Yingluck changes meeting venue reportedly for fear of 'ambush' by whistle blowers

[hellodolly]

Well, better to be ambushed by whistles than by reds throwing grenades and bearing RPG's. In fact if I recall right, didn't the reds ambush Abhisit and destroy his car while he was in it, he was lucky to get out unhurt. Give me a good whistling any day, but clearly for the sensitive souls on the PTP cabinet, Sticks and stones may break my bones but whistles will destroy me!

Now who was it the other day saying that the Dems doing the whistling would be the laughing stock in the western media. Here we have a PM changing venues for fear of whistling. Leadership ain't what it used to be!!

What you say is very true. I would like to add that she might be waiting for a phone call from Dubai assuring her that the men in black were paid and would be on her side and she need not fear them.

Now there is grounds for a conspiracey. The for hire black shirt army do away with Yingluck in in a huge sympathey vote Thaksin gets white washed and returns to Thailand as the new dictator that he has so actively been seeking.

Or the older sister becomes the new Prime Minister. Riding on the sympathey and white washes her brother and brings him back. Or say's to him I am now the boss go build some sand castles you now have plenty of time and opportunity. Thus the Shinawatra dynasty continues with one less rotten apple.

[hellodolly]

Well, better to be ambushed by whistles than by reds throwing grenades and bearing RPG's. In fact if I recall right, didn't the reds ambush Abhisit and destroy his car while he was in it, he was lucky to get out unhurt. Give me a good whistling any day, but clearly for the sensitive souls on the PTP cabinet, Sticks and stones may break my bones but whistles will destroy me!

Now who was it the other day saying that the Dems doing the whistling would be the laughing stock in the western media. Here we have a PM changing venues for fear of whistling. Leadership ain't what it used to be!!

I believe you're referring to me .

I suppose the fact the Thread title for once actually includes the term "reportedly" went over yours and the usual einsteins, head/s. And once again the mass falls for a story completely based on un-named "sources" because it's what you want to hear and you can bray away to each other on your own internet forum.

Yingluck changes meeting venue reportedly for fear of 'ambush' by whistle blowers Sources said the meeting venue was changed..............

You must be getting pretty low on straw by now.

Time to buy a new Bale.

[LuckyLew]

Maybe she likes to do all the blowing

[Bagwan]

Being from America, I thought "whistle blowers" were people divulging wrong doings of government officials. What a surprise to read they are talking about people blowing whistles. Go figure.

I am sure that, being an American, you are smart enough to see that is exactly what these people are doing. They are literally blowing the whistle on all the scams, cover-ups, thefts, connivance and lies, among other things, that this sham of a government is responsible for over the last two years.

But, then, you knew that didn't you?

I wouldn't count on it. He's from Arkansas.

[AndersM]

Everyone's talking but if that women showed up at you your apartment would you kick her out or just tell everyone you did

[JAG]

So, we have a gang of rowdy protestors planning to ambush the prime minister, blow whistles in her face and no doubt try their hardest to humiliate her, disrupt her movements, and possibly prevent her from actually entering the building and holding the meeting.

The choice is either to use heavy handed security to allow the prime Minister to follow the original plan, cue the inevitable hysterical bleats about brutality, biased police, calls for the army to intervene etc etc.

Or you can move the meeting to another more secure location.

Seems quite reasonable to me!

Mind you, I have this irrational belief that a Prime Minister placed in power through the ballot box should be removed from power through the ballot box. Silly old me.

[JRSoul]

Being from America, I thought "whistle blowers" were people divulging wrong doings of government officials. What a surprise to read they are talking about people blowing whistles. Go figure.

If that's a surprise, just wait until they talk about kite-flyers.

[JRSoul]

So, we have a gang of rowdy protestors planning to ambush the prime minister, blow whistles in her face and no doubt try their hardest to humiliate her, disrupt her movements, and possibly prevent her from actually entering the building and holding the meeting.

The choice is either to use heavy handed security to allow the prime Minister to follow the original plan, cue the inevitable hysterical bleats about brutality, biased police, calls for the army to intervene etc etc.

Or you can move the meeting to another more secure location.

Seems quite reasonable to me!

Mind you, I have this irrational belief that a Prime Minister placed in power through the ballot box should be removed from power through the ballot box. Silly old me.

The Westminster system includes a tradition that an MP caught deceiving parliament or acting corruptly, as in voting where they have a clear conflict of interest, should resign their position. There are many examples available, should you care to look, of MPs and even PMs doing so. Of course, this requires a certain level of ethics and integrity which seem to be seriously lacking here. Were it evident, The PM and most of her party would resign, having been caught red handed, which would necessitate a general election.

Your position that we should wait for an election because the ruling party lacks integrity is rather feeble, or as you say, irrational.

Edited November 15, 2013 by JRSoul

[Skywalker69]

She shouldn't worry, nothing much enters her brain anyway.

Not even wind?

[JAG]

So, we have a gang of rowdy protestors planning to ambush the prime minister, blow whistles in her face and no doubt try their hardest to humiliate her, disrupt her movements, and possibly prevent her from actually entering the building and holding the meeting.

The choice is either to use heavy handed security to allow the prime Minister to follow the original plan, cue the inevitable hysterical bleats about brutality, biased police, calls for the army to intervene etc etc.

Or you can move the meeting to another more secure location.

Seems quite reasonable to me!

Mind you, I have this irrational belief that a Prime Minister placed in power through the ballot box should be removed from power through the ballot box. Silly old me.

The Westminster system includes a tradition that an MP caught deceiving parliament or acting corruptly, as in voting where they have a clear conflict of interest, should resign their position. There are many examples available, should you care to look, of MPs and even PMs doing so. Of course, this requires a certain level of ethics and integrity which seem to be seriously lacking here. Were it evident, The PM and most of her party would resign, having been caught red handed, which would necessitate a general election.

Your position that we should wait for an election because the ruling party lacks integrity is rather feeble, or as you say, irrational.

Not at all, I advocate an election as the most appropriate, and democratic, means of ousting an elected government. you seem to prefer street demonstrations led by a corrupt demagogue.

Do you really think that if Suthep and his mates oust the present (elected) government then the Thai electorate will have any meaningful say in what follows?

If you do I would suggest you are very naive.

[JRSoul]

So, we have a gang of rowdy protestors planning to ambush the prime minister, blow whistles in her face and no doubt try their hardest to humiliate her, disrupt her movements, and possibly prevent her from actually entering the building and holding the meeting.

The choice is either to use heavy handed security to allow the prime Minister to follow the original plan, cue the inevitable hysterical bleats about brutality, biased police, calls for the army to intervene etc etc.

Or you can move the meeting to another more secure location.

Seems quite reasonable to me!

Mind you, I have this irrational belief that a Prime Minister placed in power through the ballot box should be removed from power through the ballot box. Silly old me.

The Westminster system includes a tradition that an MP caught deceiving parliament or acting corruptly, as in voting where they have a clear conflict of interest, should resign their position. There are many examples available, should you care to look, of MPs and even PMs doing so. Of course, this requires a certain level of ethics and integrity which seem to be seriously lacking here. Were it evident, The PM and most of her party would resign, having been caught red handed, which would necessitate a general election.

Your position that we should wait for an election because the ruling party lacks integrity is rather feeble, or as you say, irrational.

Not at all, I advocate an election as the most appropriate, and democratic, means of ousting an elected government. you seem to prefer street demonstrations led by a corrupt demagogue.

Do you really think that if Suthep and his mates oust the present (elected) government then the Thai electorate will have any meaningful say in what follows?

If you do I would suggest you are very naive.

What is wrong with street demonstrations by outraged voters to force an elected government to call elections? Voters, those with a sense of morality and ethics at least, have a right to point out that their government has acted inappropriately when it is obvious that is the case. This is not a violent insurrection, it is a call to responsibility for those elected to look after their (the voters') interests, not some criminal with plenty of bribe money and influence.

[socksy01]

Very dangerous weapon's these whistles. Every time I enter or come out of a car park I almos s**t myself when the parking attendant's blow their whistles

[Ricardo]

Perhaps the protesters should give PM-Yingluck 'wolf-whistles', instead of blowing whistles in-protest, then she'd be seeking them out, instead of running away !

[Thait Spot]

I believe the earliest whistles known to man were made from hollowed acorns that were baked hard.

They were used to warn of marauding Chinese bandits