Nu tycker jag att de personliga påhoppen, har passerat en godtagbar gräns.
Skärpning från flera håll.
Leif
Nu jävlar får du skärpa dig, IL. Gäller snickaren också, skäms! 
gäst
9 juni 2012#136
Demokratiska MP.s attackerade parlamentets talman.
Medlem sedan 2008
10 juni 2012#137
Nu går regeringen över till "huligantaktik" i dessa fotbollstider, att lämna ut domarnas adresser och telefonnummer på en red-shirt scen inför en berusad pöbel är inte okej och Yingluck borde förse inrikesministernssekreterare med en "inactive post" men det vågar hon nog inte för big brother och brother number two...
gäst
15 juni 2012#138
Why has the Thai Constitution Court changed its interpretation of the law?
By Bangkok Pundit Jun 13, 2012 10:25PM UTC
On Friday June 1, the Constitution Court accepted a petition to review amendments to the constitution on the grounds that the amendments have (or will?) breach Section 68 of the Constitution which provides that “No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution”. There has been widespread criticism of the court by legal experts – BP has summarised some of the criticisms here. BP has blogged on the defence of the Constitution Court provided by noted Thaksin opponent, Kaewsan. BP has blogged on the Constitution Court’s defence of the acceptance of the petition and also blogged on the Attorney-General stating that the amendments are legal. Kaewmala in her post on issue blogged:
*In fact, who has the right to file a petition to the Constitution Court under Sec 68 is a matter that has a precedent, and the position of the Constitution Court was once very different. In May 2006, the Constitution Court
by a former MP submitted under the same section in the previous constitution on the basis that Section 63 (which became Section 68 in the current constitution, containing the same text) did not allow the complainant to directly submit the petition to the Constitution Court. The Court then ruled that the petition must first be considered by the Attorney General. The rejected petition in 2006
to request the Court to disband the Democrat Party. Politics by its nature is always shifting. It would appear that in the six years of separation between the 2006 case and the 2012 case, either the law or the judges have shifted along with politics.
Independent legal academic Verapat Pariyawong has posted a copy of the Court’s letter rejecting the petition in May 2006 and BP has posted a screenshot below:
It is Order No. 12/2549.
Translation of subject is: Surapong Tovichakchaikul [bP: Yes, the current Foreign Minister] asking the Constitution Court to order the dissolution of the Democrats under Section 63 due to their acts to acquire power through means not under the constitution.
For the underlined text in red, BP has translated it below:
The Constitution Court considered and views that Section 63 of the Constitution does not provide that the petitioner has the right to directly petition the Constitution Court to dissolve a political party, but must proceed in accordance with Section 63, paragraph 2 [and] submit the matter to the Attorney-General to investigate the facts and file the petition to the Constitution Court.
Below is Section 63 of the 1997 Constitution:
No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of the State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.
In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person knowing of such act [ผู้รู้เห็นการกระทำดังกล่าว] shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court for ordering cessation of such act without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.
Below is Section 68 of the 2007 Constitution:
No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to overthrow the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the power to rule the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution.
In the case where a person or a political party has committed the act under paragraph one, the person who knows [ ผู้ทราบการกระทำดังกล่าว] of such act shall have the right to request the Prosecutor General to investigate its facts and submit a motion to the Constitutional Court
for ordering cessation of such act
without, however, prejudice to the institution of a criminal action against such person.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes a decision compelling the political party to cease to commit the act under paragraph two, the Constitutional Court may order the dissolution of such political party.
In the case where the Constitutional Court makes the dissolution order under paragraph three, the right to vote of the President and the executive board of directors of the dissolved political party at the time the act under paragraph one has been committed shall be suspended for the period of five years as from the date the Constitutional Court makes such order.
BP: Between Section 63 of the 1997 Constitution and Section 68 of the 2007 Constitution, there is a slight difference in paragraph 2 and there is the addition of paragraph 4 although this doesn’t affect the process for filing a motion/petition. The Court clearly states that they won’t accept petitions directly in 2006, but they do now when the procedure set out is the same. So far BP has seen no explanation on why the change of interpretation by the Court…
There is still one out for the Court. The Court may order the cessation of the constitutional amendments in their current form, but state that the actions were not done by a party and were done by parliament so there is no need to dissolve any party. Hence, it is only when a matter requires the dissolving of a political party that the Attorney-General needs to investigate first so the court can argue there is no contradiction.*
*Although, the Court accepting a new petition today seemingly nullifies this……
Hej
I denna artikel tar Bangkok Pundit http://asiancorrespondent.com/84027/why-has-the-thai-constitution-court-changed-its-interpretation-of-the-law/ upp det faktum att Konstitutions Domstolen ändrade sitt sätt att arbeta när dom började tolka sina egna lagar på ett nytt sätt, man påvisar även exempel på hur domstolen har agerat i såna här fall tidigare, och det är nog bara att konstatera att dom experter inom lagområdet som har uttalat sig i pressen på senare tid har rätt i sin kritik i Konstitutions Domstolens märkliga svängning här i sitt agerade.
Medlem sedan 2008
15 juni 2012#139
Läs igenom det du klistrat in, då kommer du upptäcka något, kanske.
15 juni 2012#140
Nu
15 juni 2012#141
Nu �r det ju s� att ni g�ng p� g�ng skriver om det ner brunna Bankok.
I min v�rd �r detta en stad som ligger i aska.Som tar �rtionde att bygga upp.
Men nu var det s� att jag var d�r fjorton dagar, efter upp rensningen.
Mesta delens bilder av de ni visar �r ju r�k efter brinnande bild�ck.
Och om man som jag kunde f�lja vad som h�nder hela dagarna vi Tv s�ndningarna,s� ser man ju tydligt o klart att det �r till stor del bild�ck som brinner, r�ken efter dessa har man ju effektivt anv�nds i propaganda, "om det ner brunna Bankok"
Bildäck ? 
gäst
15 juni 2012#142
Bildäck ?
I verklighetens verklighet är det brinnande bildäck, och ser man nåt annat, så beror det på att man inbillar sig, tror jag... 
Logga in för att svara.