Pheu Thai tells charter court not to tear up the constitution

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

how pathetic can these ptp morons get, now they are talking about following the charter after they tried to destroy it themselves, they truly are a running joke. Seems they only believe in anything legal when it suits them but what can you expect from corrupt idiots, mind you if the court does find yl guilty they will call on their red terrorists to declare war on anyone that doesnt agree with their views .....

No they didn't, they tried to amend certain things, which has been done countless times before without so much as a ripple.

In fact after the coup a new charter was brought in, and surprise surprise gave amnesty to those who carried out the coup, but whoa betide this Government trying to make amendments.

Your directly suggesting that because coup makers have enacted laws to absolve themselves this provides authority for a political party to amend the constitution according to whatever benefits them.

So would you maintain the same logic if a current opposition party took power then tried the same thing?

[smutcakes]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

how pathetic can these ptp morons get, now they are talking about following the charter after they tried to destroy it themselves, they truly are a running joke. Seems they only believe in anything legal when it suits them but what can you expect from corrupt idiots, mind you if the court does find yl guilty they will call on their red terrorists to declare war on anyone that doesnt agree with their views .....

No they didn't, they tried to amend certain things, which has been done countless times before without so much as a ripple.

In fact after the coup a new charter was brought in, and surprise surprise gave amnesty to those who carried out the coup, but whoa betide this Government trying to make amendments.

Your directly suggesting that because coup makers have enacted laws to absolve themselves this provides authority for a political party to amend the constitution according to whatever benefits them.

So would you maintain the same logic if a current opposition party took power then tried the same thing?

It has been done by pretty much every Government since the beginning of time. I am not saying its correct, or should be allowed but whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I cannot imagine any Government would amend the const to penalize them. I fully expect whichever Govt we have next to do exactly the same thing. Hopefully through an open and transparent referendum.

[WhizBang]

Judging by your comments past and present, one would presume that you yourself are a lawyer, who has intricate knowledge of the Thai Justice system, when it comes to anything to do with the constitution.

You seem to know what constitutes disbarment within the Thai legal system too..

Who said there's a line lawyers don't cross? is that an unwritten agreement then? For example What if these Higher Judges were not abiding by their own codes of conducts and ethics, and operating outside legal jurisdiction, and are equally as corrupt, are you implying that no lawyer can stand against them?

I do like your posts, you clearly know the subject matter, so are you a lawyer or just someone who's into all the intellectual legal stuff?

What a load of rubbish, and typical red deflection.

[Luk Mhee]

The frying pan calling the teapot black.

The kettle has been sidelined for the moneht.

Not without jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

[3NUMBAS]

any slimey sleazy trick to unseat the freely elected PM again ,time and time again they have pulled this stunt ,its surprisng that they havent invoked the les majeste trump card somewhere in the proceedings

[smutcakes]

any slimey sleazy trick to unseat the freely elected PM again ,time and time again they have pulled this stunt ,its surprisng that they havent invoked the les majeste trump card somewhere in the proceedings

they cannot after one of their leaders said they want a president/chancellor like Germany or France, they are now on a very sticky wicket with regards that.

No doubt they would let him fall under the bus like the Bangkok Governor to get their own way.

[Mentors]

any slimey sleazy trick to unseat the freely elected PM again ,time and time again they have pulled this stunt ,its surprisng that they havent invoked the les majeste trump card somewhere in the proceedings

just wait a couple of days. Just wait...

[Fat Haggis]

Judging by your comments past and present, one would presume that you yourself are a lawyer, who has intricate knowledge of the Thai Justice system, when it comes to anything to do with the constitution.

You seem to know what constitutes disbarment within the Thai legal system too..

Who said there's a line lawyers don't cross? is that an unwritten agreement then? For example What if these Higher Judges were not abiding by their own codes of conducts and ethics, and operating outside legal jurisdiction, and are equally as corrupt, are you implying that no lawyer can stand against them?

I do like your posts, you clearly know the subject matter, so are you a lawyer or just someone who's into all the intellectual legal stuff?

What a load of rubbish, and typical red deflection.

Just like your response and I'm not a red, If I were a Thai I'd be voting for Abhisit, so you crack on thinking you know more about my own mind than I do, but considering it was a question asked of scamper if he was a lawyer, as most of his posts show a very good understanding of the law, the courts, the constitution, so unless you can answer on his behalf, then you have nothing better to do than make assumptions..

Perhaps you can tell me what is this line that lawyers all over the world are not supposed to cross ? That to me a a load of rubbish, lawyers are the most scrupulous &lt;deleted&gt; out there, there's no such thing as an non cross able line, there's always one lawyer willing to do it.

[Gunna]

Interesting comment as it appears that only PT have not followed the Constitution on all their illegal proposals.

[Baerboxer]

any slimey sleazy trick to unseat the freely elected PM again ,time and time again they have pulled this stunt ,its surprisng that they havent invoked the les majeste trump card somewhere in the proceedings

You think YL and her cabinet are all totally innocent then?

Go and ask the farmers if they've been paid yet as YL vowed several weeks ago.

In this case she moved people around to accommodate putting a relation into a position they wanted him in. No conflict of interest or self interest there then.

Time and time again PTP have lied and cheated. The ironic thing is that they had a big enough parliamentary majority not to have to. They could have followed the rules. What is it - arrogance, stupidity, contempt for being challenged?

[rubl]

So, let me see.

- The Pheu Thai say that IF the CC rules against PM Yingluck it should not go further. A case possibly following asking them to decide on a request to appoint a new PM they should not accept.

- The Pheu Thai says that IF the CC would take up a request to appoint a new PM the CC would tear up the constitution. Probably as Pheu Thai sees the constitution.

Now following these hypothetical cases a lot of posters get very upset it would seem. All about that IF. Somehow it would seem that lots of people including Pheu Thai already start to 'accept' that their PM has done something wrong for which she should be punished as applicable.

[rubl]

No they didn't, they tried to amend certain things, which has been done countless times before without so much as a ripple.

In fact after the coup a new charter was brought in, and surprise surprise gave amnesty to those who carried out the coup, but whoa betide this Government trying to make amendments.

Strangely enough that constitution went to a referendum of ALL the Thai people.

When the PTP tried their stunt it was voted 310 to 0 at 4.30 in the morning with ONLY the PTP in parliament AND it was changed between the first reading where it was sort of discussed in parliament except the Democrats were not allowed their alloted time by the Speaker, and the final reading which was much different.

When the PTP tried their stunt it was voted 310 to 0 at 4.30 in the morning with ONLY the PTP in parliament. Democracy PTP style.

Ah, sorry - couple of corrections needed there.

"Strangely enough that constitution went to a referendum of ALL the Thai people." - a referendum in which it was illegal to campaign against the new constitution, and where the apppointed military government had made clear in statements that if it was not approved, they would put it or one like it in place anyway.

"When the PTP tried their stunt it was voted 310 to 0 at 4.30 in the morning with ONLY the PTP in parliament" - in the 2011 election PTP won 265 seats out of 500. So if we assume all the PTP members voted for it, then they could obviously have done it during the day with a total majority - I assume your figure of 310 included other parties?

"When the PTP tried their stunt it was voted 310 to 0 at 4.30 in the morning with ONLY the PTP in parliament" - clearly they weren't the only ones in parliament (265 of 310).

Correct, some here seem to think we had a Pheu Thai government whereas it was a Pheu Thai led coalition government which covered about 300 MPs. Only 265 of the 300 coalition seats were Pheu Thai, out of a total of 500 seats in parliament. Out of the 200 opposition seats the Democrat party held 159 (I think). BTW the only reason we had a coalition government was because Thaksin said he had experienced that a single party government didn't work in Thailand

Edited April 4, 2014 by rubl

[virtualtraveller]

Funny that, weren't Peua Thai always complaining the 2007 charter was no good, now they're complaining that someone might tear it up.

[tezzainoz]

In a civilised country a political party would not dare to threaten the constitution court. Here they do and they call it democracy.

in a civilized country the judicial system would be unbiased and not quash elections because THUGS stop a minority of the voting

Please describe civilised ?

Then please describe Thailand where a young 20 year old girl will give her body physically to a late 70 year old man

Not just one but a multitude of girls

is this not what attracts so many Farlang to Thailand

Now please tell me why do most of you Farlang want Thailand to be civilised

this is why you leave your own countries

[Fat Haggis]

You've also just described in no particular order India, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and the Philippines, add to that you add Dubai, Jordan and Kuwait, or any other Country that brings in Labour from the a fore mentioned countries.

Some people actually leave their home countries because the very civilization you talk about sucks, and that leaving the city life rat race behind, and going back to the very basics of living, where there is a lack of "civilization" is in fact a God send, as it makes you realise that what you had was just material things, I like the step back I've taken, I'm a much happier person for going out into the sticks, I don't need the fancy gadgets, and designer kitchens, and expresso machines to make me feel important..

I'm all about embracing the culture, if I wanted the civilized life, I'd go back to the UK.

What you're describing is the classic British tourist syndrome, travels thousands of miles to another country, complains about the heat, the flies, the water, the locals and gets upset because he can't get a "Full English" anywhere!!!

[noitom]

It's a sham. This Thai court is a sham. The outcome is rigged. All Thai court judgements are rigged. The entire Thai legal and judicial system is rigged.

[chooka]

Australian P.M's have been moving staff around since day one and they don't sued or charged for reshuffling their office.

[chadintheusa]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

In a civilised country a political party would not dare to threaten the constitution court. Here they do and they call it democracy.

in a civilized country the judicial system would be unbiased and not quash elections because THUGS stop a minority of the voting

In a civilized country the election would have been seen as a farce with no chance of success and would have been postponed until you could at least register enough candidates.

[chadintheusa]

It's a sham. This Thai court is a sham. The outcome is rigged. All Thai court judgements are rigged. The entire Thai legal and judicial system is rigged.

We already knew that. The whole system is set up to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. The rest are supposed to take the crumbs that are left over. That is how it works. Thaksin, Suthep, Abhisit are all working to perpetuate the system as it is, for their own benefit. None of them care about the general population. Rich people get special treatment and never go to jail. Money equals justice in Thailand. If you don't know that you must be new here.

[GreasyFingers]

Judging by your comments past and present, one would presume that you yourself are a lawyer, who has intricate knowledge of the Thai Justice system, when it comes to anything to do with the constitution.

You seem to know what constitutes disbarment within the Thai legal system too..

Who said there's a line lawyers don't cross? is that an unwritten agreement then? For example What if these Higher Judges were not abiding by their own codes of conducts and ethics, and operating outside legal jurisdiction, and are equally as corrupt, are you implying that no lawyer can stand against them?

I do like your posts, you clearly know the subject matter, so are you a lawyer or just someone who's into all the intellectual legal stuff?

What a load of rubbish, and typical red deflection.

Just like your response and I'm not a red, If I were a Thai I'd be voting for Abhisit, so you crack on thinking you know more about my own mind than I do, but considering it was a question asked of scamper if he was a lawyer, as most of his posts show a very good understanding of the law, the courts, the constitution, so unless you can answer on his behalf, then you have nothing better to do than make assumptions..

Perhaps you can tell me what is this line that lawyers all over the world are not supposed to cross ? That to me a a load of rubbish, lawyers are the most scrupulous <deleted> out there, there's no such thing as an non cross able line, there's always one lawyer willing to do it.

Don't you mean ...the most scurrilous...

Edited April 4, 2014 by GreasyFingers

[diehard60]

Why are they complaining? There is always a reshuffle of top police. Oh I know why because he was first appointed by abhisit and suthep, that's why.

[diehard60]

The Pheu Thai party spokesmen are fast approaching a close similarity to a nagging wife/girl friend. They seem to be making demands, dictating action others should take, interpting what is meant, to their whims, and even declaring what will or will not happen after the fact.

They may want to consider that many just ignore this type of behavior, a few do as they are instructed, but there are a substantial number who get a ear and snoot full and kick the dog sh.t out of the target.

Is this not the same thing suthep and his thugs are doing? If one can do it they all can do it. FAIR IS FAIR.

[diehard60]

Abuse of power, negligence, tolerate corruption in her own government...... well an unfair government.......

And PT want to give lesson. It's very hard for a party how always use corruption and cheating to be face with real democracy and free justice.

So what is the difference between this gov and any past govs? Be real will you?

[billd766]

how pathetic can these ptp morons get, now they are talking about following the charter after they tried to destroy it themselves, they truly are a running joke. Seems they only believe in anything legal when it suits them but what can you expect from corrupt idiots, mind you if the court does find yl guilty they will call on their red terrorists to declare war on anyone that doesnt agree with their views .....

No they didn't, they tried to amend certain things, which has been done countless times before without so much as a ripple.

In fact after the coup a new charter was brought in, and surprise surprise gave amnesty to those who carried out the coup, but whoa betide this Government trying to make amendments.

Strangely enough that constitution went to a referendum of ALL the Thai people.

When the PTP tried their stunt it was voted 310 to 0 at 4.30 in the morning with ONLY the PTP in parliament AND it was changed between the first reading where it was sort of discussed in parliament except the Democrats were not allowed their alloted time by the Speaker, and the final reading which was much different.

When the PTP tried their stunt it was voted 310 to 0 at 4.30 in the morning with ONLY the PTP in parliament. Democracy PTP style.

Ah, sorry - couple of corrections needed there.

"Strangely enough that constitution went to a referendum of ALL the Thai people." - a referendum in which it was illegal to campaign against the new constitution, and where the apppointed military government had made clear in statements that if it was not approved, they would put it or one like it in place anyway.

"When the PTP tried their stunt it was voted 310 to 0 at 4.30 in the morning with ONLY the PTP in parliament" - in the 2011 election PTP won 265 seats out of 500. So if we assume all the PTP members voted for it, then they could obviously have done it during the day with a total majority - I assume your figure of 310 included other parties?

"When the PTP tried their stunt it was voted 310 to 0 at 4.30 in the morning with ONLY the PTP in parliament" - clearly they weren't the only ones in parliament (265 of 310).

My apologies. I had forgotten the hangers on and bottom feeders of the coalition parties. Have they EVER voted against the PTP by the way?

So WHO else was still in parliament at 04.30 in the morning? Perhaps it was the other member of the coalition?

Were ANY of the opposition parties notified of the action to take place or were they as usual ignored and not told. The votes against may give you a clue.

[billd766]

In a civilised country a political party would not dare to threaten the constitution court. Here they do and they call it democracy.

in a civilized country the judicial system would be unbiased and not quash elections because THUGS stop a minority of the voting

So you are saying then that Thailand is not a civilised country?

In a civilised country with a proper democratic government the entire government would have resigned years ago if only due to the rice scandal.

[billd766]

In a civilised country a political party would not dare to threaten the constitution court. Here they do and they call it democracy.

in a civilized country the judicial system would be unbiased and not quash elections because THUGS stop a minority of the voting

Please describe civilised ?

Then please describe Thailand where a young 20 year old girl will give her body physically to a late 70 year old man

Not just one but a multitude of girls

is this not what attracts so many Farlang to Thailand

Now please tell me why do most of you Farlang want Thailand to be civilised

this is why you leave your own countries

[billd766]

Double post.

Sorry.

Edited April 5, 2014 by billd766

[billd766]

Deleted.

Sorry I posted in error.

Edited April 5, 2014 by billd766