Constitution Court Acted Outside Its Powers, Says Nitirat

[carra]

In your head it is a fair judgment, in their heads they should not have even been judging on the matter.

Put yourself in the other perspective for a moment.

It is not in my head. I was talking about the nonsense of these cowboyhat-wearing clowns, holding up their funny little signs saying "We speak for the people" etc.

Its ridiculous. Redmob say "we are the people" then when a court tells them to hold a public referendum (literally a "people poll"), to show that their policy proposals actually represent the will of "the people", they start burning photos of judges and crying like a spoilt child.

If PTP really represented "the people" as they claim non-stop like a broken record, they would be conducting public referendums without any complaint or hesitation.

It is infact the fact that PTP do not speak for "the people", only a minority percentage of people, that makes them avoid referendum.

"Referendum is too expensive". "We prefer an elected assembly". These PTP words today are the words of a party who is actually afraid of "the people", and what "the people" would say if they were asked their opinions in a public referendum.

Is it ever possible for you to write a post without the nonsense bile that pervades in every post you make? Do you know the people wearing cowboy hats? Are they clowns? for all you know they may be perfectly nice people but because they have an opinion that differs from yours they are clowns, you are criticizing them for their opinion yet have an opinion yourself, you expect yours to be heard but not theirs, why? because they are cowboy hat wearing clowns from a red mob??? Is it not just as easy to say red shirt protestors? What does a cowboy hat have to do with anything? are you suggesting a cowboy hat affects ones mentality in some way? You come across as quite an intelligent woman so why spoil it with this bile, we all know you don't like them, but hearing petty remarks in every post gets a tad boring and shows that under no circumstances will you ever give an unbiased opinion on the subject, which is a great shame really as I am sure if you put your mind to it you could contribute greatly by also pointing out good points as well as bad points, on both sides.

Now the facts, in your head it was a fair decision by the CC, in the heads of some other it was not a fair decision based on a number of reasons, even leaving the judgement aside for one moment the fact is the case should have gone through the AGs office first so the CC should not have even been making a judgement at this time, it should have been referred back to the AG, simple, now you can see why it is not a fair judgement in the eyes of some and why they protest the decision.

If the current elected Government does not speak for the people then who does speak for the people? the dems? the yellows?

Why should a legally elected Government not question decisions if they feel that the decision is incorrect or the people making that decision should not have been in a position to even make that decision? (I already know your answer, because they are not the dems).

now on another subject, do you think it would be a good idea for a penalty to any politician or party that makes unfounded allegation, without any evidence to back this up? Do you think this would stop all the frivolous complaints and let politician focus on what they are elected to do rather than having to constantly answer unwarranted allegations? I am of course referring to the recent one that the constitution was being amended in an attempt to overthrow the monarchy, rightly thrown out by the courts (even though they should not have been judging on it until it had gone to the AG) as a prime example. i think this can go in this thread as it is relevant to this matter, a false allegation made by one party against another, without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

[Yunla]

Is it ever possible for you to write a post without the nonsense bile that pervades in every post you make? Do you know the people wearing cowboy hats? Are they clowns? for all you know they may be perfectly nice people but because they have an opinion that differs from yours they are clowns, you are criticizing them for their opinion yet have an opinion yourself, you expect yours to be heard but not theirs, why? because they are cowboy hat wearing clowns from a red mob??? Is it not just as easy to say red shirt protestors? What does a cowboy hat have to do with anything? are you suggesting a cowboy hat affects ones mentality in some way? You come across as quite an intelligent woman so why spoil it with this bile, we all know you don't like them, but hearing petty remarks in every post gets a tad boring and shows that under no circumstances will you ever give an unbiased opinion on the subject, which is a great shame really as I am sure if you put your mind to it you could contribute greatly by also pointing out good points as well as bad points, on both sides.

Now the facts, in your head it was a fair decision by the CC, in the heads of some other it was not a fair decision based on a number of reasons, even leaving the judgement aside for one moment the fact is the case should have gone through the AGs office first so the CC should not have even been making a judgement at this time, it should have been referred back to the AG, simple, now you can see why it is not a fair judgement in the eyes of some and why they protest the decision.

If the current elected Government does not speak for the people then who does speak for the people? the dems? the yellows?

Why should a legally elected Government not question decisions if they feel that the decision is incorrect or the people making that decision should not have been in a position to even make that decision? (I already know your answer, because they are not the dems).

now on another subject, do you think it would be a good idea for a penalty to any politician or party that makes unfounded allegation, without any evidence to back this up? Do you think this would stop all the frivolous complaints and let politician focus on what they are elected to do rather than having to constantly answer unwarranted allegations? I am of course referring to the recent one that the constitution was being amended in an attempt to overthrow the monarchy, rightly thrown out by the courts (even though they should not have been judging on it until it had gone to the AG) as a prime example. i think this can go in this thread as it is relevant to this matter, a false allegation made by one party against another, without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Re; cowboy hats. Look at the photo of those guys with their 'we are the people' signs. See those signs? Those signs are lies.

Those people are only speaking on behalf of "some people". They do not speak on behalf of "the people" as they so frequently claim. They are not "the power of the people" or "the people" or "Thai sentiment" or any other mass-collective that you red types are prone to spout.

The cowboy hats are a side issue. It doesn't help their cause when they arrive to the debating table dressed like Lee Van Cleef, but that is not my complaint.

That gang of amusingly-clad fellows, are burning the photographs of several judges' faces. In many parts of the world, burning the image of somebody is not only an insult to that person and his whole family, but an act of great harm to that person on a higher spiritual level.

Those judges have families and children. How do you think those families and children feel to see Daddy's face going up in flames in the newspaper. Is their father a bad man? No he is a law-abiding & taxpaying Thai citizen who was doing his appointed job. So why burn his face in public and hurt his family's feelings?

My complaint, which your long post totally avoided recognising, is that in that photo they are spouting the usual 'people power' nonsense. And it arrives on the same day as their precious PTP openly said they want to avoid public referendum, for the deceptive reasons that public referendum is expensive and that undemocratic assembly is better.

I'm sure you can see the big obvious point I am making, that it is fallacious of the redmob to spout the "we are the people" when their party then refuses a public referendum on constitutional change. What are they afraid of? Maybe that they do not infact speak for the people. I notice you skillfully avoided answering that main point I was making.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Yunla

[carra]

Is it ever possible for you to write a post without the nonsense bile that pervades in every post you make? Do you know the people wearing cowboy hats? Are they clowns? for all you know they may be perfectly nice people but because they have an opinion that differs from yours they are clowns, you are criticizing them for their opinion yet have an opinion yourself, you expect yours to be heard but not theirs, why? because they are cowboy hat wearing clowns from a red mob??? Is it not just as easy to say red shirt protestors? What does a cowboy hat have to do with anything? are you suggesting a cowboy hat affects ones mentality in some way? You come across as quite an intelligent woman so why spoil it with this bile, we all know you don't like them, but hearing petty remarks in every post gets a tad boring and shows that under no circumstances will you ever give an unbiased opinion on the subject, which is a great shame really as I am sure if you put your mind to it you could contribute greatly by also pointing out good points as well as bad points, on both sides.

Now the facts, in your head it was a fair decision by the CC, in the heads of some other it was not a fair decision based on a number of reasons, even leaving the judgement aside for one moment the fact is the case should have gone through the AGs office first so the CC should not have even been making a judgement at this time, it should have been referred back to the AG, simple, now you can see why it is not a fair judgement in the eyes of some and why they protest the decision.

If the current elected Government does not speak for the people then who does speak for the people? the dems? the yellows?

Why should a legally elected Government not question decisions if they feel that the decision is incorrect or the people making that decision should not have been in a position to even make that decision? (I already know your answer, because they are not the dems).

now on another subject, do you think it would be a good idea for a penalty to any politician or party that makes unfounded allegation, without any evidence to back this up? Do you think this would stop all the frivolous complaints and let politician focus on what they are elected to do rather than having to constantly answer unwarranted allegations? I am of course referring to the recent one that the constitution was being amended in an attempt to overthrow the monarchy, rightly thrown out by the courts (even though they should not have been judging on it until it had gone to the AG) as a prime example. i think this can go in this thread as it is relevant to this matter, a false allegation made by one party against another, without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Re; cowboy hats. Look at the photo of those guys with their 'we are the people' signs. See those signs? Those signs are lies.

Those people are only speaking on behalf of "some people". They do not speak on behalf of "the people" as they so frequently claim. They are not "the power of the people" or "the people" or "Thai sentiment" or any other mass-collective that you red types are prone to spout.

The cowboy hats are a side issue. It doesn't help their cause when they arrive to the debating table dressed like Lee Van Cleef, but that is not my complaint.

That gang of amusingly-clad fellows, are burning the photographs of several judges' faces. In many parts of the world, burning the image of somebody is not only an insult to that person and his whole family, but an act of great harm to that person on a higher spiritual level.

Those judges have families and children. How do you think those families and children feel to see Daddy's face going up in flames in the newspaper. Is their father a bad man? No he is a law-abiding & taxpaying Thai citizen who was doing his appointed job. So why burn his face in public and hurt his family's feelings?

My complaint, which your long post totally avoided recognising, is that in that photo they are spouting the usual 'people power' nonsense. And it arrives on the same day as their precious PTP openly said they want to avoid public referendum, for the deceptive reasons that public referendum is expensive and that undemocratic assembly is better.

I'm sure you can see the big obvious point I am making, that it is fallacious of the redmob to spout the "we are the people" when their party then refuses a public referendum on constitutional change. What are they afraid of? Maybe that they do not infact speak for the people. I notice you skillfully avoided answering that main point I was making.

then if daddy doesn't want to be part of a political battle he should do his duty as laid down and not accept the complaint until it has gone through the AG office, simple, I am sure the children would be more upset knowing daddy maybe did not do his job properly and allowed himself to be put in the position of having the finger pointed at him. i am sure daddy can explain why the nasty people are burning pictures.

On another note, i think one would need to be dense if one thought the sign saying they are speaking for the people meant they are speaking for all the people, they are however speaking for all the people in one manner and that is for an unbiased and accountable court that follows correct procedure to ensure clarity in procedure and take away any hint of bias. Do you think the CC should be open and accountable and not biased and follow correct procedure to ensure no hint of bias or wrongdoing? or is it ok in this matter as its only the cowboy hat wearing red mob and not the 'peaceful' (joke) yellow mob?

Edited July 17, 2012 by carra

[phiphidon]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

Ahem, cough, Nitirat is not "a person". Maybe a little learning required before going too much further in the brave new world of posting on TV?

Ahem cough, a simple error exacerbated by sleepy head syndrome on the hotel bed after a hard days work and you launch in yet again like a rabid rat. Thank you for your advice concerning me venturing much further in to the brave new world of posting on TV. Perhaps you could vet my posts in future before they are published, you being so much more experienced and that. I thought your moniker was something to do with your location but perhaps I was mistaken yet again and maybe its something to do with watersports. It's so tricky this 'brave new world of posting on TV'.

Getting back to the point, we are now in a situation where an extremist minority are arguing that the judiciary are handing down unfair and illegal judgements because the same judgements go against what the extremists want. It is all the more staggering that on TV allegedly educated people (well at least to the standard of CSE grade 1 in woodwork) from western systems of democracy are arguing in favour of the extremists. There are only a couple of reasons why this could be so. If every time a Government were elected in the UK and they changed all members of the Judiciary to ensure the legal system were compliant to the needs of the Government of the day there would be more than a bit of trouble.

If things go the way they potentially could, I look forward to reading on TV in several years time the laudatory comments from the current red supporters on here of how wonderful life is under Thaksin and his family and the one party republic. Hearing how people craft their words in to describing how the situation is a true reflection of democracy, as they appear to do now, will make compelling reading. But maybe by then such things as TV will have been long banned as being against the interests of the Democratic Republic of Thailand.

Well I thought that as you consider yourself well versed in thai politics you would have realised what the Nitirat Group were, no matter how sleepy.

Meanwhile you stand back and think that it's perfectly normal for the CC to act the way it has despite just 2 years earlier they acted in the correct way (i.e turning down a petition because the plaintiff had not gone through the AG)

Yet here you are celebrating a ruling that now allows anyone to make an allegation citing Section 68 against any bill being passed through parliament, thereby bringing the CC into action. This in turn will delay the passage of that bill and can be done in an entirely frivilous way as the Dems have just proved, there being no grounds for Section 68 in the recent allegations.

There will now be endless bitching sessions by the dems looking to disrupt parliamentary business and the usual suspects will be crying about "why don't the PTP get on with running the country".

Oh for forward thinking people...............

[Roadman]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

Ahem, cough, Nitirat is not "a person". Maybe a little learning required before going too much further in the brave new world of posting on TV?

Ahem cough, a simple error exacerbated by sleepy head syndrome on the hotel bed after a hard days work and you launch in yet again like a rabid rat. Thank you for your advice concerning me venturing much further in to the brave new world of posting on TV. Perhaps you could vet my posts in future before they are published, you being so much more experienced and that. I thought your moniker was something to do with your location but perhaps I was mistaken yet again and maybe its something to do with watersports. It's so tricky this 'brave new world of posting on TV'.

Getting back to the point, we are now in a situation where an extremist minority are arguing that the judiciary are handing down unfair and illegal judgements because the same judgements go against what the extremists want. It is all the more staggering that on TV allegedly educated people (well at least to the standard of CSE grade 1 in woodwork) from western systems of democracy are arguing in favour of the extremists. There are only a couple of reasons why this could be so. If every time a Government were elected in the UK and they changed all members of the Judiciary to ensure the legal system were compliant to the needs of the Government of the day there would be more than a bit of trouble.

If things go the way they potentially could, I look forward to reading on TV in several years time the laudatory comments from the current red supporters on here of how wonderful life is under Thaksin and his family and the one party republic. Hearing how people craft their words in to describing how the situation is a true reflection of democracy, as they appear to do now, will make compelling reading. But maybe by then such things as TV will have been long banned as being against the interests of the Democratic Republic of Thailand.

Well I thought that as you consider yourself well versed in thai politics you would have realised what the Nitirat Group were, no matter how sleepy.

Meanwhile you stand back and think that it's perfectly normal for the CC to act the way it has despite just 2 years earlier they acted in the correct way (i.e turning down a petition because the plaintiff had not gone through the AG)

Yet here you are celebrating a ruling that now allows anyone to make an allegation citing Section 68 against any bill being passed through parliament, thereby bringing the CC into action. This in turn will delay the passage of that bill and can be done in an entirely frivilous way as the Dems have just proved, there being no grounds for Section 68 in the recent allegations.

There will now be endless bitching sessions by the dems looking to disrupt parliamentary business and the usual suspects will be crying about "why don't the PTP get on with running the country".

Oh for forward thinking people...............

What a load of utter crap.

The Pheu Thai party have had ample time to "get on with screwing up running the country". Neither the opposition, the Army, the Pad or any other group has disrupted their opportunity to actually govern. The only time a spanner has been thrown in their works is over this garbage that they have tried to rail road through so the convicted fugitive crim in Dubai can return home and completely screw over the country.

I suppose the Pheu Thai's opposition could do it the Thaksin/UDD/ Red thugs way and attack the country and murder members of its Army.

[phiphidon]

What a load of utter crap.

The Pheu Thai party have had ample time to "get on with screwing up running the country". Neither the opposition, the Army, the Pad or any other group has disrupted their opportunity to actually govern. The only time a spanner has been thrown in their works is over this garbage that they have tried to rail road through so the convicted fugitive crim in Dubai can return home and completely screw over the country.

I suppose the Pheu Thai's opposition could do it the Thaksin/UDD/ Red thugs way and attack the country and murder members of its Army.

Ah the golden age of debate, Wot no smileys?

[Moruya]

What a load of utter crap.

The Pheu Thai party have had ample time to "get on with screwing up running the country". Neither the opposition, the Army, the Pad or any other group has disrupted their opportunity to actually govern. The only time a spanner has been thrown in their works is over this garbage that they have tried to rail road through so the convicted fugitive crim in Dubai can return home and completely screw over the country.

I suppose the Pheu Thai's opposition could do it the Thaksin/UDD/ Red thugs way and attack the country and murder members of its Army.

Ah the golden age of debate, Wot no smileys?

The golden age of debate expired when the mute doll jumped into the driving seat

[Yunla]

then if daddy doesn't want to be part of a political battle he should do his duty as laid down and not accept the complaint until it has gone through the AG office, simple, I am sure the children would be more upset knowing daddy maybe did not do his job properly and allowed himself to be put in the position of having the finger pointed at him. i am sure daddy can explain why the nasty people are burning pictures.

On another note, i think one would need to be dense if one thought the sign saying they are speaking for the people meant they are speaking for all the people, they are however speaking for all the people in one manner and that is for an unbiased and accountable court that follows correct procedure to ensure clarity in procedure and take away any hint of bias. Do you think the CC should be open and accountable and not biased and follow correct procedure to ensure no hint of bias or wrongdoing? or is it ok in this matter as its only the cowboy hat wearing red mob and not the 'peaceful' (joke) yellow mob?

You have previously shown a chilling lack of concern for judges having their home addresses distributed to gangs of thugs by PTP, and now show the same attitude to other judges having their face photos burned in public, by PTP thugs. And the families of those judges, living in fear because of PTP crimes, does not phase you at all.

You seem to accept this kind of human rights abuse and intimidation with far more casual flippancy than most people I talk to online.

I have never tried to stop you (or anyone else) from supporting PTP, I am just documenting their anti-democracy crimes and their human-rights abuses. I see that as my duty as an educated observer.

You want to live under Thaksin's future dictatorship, you want to obey PTP as they truly are ; a vertically-integrated command-and-control crime-syndicate masquerading as a political party, that is your decision and your problem. For today it is judges being threatened in their homes and having their face photos burned in the streets of Thailand. So you can make your comments about how they deserve it. One day it might be you that PTP's thugs are targeting and then you will sing a very different song I am sure.

It doesn't change the criticisms I am making against PTP, and you certainly haven't put a dent in my arguments since you first started. I am saying they should have referendums before making any constitutional changes. That is common democratic practice.

What is amusing is that PTP and their cowboys responded to the 'public referendum' instruction by the court, by saying it is too expensive and that a non-democratic assembly would be better. "Democracy is too expensive". Fascism is much cheaper, and that is a fact. Its all fun and games so long as it is other people, and not you, being threatened in their own homes by the government, or having their face photos burned in the street by government thugs, but its not so funny when it is your turn.

That is why defending democratic values such as referenda and unscripted consensus debate, is very important and so is declaring 'zero tolerance' to the kind of overt fascist human-rights crimes that PTP and their followers are guilty of.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Yunla

[lannarebirth]

A court is only ever unbiased when it makes a decision totally in your favour. If the decision is anything other than this, the judges are clearly biased and unprofessional, and have hidden agenda's. At least thats how the definition should be in Thailand.

Nitirat's opinion is as valid as many of the opinions spouted forth by the TV armchair warrior experts on thai politics, frankly, worthless. I hope he also goes to jail for breaking bail.

Ahem, cough, Nitirat is not "a person". Maybe a little learning required before going too much further in the brave new world of posting on TV?

Ahem cough, a simple error exacerbated by sleepy head syndrome on the hotel bed after a hard days work and you launch in yet again like a rabid rat. Thank you for your advice concerning me venturing much further in to the brave new world of posting on TV. Perhaps you could vet my posts in future before they are published, you being so much more experienced and that. I thought your moniker was something to do with your location but perhaps I was mistaken yet again and maybe its something to do with watersports. It's so tricky this 'brave new world of posting on TV'.

Getting back to the point, we are now in a situation where an extremist minority are arguing that the judiciary are handing down unfair and illegal judgements because the same judgements go against what the extremists want. It is all the more staggering that on TV allegedly educated people (well at least to the standard of CSE grade 1 in woodwork) from western systems of democracy are arguing in favour of the extremists. There are only a couple of reasons why this could be so. If every time a Government were elected in the UK and they changed all members of the Judiciary to ensure the legal system were compliant to the needs of the Government of the day there would be more than a bit of trouble.

If things go the way they potentially could, I look forward to reading on TV in several years time the laudatory comments from the current red supporters on here of how wonderful life is under Thaksin and his family and the one party republic. Hearing how people craft their words in to describing how the situation is a true reflection of democracy, as they appear to do now, will make compelling reading. But maybe by then such things as TV will have been long banned as being against the interests of the Democratic Republic of Thailand.

Well I thought that as you consider yourself well versed in thai politics you would have realised what the Nitirat Group were, no matter how sleepy.

Meanwhile you stand back and think that it's perfectly normal for the CC to act the way it has despite just 2 years earlier they acted in the correct way (i.e turning down a petition because the plaintiff had not gone through the AG)

Yet here you are celebrating a ruling that now allows anyone to make an allegation citing Section 68 against any bill being passed through parliament, thereby bringing the CC into action. This in turn will delay the passage of that bill and can be done in an entirely frivilous way as the Dems have just proved, there being no grounds for Section 68 in the recent allegations.

There will now be endless bitching sessions by the dems looking to disrupt parliamentary business and the usual suspects will be crying about "why don't the PTP get on with running the country".

Oh for forward thinking people...............

Phiphidon,

Are you of the opinion that the partisan, politically appointed , short term serving, Attorney General should be the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional in Thailand?

Edited July 17, 2012 by lannarebirth

[Roadman]

What a load of utter crap.

The Pheu Thai party have had ample time to "get on with screwing up running the country". Neither the opposition, the Army, the Pad or any other group has disrupted their opportunity to actually govern. The only time a spanner has been thrown in their works is over this garbage that they have tried to rail road through so the convicted fugitive crim in Dubai can return home and completely screw over the country.

I suppose the Pheu Thai's opposition could do it the Thaksin/UDD/ Red thugs way and attack the country and murder members of its Army.

Ah the golden age of debate, Wot no smileys?

No smiley's for you Sunshine

[phiphidon]

Phiphidon,

Are you of the opinion that the partisan, politically appointed , short term serving, Attorney General should be the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional in Thailand?

My opinion is neither here nor there, but it was certainly the case that the Constitution believes that is so and it was confirmed by the Constitutional Court itself in the 2006 case when Mr. Suphot Towichaksachaiyakul petitioned for the dissolution of the dems:

The court refused to consider on the petition with the reason that the Article 63 does not allow the complainer to directly hand the petition to the court. The petition must be considered by Attorney-General first.

http://thainews.prd....id=254905250012

Please note that Article 63 of the 1997 constitution and Section 68 of the 2007 Junta constitution cover the same legal ground constitutionally speaking.

[Noistar]

Is it ever possible for you to write a post without the nonsense bile that pervades in every post you make? Do you know the people wearing cowboy hats? Are they clowns? for all you know they may be perfectly nice people but because they have an opinion that differs from yours they are clowns, you are criticizing them for their opinion yet have an opinion yourself, you expect yours to be heard but not theirs, why? because they are cowboy hat wearing clowns from a red mob??? Is it not just as easy to say red shirt protestors? What does a cowboy hat have to do with anything? are you suggesting a cowboy hat affects ones mentality in some way? You come across as quite an intelligent woman so why spoil it with this bile, we all know you don't like them, but hearing petty remarks in every post gets a tad boring and shows that under no circumstances will you ever give an unbiased opinion on the subject, which is a great shame really as I am sure if you put your mind to it you could contribute greatly by also pointing out good points as well as bad points, on both sides.

Now the facts, in your head it was a fair decision by the CC, in the heads of some other it was not a fair decision based on a number of reasons, even leaving the judgement aside for one moment the fact is the case should have gone through the AGs office first so the CC should not have even been making a judgement at this time, it should have been referred back to the AG, simple, now you can see why it is not a fair judgement in the eyes of some and why they protest the decision.

If the current elected Government does not speak for the people then who does speak for the people? the dems? the yellows?

Why should a legally elected Government not question decisions if they feel that the decision is incorrect or the people making that decision should not have been in a position to even make that decision? (I already know your answer, because they are not the dems).

now on another subject, do you think it would be a good idea for a penalty to any politician or party that makes unfounded allegation, without any evidence to back this up? Do you think this would stop all the frivolous complaints and let politician focus on what they are elected to do rather than having to constantly answer unwarranted allegations? I am of course referring to the recent one that the constitution was being amended in an attempt to overthrow the monarchy, rightly thrown out by the courts (even though they should not have been judging on it until it had gone to the AG) as a prime example. i think this can go in this thread as it is relevant to this matter, a false allegation made by one party against another, without any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Re; cowboy hats. Look at the photo of those guys with their 'we are the people' signs. See those signs? Those signs are lies.

Those people are only speaking on behalf of "some people". They do not speak on behalf of "the people" as they so frequently claim. They are not "the power of the people" or "the people" or "Thai sentiment" or any other mass-collective that you red types are prone to spout.

The cowboy hats are a side issue. It doesn't help their cause when they arrive to the debating table dressed like Lee Van Cleef, but that is not my complaint.

That gang of amusingly-clad fellows, are burning the photographs of several judges' faces. In many parts of the world, burning the image of somebody is not only an insult to that person and his whole family, but an act of great harm to that person on a higher spiritual level.

Those judges have families and children. How do you think those families and children feel to see Daddy's face going up in flames in the newspaper. Is their father a bad man? No he is a law-abiding & taxpaying Thai citizen who was doing his appointed job. So why burn his face in public and hurt his family's feelings?

My complaint, which your long post totally avoided recognising, is that in that photo they are spouting the usual 'people power' nonsense. And it arrives on the same day as their precious PTP openly said they want to avoid public referendum, for the deceptive reasons that public referendum is expensive and that undemocratic assembly is better.

I'm sure you can see the big obvious point I am making, that it is fallacious of the redmob to spout the "we are the people" when their party then refuses a public referendum on constitutional change. What are they afraid of? Maybe that they do not infact speak for the people. I notice you skillfully avoided answering that main point I was making.

then if daddy doesn't want to be part of a political battle he should do his duty as laid down and not accept the complaint until it has gone through the AG office, simple, I am sure the children would be more upset knowing daddy maybe did not do his job properly and allowed himself to be put in the position of having the finger pointed at him. i am sure daddy can explain why the nasty people are burning pictures.

On another note, i think one would need to be dense if one thought the sign saying they are speaking for the people meant they are speaking for all the people, they are however speaking for all the people in one manner and that is for an unbiased and accountable court that follows correct procedure to ensure clarity in procedure and take away any hint of bias. Do you think the CC should be open and accountable and not biased and follow correct procedure to ensure no hint of bias or wrongdoing? or is it ok in this matter as its only the cowboy hat wearing red mob and not the 'peaceful' (joke) yellow mob?

I go back to my post asking "'who will prevent Thailand from pressing the 'self-destruct' button?" A constitution which can EASILY be changed in line with the political balance in successive Governments, is unlikely to be in the best interests of Thailand. If politicians cannot be trusted to honour their election pledges, what hope is there when the electorate may find themselves without a system to reverse it.

Elected governments need a system which challenges their policies, to ensure that the flavour of the month doesn't cause irreparable damage.

If that mechanism was built on a non-partisan system maybe it would be acceptable to the TV posters who seem poised to witness the destruction of Thailand, in the name of 'the people's wishes'.

A system which mirrors the balance of power in government will not rein in excesses. A true impartial mechanism is more likely to.

[lannarebirth]

Phiphidon,

Are you of the opinion that the partisan, politically appointed , short term serving, Attorney General should be the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional in Thailand?

My opinion is neither here nor there, but it was certainly the case that the Constitution believes that is so and it was confirmed by the Constitutional Court itself in the 2006 case when Mr. Suphot Towichaksachaiyakul petitioned for the dissolution of the dems:

The court refused to consider on the petition with the reason that the Article 63 does not allow the complainer to directly hand the petition to the court. The petition must be considered by Attorney-General first.

http://thainews.prd....id=254905250012

Please note that Article 63 of the 1997 constitution and Section 68 of the 2007 Junta constitution cover the same legal ground constitutionally speaking.

Has not the Constitutional Court asserted that their intercession in this case was driven by the speed and urgent nature of unfolding events. Surely the Dems dissollution case will be centered around an event that is documented as having happened previously, so no real urgency. Judgement call by the judges, which is their job. I will grant you the way the constitution is drafted leaves lots of room for ambiguity and the subsequent quarrels that result from that. It's a horribly drafted document. 1997 and 2007 versions both.

[Thai at Heart]

Phiphidon,

Are you of the opinion that the partisan, politically appointed , short term serving, Attorney General should be the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional in Thailand?

My opinion is neither here nor there, but it was certainly the case that the Constitution believes that is so and it was confirmed by the Constitutional Court itself in the 2006 case when Mr. Suphot Towichaksachaiyakul petitioned for the dissolution of the dems:

The court refused to consider on the petition with the reason that the Article 63 does not allow the complainer to directly hand the petition to the court. The petition must be considered by Attorney-General first.

http://thainews.prd....id=254905250012

Please note that Article 63 of the 1997 constitution and Section 68 of the 2007 Junta constitution cover the same legal ground constitutionally speaking.

Well, TIT, where white can become black depending on context.

[soundman]

Posts contributing nothing to the topic have been removed from view.

[Yunla]

I don't think it is a "non-story". A mob who turn up to hassle a potentially mentally ill person (or any person) for this type of crime is ridiculous.

It's the job of police and immigration to make sure that people charged with crimes should not leave the country.

Maybe the protesters were concerned that the not-corrupt-at-all police would fail to detain her.

It is also disrespectful to gesture obscenely at an image of somebody who is very poorly, somebody who is legitimately physically frail as opposed to having a vague alleged 'history of mental illness'. Do you know how many people in the world can claim to have a vague 'history of mental illness', and how many of those cases it is because there is a real blurring of the lines between genuine mental illness and people who are basically just not very nice people.

Until I see a qualified doctors report on her I will consider the mental health issue a non-issue. I do have a psychology degree from the open university too.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Yunla

[Moruya]

I don't think it is a "non-story". A mob who turn up to hassle a potentially mentally ill person (or any person) for this type of crime is ridiculous.

It's the job of police and immigration to make sure that people charged with crimes should not leave the country.

Maybe the protesters were concerned that the not-corrupt-at-all police would fail to detain her.

It is also disrespectful to gesture obscenely at an image of somebody who is very poorly, somebody who is legitimately physically frail as opposed to having a vague alleged 'history of mental illness'. Do you know how many people in the world can claim to have a vague 'history of mental illness', and how many of those cases it is because there is a real blurring of the lines between genuine mental illness and people who are basically just not very nice people.

Until I see a qualified doctors report on her I will consider the mental health issue a non-issue. I do have a psychology degree from the open university too.

Police job, immigration job not yellow mob job - got it? and if we take your argument forward we should all support red shirt mob action too! they are doing their civic duty

Really?

ThevConstitution Court will I am sure be feeling safer now the red mob job has been clearly defined.

[Yunla]

If you think that "yellow shirts do their civil duty and try to help police" aka 200 self appointed yellow shirt vigilantes (not my words) stopping a woman from getting on a flight because she has been accused of an inappropriate gesture towards a picture of a certain person is OK, welcome to the last century.

spot on - but that is where the yellow's and Yunla (Open University Psychology Degree Graduate) want's Thailand - back in the last century

Your childish comments and personal attacks on me betray your age and more besides.

I did that psychology degree part time just for fun.

My main is Masters Sociology which was from University of Leeds. I had repeated offers to teach Sociology there too, but I went into book-editing as a career because it is easier on my health.

You talk about the last century, the 20th century was mainly about communism and fascism. It is your heroes PTP who use communism's Maoist philosophical landscape and speeches, along with fascist human-rights abuses, intimidating dissenters, etc. So by supporting them you are the one staying in the 20th Century.

I am proposing meritocratic modern democracy. This is 21st century thinking and you will not get it from PTP or UDD.

DP is not perfect but of the two options it is at least in the 21st century, as opposed to being in the 1930s Russia/China like Thaksin and the brainwashed red masses who support him are, a group in which you sadly are just one more brainwashed slackjawed drone.

Ontopic as I have said, PTP are rejecting the court's decision stating that PTP require the authority of public referendum before they can change the constitution. I agree with the court on this for the reason that no other democratic country would let a party re-write the constitution without some type of national referendum.

Other democracies would not allow a party staffed by out-on-bail criminals and headed by a fugitive criminal, to avoid debate on bills, engage in parliamentary absenteeism as a norm, and commit human-rights crimes, privacy law crimes etc. by threatening judges families in their homes.

PTP already crossed all acceptable lines of democratic conduct a long time ago, and the idea that they could change the constitution without public referendum is taking their pretense at being democratic another big step deeper into absurdity.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Yunla

[binjalin]

If you think that "yellow shirts do their civil duty and try to help police" aka 200 self appointed yellow shirt vigilantes (not my words) stopping a woman from getting on a flight because she has been accused of an inappropriate gesture towards a picture of a certain person is OK, welcome to the last century.

spot on - but that is where the yellow's and Yunla (Open University Psychology Degree Graduate) want's Thailand - back in the last century

Your childish comments and personal attacks on me betray your age and more besides.

I did that psychology degree part time just for fun.

My main is Masters Sociology which was from University of Leeds. I had repeated offers to teach Sociology there too, but I went into book-editing as a career because it is easier on my health.

You talk about the last century, the 20th century was mainly about communism and fascism. It is your heroes PTP who use communism's Maoist philosophical landscape and speeches, along with fascist human-rights abuses, intimidating dissenters, etc. So by supporting them you are the one staying in the 20th Century.

I am proposing meritocratic modern democracy. This is 21st century thinking and you will not get it from PTP or UDD.

DP is not perfect but of the two options it is at least in the 21st century, as opposed to being in the 1930s Russia/China like Thaksin and the brainwashed red masses who support him are, a group in which you sadly are just one more brainwashed slackjawed drone.

Ontopic as I have said, PTP are rejecting the court's decision stating that PTP require the authority of public referendum before they can change the constitution. I agree with the court on this for the reason that no other democratic country would let a party re-write the constitution without some type of national referendum.

Other democracies would not allow a party staffed by out-on-bail criminals and headed by a fugitive criminal, to avoid debate on bills, engage in parliamentary absenteeism as a norm, and commit human-rights crimes, privacy law crimes etc. by threatening judges families in their homes.

PTP already crossed all acceptable lines of democratic conduct a long time ago, and the idea that they could change the constitution without public referendum is taking their pretense at being democratic another big step deeper into absurdity.

you were the one who brought up your downmarket degree (which has nothing to do with psychiatry and the psychology bit is irrelevant in clinical diagnosis) not me - and before you start posting you have a Masters I actually am far better qualified but will refrain in joining you in the 'my degree is higher or better than yours' immature pissing contest that YOU started - thank you

edit: PS meritocracies don't have 'what we have here' got it?

Edited July 18, 2012 by binjalin

[binjalin]

How is her mentally ill status "apparent"?

Was it emblazoned across her red shirt?

Well there is no mention of red shirt anywhere except in your post. The only colour shirts involved were the 200 self styled yellow shirt vigilantes who gathered at the airport to prevent her from flying out.

Is it against the law to go to the airport dress in yellow?

Come on guys I thought this tread was about constitution-court-acted-outside-its-powers-says-nitirat.

Back to topic, pls.

fair point - back on topic (let's see if others do the same) -I agree that the law say's that the CC acted Ultra Vires as the complaint did not go through the AG

[metisdead]

A completely off topic discussion has been removed.

[expat4life]

Interesting academic discussion...as we are foreigners of course it is completely irrelevant, as we cant change or influence anything...sad but true.

While what you say is true we can't change or influence anything.

our concerns or opinions are far from irrelevant.

Many of us have families and have invested considerable time , energy , and resources, developing a life here!

So while my thoughts or opinions may only be academic in principal they are far from irrelevant.

[Yunla]

you were the one who brought up your downmarket degree (which has nothing to do with psychiatry and the psychology bit is irrelevant in clinical diagnosis) not me - and before you start posting you have a Masters I actually am far better qualified but will refrain in joining you in the 'my degree is higher or better than yours' immature pissing contest that YOU started - thank you

edit: PS meritocracies don't have 'what we have here' got it?

Actually I just mentioned half-joking that I had a home study qualification in psychology, and one of the things I learned there is that a lot of people who are defined in the press as having a 'mental health history' actually have a mild personality disorder. This is obviously sad but it is not a big deal in the scheme of things. My point is I would want to see if she was infact long-term seriously affected before I subscribed to the handwringing that you offered.

I myself am very sick in my body and yet as I say, if I broke the law and headed to the airport, I would be in the wrong and I would not wish for my disability to be a mitigating factor in my guilt.

You then took my qualification out of context and mocked it - therefor it is you who was entering that type of academic contest. Anyone who reads your posts in this thread can see your unprovoked insults against me, used as a way of compensating for PTP's reprehensible and indefensible antics, which you can not defend because they are so grossly out of line. It is not easy to defend the PTP and sometimes your desperation shows.

edit: PS meritocracis don't have 'what we have here' got it?

You could explain that line if you like because it doesn't actually make any sense and you directed it at me along with your "got it?" catechism, which I am unable to answer.

I started posting in this thread by saying quite simply that Nitirat are either in the pay-for-theories business or they have not understood the principles of emergent democracies (I suspect the former), initial developing systems that need every possible legal support they can get to hold the constitution in place and defend it from hostile forces.

I later expanded my statement when PTP announced they will not, if possible, hold a public referendum on constitution reform, because it is "too expensive".

They offer an elected assembly idea to take the place of a public referendum. The Mafia also have assemblies, so do many other crime organisations. Anybody can put together an assembly, it doesn't count as a democratic poll of the masses and is more commonly found in vertical-control systems.That was actually my point. I went on to say, that PTP have committed crimes this last year in office, which are deeply against the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

I was comparing those acts to the current PTP nonsense about avoiding public referendums to save money, my point being they do not govern along democratic principles and they also violate international human rights laws and Thai laws, and how these things are connected and not coincidental.

You responded to all these ontopic posts I made, by saying there were '200 yellowshirt thugs stopping a mentally sick woman from flying' (paraphrased). That is not accurate to the news story you were referring to, nor is it relevent to the topic I was making about the CC demanding progress through referendum, and how this is a central tenet of democracy anyway so was not contentious to anybody except PTP.

Nonetheless to respond to your comment addressed at me, I offered my theory that if she is legitimately mentally ill they should take that in mind with the LM charge.

It does not make your comment relevent, or excuse your offensive mocking of my OU casual hobby-degree. And at no point did you address the central ontopic comments I was making about why PTP should stop blowing bubbles about courts and judges, and just hold a public referendum to see what people really think about their proposals.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Yunla

[Noistar]

you were the one who brought up your downmarket degree (which has nothing to do with psychiatry and the psychology bit is irrelevant in clinical diagnosis) not me - and before you start posting you have a Masters I actually am far better qualified but will refrain in joining you in the 'my degree is higher or better than yours' immature pissing contest that YOU started - thank you

edit: PS meritocracies don't have 'what we have here' got it?

Actually I just mentioned half-joking that I had a home study qualification in psychology, and one of the things I learned there is that a lot of people who are defined in the press as having a 'mental health history' actually have a mild personality disorder. This is obviously sad but it is not a big deal in the scheme of things. My point is I would want to see if she was infact long-term seriously affected before I subscribed to the handwringing that you offered.

I myself am very sick in my body and yet as I say, if I broke the law and headed to the airport, I would be in the wrong and I would not wish for my disability to be a mitigating factor in my guilt.

You then took my qualification out of context and mocked it - therefor it is you who was entering that type of academic contest. Anyone who reads your posts in this thread can see your unprovoked insults against me, used as a way of compensating for PTP's reprehensible and indefensible antics, which you can not defend because they are so grossly out of line. It is not easy to defend the PTP and sometimes your desperation shows.

edit: PS meritocracis don't have 'what we have here' got it?

You could explain that line if you like because it doesn't actually make any sense and you directed it at me along with your "got it?" catechism, which I am unable to answer.

I started posting in this thread by saying quite simply that Nitirat are either in the pay-for-theories business or they have not understood the principles of emergent democracies (I suspect the former), initial developing systems that need every possible legal support they can get to hold the constitution in place and defend it from hostile forces.

I later expanded my statement when PTP announced they will not, if possible, hold a public referendum on constitution reform, because it is "too expensive".

They offer an elected assembly idea to take the place of a public referendum. The Mafia also have assemblies, so do many other crime organisations. Anybody can put together an assembly, it doesn't count as a democratic poll of the masses and is more commonly found in vertical-control systems.That was actually my point. I went on to say, that PTP have committed crimes this last year in office, which are deeply against the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

I was comparing those acts to the current PTP nonsense about avoiding public referendums to save money, my point being they do not govern along democratic principles and they also violate international human rights laws and Thai laws, and how these things are connected and not coincidental.

You responded to all these ontopic posts I made, by saying there were '200 yellowshirt thugs stopping a mentally sick woman from flying' (paraphrased). That is not accurate to the news story you were referring to, nor is it relevent to the topic I was making about the CC demanding progress through referendum, and how this is a central tenet of democracy anyway so was not contentious to anybody except PTP.

Nonetheless to respond to your comment addressed at me, I offered my theory that if she is legitimately mentally ill they should take that in mind with the LM charge.

It does not make your comment relevent, or excuse your offensive mocking of my OU casual hobby-degree. And at no point did you address the central ontopic comments I was making about why PTP should stop blowing bubbles about courts and judges, and just hold a public referendum to see what people really think about their proposals.

As usual, a common sense summary. Presumably only those with an axe to grind will find issue with Yunia's post. Thailand is long overdue for a Democracy. Not just a Democracy in name.

[rubl]

Interesting academic discussion...as we are foreigners of course it is completely irrelevant, as we cant change or influence anything...sad but true.

While what you say is true we can't change or influence anything.

our concerns or opinions are far from irrelevant.

Many of us have families and have invested considerable time , energy , and resources, developing a life here!

So while my thoughts or opinions may only be academic in principal they are far from irrelevant.

No offence meant, I have to disagree here. Yes we may not be able to change, but for sure we should be able to influence at least a tiny little bit in our direct environment (assuming that's in Thailand) by our own behaviour. Like for instance having small garbage bins in and around the house and demanding they be used

[philw]

What a load of utter crap.

The Pheu Thai party have had ample time to "get on with screwing up running the country". Neither the opposition, the Army, the Pad or any other group has disrupted their opportunity to actually govern. The only time a spanner has been thrown in their works is over this garbage that they have tried to rail road through so the convicted fugitive crim in Dubai can return home and completely screw over the country.

I suppose the Pheu Thai's opposition could do it the Thaksin/UDD/ Red thugs way and attack the country and murder members of its Army.

Ah the golden age of debate, Wot no smileys?

The golden age of debate expired when the mute doll jumped into the driving seat

And the mute doll is who exactly ??

[phiphidon]

you were the one who brought up your downmarket degree (which has nothing to do with psychiatry and the psychology bit is irrelevant in clinical diagnosis) not me - and before you start posting you have a Masters I actually am far better qualified but will refrain in joining you in the 'my degree is higher or better than yours' immature pissing contest that YOU started - thank you

edit: PS meritocracies don't have 'what we have here' got it?

Actually I just mentioned half-joking that I had a home study qualification in psychology, and one of the things I learned there is that a lot of people who are defined in the press as having a 'mental health history' actually have a mild personality disorder. This is obviously sad but it is not a big deal in the scheme of things. My point is I would want to see if she was infact long-term seriously affected before I subscribed to the handwringing that you offered.

I myself am very sick in my body and yet as I say, if I broke the law and headed to the airport, I would be in the wrong and I would not wish for my disability to be a mitigating factor in my guilt.

You then took my qualification out of context and mocked it - therefor it is you who was entering that type of academic contest. Anyone who reads your posts in this thread can see your unprovoked insults against me, used as a way of compensating for PTP's reprehensible and indefensible antics, which you can not defend because they are so grossly out of line. It is not easy to defend the PTP and sometimes your desperation shows.

edit: PS meritocracis don't have 'what we have here' got it?

You could explain that line if you like because it doesn't actually make any sense and you directed it at me along with your "got it?" catechism, which I am unable to answer.

I started posting in this thread by saying quite simply that Nitirat are either in the pay-for-theories business or they have not understood the principles of emergent democracies (I suspect the former), initial developing systems that need every possible legal support they can get to hold the constitution in place and defend it from hostile forces.

I later expanded my statement when PTP announced they will not, if possible, hold a public referendum on constitution reform, because it is "too expensive".

They offer an elected assembly idea to take the place of a public referendum. The Mafia also have assemblies, so do many other crime organisations. Anybody can put together an assembly, it doesn't count as a democratic poll of the masses and is more commonly found in vertical-control systems.That was actually my point. I went on to say, that PTP have committed crimes this last year in office, which are deeply against the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

I was comparing those acts to the current PTP nonsense about avoiding public referendums to save money, my point being they do not govern along democratic principles and they also violate international human rights laws and Thai laws, and how these things are connected and not coincidental.

You responded to all these ontopic posts I made, by saying there were '200 yellowshirt thugs stopping a mentally sick woman from flying' (paraphrased). That is not accurate to the news story you were referring to, nor is it relevent to the topic I was making about the CC demanding progress through referendum, and how this is a central tenet of democracy anyway so was not contentious to anybody except PTP.

Nonetheless to respond to your comment addressed at me, I offered my theory that if she is legitimately mentally ill they should take that in mind with the LM charge.

It does not make your comment relevent, or excuse your offensive mocking of my OU casual hobby-degree. And at no point did you address the central ontopic comments I was making about why PTP should stop blowing bubbles about courts and judges, and just hold a public referendum to see what people really think about their proposals.

As usual, a common sense summary. Presumably only those with an axe to grind will find issue with Yunia's post. Thailand is long overdue for a Democracy. Not just a Democracy in name.

Do you know what Nitirat is and what their causes are? Do you agree with yunlas misguided comments regarding the CDA and supposed elected assemblies taking the place of referendums? Or the supposed fact that the CC have demanded progress through a referendum when they have in fact proposed the opposite by allowing constitution amendments to be agreed in parliament without a referendum which has always been the case anyway? I won't even bother with the rest of the rant.

And you believe that yunlas post is a common sense summary? I suggest you do a lot more background reading and not just from this forum............

[rubl]

Do you know what Nitirat is and what their causes are? Do you agree with yunlas misguided comments regarding the CDA and supposed elected assemblies taking the place of referendums? Or the supposed fact that the CC have demanded progress through a referendum when they have in fact proposed the opposite by allowing constitution amendments to be agreed in parliament without a referendum which has always been the case anyway? I won't even bother with the rest of the rant.

And you believe that yunlas post is a common sense summary? I suggest you do a lot more background reading and not just from this forum............

Not aimed at me, but let me just try to understand this rant.

As a poster was asking in another thread 'who are ACN and how come they seem to appear when the Dems needed them', here we have 'who are the Nitirat and how come they appeared when PT/Thaksin needed them'.

The formation of the CDA seems tilted towards the government and it's main party Pheu Thai. I'm not going to dig up details again, sorry. Did that one or two days ago and seems senseless anyway.

The CC demanded a referendum on a total rewrite of the current charter AND left open how smaller amendments could be interpreted ('if deemed a necessary adjustment' or something like that).

Further reading is not really required, as only items furthering a certain cause seem acceptable.

Reconciliation, farang style .

Edited July 18, 2012 by rubl

[Thaddeus]

I won't even bother with the rest of the rant.

It may have been better for your cause if you hadn't bothered with the first part of it.

[GentlemanJim]

As usual, a common sense summary. Presumably only those with an axe to grind will find issue with Yunia's post. Thailand is long overdue for a Democracy. Not just a Democracy in name.

Do you know what Nitirat is and what their causes are? Do you agree with yunlas misguided comments regarding the CDA and supposed elected assemblies taking the place of referendums? Or the supposed fact that the CC have demanded progress through a referendum when they have in fact proposed the opposite by allowing constitution amendments to be agreed in parliament without a referendum which has always been the case anyway? I won't even bother with the rest of the rant.

And you believe that yunlas post is a common sense summary? I suggest you do a lot more background reading and not just from this forum............

Noistar

Don't worry that is two of us in the naughty boys corner, having been sent there by Phiphidon to do some more reading. I cannot imagine the unbearable pressure he faces each day with being so perfect and knowing everything about everything. I guess Phiphidon must be around 245 years old if one accounts for all the reading he has done......allegedly !

Edited July 18, 2012 by GentlemanJim