Red Shirts Want An End To Military Coups: Thida

[ginjag]

pastitche, why would it collapse in court,???? what court, under sisters guidance. ??  Poor illustration-bringing Abhisit into the frame. What happened Prior to the election, and during and post election, he deserves more than 2 years,  Near NO bloodshed would have happened if him and his billions had kept out of it. (He did promise he was out of politics) but isn't just like the famous family promise.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please re-read the OP if you are having trouble figuring out what the topic is about. It is not about posters paid to post, or about the effects of the LM law.

Please stay on-topic. Please be civil to one another.

[Lite Beer]

Another Off Topic Post has been removed.

[hellodolly]

OK OK I am slow.

I finally figured it out they want no more Milatary coup's so they can have a red shirt one.

[pastitche]

pastitche, why would it collapse in court,???? what court, under sisters guidance. ?? Poor illustration-bringing Abhisit into the frame. What happened Prior to the election, and during and post election, he deserves more than 2 years, Near NO bloodshed would have happened if him and his billions had kept out of it. (He did promise he was out of politics) but isn't just like the famous family promise.

I really don't know how to make it clearer but I will try

I am making no points about Thaksin and his guilt. He has been found guilty and sentenced. Nor did I refer to the events of 2010.

I made the point that "Thaksin thinks, Pheau Thai acts" can be construed in different ways because of the lack of conjunction between the phrases. It would collapse in any court because it is open to a number of interpretations and any prosecutor, trying to have PTP banned on that basis would recognise that it could not stand as evidence that he was involved in the management of PTP.

Unlike you I take no sides in the ongoing hostilities in here and what I post is frequently as in this case based on what the law in Thailand is.

You obviously responded to my earlier post without understanding its content; I believe you to be a native English speaker so I cannot understand why that would be the case.

[whybother]

I really don't know how to make it clearer but I will try

I am making no points about Thaksin and his guilt. He has been found guilty and sentenced. Nor did I refer to the events of 2010.

I made the point that "Thaksin thinks, Pheau Thai acts" can be construed in different ways because of the lack of conjunction between the phrases. It would collapse in any court because it is open to a number of interpretations and any prosecutor, trying to have PTP banned on that basis would recognise that it could not stand as evidence that he was involved in the management of PTP.

Unlike you I take no sides in the ongoing hostilities in here and what I post is frequently as in this case based on what the law in Thailand is.

You obviously responded to my earlier post without understanding its content; I believe you to be a native English speaker so I cannot understand why that would be the case.

The statement on it's own would probably fall over in court. It's the actions that have gone along with the statement that would have them in trouble (if it ever got to court, which it won't).

[animatic]

Clearly the Banned From Politics needs to be reworked as obviously it involves members of several parties (although obviously the rule is much more frequently violated and to a greater degree by the TRT'ers) breaking it.

The law needs to be strengthened because as it stands now, it's ignored.

Perhaps Pheu Thai Party will introduce legislation during its constitutional amendment procedures to toughen the penalties and make the guidelines firmer.

*as the rustle of pigs preening their wing feathers is heard*

.

A new law:

Jailed for political malfeasence

and/or theft of public funds

and/or breach of public trust,

Read: graft of 5% of a project budget.

Or directing funds to conflict of interest companies.

No less than an mandatory 1 year, up to 15 year term.

No escape clause or deals allowed.

And a return to jail if caught meeting with other politicians above dog catcher

for double the time of the sentence period.

Edited May 8, 2012 by animatic

[nurofiend]

tianford #139. your answer to hello dolly, it is you that doe's not fit in the neutral space, if so you would not persistently back up MOST of the red shirt actions of late and present. Answering the comment you made (without thinking normal) It was even foreigners plus residents, volunteers and some army that helped to clear Bkk. NOT YOU or any bus loads of fleeing reds, or big Thaksin dollars, you missed the point by giving the army a swipe, and commenting about body bags not knowing who were in them. Don't believe all you are told, better get out amongst them, look for yourself. then comment. I do live amongst them every day, most of them are red sheep, lost and have no future, the ones you favour are the hard nutters, the stirrers and the fanatics that are chasing a leader who doesn't now want to know them, not now they are IN.....power...the family.

bash when needed - the point is beyond most of the red-haters on this forum.

After a 6 day assault by the military with a final day/night of killings, Hellodolly wants the red shirts to clean up the streets of BKK - that is f*ckin insane.

But par for the course here on TVF.

I no longer expect any intelligent debate from the usual suspects. Just more hyperbole, misdirection, misinformation, venom and hatred as I have read here for the last 2 years.

You guys make me sick.

After a 6 day assault by the military with a final day/night of killings, Hellodolly wants the red shirts to clean up the streets of BKK - that is f*ckin insane.

hahaha agreed!

[fma]

OK OK I am slow.

I finally figured it out they want no more Milatary coup's so they can have a red shirt one.

Red shirt coup??

Is that an election?

Obviously some have problems seeing the difference.

[pastitche]

I really don't know how to make it clearer but I will try

I am making no points about Thaksin and his guilt. He has been found guilty and sentenced. Nor did I refer to the events of 2010.

I made the point that "Thaksin thinks, Pheau Thai acts" can be construed in different ways because of the lack of conjunction between the phrases. It would collapse in any court because it is open to a number of interpretations and any prosecutor, trying to have PTP banned on that basis would recognise that it could not stand as evidence that he was involved in the management of PTP.

Unlike you I take no sides in the ongoing hostilities in here and what I post is frequently as in this case based on what the law in Thailand is.

You obviously responded to my earlier post without understanding its content; I believe you to be a native English speaker so I cannot understand why that would be the case.

The statement on it's own would probably fall over in court. It's the actions that have gone along with the statement that would have them in trouble (if it ever got to court, which it won't).

Whybother, we both know that Thaksin is the de facto leader of PTP. The law as it stands says that no banned politician can be an executive of a political party; it doesn't say that he cannot provide it with financial support and "advice".

Need I say more?

[whybother]

Whybother, we both know that Thaksin is the de facto leader of PTP. The law as it stands says that no banned politician can be an executive of a political party; it doesn't say that he cannot provide it with financial support and "advice".

Need I say more?

Yes ... you could. Find some references ... please ... I can't find anything.

I don't think the law just bans the person from being an executive. IIRC, it stops them from being involved in elections, and some references say "not allowed to be involved in politics".

It certainly doesn't just stop them from being an executive, since that would still allow them to be an MP.

[pastitche]

Whybother, we both know that Thaksin is the de facto leader of PTP. The law as it stands says that no banned politician can be an executive of a political party; it doesn't say that he cannot provide it with financial support and "advice".

Need I say more?

Yes ... you could. Find some references ... please ... I can't find anything.

I don't think the law just bans the person from being an executive. IIRC, it stops them from being involved in elections, and some references say "not allowed to be involved in politics".

It certainly doesn't just stop them from being an executive, since that would still allow them to be an MP.

No an executive of a banned party is excluded for 5 years I believe.

It's too late now for me to look it all up but I recall last year reading the appropriate legislation and thinking that it was so badly drafted they couldn't nail Thaksin with a Hilti gun.

I'm sure Buchholz will pick up on this. If not I will try to look further tomorrow

[gand]

Red Shirts are against Military Coups, Except when they are for them.

[GentlemanJim]

Red Shirts are against Military Coups, Except when they are for them.

When is a Military Coups not a Military Coups?

......When it's a red shirt Military Coups!

[hellodolly]

One way to avoid a "judicial coup" is to obey electoral law, a concept PTP still can't grasp. IMHO it is only the fear of the repercussions that has prevented PTP from being disbanded for its blatant use of banned politicians in campaigning - perhaps that was the intent.

And yet the last Dem-led government wasn't disbanded for it's blatant use of a banned politician in the formation of it's coalition. Obviously it's a concept of electoral law that the Dems can't grasp too. IMHO it was only the fear of the repercussions (another election and another government formed by the party with the most MP's) that stopped that last Dem-led government from being disbanded.

As usual, you use flawed logic for a cheap shot. If a coalition partner has active involvement of a banned leader, surely it would be THAT party that would be disbanded. Do you recall any posters saying "Newin thinks, Democrats act" ?

No cheap shot, Mick, just logic. And, following on from your own logic, the Dem-led coalition would have collapsed due to the banning of Bhum Jai Thai. Maybe the"Friends of Newin" could have re-formed under another name. But what is your definition of active involvement of a banned politician? Does being almost joined at the hip with the Deputy PM, as Newin was to Suthep, count? (endless media reports of Newin in meetings with Suthep and army top brass during the last government, plus the highly illegal Blue Shirt collaberation at the Pattaya ASEAN).

As I read your response to Mick all I see is you saying he was rite. You try to confuse the fact with irrelevant suppositions,

[hellodolly]

What was the insult by the way?

Probably telling the truth as you see it. Nowadays even just expressing one's opinion seems to be insulting. Go figure

Accusing people of being paid to post - if you don't think thats insulting rubl me you have a warped sense of values.

What is insulting about it. Their have been posters banned for it. Seen your partner Calgaryll around lately?

[hellodolly]

tianford #139. your answer to hello dolly, it is you that doe's not fit in the neutral space, if so you would not persistently back up MOST of the red shirt actions of late and present. Answering the comment you made (without thinking normal) It was even foreigners plus residents, volunteers and some army that helped to clear Bkk. NOT YOU or any bus loads of fleeing reds, or big Thaksin dollars, you missed the point by giving the army a swipe, and commenting about body bags not knowing who were in them. Don't believe all you are told, better get out amongst them, look for yourself. then comment. I do live amongst them every day, most of them are red sheep, lost and have no future, the ones you favour are the hard nutters, the stirrers and the fanatics that are chasing a leader who doesn't now want to know them, not now they are IN.....power...the family.

bash when needed - the point is beyond most of the red-haters on this forum.

After a 6 day assault by the military with a final day/night of killings, Hellodolly wants the red shirts to clean up the streets of BKK - that is f*ckin insane.

But par for the course here on TVF.

I no longer expect any intelligent debate from the usual suspects. Just more hyperbole, misdirection, misinformation, venom and hatred as I have read here for the last 2 years.

You guys make me sick.

After a 6 day assault by the military with a final day/night of killings, Hellodolly wants the red shirts to clean up the streets of BKK - that is f*ckin insane.

hahaha agreed!

As usual you forget to mention that was the only way to get them out. They had negotiated a peaceful solution prior to the 6 days only to have the pay master say no deal so they backed out of it. Easy to run off at the mouth when you ignore your part in a event. What was your answer after they backed out of a peaceful settlement.

What is insane is to expect any thing positive out of terrorists. And of that I am not guilty. You on the other hand justify their actions.

People like you make me sick.

[Skywalker69]

I really don't know how to make it clearer but I will try

I am making no points about Thaksin and his guilt. He has been found guilty and sentenced. Nor did I refer to the events of 2010.

I made the point that "Thaksin thinks, Pheau Thai acts" can be construed in different ways because of the lack of conjunction between the phrases. It would collapse in any court because it is open to a number of interpretations and any prosecutor, trying to have PTP banned on that basis would recognise that it could not stand as evidence that he was involved in the management of PTP.

Unlike you I take no sides in the ongoing hostilities in here and what I post is frequently as in this case based on what the law in Thailand is.

You obviously responded to my earlier post without understanding its content; I believe you to be a native English speaker so I cannot understand why that would be the case.

The statement on it's own would probably fall over in court. It's the actions that have gone along with the statement that would have them in trouble (if it ever got to court, which it won't).

Maybe he means Thaksin thinks because PTP isn't capable to think.

[Buchholz]

pastitche, why would it collapse in court,???? what court, under sisters guidance. ?? Poor illustration-bringing Abhisit into the frame. What happened Prior to the election, and during and post election, he deserves more than 2 years, Near NO bloodshed would have happened if him and his billions had kept out of it. (He did promise he was out of politics) but isn't just like the famous family promise.

I really don't know how to make it clearer but I will try

I am making no points about Thaksin and his guilt. He has been found guilty and sentenced. Nor did I refer to the events of 2010.

I made the point that "Thaksin thinks, Pheau Thai acts" can be construed in different ways because of the lack of conjunction between the phrases. It would collapse in any court because it is open to a number of interpretations and any prosecutor, trying to have PTP banned on that basis would recognise that it could not stand as evidence that he was involved in the management of PTP.

Unlike you I take no sides in the ongoing hostilities in here and what I post is frequently as in this case based on what the law in Thailand is.

You obviously responded to my earlier post without understanding its content; I believe you to be a native English speaker so I cannot understand why that would be the case.

Speaking of English, a Thai court is not going to consider an English-language "conjunction" between the English-translated phrase of a Thai-language campaign slogan.

Very likely if any prosecution occurred, it would occur based upon what was said and written in Thai.

But it's all moot anyway, as prosecution isn't going to occur based solely on that aspect and would, instead, be based on other aspects and actions.

What remains is the number of people who have violated it and the severity of the violations. TRT and PPP have had dozens and dozens of its Banned From Politics violate the spirit of the law, whereas BJT has had one, Newin. That aspect is always avoided by those with the "But, Abhisit" key on their keyboard.

As said before, the spirit of the law needs to be clarified and strengthened... but that is not likely to be high on PTP efforts at constitutional changes. They seem much more he11-bent to weaken the already toothless law and other regulatory laws that hamper its ability to exert control over the populace.

.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Buchholz

[whybother]

...

I don't think the law just bans the person from being an executive. IIRC, it stops them from being involved in elections, and some references say "not allowed to be involved in politics".

It certainly doesn't just stop them from being an executive, since that would still allow them to be an MP.

No an executive of a banned party is excluded for 5 years I believe.

It's too late now for me to look it all up but I recall last year reading the appropriate legislation and thinking that it was so badly drafted they couldn't nail Thaksin with a Hilti gun.

I'm sure Buchholz will pick up on this. If not I will try to look further tomorrow

When the party is banned, the executives are banned.

The question is what are they banned from. You suggested that they were banned from being an executive, which I agree with, but it's not only that. If they were only banned from being an executive, then they could still be an MP without being an executive.

The usual phrase when referring to it, is being "banned from politics" or "can not be involved in politics". I remember reading about it during/soon after the election and it was very grey as to what "involved" meant.

A banned MP certainly can't be a party member (hence some of the 111 planning to become party members once their ban is complete), and I don't think they can be directly involved in campaigning (there were comments from PTP that Thaksin had to stop phoning in to election rallies once the election was officially called).

But as to any other "involvement", Thaksin (and Newin and others) have clearly been involved in politics.

So, back to the start of this conversation ... "Thaksin thinks, Peau Thai acts" probably wouldn't see the light of day in court. Other "involvement" probably would see the light of day, but most likely wouldn't get very far.

[SomTumTiger]

More like - Thaksin sh$ts, PTP wipes. More apt.

[hyperdimension]

If they have over 10M supporters (and this number is expected to grow significantly) as stated in the news article, why couldn't the Red Shirts set up their own political party and contest in the election?

As long as the Shinawatra clan funds them, they will continue to serve Shinawatra interests, even to the point of risking their lives (as in 2010 after being brainwashed into thinking that they were fighting against the aristocrats for true democracy). Their support base is as big as it is because of the funding, as the marketing / PR, stage protests and social engineering (community-building through holding many frequent entertainment events across the country) would have cost a lot. However, if the financial support is ever cut off, their growth expectations (double in 5 years) are much less likely, and instead they'd probably gradually weaken.

Why haven't the Red Shirts protested loudly against the cordial meeting between Yingluck and Prem, during which an agreement was made for Yingluck to consult him on affairs of state? One of the Red Shirts' existential foundations is (or was?) their disdain for the aristocrats, whom they feel care little about them, so the meeting with Prem would certainly have been against their ideology and hence there would be enough grounds to hold a mass protest. However there was no protest probably because of the issue of funding. Basically, whoever funds is boss, and recipients of the funds are the employees / servants / slaves / soldiers / pawns who, either knowingly or not, work or fight for the interests of the source of the funds.

Edited May 9, 2012 by hyperdimension

[sparebox2]

Now with the Uncle SMS dead, coup could be near again.

I hop Thaksin could keep his mouth shut about Man City win over man U, just because he was there.

[phiphidon]

Speaking of English, a Thai court is not going to consider an English-language "conjunction" between the English-translated phrase of a Thai-language campaign slogan.

Very likely if any prosecution occurred, it would occur based upon what was said and written in Thai.

But it's all moot anyway, as prosecution isn't going to occur based solely on that aspect and would, instead, be based on other aspects and actions.

What remains is the number of people who have violated it and the severity of the violations. TRT and PPP have had dozens and dozens of its Banned From Politics violate the spirit of the law, whereas BJT has had one, Newin. That aspect is always avoided by those with the "But, Abhisit" key on their keyboard.

As said before, the spirit of the law needs to be clarified and strengthened... but that is not likely to be high on PTP efforts at constitutional changes. They seem much more he11-bent to weaken the already toothless law and other regulatory laws that hamper its ability to exert control over the populace.

.

"What remains is the number of people who have violated it and the severity of the violations. TRT and PPP have had dozens and dozens of its Banned From Politics violate the spirit of the law, whereas BJT has had one, Newin."

An interesting take on the law if I may say so. They're either guilty of breaking the law or not and that works for every party. You can't just apply the law by percentages - that's a playground argument - "They did it more than us".

"As said before, the spirit of the law needs to be clarified and strengthened... but that is not likely to be high on PTP efforts at constitutional changes. They seem much more he11-bent to weaken the already toothless law and other regulatory laws that hamper its ability to exert control over the populace."

You do realise that any constitutional changes will be discussed once the CDA has been formed, which it has not of yet. So any pronouncement by you on what the PTP (and not just them, see my next point) will propose is pure fantasy at this point.

The Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA) will comprise of some representatives of the electorate be they "experts" or not and representatives from the various political parties, not solely the PTP.

The mere fact that the composition of the CDA is being discussed and voted upon in parliament is a step up democratically from the politically loaded CDA responsible for the 2006/7 constitution (e.g. the democrat party has already got its way on the number of "members" needed to comprise the CDA).

Come back and argue that the PTP will "weaken the already toothless law and other regulatory laws that hamper its ability to exert control over the populace" if it happens, until then I suspect it's the usual democrat party lovin' members rhetoric designed to stir up the usual suspects.

No change there, then.

[OzMick]

If they have over 10M supporters (and this number is expected to grow significantly) as stated in the news article, why couldn't the Red Shirts set up their own political party and contest in the election?

As long as the Shinawatra clan funds them, they will continue to serve Shinawatra interests, even to the point of risking their lives (as in 2010 after being brainwashed into thinking that they were fighting against the aristocrats for true democracy). Their support base is as big as it is because of the funding, as the marketing / PR, stage protests and social engineering (community-building through holding many frequent entertainment events across the country) would have cost a lot. However, if the financial support is ever cut off, their growth expectations (double in 5 years) are much less likely, and instead they'd probably gradually weaken.

Why haven't the Red Shirts protested loudly against the cordial meeting between Yingluck and Prem, during which an agreement was made for Yingluck to consult him on affairs of state? One of the Red Shirts' existential foundations is (or was?) their disdain for the aristocrats, whom they feel care little about them, so the meeting with Prem would certainly have been against their ideology and hence there would be enough grounds to hold a mass protest. However there was no protest probably because of the issue of funding. Basically, whoever funds is boss, and recipients of the funds are the employees / servants / slaves / soldiers / pawns who, either knowingly or not, work or fight for the interests of the source of the funds.

Oh they certainly seem to care enough when paid agitators whip them into a frenzy with half-truths and flat-out lies, and then financial inducement is offered to make it at least cost free if not profitable to attend.

But when it comes to paying the costs out of their own pocket, suddenly interest wanes to near SFA. Sorry (insert day of choice) is the day i wash my hair.

[Buchholz]

If they have over 10M supporters (and this number is expected to grow significantly) as stated in the news article, why couldn't the Red Shirts set up their own political party and contest in the election?

Thida probably counted a number of too-young-to-vote Red Shirts in her still inflated numbers

Teaching them young - children of the red shirt movement play with toy guns during the fund-raising rally

http://pattayamail.c...12/news15.shtml

.

[Buchholz]

Speaking of English, a Thai court is not going to consider an English-language "conjunction" between the English-translated phrase of a Thai-language campaign slogan.

Very likely if any prosecution occurred, it would occur based upon what was said and written in Thai.

But it's all moot anyway, as prosecution isn't going to occur based solely on that aspect and would, instead, be based on other aspects and actions.

What remains is the number of people who have violated it and the severity of the violations. TRT and PPP have had dozens and dozens of its Banned From Politics violate the spirit of the law, whereas BJT has had one, Newin. That aspect is always avoided by those with the "But, Abhisit" key on their keyboard.

As said before, the spirit of the law needs to be clarified and strengthened... but that is not likely to be high on PTP efforts at constitutional changes. They seem much more he11-bent to weaken the already toothless law and other regulatory laws that hamper its ability to exert control over the populace.

"What remains is the number of people who have violated it and the severity of the violations. TRT and PPP have had dozens and dozens of its Banned From Politics violate the spirit of the law, whereas BJT has had one, Newin."

An interesting take on the law if I may say so. They're either guilty of breaking the law or not and that works for every party. You can't just apply the law by percentages - that's a playground argument - "They did it more than us".

It's not an argument to excuse one Party.

No one has said any one is innocent of breaking the law.

It's just a statement of fact.

There's been many more occurrences of banned-from-politics involved TRT and PPP members than there have been with BJT (or any of the other banned parties, for that matter).

Sorry to interrupt your frothing.

.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Buchholz

[oldsailor35]

"or if we put Thaksin in a space capsule and shot it out of the Earth"

Now there's a thought.

No, let Thaksin back in, get him and all the other politicians past and present to meet in parliament to discuss reforms... then shoot parliament into space.

And for goodness sake make sure that SUTHEP is with them.

[oldsailor35]

What the red shirts attempted whilst Abhisit was in power was to cut short his term by force, by violence, by intimidation. It wasn't democratic. In many ways it was much like a coup attempt. If they had respect for democracy, they would have said, "ok, we don't like the way that Abhisit came to power, but we will respect the democratic principles we preach, and will demonstrate this not by taking to the streets with arms and burning things down, but by trying to get him removed within the law and via the courts, and if this fails, we will simply campaign hard and make sure he is not re-elected at the next election".

It must be pointed out that it was the government who 'took to the streets with arms'and only then did the red shirts start to burn things down.

It must be also pointed out that the government took the streets with arms after several people were shot from the red shirts.

Ah ! but there is the genuine contention............was it in fact Redshirts doing the firing, there is real doubt here.

[oldsailor35]

If they have over 10M supporters (and this number is expected to grow significantly) as stated in the news article, why couldn't the Red Shirts set up their own political party and contest in the election?

Thida probably counted a number of too-young-to-vote Red Shirts in her still inflated numbers

Teaching them young - children of the red shirt movement play with toy guns during the fund-raising rally

http://pattayamail.c...12/news15.shtml

.

Teaching ! what an idiotic suggestion, young boys all over the world like to play with toy guns, you fool !