This is a correction to an earlier post of mine. I was mistaken in the assumption that this was meant for the lower house, but rather intended for the purposes of opening a session in the Senate - which unlike the lower house does indeed have a quorum and mandate, although it should be noted that all candidates have not yet been cleared by the EC. The timeline for the Senate does seem to be rather short - given the things they need to cover. It will be interesting to note how this decision by the caretaker cabinet was arrived at, as the implication at present seems to suggest that the Senate was not consulted in advance.

It is meant for the lower house.

What the Senate wants to do is stand instead of the lower house, and usurp the powers of the lower house. Their argument is that they are the only elected body, in power right now and so can stand in stead of the Parliament. Then they claim they only want to judge the impeachment of the leader of their own Senate.

What it actually amounts to, is an attempt to take over the Parliament using the Senate (half unelected with an inbuilt yellow bias), eject the government (i.e. a coup) using a vote of no confidence or similar mechanism and then cross their fingers and hope these people don't complain:

They're trying to stuff the courts and NACC with some extra good people too it seems.

What, do they want to pass the amnesty bill?

If you had taken a closser look at the amnesty bill you would have noticed it would have ALSO cleared suthep and abhisit too and anyone that was taking part in what was going on back in 2006 - 2010, so it was not just for thaksin

It is not a matter of clearing them it is in fact denying them their chance to defend themselves in court.

You may or may not have noticed that they were both very much against the amnesty bill.

So much so that Suthep resigned from the Dem party to protest against it.

The Amnesty was only for those who knew they were guilty and a way for them to avoid the consequences of their guilt.

O come on NZ you know exactly what the amnesty bill was being rammed thru the system for especially with a 4am vote

Of course I know and that's pretty much what I said in my last sentence.

You may have misunderstood. The guilty I referred to are Thaksin, his proxy Govts, the red leaders and the 25,000 odd who would have been absolved from corruption.

Including Yingluck who if the bill had passed would not be looking at dates with the CC and NACC.

What, do they want to pass the amnesty bill?

If you had taken a closser look at the amnesty bill you would have noticed it would have ALSO cleared suthep and abhisit too and anyone that was taking part in what was going on back in 2006 - 2010, so it was not just for thaksin

The Amnesty Bill was always about the evil despot in the desert. Anyone who cannot see this is either a brainwashed PTP supporter, a troll, or someone who needs help (see the first option)

All this playground-style tittle-tattle while Thailand has an archaic infrastructure and pathetic education system, and is hoping to compete in the ASEAN community. The Thai people deserve better politicians than these, but there is a saying ..........................

What, do they want to pass the amnesty bill?

If you had taken a closser look at the amnesty bill you would have noticed it would have ALSO cleared suthep and abhisit too and anyone that was taking part in what was going on back in 2006 - 2010, so it was not just for thaksin

It is not a matter of clearing them it is in fact denying them their chance to defend themselves in court.

You may or may not have noticed that they were both very much against the amnesty bill.

So much so that Suthep resigned from the Dem party to protest against it.

The Amnesty was only for those who knew they were guilty and a way for them to avoid the consequences of their guilt.

O come on NZ you know exactly what the amnesty bill was being rammed thru the system for especially with a 4am vote

What's your point? He knows that. You know that. Even most of the red trolls know that. What do you disagree with him on?

This is a correction to an earlier post of mine. I was mistaken in the assumption that this was meant for the lower house, but rather intended for the purposes of opening a session in the Senate - which unlike the lower house does indeed have a quorum and mandate, although it should be noted that all candidates have not yet been cleared by the EC. The timeline for the Senate does seem to be rather short - given the things they need to cover. It will be interesting to note how this decision by the caretaker cabinet was arrived at, as the implication at present seems to suggest that the Senate was not consulted in advance.

It is meant for the lower house.

What the Senate wants to do is stand instead of the lower house, and usurp the powers of the lower house. Their argument is that they are the only elected body, in power right now and so can stand in stead of the Parliament. Then they claim they only want to judge the impeachment of the leader of their own Senate.

What it actually amounts to, is an attempt to take over the Parliament using the Senate (half unelected with an inbuilt yellow bias), eject the government (i.e. a coup) using a vote of no confidence or similar mechanism and then cross their fingers and hope these people don't complain:

They're trying to stuff the courts and NACC with some extra good people too it seems.

Oh Dear. Same post & the red supporters can't make up their minds if this is against the yellows or the Reds. LostinSurin was lying down laughing because he thought it was Pro-red. Some people were confuseds as to which house was meeting. This is a red (pun intended) letter day for me. I am going to agree with old BlueNose for the first time & say he has got it broadly right. Constiutionally it is probably not quite in the tone that he puts on it, but certainly LostinSurin should have got up off the floor by now & stopped laughing.

I note that the sitting days go from Friday 2nd to Saturday the 10th which include 3 weekend days.

So if they only sit on week days that only gives them 6 days to complete their business.

Would seem the dates were arranged to give them as short a time frame as possible.

Although they could have made it from a Saturday to a Sunday (3rd to 11th). To obvious ?