Govt claims plot targets King

[KimDidMeGood]

So we're all clear there is no coincidence same time that some are told to be brave pm does this? Ok. I agree.

Not sure what you mean. Are you alluding to HM's message to judges?

IMO it's a coincidence, but your theory is interesting.

My feeling here is that the plot-argument is not PM's strategy. Rather the PAD-Suthep-Sansern connection's one. Recent events suggest that Abhisit is not exactly comfortable with those but short of stepping down and being sidelined from politics for a long while, there's nothing he can do to distance himself.

[KimDidMeGood]

*wrong post*

[Guest lazyphil]

i used to be anti royal, still not a fan of the hangers oners...but the core family, queen, prince philip and children are pretty cheap to maintain after all the talk of billions we're in debt here.......a quaint harmless lot and i dont want a president blair or other!

[SpiceMan]

Lazyphil, you don't want a president, yet you're happy to put up with a succession of crap Prime Ministers who enjoy far more power than any president would have. The US president, for example, is far more limited in what he can do than a British PM, despite the scare mongering of those who want to keep the status quo.

 

Many Americans imagine the UK to be a similar democracy to their own, when in fact it is nothing like it. Most Brits can not vote a candidate into ANY elected office whereas Americans can vote for every office from town dog catcher to President. For a country that claims to be the Mother of Parliaments, it is a shame we Brits get so precious little democracy.

 

And its a travesty of justice that the votes of 30,000 people who are not even allowed to specify the job title of their "employee", should have their candidate imposed as leader without constraints on a nation of 60 million.

[Guest lazyphil]

who said i was happy with our pm's??

[SpiceMan]

Ok, I was wrong to say you're happy with Prime Ministers, but you are at least willing to put up with a system in which they enjoy unconstrained power. And who the hell voted for Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister? Nobody. Only 24,278 people, voted for him to be in Parliament yet he enjoys sweeping powers over all citizens that a US President can only dream of.

 

I broke British law by advocating the abolition of the Queen as head of state. Yes that Victorian law, while it probably would not survive scrutiny in the European Court, is still on the statute books and I could be jailed. And who would prosecute me? Why none other than the Crown Prosecution Service who have a duty to serve the Monarch. Perhaps I would be "detained at Her Majesty's pleasure" i.e. locked up forever as happened to Marcus Serjeant in 1981.

 

Anyway this post should not be in Thai news, so I will not post further on the matter.

[BaronTT]

Yes, most all Thais revere the monarchy, but we are not talking about most Thais, we are talking about a few individuals.

 

Most rank and file Reds to not see this. Actually, they don't understand many of the things going on. (See the article written yesterday by a retired university professor talking to the Reds behind the barracades, posted on the Nation website.)

 

What about the Reds' attacks on the Privy Council?

 

The council is as close to the monarchy as you can get without it directly being the monarchy. And it's well-known about HM special friendship with the leader of the council, who has been vilified and attached by the Reds, repeatedly.