https://aseannow.com/rss/44-thailand-news.xml/National and regional news from all around ThailandenTue, 30 Jun 2026 21:26:43 +0000That one had better spelling and knew better than to post in all caps.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:21:08 +0000https://aseannow.com/thailand-news/worker-dies-in-pattaya-nightclub-fire-r2548/A 28-year-old employee died after becoming trapped by a fire that swept through the Catwalk nightclub in Pattaya during the early hours of 1 July 2026. Get today's headlines by email The blaze was reported at 12.15am to the Pattaya City Land Disaster Relief Radio Centre. Emergency responders, including officers from Pattaya City Police Station, Bang Lamung district officials, Sawang Boriboon Thammasathan rescue volunteers and firefighters, were sent to the Catwalk entertainment venue in Soi Chalermphrakiat 29. Fire crews arrived to find the building engulfed in flames, with thick smoke billowing from the premises. Fire engines were deployed to contain the blaze. A passing groundwater delivery truck also stopped to assist, with its driver supplying additional water to firefighters. The fire was brought under control after about 45 minutes. After the flames were extinguished, emergency personnel discovered the body of 28-year-old Thanaphon Boonchan, an employee at the nightclub, beneath a table inside the premises. He had suffered fatal burns after apparently being unable to escape. Employees told police that one staff member had alerted colleagues after noticing the fire. According to witnesses, flames were first seen near the roof before spreading towards the front entrance and exit. Staff rushed to evacuate, but Thanaphon was not seen leaving the building and is believed to have become trapped as the fire blocked the only exit. Somchai Nawacharoen, 63, who was delivering water to a nearby business when the fire broke out, said he immediately reversed his truck to the scene and helped firefighters by supplying water until the emergency services gained control of the blaze. Preliminary inspections by police and Bang Lamung district officials found that the nightclub was operating without a licence. Investigators also determined that the premises had no emergency fire exit. Authorities believe this may have prevented the victim from escaping once the fire reached the main exit, although the exact circumstances remain under investigation. The cause of the fire has not yet been established. Police and district officials have requested forensic officers to examine the scene and determine the origin of the blaze. Their findings will also help establish whether further legal action will be taken over the operation of the venue. Picture courtesy of SiamChon Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now SiamChon 1 July 2026Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:20:34 +0000A 28-year-old employee died after becoming trapped by a fire that swept through the Catwalk nightclub in Pattaya during the early hours of 1 July 2026. Get today's headlines by email The blaze was reported at 12.15am to the Pattaya City Land Disaster Relief Radio Centre. Emergency responders, including officers from Pattaya City Police Station, Bang Lamung district officials, Sawang Boriboon Thammasathan rescue volunteers and firefighters, were sent to the Catwalk entertainment venue in Soi Chalermphrakiat 29. Fire crews arrived to find the building engulfed in flames, with thick smoke billowing from the premises. Fire engines were deployed to contain the blaze. A passing groundwater delivery truck also stopped to assist, with its driver supplying additional water to firefighters. The fire was brought under control after about 45 minutes. After the flames were extinguished, emergency personnel discovered the body of 28-year-old Thanaphon Boonchan, an employee at the nightclub, beneath a table inside the premises. He had suffered fatal burns after apparently being unable to escape. Employees told police that one staff member had alerted colleagues after noticing the fire. According to witnesses, flames were first seen near the roof before spreading towards the front entrance and exit. Staff rushed to evacuate, but Thanaphon was not seen leaving the building and is believed to have become trapped as the fire blocked the only exit. Somchai Nawacharoen, 63, who was delivering water to a nearby business when the fire broke out, said he immediately reversed his truck to the scene and helped firefighters by supplying water until the emergency services gained control of the blaze. Preliminary inspections by police and Bang Lamung district officials found that the nightclub was operating without a licence. Investigators also determined that the premises had no emergency fire exit. Authorities believe this may have prevented the victim from escaping once the fire reached the main exit, although the exact circumstances remain under investigation. The cause of the fire has not yet been established. Police and district officials have requested forensic officers to examine the scene and determine the origin of the blaze. Their findings will also help establish whether further legal action will be taken over the operation of the venue. Picture courtesy of SiamChon Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now SiamChon 1 July 2026 View full articleTue, 30 Jun 2026 21:20:34 +0000Have you been homophobic long!Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:16:28 +0000Overshadowed by the loss on birthrights, If people come into the country illegally, have a baby, the baby becomes a citizen.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:14:21 +0000Clearly unconstitutional. But to the white nationalist maga fascists that's a feature not a bug.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:09:31 +0000The fascist side in this The war is The Russia led by The Putin.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:02:29 +0000We all (including myself) see what we want to see, amigo. I will spare you my list of 100 positive developments. Politics are a long game, and awareness is a burden most of the time (it's so much easier to be unaware…). As much as you are sick of hearing me say this, only time will tell.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 20:44:47 +0000What that means is that money is god and that's all they trust. Anything else is communism.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 20:39:52 +0000Meantime in The ukraine ....Tue, 30 Jun 2026 20:39:16 +0000People granted asylum in the UK could be required to repay around £10,000 towards the cost of their accommodation and financial support once they begin earning, under proposals contained in the government's new Immigration and Asylum Bill. Get today's headlines by email The measures are intended to recover some of the costs of supporting asylum seekers from adults deemed able to contribute financially. Under the plans, asylum seekers who have the right to work would have to repay the flat-rate amount before becoming eligible to settle permanently in the UK. Failed asylum seekers who leave the country would also be expected to repay outstanding costs before being allowed to return. Refugees Could Repay Support CostsHome Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the proposals reflected the principle that while asylum support is a right, it also carries responsibilities. She said people should contribute once they are financially able to do so, describing it as a way of repaying the support provided by taxpayers. The government expects the repayment amount to be set at about £10,000, although the Home Office has not yet decided the earnings threshold at which repayments would begin. Ministers would also have powers to adjust both the repayment amount and income thresholds to ensure the scheme remains fair to taxpayers while avoiding hardship for migrants. Concerns Over PracticalityDr Madeleine Sumption, director of the University of Oxford's Migration Observatory, said the proposals marked a further tightening of the UK's immigration system while remaining within international refugee and human rights obligations. She also questioned how much money the scheme would recover, noting that many refugees earn relatively low incomes. According to Migration Observatory analysis, only an estimated 13% of people granted refugee status five years earlier earned at least £20,000 in 2023, with most either unemployed or earning less. The Home Office said 24% of refugees aged 16 to 64 were in employment during their first year after being granted asylum between 2015 and 2023. That figure rose to about 48% after two years. Among those working eight years after receiving refugee status, 37% were employed full time, with median earnings of £23,000 and only 40% earning above the minimum wage. Critics and Wider ReformsThe Refugee Council criticised the plans as "unfair" and "impractical", arguing they would amount to an extra financial burden on refugees trying to rebuild their lives. The charity said asylum seekers are prevented from working while their claims are processed and that support is provided only to those facing destitution. The Home Office said around £4 billion of public money was spent supporting asylum seekers last year. It estimated that accommodation costs average £23.25 per night in private rented housing and £144 per night in hotels, while weekly subsistence payments range from £9.95 to £49.18 per person. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said Labour had adopted a proposal previously put forward by the Conservatives after opposing it during debate on an earlier Immigration Bill. The legislation would also establish a new immigration appeals authority designed to speed up the removal of failed asylum seekers. It includes changes to the application of human rights and modern slavery laws to asylum claims, with ministers saying the aim is to reduce what they describe as vexatious applications. The government says the wider package will create a firm but fair asylum system and reduce incentives for illegal migration, although some of the tougher measures are expected to face opposition from Labour MPs. The bill also includes plans for capped safe and legal refugee routes, allowing organisations such as universities, businesses and community groups to sponsor refugees. Separately, ministers recently announced plans to expand the use of former military barracks to house asylum seekers after closing additional hotels in England. Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 1 July 2026 View full articleTue, 30 Jun 2026 20:29:10 +0000The American Bald Eagle is at the heart of the Great Seal of the United States. It was designed by Charles Thomson and Congress set the specification in 1782. There are important heraldic features that carry deep significance for the United States, that are missing from the AI generated image posted by the President. The Great Shield is dripping with symbology At the centre is the shield of the United States, superficially looking like the flag, but actually only containing 13 stripes for the 13 original colonies. The blue panel is blank, no stars. This AI eagle has no legs. The legs are important. The Eagle's left leg clutches 13 arrows, and the right leg clutches an olive branch with 13 leaves and 13 olives. The eagle always looks to its right, in the direction of the olive branch. The symbology is that the US prefers peace, it looks to peace, but is always prepared to defend itself (the arrows). Now there are variations, where the Eagle is clutching something else, eg the Navy eagle clutches an anchor for obvious reasons. In its beak, the eagle clutches a scroll with the motto E pluribus unum (13 letters) (Out of Many, One). Above the Eagle is a glory, a sort of halo, with 13 stars. The AI eagle has a sort of arc made up of 11 stars. The closest would be the Eagle of the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, which serves as the principal advisor to the secretary of defense in matters of Department fraud, waste, and abuse. This eagle clutches 13 arrows, but below it is the Roman fasce; a bundle of sticks with an axe, which symbolises punishment. Why 11 stars? 11 states formed the Confederacy. Joseph had a dream of 11 stars, meaning his brothers. 11 is one less than 12 (tribes of Israel), symbolising transition. 11 is the number of apostles after Judas topped himself. Or maybe no meaning, and its just AI slop.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 20:22:29 +0000More than one million undocumented migrants and asylum seekers have applied to regularise their status in Spain under a government programme aimed at bringing more people into the formal workforce and supporting the country's long-term economic and demographic needs. Get today's headlines by email Overwhelming response to regularisation schemeThe initiative, announced by Spain's socialist-led government in January, was originally expected to benefit around 500,000 people. However, by the time applications closed on Tuesday, the number of applicants had exceeded one million. The programme offers successful applicants a one-year residence and work permit. To qualify, individuals must prove they have no criminal record and show they had been living in Spain for at least five months before 31 December 2025, or that they had applied for international protection before that date. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the unexpectedly high number of applications demonstrated the need for the scheme. "The fact that more than one million people submitted applications shows just how necessary this recognition of rights and responsibilities was," he said during an event in Madrid. Government argues immigration is vitalSánchez said immigration would be essential for Spain's future economic growth, its ageing population and the sustainability of its welfare system. He warned that without immigration, Spain's gross domestic product would be 19% lower by 2050. He said such a scenario would result in the closure of around 90,000 bars, leave 50,000 primary and secondary school classrooms without pupils, and lead to the loss of approximately 220,000 farms. According to the prime minister, Spain would become "poorer, emptier, weaker and without the resources to fund its welfare state" without continued migration. Spain has previously introduced large-scale regularisation programmes under both socialist and conservative governments, but the latest measure has drawn strong opposition from conservative and far-right parties. Opposition mounts legal and political challengeThe centre-right People's Party (PP) has argued that the scheme risks placing excessive pressure on public services, while the far-right Vox party has accused the government of using immigration to reshape Spain's population, labour market and electoral landscape. Regional PP administrations in Valencia and Aragón have challenged the programme in court. On Tuesday, a court said it was considering asking the European Court of Justice to determine whether parts of the government's decree are compatible with European Union law. PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo has also criticised a separate democratic memory law introduced in 2022, which allows descendants of Spaniards exiled during the Spanish Civil War and Francisco Franco's dictatorship to obtain Spanish citizenship. More than 2.4 million people have applied under that law, with more than 544,000 applications already approved. In a radio interview on Monday, Feijóo accused the government of pursuing "electoral engineering" by expanding the number of potential voters. The government rejected those claims. Migration Minister Elma Saiz described the accusations as "incredibly irresponsible", saying they reflected political frustration rather than a credible policy alternative. Integration plan unveiledSánchez has consistently defended immigration even as many European governments have adopted tougher migration policies. Reiterating comments he made to parliament in October 2024, he said migration has historically driven national development, while hatred and xenophobia have undermined societies. Alongside the regularisation programme, the government announced a €500 million (£431 million) integration and citizenship plan aimed at helping migrants settle successfully in Spain. Sánchez said the initiative would promote equal treatment, combat discrimination and expand opportunities, while also expecting newcomers to respect Spanish law, learn the country's official languages and embrace its democratic values. Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 1 July 2026 View full articleTue, 30 Jun 2026 20:16:46 +0000I never said they weren't. But chicks should not be on the beat if their physical limitations could put them in danger. You want men (and women) on the beat who are like Bronson/Dirty Harry combined with muay thai skills like I have.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 20:15:58 +0000Looking at MalcolmB profile, he hasn't been here all year.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 20:11:04 +0000Didn't the left refer to SCOTUS as the MAGA court?Tue, 30 Jun 2026 20:07:04 +0000The US Supreme Court has ruled that states may ban transgender women from competing in female school and college sports, upholding laws that require athletes to compete according to their sex recorded at birth. Get today's headlines by email The decision came in two cases involving challenges to laws in Idaho and West Virginia, where transgender students argued the restrictions were unlawful. More than two dozen states have introduced similar bans since Idaho became the first to do so in 2020. The court unanimously found that the state laws do not violate Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. States Win Challenge Over School Sports RulesHowever, the justices split 6-3 over whether the bans breached the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The court's six conservative justices concluded the restrictions were constitutional, while its three liberal members disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the Constitution and Title IX "do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in partial dissent, criticised the ruling, saying the majority had adopted "a diminished view of equal protection" in cases involving school sports. Challenges From Idaho and West VirginiaOne of the cases was brought by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and long-distance runner, shortly after Idaho enacted its law. She had previously secured injunctions from both a federal district court and an appeals court while the legal challenge continued. At the time the legislation was passed, Idaho state lawmaker Barbara Ehardt, who introduced the measure, said it was intended to ensure that "boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it's not fair". A federal appeals panel had later ruled that Idaho failed to provide sufficient evidence that its law protected equal opportunities for female athletes, concluding that it violated constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's ruling overturns that outcome. Supporters Welcome Decision, Campaigners Condemn ItWest Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey welcomed the ruling, describing it as a victory for common sense that would give states "the clarity and confidence to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come". LGBT advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign strongly criticised the decision. Its president, Kelley Robinson, said the ruling was "heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are". President Donald Trump also praised the judgment, calling it a "BIG WIN" in a social media post. The participation of transgender athletes in women's sports was a prominent issue during his 2024 election campaign. After returning to office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at preventing transgender women from competing on female school and college sports teams. The NCAA, which governs US college athletics, subsequently barred transgender women from women's competitions. Broader Debate ContinuesSupporters of the restrictions argue that transgender women retain physical advantages over athletes recorded female at birth, making separate eligibility rules necessary to protect fairness in women's sport. The International Olympic Committee said in March that, following an 18-month review of scientific evidence, it would restrict the women's category at the Olympic Games to biological females. The IOC said its working group found a "clear consensus" that male sex provides a performance advantage in sports that depend on strength, power and endurance. Opponents of the bans argue the policies discriminate against transgender students and dispute claims that there is a scientific consensus showing transgender women and girls possess an inherent competitive advantage in all cases. Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 1 July 2026 View full articleTue, 30 Jun 2026 20:06:45 +0000Posts in all caps removed @MAGA88 you were previously warned about this and now choose again to ignore the forum rules!Tue, 30 Jun 2026 20:04:56 +0000Camron and Malcolm is still present with with their new nicksTue, 30 Jun 2026 20:03:50 +0000The US Supreme Court has ruled that children born in the United States are entitled to citizenship under the Constitution, rejecting President Donald Trump's attempt to end the long-established policy through executive action. Get today's headlines by email Court rejects executive orderIn a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said that children born in the US to parents who are in the country unlawfully or on a temporary basis are citizens from birth under the 14th Amendment. Trump had sought to narrow the constitutional guarantee by arguing that children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary visitors were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore should not automatically receive citizenship. The ruling marks a significant defeat for the president's immigration agenda and preserves a constitutional principle that has been in place for more than 150 years. Writing for the majority, Roberts said the framers of the 14th Amendment had extended the promise of citizenship to "every free-born person in this land". "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights – to freely participate in our political community," he wrote, adding: "We keep that promise today." Trump vows to continue fightReacting on Truth Social, Trump described the decision as "too bad" and pledged to continue efforts to end birthright citizenship through Congress rather than by constitutional amendment. "No long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary," he wrote. "Congress should today start work on ending expensive, and unfair to our country, birthright citizenship." The United States has recognised birthright citizenship since 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted following the Civil War. Originally intended to secure the rights of formerly enslaved people, the amendment states that all persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the country. Sharp division among justicesThree conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito – dissented. Justice Thomas argued that the 14th Amendment was being used beyond its original purpose, saying it had been "repurposed for political projects" and that the formerly enslaved people it was designed to protect "were Americans" who owed no allegiance to another country. Justice Alito described the majority's decision as a "serious mistake", arguing it grants citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States, including children whose parents travel to the country specifically to give birth before returning home. The case carried particular importance for Trump, who made a rare appearance at the Supreme Court during oral arguments in April. Political reactionWhite House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller criticised the ruling, calling it "one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions" in the court's history. Writing on X, he said: "American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration." Democrats and civil rights groups welcomed the outcome. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said the Supreme Court had upheld both the Constitution and longstanding legal precedent by confirming that everyone born in the United States is an American citizen. Dariely Rodriguez, chief counsel at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the judgment reaffirmed a principle that has existed for more than a century. "Anyone born on American soil, regardless of the legal status of their parents, is born an American citizen," she said, adding that the decision demonstrated the country had "endured an incredible test of our collective will as a nation and have prevailed." Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 1 July 2026 View full articleTue, 30 Jun 2026 19:58:44 +0000Seems pretty clear to me . But whadda i know ? Surely the SCourt can't be compromised ............. yeah, right from the 14th amendment :Tue, 30 Jun 2026 19:50:39 +0000Including the flight attendant who is the subject of this thread. She earned extra income by using a Thai Facebook group dedicated to carrying goods overseas for other people. According to what's been reported, the heroin mentioned in this thread was being transported as part of one of those Facebook-arranged transactions.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 19:48:11 +0000the reality beat down of the slaves goes on and on. vaccines keep on unabated , and still "mandated" for children almost everywhere . No matter what the bloggers say . war continues unabated ..... and the wef govts still have control over the powerless plebes. "votes" are a farce . "inflation" , that farcical concept, still has everyone believing it is based on reality (just a ponzi scheme, which the banking cartel runs ) . And "winning" ?? i don't think so . And the hits just keep on coming : Justice Clarence Thomas correctly wrote in his 91-page dissent the following:Tue, 30 Jun 2026 19:40:32 +0000It is a great place, i always reccomend it to all my mates as a perfect place for first timers in Pattaya. I always stayed in the Evergreen towards the end of my staying there. Personally ,i just thought it was getting a bit expensive compared to other places nearby.Tue, 30 Jun 2026 19:27:16 +0000