Yellow Shirt Protests Force House To Adjourn Indefinitely

[rubl]

If you are still looking for illegal actions of this government, using political influence to have police investigation into members of the government and their cronies, and their illegal activities dropped or suppressed should be good enough.

There are plenty of examples but Yingluk's perjury charge is the most blatant.

I'm sure this one will get further scrutiny:

"BANGKOK: - The meeting of the House speaker and standing House panel's chairs voted 22:1 to allow the House to deliberate the four reconciliation bills without endorsement from the prime minister.

After five hours of discussion, the meeting voted that the bills were not financially-related draft law.

Before the voting, Democrat MPs, who chair certain panels, staged a walkout, leaving only Shane Thuaugsuban in the meeting. Shane voted that the bills required endorsement from the prime minister before they could be deliberated."

[GentlemanJim]

There are so many trolls have suddenly reared their heads in the news section in the last 24 hours, it is just impossible to have an intelligent debate at the moment.

[dtarasin]

Is there a law that states that you cannot debate to whitewash convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that government cannot allow a live broadcast of speeches by convicted criminal on the run?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm genuinely asking an honest question. The point being that while it might be morally wrong to do these things, they're not actually illegal. And you can't just protest morals.

I will presume you are joking with some of the statements you just made, because i cannot believe that you can actually be serious.

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run? Is not convicted criminal on the run breaking the law? and is it not the job of the government officials to arrest him?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal? Convicted criminal on the run, is it not the job of the government official to do all it his/her power to bring criminal to justice? instead of assisting the criminal to stay on the run?

By helping convicted felon on the run, does it not fall under accomplice to the crime?an accessory?

One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

I asked you to point to me where specifically in Thai law does it state that it is illegal to do any of those accusations you're throwing around. And all you did was copy and paste the definition of accomplice from Answers.com, an entry from West's Encyclopedia of American law.

Like I said before, you can't protest morality, since morality is relative to each individual. Both sides, yellow and red, are justifying their despicable actions by some vague ideology of what THEIR definitions of "democracy" and "legality" are. That's why this crap just keeps going and going and going.

[charmonman]

I still don't understand why the keep referring to TS as being in "self-exile". Isn't he on the run.

No he is not on the run if he were on the run and had actually committed Terrorist acts like the yellows accused him of then the good Ol USA would of hunted him down themselves

DK

I still don't understand why the keep referring to TS as being in "self-exile". Isn't he on the run.

No he is not on the run if he were on the run and had actually committed Terrorist acts like the yellows accused him of then the good Ol USA would of hunted him down themselves but the fact is the guys is living it up all over the world having a grand old time and so he should as the coup should never of happened anyway and was proven yet again in the last election the MAJORITY of thais want thaksin why else would they vote in someone with NO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE at all, I tell you why, Because her name is Thaksin and the people love him

Civil War could be on the cards as we are back to square 1

DK

The good ole USA only hunts down terrorists that harm their own interests. They don't give a crap about any other "terrorists" and I dare say they have sponsored a few themselves. If you think any different then no wonder you believe the pro-Thaksin spin as well. I don't think the USA had much of a problem with the guy as he was very pro-business, even if he was completely corrupt.

However, I agree with you in that he is not really "on the run". Those who oppose him just want him to stay the hell out of Thailand, and those who support him want him back and absolved of all his crimes. No one is really trying to hunt him down.

[phl]

They are as subtle as a brick, unless you're as thick as.

as thick as a squaddie......................perhaps ??

Sorry, you have made a false assumption.

Good that you noticed.

My apologies.....

I'm off for a large scotch and will leave it up to you guys to solve the problems of Thailand.

Good to see priority's are in full order

[superduper]

How's that "reconciliation" working out for you?

[metisdead]

Some baiting posts have been removed.

[heybruce]

How any democratically-minded person here can support the PAD is beyond me...

Don't worry. Your ignorance is forgiven. If you haven't figured out by now that the PAD are fighting for the triumph of rule of law over the dictatorial Thaksin regime, then you will probably never understand. It is only too bad that the PAD is forced into positions where they have to break the law in order to stop the travesty of justice that Thaksin would inflict on Thailand for the benefit of himself.

Rule of law is the very foundation of any democracy. The PAD supports it. Thaksin doesn't. Simple as that really. Everything else is simply people reacting in predictable ways to that basic fact.

When Thaksin submits to the rule of law, and places himself subservient to it, then all the problems stop. As long as he doesn't, the problems don't. Since his personality means he will never do it, nothing short of his demise is ever going to bring peace.

So they're breaking the law in order to preserve it? Isn't that an oxymoron, right up there with "fighting for peace"?

I could write about how the law in Thailand is easily ignored by the rich and well connected of all political stripes, how libel laws effectively hobble the press from doing it's duty as the "fourth estate" of a free society, and other laws limiting free speech that are too sensitive to mention on TV, But I'm not interested in joining the endless debates on these subjects.

So I'm back to my original point: For all its flaws, Thailand is a democracy and has a democratically elected government operating within the law in attempting to debate a legitimate bill (yes, it is legitimate even if it is clearly unpopular with many people). Illegal actions committed to prevent this government from doing its job are against the ideals of democracy, rule of law, and the best interests of Thailand.

Also, a minority party that maintains that a democratically elected government isn't legitimate unless it's a government they approve of isn't really a democratic party, even if they name themselves "Peoples Alliance for Democracy".

let me ask you AGAIN, in case you missed it the first time,

How is demonstrating breaking the law?

Blocking streets and preventing government officials from entering a government building and doing their job is against the law. Were you unclear on that?

[phl]

Is there a law that states that you cannot debate to whitewash convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that government cannot allow a live broadcast of speeches by convicted criminal on the run?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm genuinely asking an honest question. The point being that while it might be morally wrong to do these things, they're not actually illegal. And you can't just protest morals.

I will presume you are joking with some of the statements you just made, because i cannot believe that you can actually be serious.

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run? Is not convicted criminal on the run breaking the law? and is it not the job of the government officials to arrest him?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal? Convicted criminal on the run, is it not the job of the government official to do all it his/her power to bring criminal to justice? instead of assisting the criminal to stay on the run?

By helping convicted felon on the run, does it not fall under accomplice to the crime?an accessory?

One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

I asked you to point to me where specifically in Thai law does it state that it is illegal to do any of those accusations you're throwing around. And all you did was copy and paste the definition of accomplice from Answers.com, an entry from West's Encyclopedia of American law.

Like I said before, you can't protest morality, since morality is relative to each individual. Both sides, yellow and red, are justifying their despicable actions by some vague ideology of what THEIR definitions of "democracy" and "legality" are. That's why this crap just keeps going and going and going.

Accusations? are you trying to say that none of the members of this government ever visited Thaksin?

Are you also trying to say that his new passport was not hand delivered through official diplomatic channels?

Are you saying that his live broadcasts do not happen? or he is NOT an advisor to the government?

Accusation is when something is being accused of something but needs evidence to be proven guilty.

Every single action by this government i stated is a recorded and documented FACT which NOT only they do not deny, but make a point of making it public.

At this point it is not longer an accusation.

Please do show me when in Thai LAW, or any law for that matter it states that an accomplice to a crime is INNOCENT 100%.

While i do not have an entire criminal Thai library at hand, i am certain that being accessory to a crime is still illegal

Definition of accessory and accomplice was for you to see what falls under it, but it clearly went straight over your head.

So since you believe it is not illegal, why do not you assist someone in committing a crime and then use the "where specifically in Thai law does it state that it is illegal " as a defense and see what happens

I am sure judge will read out the exact section and paragraph of the law at your sentencing

[phl]

Blocking streets and preventing government officials from entering a government building and doing their job is against the law. Were you unclear on that?

its called DEMONSTRATION,

Did they physically restraint any official from entering?

[OzMick]

Blocking streets and preventing government officials from entering a government building and doing their job is against the law. Were you unclear on that?

But for some people, that illegality is about to be overlooked, along with arson, murder, terrorism, possessing illegal weapons and ammunition, discharging a weapon with intent to kill,..............................the list is almost endless. And I'm not forgetting the corruption and money crimes which had nothing to do with political violence.

[ginjag]

Who is this poster Bobmac10,?? 555555555 hahaha I must be in the wrong place (N/E) I didn't know we all were supposed to live in Pattaya. Amazing post-just cracked me up, in fact I laughed that much I got stitch, My birthday and that comment was my best present.

[dtarasin]

Is there a law that states that you cannot debate to whitewash convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal?

Is there a law that states that government cannot allow a live broadcast of speeches by convicted criminal on the run?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm genuinely asking an honest question. The point being that while it might be morally wrong to do these things, they're not actually illegal. And you can't just protest morals.

I will presume you are joking with some of the statements you just made, because i cannot believe that you can actually be serious.

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot visit, kiss and shake hands with convicted criminal on the run? Is not convicted criminal on the run breaking the law? and is it not the job of the government officials to arrest him?

Is there a law that states that members of the parliament cannot personally deliver passport to a convicted criminal? Convicted criminal on the run, is it not the job of the government official to do all it his/her power to bring criminal to justice? instead of assisting the criminal to stay on the run?

By helping convicted felon on the run, does it not fall under accomplice to the crime?an accessory?

One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.

I asked you to point to me where specifically in Thai law does it state that it is illegal to do any of those accusations you're throwing around. And all you did was copy and paste the definition of accomplice from Answers.com, an entry from West's Encyclopedia of American law.

Like I said before, you can't protest morality, since morality is relative to each individual. Both sides, yellow and red, are justifying their despicable actions by some vague ideology of what THEIR definitions of "democracy" and "legality" are. That's why this crap just keeps going and going and going.

Accusations? are you trying to say that none of the members of this government ever visited Thaksin?

Are you also trying to say that his new passport was not hand delivered through official diplomatic channels?

Are you saying that his live broadcasts do not happen? or he is NOT an advisor to the government?

Accusation is when something is being accused of something but needs evidence to be proven guilty.

Every single action by this government i stated is a recorded and documented FACT which NOT only they do not deny, but make a point of making it public.

At this point it is not longer an accusation.

Please do show me when in Thai LAW, or any law for that matter it states that an accomplice to a crime is INNOCENT 100%.

While i do not have an entire criminal Thai library at hand, i am certain that being accessory to a crime is still illegal

Definition of accessory and accomplice was for you to see what falls under it, but it clearly went straight over your head.

So since you believe it is not illegal, why do not you assist someone in committing a crime and then use the "where specifically in Thai law does it state that it is illegal " as a defense and see what happens

I am sure judge will read out the exact section and paragraph of the law at your sentencing

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

[sjjmmi]

No offence, but walking on PhiChai Rd. and a bit Ratchawithi this afternoon I counted at least six roadblocks manned by police. That's only a small part of the roads leading to Government House

So it's the bloody police blocking the roads and not the protesters.

And I didn't even walk far enough to see any protesters

[OzMick]

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

you are confusing the terms "known criminal" and "fugitive criminal". Aiding and abetting a fugitive is a crime.

[whybother]

I still don't understand why the keep referring to TS as being in "self-exile". Isn't he on the run.

No he is not on the run if he were on the run and had actually committed Terrorist acts like the yellows accused him of then the good Ol USA would of hunted him down themselves but the fact is the guys is living it up all over the world having a grand old time and so he should as the coup should never of happened anyway and was proven yet again in the last election the MAJORITY of thais want thaksin why else would they vote in someone with NO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE at all, I tell you why, Because her name is Thaksin and the people love him

Civil War could be on the cards as we are back to square 1

DK

NOT the majority of Thais. Not even the majority of votes.

Sent from my shoe phone

[heybruce]

Blocking streets and preventing government officials from entering a government building and doing their job is against the law. Were you unclear on that?

its called DEMONSTRATION,

Did they physically restraint any official from entering?

From the news story that started this thread:

""I have cancelled the deliberation on the reconciliation bill indefinitely to ease division and restore the atmosphere of harmony," Mr Somsak told reporters.

The House speaker made the announcement as protesters from the People's Alliance for Democracy--the yellow shirts -- and the multi-coloured group joined forces to block a main road that lead to the only entrance of parliament since early morning.

Mr Somsak earlier called for the House to reconvene at 1.30pm only to cancel it shortly afterward when 20 police vans carrying ruling Pheu Thai party MPs from party headquarters were unable to access the parliament due to the protesters' blockade."

Clearly the roads were physically blocked. You can argue that the MP's could have left the vans and walked to Parliament, but one could also argue that they wouldn't have been safe in attempting this. Is this kind of activity legal in any country?

[dtarasin]

This country is being torn apart by two groups over one man. Is it really worth it? Has anything the yellow shirts and red shirts have done made a positive impact on your lives? I mean, really, this is two groups of self-righteous sociopaths looking to one-up each other in public places. In any other country they'd be locked up by now.

[whybother]

If 'democracy' means passing a law that not only whitewashes the crimes of a scumbag but also gives him billions of taxpayer money, then no I guess I'm not really keen on it.

I'm usually against mobs like these but in this case, good show Yellow Shirts!

Not keen on democracy then?

HAHAHA how short peoples memories are

The first thing the coup people did was change all the laws to suit themselves and use them to prosecute Thaksin with trumped up charges

Amazing some people LOL

DK

What laws did they change to prosecute Thaksin?

Sent from my shoe phone

[Backwoods]

Whilst disagreeing with Carra on each and every post, iI believe you are calling 'commie' (stupid word, are you American?)

Over my many years here, I have heard the word 'commie' used by intellectually challenged Americans only, to refer to everything from almost any type of social program to the bloody Florida Library using 'tax dollars' to fund free access to it's, I would say, much needed services.

The word is a misunderstood epithet mostly by those with limited education (have you ever heard Naom Chomsky or Gore Vidal, both educated, intelligent Amercans) use that stupid ignorant word? So yes, it is used by the types of Americans who wouldn't be able to define it's meaning but merely parrot it from their predominantly Republican rallies. Can you enlighten us as to what it means to the likes of you?

Can I ask where you are from, and where did you get your PHD? Profiling groups among Americans, Is like saying All brits have bad breath because of them yellow teeth! I am an American, retired from the Army, and didn't spend my time on education asI was busy, helping others to have Rights! The only times I have heard people refered to as Communists, were was subjects we included about Communist block countries. In all fairness, I think the Red Shirts should disarm the police and soldiers and set down at a table and discuss the differences, You know like they did on the streets, bringing the Capiatl city to mostly a halt. They don't have to worry about security, and they have black shirt security. I think it is wrong to say it was OK to violence when they were the protesters, but now, they want to bring arms against another group. Anyone that even utters a elected official from their mouths show stupidity, paid votes are not aanything close to anything that helps the people, it just gives the people who paid out the funds a feeling of endorsement! Who are the police and soldiers to protect, as both are breaking the law! There is not going to be an easy or good end to this, and it is the working class that will suffer no matter who makes it to the top and stays!

[phl]

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

he is a convicted felon on the run, issuing and hand delivering him with a new passport through official channels is a crime, because the prime responsibility of a government official is to preserve the law, ie have convict on the run arrested NOT assist him to keep on running

Please go back and read the legal definition of an accomplice

One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. Gov officials are knowingly helping convicted criminal to stay on the run.

One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. Gov officials are knowingly helping convicted criminal to stay on the run.

One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed,Gov officials are knowingly helping convicted criminal to stay on the run, by issuing and delivering a new passport. Being well aware that convict should be arrested, they are doing all they can to help avoid capture and make life easier

[dtarasin]

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

you are confusing the terms "known criminal" and "fugitive criminal". Aiding and abetting a fugitive is a crime.

Then who is doing the prosecuting? Surely any knowledgeable lawyer sympathetic to the yellow-shirt cause could start prosecuting, since these people should be in jail.

[daboyz1]

This country is being torn apart by two groups over one man. Is it really worth it? Has anything the yellow shirts and red shirts have done made a positive impact on your lives? I mean, really, this is two groups of self-righteous sociopaths looking to one-up each other in public places. In any other country they'd be locked up by now.

That pretty much sums it up.

[phl]

Blocking streets and preventing government officials from entering a government building and doing their job is against the law. Were you unclear on that?

its called DEMONSTRATION,

Did they physically restraint any official from entering?

From the news story that started this thread:

""I have cancelled the deliberation on the reconciliation bill indefinitely to ease division and restore the atmosphere of harmony," Mr Somsak told reporters.

The House speaker made the announcement as protesters from the People's Alliance for Democracy--the yellow shirts -- and the multi-coloured group joined forces to block a main road that lead to the only entrance of parliament since early morning.

Mr Somsak earlier called for the House to reconvene at 1.30pm only to cancel it shortly afterward when 20 police vans carrying ruling Pheu Thai party MPs from party headquarters were unable to access the parliament due to the protesters' blockade."

Clearly the roads were physically blocked. You can argue that the MP's could have left the vans and walked to Parliament, but one could also argue that they wouldn't have been safe in attempting this. Is this kind of activity legal in any country?

Thats funny, i thought police set up road blocks

Yes demonstrations are legal in every democratic country and when demonstrations take place, in most instances roads get blocked.

What could be , might be or alike is irrelevant as to this moment, they have not broken the law, they have not assaulted anyone.

If officials feel unsafe, that is their choice, but no law has been broken as yet, nor has the direction to disperse being issued

[phl]

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

you are confusing the terms "known criminal" and "fugitive criminal". Aiding and abetting a fugitive is a crime.

Then who is doing the prosecuting? Surely any knowledgeable lawyer sympathetic to the yellow-shirt cause could start prosecuting, since these people should be in jail.

Little hard to do when the government is happy to interfere with the law

[JohnAllan]

More evidence in support of yet another featherbrained accusation.

A few more weeks, and we might be facing further flooding crises, while these self-serving nonetities continue to waste valuable parliamentary time on what, to most of the electorate - and many onlookers - are inconsequential frivolities.

When will these so say elected representatives recognise that they are in parliament for one reason, and one reason only . . . to serve the interests of the Thai people. ALL OF THEM!

[MAJIC]

so the mob of 2k pad political loosers outside and a hundred of hard line democrats mps are suspending the parliament for a week.

it's mock of democratic process.

they are on the margin of history and they should realise it by now. Dinosaurs

So what would you rather see? a convicted criminal,on the run,get his freedom from answering to the law,by his bought Party,railroading laws through Parliament,in his favour? and no objections from the opposition?

Not exactly Democratic either,is it? and of course don't forget the Red shirts holding the Country to Ramsom for three months,resulting in a bloody anarchistic/Terrorist style finally,of destruction,was hardly Democratic either.

[sjjmmi]

Yes, being an accessory to a crime is illegal. But associating with a known criminal is not. If it was illegal, then Donald Rumsfeld would be in jail for shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

If you can prove that these people you're accusing of being accomplices were actually present and aided Thaksin when he committed his crimes, then you'd have an argument to stand on. Otherwise, you're getting all worked up over something that is generally frowned upon, but it most normal countries, wouldn't drive people to hijack congress.

you are confusing the terms "known criminal" and "fugitive criminal". Aiding and abetting a fugitive is a crime.

Then who is doing the prosecuting? Surely any knowledgeable lawyer sympathetic to the yellow-shirt cause could start prosecuting, since these people should be in jail.

Little hard to do when the government is happy to interfere with the law

Thailand has laws

[heybruce]

Blocking streets and preventing government officials from entering a government building and doing their job is against the law. Were you unclear on that?

its called DEMONSTRATION,

Did they physically restraint any official from entering?

From the news story that started this thread:

""I have cancelled the deliberation on the reconciliation bill indefinitely to ease division and restore the atmosphere of harmony," Mr Somsak told reporters.

The House speaker made the announcement as protesters from the People's Alliance for Democracy--the yellow shirts -- and the multi-coloured group joined forces to block a main road that lead to the only entrance of parliament since early morning.

Mr Somsak earlier called for the House to reconvene at 1.30pm only to cancel it shortly afterward when 20 police vans carrying ruling Pheu Thai party MPs from party headquarters were unable to access the parliament due to the protesters' blockade."

Clearly the roads were physically blocked. You can argue that the MP's could have left the vans and walked to Parliament, but one could also argue that they wouldn't have been safe in attempting this. Is this kind of activity legal in any country?

Thats funny, i thought police set up road blocks

Yes demonstrations are legal in every democratic country and when demonstrations take place, in most instances roads get blocked.

What could be , might be or alike is irrelevant as to this moment, they have not broken the law, they have not assaulted anyone.

If officials feel unsafe, that is their choice, but no law has been broken as yet, nor has the direction to disperse being issued

Oh, so the police just set up the roadblocks for no reason, it had nothing to do with the protest.

Also, the Redshirts didn't blockade the center of Bangkok two years ago, it was the police road blocks.

[JohnAllan]

Blocking streets and preventing government officials from entering a government building and doing their job is against the law. Were you unclear on that?

its called DEMONSTRATION,

Did they physically restraint any official from entering?

From the news story that started this thread:

""I have cancelled the deliberation on the reconciliation bill indefinitely to ease division and restore the atmosphere of harmony," Mr Somsak told reporters.

The House speaker made the announcement as protesters from the People's Alliance for Democracy--the yellow shirts -- and the multi-coloured group joined forces to block a main road that lead to the only entrance of parliament since early morning.

Mr Somsak earlier called for the House to reconvene at 1.30pm only to cancel it shortly afterward when 20 police vans carrying ruling Pheu Thai party MPs from party headquarters were unable to access the parliament due to the protesters' blockade."

Clearly the roads were physically blocked. You can argue that the MP's could have left the vans and walked to Parliament, but one could also argue that they wouldn't have been safe in attempting this. Is this kind of activity legal in any country?

Precisely what the redshirts were doing for two months while blocking Rachaprasong.