Wasn't the House Speaker supposed to forward the issue of Jatuporn's eligibility as an election candidate to the Constitution Court for a ruling?

PS: That's an ugly photo, even for Jatuporn. He looks better with his mouth closed but alas, this seldom seems to happen...

Wasn't the House Speaker supposed to forward the issue of Jatuporn's eligibility as an election candidate to the Constitution Court for a ruling?

PS: That's an ugly photo, even for Jatuporn. He looks better with his mouth closed but alas, this seldom seems to happen...

Looks like he's JUST managed to pull his hand out of his mouth wrist deep.

Even if this goes to court do you really think that the rest of the world would care. Not a blip on the radar.

IMHO waiving of immunity is irrevocable and not selective. i.e.waiving for 1 charge would allow others to proceed.

I base that on a dimly remembered diplomatic immunity waiver case some time back, and may not apply here - but I would check first.

Why am I offering advice to these idiots????????

you're a wasted talent , you.

The red leaders say they don't want to use immunity, and then let PTP vote down lifting their immunity. They have it and no one can says squat to them.

Of course as pointed out above, it shows the vast majority of the country that PTP could care less about the law since these red leaders were charged BEFORE being given partly list position high enough up the PTP rungs to be guaranteed immunity.

So it comes down to PTP caring about perceptions of the public vis a vis their take on double standards and the rule of law. Or not.

I thought that BY LAW the parliament must vote on lifting immunity, MPs cannot decide on that themselves. Since in Thailand never before (as far as I know) immunity has been lifted on MPs, it would set a precedent which one should not too hastily do.

It may be the right time to study this issue as covered by constitution and maybe other laws, and bundle it with possibly other changes which seem to be coming near you this year or next

The red leaders say they don't want to use immunity, and then let PTP vote down lifting their immunity. They have it and no one can says squat to them.

Of course as pointed out above, it shows the vast majority of the country that PTP could care less about the law since these red leaders were charged BEFORE being given partly list position high enough up the PTP rungs to be guaranteed immunity.

So it comes down to PTP caring about perceptions of the public vis a vis their take on double standards and the rule of law. Or not.

I thought that BY LAW the parliament must vote on lifting immunity, MPs cannot decide on that themselves. Since in Thailand never before (as far as I know) immunity has been lifted on MPs, it would set a precedent which one should not too hastily do.

That's probably why they've rejected it this afternoon as animatic predicted...

House vote to reject request to lift immunity of 9 MPs

The House Thursday voted to reject the request by the Department of Special Investigation to lift legal immunity of nine Pheu Thai Party MPs.

The House cast a 252:106 vote to reject the request of DSI Chief Tharit Pengdit to lift the immunity of the nine MPs, who are red-shirt leaders.

The nine MPs, including Weng Tojirakarn, Natthawut Saikua and Jatuporn Promphan, were wanted on charge of violating the national security with their speech during a rally on April 10.

The coalition voted to keep the legal immunity although the nine MPs told the House that they wanted to forfeit their right to legal immunity.

-- The Nation 2011-09-08

No double standards around here...

The red leaders say they don't want to use immunity, and then let PTP vote down lifting their immunity. They have it and no one can says squat to them.

Of course as pointed out above, it shows the vast majority of the country that PTP could care less about the law since these red leaders were charged BEFORE being given partly list position high enough up the PTP rungs to be guaranteed immunity.

So it comes down to PTP caring about perceptions of the public vis a vis their take on double standards and the rule of law. Or not.

I thought that BY LAW the parliament must vote on lifting immunity, MPs cannot decide on that themselves. Since in Thailand never before (as far as I know) immunity has been lifted on MPs, it would set a precedent which one should not too hastily do.

That's probably why they've rejected it this afternoon as animatic predicted...

House vote to reject request to lift immunity of 9 MPs

The House Thursday voted to reject the request by the Department of Special Investigation to lift legal immunity of nine Pheu Thai Party MPs.

The House cast a 252:106 vote to reject the request of DSI Chief Tharit Pengdit to lift the immunity of the nine MPs, who are red-shirt leaders.

The nine MPs, including Weng Tojirakarn, Natthawut Saikua and Jatuporn Promphan, were wanted on charge of violating the national security with their speech during a rally on April 10.

The coalition voted to keep the legal immunity although the nine MPs told the House that they wanted to forfeit their right to legal immunity.

-- The Nation 2011-09-08

I think PTP has 265 votes in the house,so must be even some of their own who voted for removing the immunity.

^ That'd be too independent of them. Have to consider that there were 142 MP's who were absent.