence, in many cases, it is argued to be flimsy and unreliable. As of that date, there were also 410 anonymous complaints made via the EC's call center and/orwebsite with no supporting evidence.

The Thai Financial Post on July 3 reported that the were 185 complaints of electoral fraud and another 1,929 complaints made via the call center and/or website. Most of the reported fraudulent acts are allegations of vote buying or allegations of bias by state officials.

If there are legitimate serious breaches, then I certainly have no issue with the enforcement of the law I fully support the enforcement. What I do not support is launching a witch hunt based upon unfounded allegations The demand for zero tolerance is hypocritical. Those foreigners making the demand certainly do not obey the law 100% of the time. I'd wager that some of TVF's fiercest proponents of "upholding" the law are themseves not fully compliant with the laws concerning visas, land ownership, investments or other activity. And yet here they are holier than thou preaching the gospel according to the all knowing farang. I can't wait until there is an enforcement effort undertaken on visas and land ownership. A lot of the whiners will have something to really whine about then.

" Many of the allegations seem to me petty harrassment. Do you even know what the complaints relate to? Do you know who is involved? It seems to me that you do not."

Well pardon you for your arrogance. CD has posted extensively on this subject, but only you know the facts and intentions, and get to decide if the matter is petty or not.

Yes, there are a large number of complaints, but the subject of the OP was clear , obvious and well -documented, but petty in your view. Not in the view of others though.

Your last paragraph can only described as moral equivalence. Love or hate him, Bill O'Reilly is correct that it has no place in logical argument.

Still waiting for answers GK. none come to mind?

I provided some very clear answers. I provided the allegation count, something that none of the hang'em high crowd even considered or looked at. . What part about allegations with no evidence provided did you not get? There are several hundred complaints made without any substantive evidence. And yet, you want all of these complaints treated as evidence of a violation of the election rules. I don't know what the reference to CD means.

I see from your other comments that you have a dislike of "managers". Well, move the chip off your shoulder and get a grip on reality. No organization, no system can function when there is an attempt to ensure 100% absolute complaince. Common sense has to be applied. In my workplace we have some very exacting rules and regulations. However, our goal is to ensure a certain level of compliance is met and that serious infractions are not committed. Some rules are more important than others. I appreciate that you probably have never had management responsibilities, so you maybe not understand the concept, but that's how it works in the real world.

When there are literally hundreds of complaints brought with many baseless and unfounded, then the question does indeed have to be asked as to the motives. And you still have yet to provide a clear answer as to the motives. I am sure there are legitimate complaints, I do not dispute that. However, when politically affiliated groups or persons bring a complaint of "slander" because they didn't like the speech someone gave because an alternative opinion was presented then it speaks to the mind set of the complainant. When someone complains because "there were two whole hogs bbqed" and voters were being offered the hogs, it might violate the letter of the law, but is hardly a serious oofense worthy of the fuss.i You can keep on clinging to your "the law must be obeyed" position, but for those of us that have to get things done there must be a commonsense approach applied. I commend you on your law and order approach and I hope for yoursake you are 100% compliant with every rule in the book because one day you might be on the receiving end of such treatment.

The allegation count is an obfuscation of the original post - the blatant participation in this election by a banned politician. As for the motives of the complainants, as I have expressed before, I don't give a rat's anus; ignorance and apathy; I don't know and I don't care; what does it matter - is that clear enough! But if only one of them is to see people comply with the law, I support their action.

As for your assumption, it is wrong, I have had management experience, and I now understand why your business is in Thailand. In my industry, when you work with 2000+ psi steam, 500,000 V electricity, and dangerous chemicals, then you had better have 100% compliance or your RRs is going to end up in a cell. As for a chip re managers, over 30 years I have watched the electricity commission of NSW (aim - power at the cheapest possible price for the people of NSW) turn into a profit driven money tree for the State govt, the manning reduced to the state that it is falling apart from lack of maintenance, and then a govt which is literally giving away billions of dollars of investment, all while power prices are driving people into poverty. All while "managers " creamed off huge salaries, made ridiculous decisions, and came up with "due to unforeseen circumstances..." when it is their bloody job to foresee them.

I have actually been in a position where I wanted to start 2 small gas turbine generators to alleviate a shortage where prices were going through the roof. I was refused because the income generated would not match the loss of profit being made by the larger coal-fired units. In other words, stuff the people, let's make the dollars ala Enron and California.

Back on topic, if cleaning up the electoral system is not a worthy goal, just what is? And who the he_ll are you to decide what is a serious complaint and what is not?

CD is an abbreviation of Crushdepth, the poster that you accused of knowing nothing. Still waiting for a few answers - do you have short term memory problems?

[rixalex]

The Illuminate in here will never accept the Thai peoples decision,no matter what u say.

So in your eyes, following the law = not accepting Thai people's decision.

[Siam Simon]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.....

Our discussions are not the Thai courts, so, for the purpose of our discussions in trying to get to the bottom of things we can be honest with each other. There is no need for prevarication (within the law, of course )

There is overwhelming evidence of Newin's personal associations with the last government's officials. The press reported on them frequently, and there is that hilarious video of Suthep and Newin organising Blue Shirt thugs during the ASEAN conference in Pattaya. I expect that the new government will want to have a look at what went wrong with the judicial process in this and other cases at some point.

[473geo]

The Illuminate in here will never accept the Thai peoples decision,no matter what u say.

So in your eyes, following the law = not accepting Thai people's decision.

The statement made is succinct and does not appear to require rephrasing or expansion

[rixalex]

The Illuminate in here will never accept the Thai peoples decision,no matter what u say.

So in your eyes, following the law = not accepting Thai people's decision.

The statement made is succinct and does not appear to require rephrasing or expansion

...or truthfulness because the accusation, on this thread at least, comes simply from a desire to see the law being applied.

[pastitche]

The Illuminate in here will never accept the Thai peoples decision,no matter what u say.

So in your eyes, following the law = not accepting Thai people's decision.

The statement made is succinct and does not appear to require rephrasing or expansion

I may have missed something in the 35 pages here but I don't think that anyone has defined what the alleged infringement of the law is. "Involved in politics when banned" is a very vague term. There must be a clearer definition in the legislation as to what the phrase being used here means. I thought that the law meant that while banned, a person could not be a party leader or party executive. I assume that someone out there can tell me why I am wrong in thinking that Thaksin is not either of these

[animatic]

Then again if the totality of the evidence is significantly different and significantly more damning to the accused, then being consistent is not proper. Just because it is the same law doesn't mean the facts to be judged are the same, or that an over lay of similarity means the outcome should be exact.

Let the facts as found stand on their own merits, and the judgment reflect those facts.

The basic questions are:

Was there enough actual evidence to convict Newin for collusion with the Dems?

Apparently not. It seems Newin stays far enough in the back ground not to leave a paper trail or direct links. Is this right, no, but is this convict-able... seems not.

Is there significantly more evidence to use against Thaksin?

Well:

Thaksin Thinks, PTP Does. Is the sales pitch for the whole campaign.

Any time Thaksins aims are/were 'misstated' by PTP mps or leadership,

one word from Thaksin or via Noppadom and they change,

turn on a dime to his way.

Thaksin announces Yingluck, Yingluck is installed.

Thaksin says Minkwan takes the censure lead, he does,

Minkwan doesn't win Thaksin shoves himn to the bootm of the pile again.

Hopeful mp candidates rush to Thaksins side and great expense,

hoping for his nod to their campaigns.

New mps rush to Thaksin after their election,

before lucrative cabinet posts are assigned.

Thaksin rally posters across the country linking Thaksin to the PTP,

MORE pictures of Thaksin than any of the candidates, except his sister.

And on and on.

Thaksin and Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance, and the electorate gave them a parliamentary majority.

Pretending that the Friends Of Newin aren't really the friends of Newin is simply wasting bandwidth on this forum. Instead of prevaricating, do you think that they are or aren't? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Nobody is pretending that the Friends Of Newin are not friends of Newin.

What I was clearly addressing is that the level of evidence was not there to convict the Dems on that, and as you put it " Pheu Thai were completely forthright and honest about their allegiance" and that is admiting directly for all to see that they ran and illegal campaign... regardless of it winning or not.

As to prevaricating....

"to speak falsely or misleadingly;

deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie."

Saying I am doing that is a flame,

nor am I:

deceiveing stretching the truth, beating around the bush, begging the question, belieing, cavilling, conning, distorting, dodging, equivocating, evading, exaggerating, fabricating, falsifying, fibbing, garbling, hedging, inventing, jiving, lieing, misrepresenting, misspeaking, paltering, phonying up, putting on, quibbling, shifting, or even tergiversating.

Edited July 10, 2011 by animatic

[rubl]

apologies ,,, only read the first 10 pages... Does anybody come up with the question on who sammy hill the Elite Party thinks they could align with? BJT had, what, 6 seats?

... rest removed

I don't think there was a 'Elite Party' running in the last elections.

I remember a 'poor Thaksin party' though with slogan 'one man, one party, no compromise'

Anyway the topic is on 'Dem's ruthlessly ask the EC to investigate a possible irregularity and breach of the Election Law'

[animatic]

Drawing a zero tolerance to corruption line in the sand,

and not allowing any moral equivocation or historical grievances

color the actual use of law, should be sacrosanct as a basis

for implementing Democracy correctly.

It is a benchmark for the implementation and functioning of

checks and balances which is inherent to democracies proper functioning.

Oh, they got away with it in the past!

Oh, stopping it now, is a 'double standard'!.

Oh, they had guys doing the same thing!

We tried to convict them and they got off!

None of these arguments can be allowed in a proper democracy with the rule of law as reasons to NOT try and investigate or prosecute a probable crime.

Draw the line in the sand and prosecute ALL probable instances,

and those that meet the standards of proof WILL get punished.

Do it now, and not delayed; because it wasn't done properly in the past,.

From now on rule of law, and learn to deal with it, or fall.

Noble sentiments. Ones that you never expressed wrt the Dem-led coalition.

But ones that seem to be expressed once they no longer had the moral albatros to live with.

And in any case is not reason why it should not be expressed now by them.

Baby steps forward when you can. This is a moment they can.

[rixalex]

I may have missed something in the 35 pages here but I don't think that anyone has defined what the alleged infringement of the law is. "Involved in politics when banned" is a very vague term. There must be a clearer definition in the legislation as to what the phrase being used here means. I thought that the law meant that while banned, a person could not be a party leader or party executive. I assume that someone out there can tell me why I am wrong in thinking that Thaksin is not either of these

Good question.

I don't think anyone has defined it because nobody knows exactly how this law is applied or defined.

I haven't seen anyone arguing the case that PTP is guilty for certain. What has been argued is that the Dems are completely within their rights to bring this case forward to authorities, and that authorities should investigate as in accordance with the law.

On the other side of the fence we have people giving a variety of reasons why they think this shouldn't be investigated, ranging from, the Dems aren't innocent either, or i don't like the Dems motives, to PTP won the vote so whether they broke the law or not is of no matter - the people have spoken and when they do, who cares about abiding by the law.

[rubl]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.....

Our discussions are not the Thai courts, so, for the purpose of our discussions in trying to get to the bottom of things we can be honest with each other. There is no need for prevarication (within the law, of course )

There is overwhelming evidence of Newin's personal associations with the last government's officials. The press reported on them frequently, and there is that hilarious video of Suthep and Newin organising Blue Shirt thugs during the ASEAN conference in Pattaya. I expect that the new government will want to have a look at what went wrong with the judicial process in this and other cases at some point.

There is overwhelming evidence of k. Thaksin's personal association with the Pheu Thai party. The press reported on them frequently. Thanks to PTV and frequent phone/video-ins, twitters, the whole world can see and hear all the contradictions and even lies (assuming the whole world cares that is). BTW there was also overwhelming evidence of k. Thaksin's involvement in the two PPP led governments with proxy PM's. He's a bit of a recidivist, now isn't he

Edited July 10, 2011 by rubl

[animatic]

The Illuminate in here will never accept the Thai peoples decision,no matter what u say.

So in your eyes, following the law = not accepting Thai people's decision.

The statement made is succinct and does not appear to require rephrasing or expansion

I may have missed something in the 35 pages here but I don't think that anyone has defined what the alleged infringement of the law is. "Involved in politics when banned" is a very vague term. There must be a clearer definition in the legislation as to what the phrase being used here means. I thought that the law meant that while banned, a person could not be a party leader or party executive. I assume that someone out there can tell me why I am wrong in thinking that Thaksin is not either of these

It has been done many times. Yes, you seem to have missed something.

Go back and reread.