Red Shirts To Rally Outside Parliament: Bangkok

[tlansford]

Maybe because the reds are the ones trying to bully/force thru a bill that will white wash the fugitive Ex-PM of all his crimes, allow him to walk back into the coutnry and never serve a day of his sentence and give him all of his ill-gotten gains back to him... all the while throwing the country deeper and deeper into civil war.

Given the above, i'd take the yellows over the reds any day of the week.

Bully??

they are doing what is legal and will get the bill through the house because they have the most seats in the house, pure and simple, that is democracy, whether you like it or not that is how democracy works.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in democracy for all or do you think it is ok as long as the people you support have the control?

Democracy is rather more complicated than the simplified view you are offering. The Parliament is subject to checks on its power, as are all branches of government. The Constitution Court is an important part of that.

who checks the power of the constitutional court?

[thaicbr]

I guess the answer would really depend on whether or not they were actually voted out of office doesn't it?

I'm sure whatever the results would be, they would argue that they weren't voted out.

Take the way that they had no qualms whatsoever at how Somchai was able to stand up and replace Samak as PM, via parliamentary processes, but when Abhisit replaces Somchai, via the exact same process, suddenly it is deemed completely unfair and Abhisit is told to stand down immediately or face the destruction of the capital city. Yes i appreciate the reasons why they didn't like the way Abhisit became PM, with outside influences involved and a perception that he lacked a mandate, but it's hardly like there weren't outside influences involved in Somchai's promotion either, and however they felt, Abhisit was the legitimate PM, so they should have accepted that and spent their time regrouping and campaigning for the next election, which wouldn't have been a long wait - of course would have been an even shorter wait had they accepted Abhisit's offer of early elections - but that wasn't good enough - much better they felt to spend their time causing complete anti-democratic mayhem.

Wishful thinking to ever expect good grace from these people, no matter what the circumstances.

I note you chose to completely ignore the fact that the other side had no qualms in using this very same process to instate Abhisit, but had objected so vehemently when used previously to instate Somchai!

There is blatant hypocrisy on display by both sides here. The stark difference for me remains that Abhisit has never won a general election, while Yingluck and the PTP have.

Or maybe they could use the fact that Somchai was sworn in as Prime minister as a precedent for doing it again.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Also Yingluck didn't win Thaksin won.

He stated : Yingluck is my clone. The election posters stated Thaksin says Phua Thai does.

Of course he got back in it is after all a HUGE business investment for the Shinwatra family and business associates (political families)

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

Edited June 8, 2012 by thaicbr

[Thaddeus]

Maybe because the reds are the ones trying to bully/force thru a bill that will white wash the fugitive Ex-PM of all his crimes, allow him to walk back into the coutnry and never serve a day of his sentence and give him all of his ill-gotten gains back to him... all the while throwing the country deeper and deeper into civil war.

Given the above, i'd take the yellows over the reds any day of the week.

Bully??

they are doing what is legal and will get the bill through the house because they have the most seats in the house, pure and simple, that is democracy, whether you like it or not that is how democracy works.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in democracy for all or do you think it is ok as long as the people you support have the control?

Democracy is rather more complicated than the simplified view you are offering. The Parliament is subject to checks on its power, as are all branches of government. The Constitution Court is an important part of that.

who checks the power of the constitutional court?

You really don't want to go there.

But, if you do, see you in about 15 years.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Thaddeus

[gand]

If something happens to the Judges or their families can the idiot who gave out the numbers be charged with a crime in Thailand? Is he currently instigating violence at the current rally? Has the wise PM denounced this attempt at terrorizing Judges and their families? What gives? It has to break some law to give out personal information like that and shouldn't he be charged? So many questions so little time.

Yingluck has a busy schedule precluding her presence in Parliament, but perhaps she might find time to even consider removing one of her political appointments (the threatening, inciting Dokjik) or at the least condemn his criminal activity.

.

Yingluck remains MIA while Thailand slides into civil war?

[waza]

TR @sunaibkk: In front of Parliament, red leader Jeng Dokjik has announced phone numbers of charter court judges & their family members.

Red Shirt Leader and Deputy Secretary-General to the Interior Minister Yoswaris "Jeng Dokjik" Chuklom

Naewna Newspaper (article in Thai)

http://www.naewna.com/

the desired effect of Dokjik's threats are realized....

Police tightens security after charter court judges receive threats

BANGKOK, 7 June 2012 (NNT) – The Metropolitan Police Bureau is deploying additional police personnel for the security of Constitution Court President Wasan Soipisut and 8 other judges, following threats made against them.

After the Constitution Tribunal accepted five petitions lodged by a group of senators and MPs questioning the legality of the charter amendment draft, the judges have been placed under special protection.

Police Major General Anan Srihirun, Deputy Metropolitan Police Commander, said authorities are providing 24-hour security around the residences of the presiding judge and 8 other judges.

The security measures include setting up check-points and conducting vehicle searches around the premises.

The deputy commander added that the Metropolitan Police Bureau is also coordinating with Bang Sue, Suthisarn, Khlong Tan and Taling Chan Police Stations as well as relevant agencies in Nonthaburi and Nakhon Pathom provinces to closely monitor the situation and ensure safety for the Constitution Court judges.

-- NNT 2012-06-07

Someone should give out his and his families phone numbers too

[tlansford]

- deleted --

Bully??

they are doing what is legal and will get the bill through the house because they have the most seats in the house, pure and simple, that is democracy, whether you like it or not that is how democracy works.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in democracy for all or do you think it is ok as long as the people you support have the control?

Democracy is rather more complicated than the simplified view you are offering. The Parliament is subject to checks on its power, as are all branches of government. The Constitution Court is an important part of that.

who checks the power of the constitutional court?

You really don't want to go there.

But, if you do, see you in about 15 years.

the constitutional court is a branch of gov't that also has checks on its powers. This is normal in a democracy. Therefore, your answer is incorrect, so there is no problem with 15 years.

[Thaddeus]

the constitutional court is a branch of gov't that also has checks on its powers. This is normal in a democracy. Therefore, your answer is incorrect, so there is no problem with 15 years.

If by government you mean the entire system, The Cabinet, The National Assembly, The House of Representatives, The Senate, The Supreme Court etc then yes they are.

However, I think you are trying to infer that they are part of The Cabinet, which they aren't.

This is the tactic that the Red leaders use to convince their followers that The Constitution Court is answerable to them, which it isn't, and that once they get a majority in Parliament they make the laws, which they don't.

[tlansford]

the constitutional court is a branch of gov't that also has checks on its powers. This is normal in a democracy. Therefore, your answer is incorrect, so there is no problem with 15 years.

If by government you mean the entire system, The Cabinet, The National Assembly, The House of Representatives, The Senate, The Supreme Court etc then yes they are.

However, I think you are trying to infer that they are part of The Cabinet, which they aren't.

This is the tactic that the Red leaders use to convince their followers that The Constitution Court is answerable to them, which it isn't, and that once they get a majority in Parliament they make the laws, which they don't.

no, I am not inferring that they are part of the cabinet.

[OzMick]

Maybe because the reds are the ones trying to bully/force thru a bill that will white wash the fugitive Ex-PM of all his crimes, allow him to walk back into the coutnry and never serve a day of his sentence and give him all of his ill-gotten gains back to him... all the while throwing the country deeper and deeper into civil war.

Given the above, i'd take the yellows over the reds any day of the week.

Bully??

they are doing what is legal and will get the bill through the house because they have the most seats in the house, pure and simple, that is democracy, whether you like it or not that is how democracy works.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in democracy for all or do you think it is ok as long as the people you support have the control?

Democracy is rather more complicated than the simplified view you are offering. The Parliament is subject to checks on its power, as are all branches of government. The Constitution Court is an important part of that.

who checks the power of the constitutional court?

Who checks the power of the US Supreme Court? It is up to congress/parliament to make sure that only those with the capability and integrity are appointed, and in a constitutional monarchy, that appointment is approved by the king.

Once appointed, they answer to nobody but their own conscience and their peers.

It doesn't matter how many ill- and mis-informed, gullible and/or venal people want to sign their petition, it is worth absolutely squat.

[h90]

I don't see any possibility of Taksin returning and being able to walk the streets a free man. He will need 24/7 protection and will be constantly be looking over his shoulder. He's much safer where he is. No amount of red shirts will be able to protect him. So the 'people' may want him back, but it will only take one who doesn't want him. Is he really this insane that he doesn't know the risk he is taking, to both himself and the country...??

I have the feeling that Thaksin's emotional pap over wanting to come back home is just (another) manipulative ploy to gain sympathy, he wants "his" money, period.

No he wants "his" money AND

He wants to come back

He wants to be worshiped

He wants to be Thailands ruler, or founder of the new ruler dynasty.

[lannarebirth]

Bully??

they are doing what is legal and will get the bill through the house because they have the most seats in the house, pure and simple, that is democracy, whether you like it or not that is how democracy works.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in democracy for all or do you think it is ok as long as the people you support have the control?

Democracy is rather more complicated than the simplified view you are offering. The Parliament is subject to checks on its power, as are all branches of government. The Constitution Court is an important part of that.

who checks the power of the constitutional court?

Who checks the power of the US Supreme Court? It is up to congress/parliament to make sure that only those with the capability and integrity are appointed, and in a constitutional monarchy, that appointment is approved by the king.

Once appointed, they answer to nobody but their own conscience and their peers.

It doesn't matter how many ill- and mis-informed, gullible and/or venal people want to sign their petition, it is worth absolutely squat.

Correct. That is why in REAL democracies the vetting process for judges whose judgements are unassailable is extremely important. THAT is where the ideological battle is fought, in the nomination and vetting process, not after the court and its judges have been installed..

[gand]

Democracy is rather more complicated than the simplified view you are offering. The Parliament is subject to checks on its power, as are all branches of government. The Constitution Court is an important part of that.

who checks the power of the constitutional court?

Who checks the power of the US Supreme Court? It is up to congress/parliament to make sure that only those with the capability and integrity are appointed, and in a constitutional monarchy, that appointment is approved by the king.

Once appointed, they answer to nobody but their own conscience and their peers.

It doesn't matter how many ill- and mis-informed, gullible and/or venal people want to sign their petition, it is worth absolutely squat.

Correct. That is why in REAL democracies the vetting process for judges whose judgements are unassailable is extremely important. THAT is where the ideological battle is fought, in the nomination and vetting process, not after the court and its judges have been installed..

The USA Supremes are appointed by the USA president but have to be approved by congress.

[lannarebirth]

who checks the power of the constitutional court?

Who checks the power of the US Supreme Court? It is up to congress/parliament to make sure that only those with the capability and integrity are appointed, and in a constitutional monarchy, that appointment is approved by the king.

Once appointed, they answer to nobody but their own conscience and their peers.

It doesn't matter how many ill- and mis-informed, gullible and/or venal people want to sign their petition, it is worth absolutely squat.

Correct. That is why in REAL democracies the vetting process for judges whose judgements are unassailable is extremely important. THAT is where the ideological battle is fought, in the nomination and vetting process, not after the court and its judges have been installed..

The USA Supremes are appointed by the USA president but have to be approved by congress.

The same applies to all US Apellate Court judges.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

Bully??

they are doing what is legal and will get the bill through the house because they have the most seats in the house, pure and simple, that is democracy, whether you like it or not that is how democracy works.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe in democracy for all or do you think it is ok as long as the people you support have the control?

Democracy is rather more complicated than the simplified view you are offering. The Parliament is subject to checks on its power, as are all branches of government. The Constitution Court is an important part of that.

who checks the power of the constitutional court?

Who checks the power of the US Supreme Court? It is up to congress/parliament to make sure that only those with the capability and integrity are appointed, and in a constitutional monarchy, that appointment is approved by the king.

Once appointed, they answer to nobody but their own conscience and their peers.

It doesn't matter how many ill- and mis-informed, gullible and/or venal people want to sign their petition, it is worth absolutely squat.

actually, that is not true.

The CC members can be impeached by the senate, however the 2007 constitution made changes to reinforce the symbiosis between the 2 bodies so that this is much less likely.

But that was not the original point I was making. In general, if a court, like the US Supreme Court strikes down a law, then the balancing act goes back to the legislature to either rewrite the law (or not) to be constitutional, or to change the constitution.

The same is true in Thailand, hence, changing the constitution is within the domain of Parliament.

[thaicbr]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[tlansford]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

[thaicbr]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

But.but.but how can you be sure about number 3?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[OzMick]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

I suppose it comes down to who do you trust. a group of judges selected for their intellectual capability and integrity, or a political party that makes a point of including in their party list a group of criminals as payback for their thuggery, and which happens to be the bought and owned vehicle of possibly the most venal family on the planet.

As far as stealing money from poor people they actually make the Catholic church look good, but only in comparison.

[OzMick]

Who checks the power of the US Supreme Court? It is up to congress/parliament to make sure that only those with the capability and integrity are appointed, and in a constitutional monarchy, that appointment is approved by the king.

Once appointed, they answer to nobody but their own conscience and their peers.

It doesn't matter how many ill- and mis-informed, gullible and/or venal people want to sign their petition, it is worth absolutely squat.

actually, that is not true.

The CC members can be impeached by the senate, however the 2007 constitution made changes to reinforce the symbiosis between the 2 bodies so that this is much less likely.

But that was not the original point I was making. In general, if a court, like the US Supreme Court strikes down a law, then the balancing act goes back to the legislature to either rewrite the law (or not) to be constitutional, or to change the constitution.

The same is true in Thailand, hence, changing the constitution is within the domain of Parliament.

Before the members of the CC could be impeached, there would have to be some evidence of malfeasance. A contested legal argument over legal wording would not qualify, and the fact that a million persons who have no idea what they are signing submit a petition is still worth squat.

[tlansford]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

But.but.but how can you be sure about number 3?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

not to be blunt, but it is due to reading comprehension.

[yoshiwara]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

And we know who that might be..Some like to think of themselves dancing around an abstraction when the reality is sitting there like a grinning gargoyle. Studiously avoided. Plenty of one-eyed kings prancing around here. All wearing a Thaksin T-shirt even if it is worn inside-out.

Edited June 9, 2012 by yoshiwara

[tlansford]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

I suppose it comes down to who do you trust. a group of judges selected for their intellectual capability and integrity, or a political party that makes a point of including in their party list a group of criminals as payback for their thuggery, and which happens to be the bought and owned vehicle of possibly the most venal family on the planet.

As far as stealing money from poor people they actually make the Catholic church look good, but only in comparison.

Are you so certain that those were the criteria for the justices? It looks like you are making a huge assumption based on your personal bias, and that statement would seem to have little to do with the reality of why and how these CC justices were selected. The original CC after the coup was selected by the junta. AFAIK, 5 of those remained on the bench after the 2007 Constitution and the remainder were selected by the senate which is also 50% appointed, and may have been 100% appointed at the time of the nominations for the CC. While I am not positive about the dates and who selected whom, I know enough to be much less certain than you regarding their judicial qualifications versus political reasons for their selection.

In any case, the president of the CC is one of the justices who convicted Thaksin - perhaps his best qualification in the eyes of some of the power-brokers.

[lungmi]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

Blatantly obvious as you say, machinations going on in the background...you are part of them and don't or don't want to understand.

[Moruya]

I don't see any possibility of Taksin returning and being able to walk the streets a free man. He will need 24/7 protection and will be constantly be looking over his shoulder. He's much safer where he is. No amount of red shirts will be able to protect him. So the 'people' may want him back, but it will only take one who doesn't want him. Is he really this insane that he doesn't know the risk he is taking, to both himself and the country...??

I have the feeling that Thaksin's emotional pap over wanting to come back home is just (another) manipulative ploy to gain sympathy, he wants "his" money, period.

No he wants "his" money AND

He wants to come back

He wants to be worshiped

He wants to be Thailands ruler, or founder of the new ruler dynasty.

And his mercenaries want a place at the table.

They know that a referendum on it would fail ergo they try to force things in a subversive manner.

[yoshiwara]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

Blatantly obvious as you say, machinations going on in the background...you are part of them and don't or don't want to understand.

Oh he understands all right.

[lungmi]

I'm a little bit tired to follow the postings. More I read more the Sermon on the Mountain in the life of Brian by Monty Python comes in my brain.

Great movie.

[thaicbr]

Tlansford :

And striking down the law is within the domain of the constitution court BUT they haven't done that they simply asked for it to be postponed until it can be confirmed that the process could not change the state of constitutional monarchy.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

As I am certain that you have been able to read already, (1) the law does not exist yet, (2) the current law is just to form a CDA which is the established process, and (3) parliament is not proposing to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.

As noted elsewhere, this intervention by the court is an intervention based on the idea that someone might, sometime, do something which no one has ever proposed...

Since it is blatantly obvious that the court's action is not based on a real issue, it would indicate to me that there are machinations going on in the background... While that is not the ONLY possibility, it would seem to be the most likely.

But.but.but how can you be sure about number 3?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

not to be blunt, but it is due to reading comprehension.

Well what I meant was how can you be sure of anything that another person / party want to do?

You are just assuming, which I know you dislike others doing.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[tlansford]

- deleted -

not to be blunt, but it is due to reading comprehension.

Well what I meant was how can you be sure of anything that another person / party want to do?

You are just assuming, which I know you dislike others doing.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

but I did not say what I thought they were doing.

The parliament is not proposing to overthrown the constitutional monarchy. That is an objective statement based on information available and public.

Hence my flippant response that reading comprehension was the skill required to understand that ...

When it came to my own opinions and speculation, I made it clear that those were my current thoughts on the situation.

Hope that helps.

[GentlemanJim]

- deleted -

not to be blunt, but it is due to reading comprehension.

Well what I meant was how can you be sure of anything that another person / party want to do?

You are just assuming, which I know you dislike others doing.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

but I did not say what I thought they were doing.

The parliament is not proposing to overthrown the constitutional monarchy. That is an objective statement based on information available and public.

Hence my flippant response that reading comprehension was the skill required to understand that ...

When it came to my own opinions and speculation, I made it clear that those were my current thoughts on the situation.

Hope that helps.

At the end of the day Tim, you, we and Yingluck have NO idea what is contained amongst the pages of that bill, so for you to say that the bill will not challenge the constitutional monarchy would imply that you are privy to information that nobody else is. That is why it is a great idea to have a panel of individual judges who are fully aware of the laws of this land to scrutinize the document and make an objective legal decision.

[tlansford]

- deleted -

not to be blunt, but it is due to reading comprehension.

Well what I meant was how can you be sure of anything that another person / party want to do?

You are just assuming, which I know you dislike others doing.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

but I did not say what I thought they were doing.

The parliament is not proposing to overthrown the constitutional monarchy. That is an objective statement based on information available and public.

Hence my flippant response that reading comprehension was the skill required to understand that ...

When it came to my own opinions and speculation, I made it clear that those were my current thoughts on the situation.

Hope that helps.

At the end of the day Tim, you, we and Yingluck have NO idea what is contained amongst the pages of that bill, so for you to say that the bill will not challenge the constitutional monarchy would imply that you are privy to information that nobody else is. That is why it is a great idea to have a panel of individual judges who are fully aware of the laws of this land to scrutinize the document and make an objective legal decision.

Again, not true. Not true that I have the bill in front of me. Not true is your proclamation that the contents of the current bill are not known and understood.

Which still has nothing to do with the court jumping into the fray before the bill even exists as law. I recognize from several of your posts that you find that to be a problem, but it isn't a problem for courts in other democracies.

But hey - you're on a roll, so don't let me rain on your parade...

Edited June 9, 2012 by tlansford