3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

The UK government is in the hotel business?

No, they are not ( I was referring to the new owners)

22 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

Shopping malls don’t make us happy. Green space does at a far deeper nurturing level than spending money and gawking through designer windows at things we maybe can’t afford.

You should have joined the auction and bought it, then, if you want to nurture yourself so badly, there were no restrictions.

How appropriate, the spirit of brexit ????

Just now, soalbundy said:

How appropriate, the spirit of brexit ????

The Red Bull heir , Submarines ,  Donald Trump, the Burmese 2 and Chinese tourists 

6 minutes ago, miamiman123 said:

Capitalism eats its own!

 

So socialism is better

Another piece of history gone. Not much left in Bangkok. Just bland shopping malls and  pizza outlets.

Sad.

It appears the whole site is owned by Thais now so the life expectancy of any remaining buildings is bleak.

UK gov don't care

They're broke which is why they're selling off land & diplomat residences around  the globe.

They own a lot of it.(or did)

Typical greed. What do you expect?

9 minutes ago, miamiman123 said:

Capitalism eats its own!

 

Large Embassys are unnecessary these days 

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Large Embassys are unnecessary these days 

Tell that to the Americans 

2 hours ago, darksidedog said:

And once they got their 420 Million quid, it seems that they absolutely didn't care. Tragic really, but shows exactly the priorities and values of the Foreign Office.

Especially, as I understand, they were given the land in the first place!!!!

1 hour ago, Assurancetourix said:

 

Do not forget that Thai people have no or very little history.
When Ayuttaya was stormed in 1767 by the Burmese after more than a year of siege, they brought back to Burma about 600,000 prisoners who became their slaves and very displeased that the city resisted them more than a year they destroyed it totally burning all the archives, all the books.
The history of Thailand will begin a few years later with the Chakri dynasty;
It is a little over 200 years old.

The name of Ayutthaya comes from that of the city of Ayodhya, India. This city is indeed that of Rama, hero of the Rāmāyana and seventh incarnation of Vishnu. This name means "that can not be conquered" in Sanskrit.

She therefore bore her name very badly because she was also conquered and plundered by the Burmese in 1569.

Great informative post, a vary rare occurrence here.

 

Technically Thailand has 70 years of history. 

 

1939 to 1945

 

1955 to the present day

 

The current national flag is 102 years old. Red, white and blue represents the ‘relationship’ (or peace negotiations) with France and Great Britain. 

 

As for for the rest of the curmudgeons on here, ‘I remember when it was all fields round ear when I was a lad.’

 

 

 

Hopefully they made sure the staff were still inside and unable to leave.

23 minutes ago, gregchambers said:

But aren't embassy grounds a gift of the country they sit in, so really the money should go back to Thailand? Also, why didn't the embassy retain the land and offer Central a 30 year lease... in 30 years time it would be worth an awful lot more,,, or maybe they figure Bangkok will be flooded out and the land worthless?

The current location was not a gift to the country but, even if it had been, gifting property makes it the property of the new owner.  The King of Siam did not gift the original site to the UK with a qualification that it should be handed back at any time, it was gifted!       

 

"...why didn't the embassy retain the land and offer Central a 30 year lease..."

Did Central want the property on a lease that they would not make a profit from? 

 

"...in 30 years time it would be worth an awful lot more,,,"

The UK government has made a profit of 382,000% on the sale, they're probably happy with that return.

45 minutes ago, Saltire said:

Has the UK Embassy actually moved now then, website still shows Wireless Road near Bumrungrad hospital?

 

Is it still same place for documents etc?

 

 

Yep, the actual 'Embassy is there until the new one opens up in Sathorn

34 minutes ago, phetpeter said:

Like we should be regretting giving other prime location, such as Hong Kong, Malta, Oman, just to name a few.

Hong Kong wasn't "ours" to keep!

2 hours ago, GarryP said:

Another shopping center? Really? As if there aren't enough already. The market is not saturated, its bloody flooded with them.

Central Embassy Plaza already exists.  And is not at all busy.

33 minutes ago, spermwhale said:

Thailand has ZERO respect for historical buildings unless they are temples or royal abodes. As much as they spout off about culture it amazes me they don't have an agency that helps preserve buildings of historical relevance. 

It's why wherever you go in Thailand, every city looks the same, except Bangkok. 

"...amazes me they don't have an agency that helps preserve buildings of historical relevance". 

They do.  What's the historic relevance of the Embassy building apart from it being an Embassy building?

24 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Presumably they'll let you know when you make your appointment.

I have one for next week hence my question. Email has old address so I assume they still have at least one room operational.

 

26 minutes ago, Fred white said:

Where does the govt get it's money

In the case of the Embassy, which is what is being discussed here, it came from the sale of the original site that had been given, free, to the UK by the King and that paid for the current building's construction.  No cost to the UK taxpayer.

43 minutes ago, phetpeter said:

Like we should be regretting giving other prime location, such as Hong Kong, Malta, Oman, just to name a few.

The UK leased Hong Kong from China for 150 years and that lease expired in 1998

31 minutes ago, sanemax said:

No, they are not ( I was referring to the new owners)

£420,000,000 to buy a plot of land and run a small hotel on it?  You really don't know why they didn't do that?  The company has shareholders to answer to.

I assume they have thought about asbestos before ploughing in and breaking everything up... oh wait, I forget where this was for a moment, never-mind 

23 minutes ago, JRG23 said:

Typical greed. What do you expect?

Who's being "typically greedy" in this context?

If only the Brits has waied and left offerings daily to Great Queen Victoria then the Embassy could have been saved. Instead they followed farang ways and so the spirit power that could have  protected the area was given over to bad spirits and now this ???? At the Tower of London at least the ravens are well looked after. 

 

https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/whats-on/the-ravens/#gs.w08xjd

13 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Hong Kong wasn't "ours" to keep!

so we could stuff our Indian opium down Chinese throats and make money during the great empire days. 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

420 million pounds

and the pound keeps falling

2 hours ago, CGW said:

Pure greed, in years to come this decision will be regretted! ???? 

In actual fact they'll be building replicas of it. So stupid pure greed.

9 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

£420,000,000 to buy a plot of land and run a small hotel on it?  You really don't know why they didn't do that?  The company has shareholders to answer to.

I just said that it would have been nicer had they preserved the building , maybe the Thai Government should have bought it or maybe the UK should have given the land back for free , on the condition that the building remains and the green area is turned into a public park 

Confused. Just looking for confirmation, we are talking about a pile of bricks right?

Cannot believe that such a beautiful place is now going to be yet another shopping mall has Bangkok not got enough of them already ????????????????