Flashermac Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 It's all very simple. Songkran is the traditional Thai New Year. January first is the western New Year. Since the tragedy happened because Thais foolishly were celebrating the western New Year, it has to be the Farangs' fault. If they had celebrated the Thai New Year the way they should have, the fireworks would have been too wet to burn. p.s. The Chinese invented fireworks. We should blame them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 ...maybe the Thais should NOT celebrate the farang New Year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 The mystery has been solved - Cambodian wizards were seen earlier chanting incantations outside the club. They left in a large black car driven by a Farang, laughing and calling people names in Khmer. The contrarian in me says that if a group of Muslim youth were seen anywhere near a nightclub fire in London, would we all be so quick to laugh at people who pointed the finger at them ? Alarmist, sure, but scratch the surface of the common man in any country and you find some fairly basic instincts. For all we know, it *was* a Farang who accidentally set the thing off with a sparkler, but surely the blame rests with the moron who gave him a sparkler and followed it up with alcohol ? Anyway, lets hope the investigation results in something concrete being done about fire exits in BKK and elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadfly Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 An investigation is needed, but the broad outlines of what occurred seem to be clear. Fireworks in a closed building with flamable material. That was the first question the PM asked: "Why was this allowed?". I am not sure if they will be able to figure whether the stage fireworks or a sparkler set off the blaze. And if it was sparkler, whose sparkler it was. I am no crime scene investigator so perhaps this is possible (and if it is, I'd like to hear how), but I think the first sentence of this paragraph sums it up. And then... No sprinkler system, no emergency lighting, untrainned staff, limited exits, too many people in the place (and most of them drunk) - basically, a fire trap. Anyone who has been there knows its a fire trap. I see no disagreement on this. The criminal act here is allowing fire works in a fire trap. We have a pretty good idea of who is responsible for allowing that to happen, and he wasn't a Farang. He's a 'Thai' better known by his Chinese name. Sure an investigation is needed, but if this somehow mysteriously turns into a big mystery, I smell a rat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadfly Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 These "vocal Thais" are the ones that closed the airport. Yeah, that's what scares me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palatkik Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Some things mentioned in a news report on Thai TV just now... * A paper may have floated to the flood lights and touched them and burst into flame, starting the fire * Santika was built on a Muslim burial ground * The cross and crypt-like structure inside were a sign of trouble to come * the print ad featured with black tears coming from his eyes, thus foreshadowing the mascara running down the faces of the girls escaping the club * again, the print ad, something about the "ka" in Santika being highlighted, and "ka" can be translated as "kill" So, the responsibility falls on either farangs or ghosts. What a load of bollox on Thai TV! They forgot to mention the web master was the culprit! Did anyone notice the Santika web site had a flame icon next to the fateful nights attractions tab before it was taken down, presumably suggesting it would be a hot act to go and see, but actually a sign of things to come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gadfly Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Interesting story on the cover of today's Bangkok Post about how the families of the victims don't have much confidence in the police. For example: : [color:red]Mr Ramed said he had no confidence in the police investigation and doubted whether authorities could bring the pub operator to justice, so he decided to take legal action himself. "We all know that most night entertainment business operators have connections with the police, so it's better to make a case against them ourselves," said Mr Ramed, an independent lawyer.[/color] The Santika crowd is going to include the children of middle class Thai lawyers and others who can press this matter. Another article in the Bangkok Post about nightlife safety has become an issue in the upcoming elections. My hunch. The owner/operator is connected, probably made a few of the standard crude efforts to shift blame, they didn't work and now it becomes much more interesting because he and his cronies are in a real jam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I bet they are all really nice people too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Interesting story on the cover of today's Bangkok Post about how the families of the victims don't have much confidence in the police. For example: : [color:red]Mr Ramed said he had no confidence in the police investigation and doubted whether authorities could bring the pub operator to justice, so he decided to take legal action himself. "We all know that most night entertainment business operators have connections with the police, so it's better to make a case against them ourselves," said Mr Ramed, an independent lawyer.[/color] The Santika crowd is going to include the children of middle class Thai lawyers and others who can press this matter. Another article in the Bangkok Post about nightlife safety has become an issue in the upcoming elections. My hunch. The owner/operator is connected, probably made a few of the standard crude efforts to shift blame, they didn't work and now it becomes much more interesting because he and his cronies are in a real jam. Here's how everybody gets off any wrongdoing: The club was denied an operating license in 2004. Case was appealed. Injunction issued by court against shutting down, pending outcome of appeal. Appeal hasn't been heard yet. See, everybody gets off. Club was told to shut down, so enforcers did their job, so they are in the clear. Club legally filed to stay open, pending appeal. They were not operating illegally and have not been found to be in violation of any statues./laws/regulations, so they are in the clear. Police were legally, lawfully awaiting the court's decision, so they are in the clear. So solly, court wery wery busy in Thailand. Understand the Thai way. It is not the fault of anybody, least of all Thai officials whose job it is to oversee this sort of thing. People have said yes, this happens irregularly all over the world. True, EXCEPT: people are tried, held accountable and go to jail in civilized countries. But what can you expect when the monkeys run the zoo? BTW, some of today's reports in local news deals with going to the site to photograph the ghosts moving about in the burned out shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Monkeys fucking monkeys... Just saw this in the BKK press:: Court warns police officer over remarks By THE NATION ON SUNDAY Published on January 4, 2009 The Administrative Court warned a senior police officer yesterday that his comment suggesting the court should be blamed for the Santika Pub disaster is likely to be deemed contempt of court. Suchat Weroj, secretary-general of the Administrative Court's Office, issued the warning in a statement released yesterday. He said the Central Administrative Court in March 2007 ruled in favour of the pub's operators in a case they filed against the local police for refusing to grant them a permit to operate an entertainment place. He said the court ruling was based on the legal facts that the owners were qualified to operate a nightclub and the venue's location was not prohibited by law. The court ruled that the police's order refusing the entertainment place to be operated was against the law, according to Suchat. He said the police in April 2007 appealed with the Supreme Administrative Court and a verdict has yet to be made. In his two-page statement, Suchat said the lower court focused on the police's delay in granting a permit of operation [color:red]as the issue of possible violations of the building law by the pub operators was not mentioned in the testimonies given to the court.[/color] He said the court had nothing to do with the building-law violation, which was blamed for the high number of casualties. He said it was a matter for police and the city's civil engineering authorities. "It is unlikely the Administrative Court will issue any order or verdict that goes against the law. To give news in a way that can lead to a perception that the Administrative Court is a cause for the disaster can be deemed contempt of court," Suchat said. On Friday, deputy police commissioner-general [color:red]Jongrak Juthanon said an investigation into the club's history had found that its application for a licence in December 2004 had been turned down by the city police on the grounds that the premises did not conform to standards.[/color] However, he added, the pub had opened anyway following an Administrative Court injunction pending a ruling. In his statement, Suchat explained that the lower court granted the injunction in July 2004 on grounds that the pub operators met the legal qualifications to operate an entertainment venue and that police refusal to grant them a permit caused them to get arrested for operating without a permit. He said, however, that the Supreme Administrative Court in October that year withdrew the injunction as it disagreed with the lower court's decision. ***************************************** RE the red-bold type: so which one is it, you god-damn contradictory lying fucking self-serving scum sucking twats? Hope I didn't offend the courts by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.