Santika Club Owner Meets Police; Prepares To Compensate Victims

[Old Man River]

Lying low, he will need to hide very well. Having an article like that printed on the front page with statements about tea money, obvious lack of minimum required safety and police complicity is one of the most irresponsible things the writer could have written. It is an amazing piece to justify the unjustifiable. Accidents happen, but the upshot of ownership is that profit should be made in compliance with the law. If absolutely everything in the place had been to legal specification it would be a tragic accident, by not complying, the owners actions increased the likelihood and the severity of the accident. He is at fault and hopefully a court will decide his fate.

The writer will probably be needing a lawyer firstly to help him through the questions he should be getting from the lawyers for the victims. This isn't America, but I wouldn't be surprised if the alcohol manufacturers are asking their legal department about what his statements might mean. Then he will also need this lawyer to help him out for the questions he should be getting from the owners. The lawyers for the owners will probably be livid about this. If he was trying to help his friend out, this article puts him even further into the legal poop.

I can understand that the owner feels terrible, and helped to get people out. It still doesn't remove any of the legal obligation he had as an owner which will be probably end in a massive court case. Stating things like this in an article is probably going to put the writer personally into a lot of trouble legally and make a lot of people very p****d off with him personally.

I doubt the writer will have any legal problems as he was stating his opinion which is no different from our comments here. Had Mr. Bulman been in a position of authority making accusations it would be different.

I fully agree that his friends are going to wish he kept his opinions to himself.

You talk about profits being made in compliance with the law. This is the thing. I have been questioning what the law is, but nobody on TV seems to know. Most think the fire safety codes are OK and it is a problem of enforcement. The BMA, on the other hand, say that the safety of buildings in Bangkok needs to be improved indicating the codes are not OK. It will be interesting to see if they improve them and what changes they make.

Let's see if they can even get this investigation and case sorted out first.

Insinuating tea money payments if unproven would be libellous, although I doubt the owner wants to chase it.

It could go down as far as the architects even. If the door widths are out of spec, although, who knows if the rules get that stringent.

I have thought about the architects, but then they could always claim they didn't know what the building was to be used for. Of course, those that did the THB 40 million in improvements last year couldn't say that.

This will never be sorted out to the extent that should be expected. Anyway, my concern is the next one. Will I be in it? Will one of my loved ones? To the extent this can be avoided, the better. Hence, my wanting to know if the codes are where they should be and if they are, then which buildings are not safe. To some extent, this should be evident by visual inspection. While the authorities will never actually do anything about it, we sure can avoid them.

[Old Man River]

What amazes me is that the Bangkok Post published this article and gave it so much prominence.

While I much prefer The Nation (I get both each day), the Bangkok Post has been doing a lot more in depth reporting on this tragedy. I can only guess that they viewed this as a continuation of their in depth reporting. For sure, someone made a mistake on this one.

[mrtoad]

What amazes me is that the Bangkok Post published this article and gave it so much prominence.

I have been pretty much a defender of BP through the years, and understand some of the restrictions they have to operate under. I think that much of the criticism in forums such as this has been somewhat harsh. They have some very brave journalists, and have written many hard hitting pieces when no one else dared to say a word.

But to print this article is just plain crass.

Either someone paid a lot of money ( I hope not,) or the standard of management editing has fallen below acceptable standards.

I hope someone in the BP realises this and prints some kind of retraction, or an alternative opinion.

I agree with you Mobi, that it is shocking that the BP posted this, which maybe suggests that the author of this crass piece, or people assocaited with Santika have some influence in certain circles. It appears that the author is quite well know on the Ex-pat netwoeking scene, although he may find that he is a trifle less popular after this article that he as witten

I really don't know what he thought trying to acheive he was writing it, but some of the stuff that he has written is likely to bite him badly on the ass. If I was in his position, I'd be thnking of taking a trip away for a little while.

As for the BP, there standards continue to slip further and further. Hopefully they will allow a further opinion piece from a different point of view, and will also get involved in some investigative journalism on this tragedy. Still some large missing pieces in this story.

[onethailand]

I heard a Sunbelt Asia staff died in this tragedy ? Anyone can confirm ?

Yes, Mark Laopiganonta, sadly, one of the heroes who went back in repeatedly and didn't get out the last time. He worked for Sunbelt's legal department.

[AnthonyR1]

I heard a Sunbelt Asia staff died in this tragedy ? Anyone can confirm ?

Yes, Mark Laopiganonta, sadly, one of the heroes who went back in repeatedly and didn't get out the last time. He worked for Sunbelt's legal department.

this just seems to get sadder and sadder with every post. regardless of reprisals, regardless of justice served or not......to all TV members, we should never forget. sounds sappy but lets try to do what we can to prevent this from ever occurring again.

what a sad day for thailand

[mrtoad]

I heard a Sunbelt Asia staff died in this tragedy ? Anyone can confirm ?

Yes, Mark Laopiganonta, sadly, one of the heroes who went back in repeatedly and didn't get out the last time. He worked for Sunbelt's legal department.

RIP Mark.

I am so sorry to hear this, I didn't know him personally, but may he rest in peace.

My condolences to his family and friends.

I so hope that his death will not be in vain.

Mods, is there any chance that we could have a thread in response to the Bangkok Post Opinion article today? This would at least give TV members a chance to discuss the claims that have been made in a a seperate thread, rather than clouding the sea with post about the events and other issues.

Edited January 7, 2009 by mrtoad

[raro]

Lying low, he will need to hide very well. Having an article like that printed on the front page with statements about tea money, obvious lack of minimum required safety and police complicity is one of the most irresponsible things the writer could have written. It is an amazing piece to justify the unjustifiable. Accidents happen, but the upshot of ownership is that profit should be made in compliance with the law. If absolutely everything in the place had been to legal specification it would be a tragic accident, by not complying, the owners actions increased the likelihood and the severity of the accident. He is at fault and hopefully a court will decide his fate.....

What amazes me is that the Bangkok Post published this article and gave it so much prominence.

I have been pretty much a defender of BP through the years, and understand some of the restrictions they have to operate under. I think that much of the criticism in forums such as this has been somewhat harsh. They have some very brave journalists, and have written many hard hitting pieces when no one else dared to say a word.

But to print this article is just plain crass.

Either someone paid a lot of money ( I hope not,) or the standard of management editing has fallen below acceptable standards.

I hope someone in the BP realises this and prints some kind of retraction, or an alternative opinion.

I disagree.

Mr. Bulman used his democratic right of voicing his opinion / point of view of the disaster and being one of those who were there as an eyewitness and apparently actively helped to get people out of the burning building he certainly has the right to do so.

The Bangkok Post as a newspaper is in charge to publish such opinions to provide an as complete as possible overall picture of the event.

Since he drives his friend, the owner, into even deeper trouble with some of his statements (no emergency lights, no safety procedures, backhanders etc) this puts some of his other statements protecting the owners (three exit doors, exploding bottles as one of the main causes for the fire spreading fast...) into perspective. Thinking about what I just said.....it does not even protect the owner as we do not know whether three exit doors are sufficient and lacking the safety equipment like emergency lights and sprinklers the reason for the fast spread of the fire is totally irrelevant.

Whether or not emergency lights would have prevented some or all of the deaths is hypothetical, fact is there were no emergency lights. Just to say that it was an accident is not enough, it was an accident waiting to happen.

Then again there is nothing much to add to this quote:

Again, another symptom of the age we live in, when capturing a person's death on your digital device so you can sell it to the press for a few baht, is more important than saving that life.

If you are close enough to tape it on video, you are close enough to help!

As for the exploding bottles: I personally never heard that liquor below 50% alcohol content would burn but given the heat it is not unthinkable. As stated earlier, Ethanol evaporates at 78°C and it is highly inflammable.

Here is actually a link related to the Beverly Hills Supperclub Fire:

http://books.google.co.th/books?id=LJfEKPh...=result#PPA9,M1

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to play the responsibility of the owners/managers of the Santika down. They were clearly operating a death trap and not having sprinklers and emergency lights installed is gross negligence. Also the authorities that did not prevent the club from operating (and possibly accepted bribes in order to do so) are guilty of the same gross negligence.

[JetsetBkk]

...Since he drives his friend, the owner, into even deeper trouble with some of his statements...

I think the Bangkok Post may have intentionally given Mr. Bulman enough rope to hang his friends.

...If you are close enough to tape it on video, you are close enough to help!...

I said that about the videos made by the survivors of the Phuket plane crash. I was jumped on by just about every other poster: "They were in shock..." "They'd just been in a plane crash...", blah, blah, blah.

But they had the presence of mind - and steady enough hands - to get their mobile phones out.

[raro]

...Since he drives his friend, the owner, into even deeper trouble with some of his statements...

I think the Bangkok Post may have intentionally given Mr. Bulman enough rope to hang his friends.

interesting theory, but not absurd!

...If you are close enough to tape it on video, you are close enough to help!...

I said that about the videos made by the survivors of the Phuket plane crash. I was jumped on by just about every other poster: "They were in shock..." "They'd just been in a plane crash...", blah, blah, blah.

But they had the presence of mind - and steady enough hands - to get their mobile phones out.

exactly my thoughts! Where I come from (and I know that different standards apply to different countries) these people would be charged with negligence.

[Jimjim]

Still no list of the deceased?

[Dissolution]

I heard a Sunbelt Asia staff died in this tragedy ? Anyone can confirm ?

Yes, Mark Laopiganonta, sadly, one of the heroes who went back in repeatedly and didn't get out the last time. He worked for Sunbelt's legal department.

He's the guy wearing the blue shirt in the group picture I posted.

Nicest guy I ever knew.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Dissolution

[jayjayjayjay]

There is nothing strange about the number of people died,

All things considered, the number of deaths is less than one might expect in a very crowded third world night club fire. Or perhaps were some of you taken in by the thin veneer of Bangkok and lulled into thinking that Thailand was something other than a relatively insignificant third world country, imagining Thailand as country where workplace safety is an issue of concern and where corruption is not rampant?

Funny how that once the work permit restrictions were eased and the majority of Thai toilets were replaced with high rise commodes, so many of you rushed to live and work in Thailand, even after the far, far worse Kader Factory fire had clearly demonstrated the complacency within the government towards workplace safety. Tragedies such as this fire occur on smaller scales throughout the Kingdom on a weekly basis and yet one rarely hears even the briefest sigh of discontent from the ex-pat crowd. But once the same thing happens to a place frequented by ex-pats and other wealthier Bangkok denizens, the wailing and hand-wringing becomes deafening. But in the end, the rose is still the rose, and nothing will change.

Our factory is safer than our parent companies factory in Oz. We have 700 staff with over 40 exits, auto illuminating lights, 20 plus fire hoses, 50,000 little of emergency water, emergency power, monthly fire drills, no locked doors when staff in the factory, bi-monthly inspection from fire consultants, Total Prevetitive Maintanence (TPM) programs for all fire fighting apparatus and fire extingishers. We will not allow our staff to be victims as we have taken precautions in every way possible. It is about responsible people, long and short of it!

[jayjayjayjay]

I heard a Sunbelt Asia staff died in this tragedy ? Anyone can confirm ?

Yes, Mark Laopiganonta, sadly, one of the heroes who went back in repeatedly and didn't get out the last time. He worked for Sunbelt's legal department.

He's the guy wearing the blue shirt in the group picture I posted.

Nicest guy I ever knew.

Feeling are with you mate, hang in there, stay arround friends for the moment. RIP to your bro and friends. Jay

[mrtoad]

The Bangkok Post has published a letter from Julian Bulman today, following his scandalous piece yesterday. Look's like Bullshit is digging himself deeper into the hole.

Post Bag: How it was, that's all

Published: 8/01/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

Re: The article on the Santika pub fire (Bangkok Post, Jan 7). I am sorry if my article sounded like any sort of justification; that was not what I was trying to portray in my summing up of the events as they actually happened. All I was trying to do was ensure that the facts as I saw them on the night of Dec 31 were made known, and for some closure for myself.

My intention has not been, nor will it ever be, to justify the lack of emergency procedures. I think the summing up of those will be a matter of public record fairly swiftly and there will be several ''scapegoats'' put to the wall for it. I actually think that the local authorities are as much to blame for the blatant disregard of safety as anyone else involved in this tragedy.

We all know that to remain open there must have been deals upon deals with everyone taking their ''tea money''. This is the point I am making here: it is endemic to Thai society and actually systemic to the day-to-day operations of entertainment venues.

My goal is not to justify anything that went on that night or any points people have made regarding the safety issues; some of them can only be answered by the owners and the authorities. That was never my intention - all I put in the article were the actual facts of the tragedy itself.

There is no absolution for anyone from what I have written, only the actual facts of the evening itself. Only God, and the authorities, can grant that.

JULIAN BULMAN

-----

Once again he is till attempting to push the blame away from the owners. I would imagine he is not too popular with some of the local authorities regarding his continuing claims about "tea money". He fails to see that his friend is just as complicit in this by actually paying out, to avoid regulations.

Edited January 8, 2009 by mrtoad

[Mobi]

No pubs inspected in year since law took effect

BSA: Entertainment venues not on list

By: KANANA KATHARANGSIPORN

Published: 8/01/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: Business

Not one pub or entertainment venue in Bangkok has been inspected for compliance with building safety codes since new inspection requirements took effect on Dec 29, 2007.This is despite the fact that entertainment venues are among the nine types of buildings subject to mandatory inspection by Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA) officials. Safety concerns about nightspots have risen to the fore since the New Year's Eve blaze that killed 64 people at the Santika club in Bangkok. Chollachai Thammaviwatnukoon, president of the Building Safety Inspectors and Officers Association (BSA), said the association did not find one pub or entertainment venue on the list of inspected buildings.......

. ....They must be inspected annually......

..... "Pubgoers should look for exits before they enter a pub. Sometimes, sprinklers might not work,"

The full article makes interesting reading and can be found HERE

[onethailand]

..... "Pubgoers should look for exits before they enter a pub. Sometimes, sprinklers might not work,"

Had to laugh when I read that.

Can you imagine "pubgoers" asking the staff to test the sprinklers before they order a drink? Or find alternative exits when they haven't even entered the pub?

[Samuian]

..... "Pubgoers should look for exits before they enter a pub. Sometimes, sprinklers might not work,"

Had to laugh when I read that.

Can you imagine "pubgoers" asking the staff to test the sprinklers before they order a drink? Or find alternative exits when they haven't even entered the pub?

Not well articulated, but he certainly has a point there somewhere - maybe not a native english speaker?

[onethailand]

Might not have been the speaker - but the translator.

The point, of course, is well taken - but noting the location of emergency exits doesn't only apply to pubs, it really applies to any public establishment.

But how in the world is anyone going to know if the sprinklers are working or not?

[FatherF]

Might not have been the speaker - but the translator.

The point, of course, is well taken - but noting the location of emergency exits doesn't only apply to pubs, it really applies to any public establishment.

But how in the world is anyone going to know if the sprinklers are working or not?

To my recollection, there have been cases in the past where the emergency exits have been obstructed, locked, and in one case i seem to recall, welded shut! I am NOT infering that any of these apply in this case.

FF

[Old Man River]

The Bangkok Post has published a letter from Julian Bulman today, following his scandalous piece yesterday. Look's like Bullshit is digging himself deeper into the hole.

Post Bag: How it was, that's all

Published: 8/01/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

Re: The article on the Santika pub fire (Bangkok Post, Jan 7). I am sorry if my article sounded like any sort of justification; that was not what I was trying to portray in my summing up of the events as they actually happened. All I was trying to do was ensure that the facts as I saw them on the night of Dec 31 were made known, and for some closure for myself.

My intention has not been, nor will it ever be, to justify the lack of emergency procedures. I think the summing up of those will be a matter of public record fairly swiftly and there will be several ''scapegoats'' put to the wall for it. I actually think that the local authorities are as much to blame for the blatant disregard of safety as anyone else involved in this tragedy.

We all know that to remain open there must have been deals upon deals with everyone taking their ''tea money''. This is the point I am making here: it is endemic to Thai society and actually systemic to the day-to-day operations of entertainment venues.

My goal is not to justify anything that went on that night or any points people have made regarding the safety issues; some of them can only be answered by the owners and the authorities. That was never my intention - all I put in the article were the actual facts of the tragedy itself.

There is no absolution for anyone from what I have written, only the actual facts of the evening itself. Only God, and the authorities, can grant that.

JULIAN BULMAN

-----

Once again he is till attempting to push the blame away from the owners. I would imagine he is not too popular with some of the local authorities regarding his continuing claims about "tea money". He fails to see that his friend is just as complicit in this by actually paying out, to avoid regulations.

I read this and I should have figured it out from the first letter. What he is doing, in my view, is publicly presenting Santika's upcoming defense.

He admits that the lack of emergency procedures is undeniable, but goes on to say that "the local authorities are as much to blame for the blatant disregard of safety as anyone else involved in this tragedy." He finishes with "there is no absolution for anyone from what I have written, only the actual facts of the evening itself. Only God, and the authorities, can grant that."

Hence, he is blaming the authorities for being responsible for the fire and then saying it is up to the authorities to grant absolution. On tea money, he can say whatever he wants as it is a non issue in this case as it cannot be proven.

While his position is unpopular, I now don't think this guy is as naive as I first thought.

[mrtoad]

I read this and I should have figured it out from the first letter. What he is doing, in my view, is publicly presenting Santika's upcoming defense.

He admits that the lack of emergency procedures is undeniable, but goes on to say that "the local authorities are as much to blame for the blatant disregard of safety as anyone else involved in this tragedy." He finishes with "there is no absolution for anyone from what I have written, only the actual facts of the evening itself. Only God, and the authorities, can grant that."

Hence, he is blaming the authorities for being responsible for the fire and then saying it is up to the authorities to grant absolution. On tea money, he can say whatever he wants as it is a non issue in this case as it cannot be proven.

While his position is unpopular, I now don't think this guy is as naive as I first thought.

I agree that he is not naive, but I wonder what his personal or financial interests in this are? There is a lot more to Bullshit than what he is saying. Personally, I deplore his crass, insensitive and pious attitude. He has shown little respect for the bereaved famalies, the dead and the injured.

The use of the word "scapegoat" is also interesting, in that I beleive that he is suggesting that his freind is going to be made a scapegoat. Considering that he suitably decided to leave out required safety features in the club, and circumnvent the laws, he is hardly a "scapegoat".

Allthough probably not the most apprpriate statement, "I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire".

Edited January 8, 2009 by mrtoad

[Old Man River]

I read this and I should have figured it out from the first letter. What he is doing, in my view, is publicly presenting Santika's upcoming defense.

He admits that the lack of emergency procedures is undeniable, but goes on to say that "the local authorities are as much to blame for the blatant disregard of safety as anyone else involved in this tragedy." He finishes with "there is no absolution for anyone from what I have written, only the actual facts of the evening itself. Only God, and the authorities, can grant that."

Hence, he is blaming the authorities for being responsible for the fire and then saying it is up to the authorities to grant absolution. On tea money, he can say whatever he wants as it is a non issue in this case as it cannot be proven.

While his position is unpopular, I now don't think this guy is as naive as I first thought.

I agree that he is not naive, but I wonder what his personal or financial interests in this are? There is a lot more to Bullshit than what he is saying. Personally, I deplore his crass, insensitive and pious attitude. He has shown little respect for the bereaved famalies, the dead and the injured.

I don't know his incentive, but whatever it is, I could never understand anyway.

[Old Man River]

No pubs inspected in year since law took effect

BSA: Entertainment venues not on list

By: KANANA KATHARANGSIPORN

Published: 8/01/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: Business

Not one pub or entertainment venue in Bangkok has been inspected for compliance with building safety codes since new inspection requirements took effect on Dec 29, 2007.This is despite the fact that entertainment venues are among the nine types of buildings subject to mandatory inspection by Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA) officials. Safety concerns about nightspots have risen to the fore since the New Year's Eve blaze that killed 64 people at the Santika club in Bangkok. Chollachai Thammaviwatnukoon, president of the Building Safety Inspectors and Officers Association (BSA), said the association did not find one pub or entertainment venue on the list of inspected buildings.......

. ....They must be inspected annually......

..... "Pubgoers should look for exits before they enter a pub. Sometimes, sprinklers might not work,"

The full article makes interesting reading and can be found HERE

Mobi, below is the link to the article published by the Bangkok Post in late 2006 (scroll down a bit and it is in English).

Briefly, what it says is that more than 20,000 buildings throughout Thailand need to undergo third party safety inspections before the end of 2007 or face a fine of THB 60,000 or 3 months in jail. Further to this, the Director General of the Department of Public Works and Town Planning said that "stubborn owners who defy the law will have to pay an additional 10,000 baht every day.'' Note, he said will have to pay, not that it could be negotiated.

Today's article is unclear as to the 2900 buildings in Bangkok that have yet to undergo third party inspections (which includes all entertainment venues). If it is the major inspections done by the BMA once every 5 years, then that isn't the fault of the owners. If it is that no inspections have been done whatsoever (including the annual minor ones done by outside, third party inspectors), then the BMA should be rolling in cash from fines paid.

http://www.thaibuildinginspector.net/forum....php?topic=43.0

[oevna]

...

The use of the word "scapegoat" is also interesting, in that I beleive that he is suggesting that his freind is going to be made a scapegoat. Considering that he suitably decided to leave out required safety features in the club, and circumnvent the laws, he is hardly a "scapegoat".

Allthough probably not the most apprpriate statement, "I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire".

I wonder if "scapegoat" was just a poor choice of words. Perhaps he really meant a "fall guy" for other more influential people who bear more of the responsibility for making sure that the club was safe. I'm not saying that Mr. Setsawat is without blame, but I just wonder if there are others who are at least as much to blame, if not more so, who are shielding themselves by having him take the fall.

[oevna]

Might not have been the speaker - but the translator.

The point, of course, is well taken - but noting the location of emergency exits doesn't only apply to pubs, it really applies to any public establishment.

But how in the world is anyone going to know if the sprinklers are working or not?

If you carry a cigarette lighter, I suppose you could test them. Just do it during the Songkran festival so that nobody is surprised when they are doused with water!

[Mobi]

Loophole clouds Santika charges

By: Supoj Wancharoen

Published: 9/01/2009 at 10:20 AM

The owner of the fire-ravaged Santika pub -- described as a "deathtrap" -- may escape charges for violating the Building Control Act through a legal loophole. As the pub was not a ``controlled building'' under the law, it was not required to have a fire control system or emergency exits, according to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's public works department.Chatnai Navaphut, chief of the public works department, yesterday revealed the building was originally registered as a private residence, but its owner later requested a change in the building type to an entertainment venue....

....the owner was unlikely to face charges for breaking the Building Control Act......

``Santika pub's building is neither a large building nor a high rise, therefore it is not required to have fire escapes and exits,''.,..

.... One official said the office could not even find a blueprint of the pub building, submitted for construction approval.....

Full story : HERE

[steffi]

Loophole clouds Santika charges

By: Supoj Wancharoen

Published: 9/01/2009 at 10:20 AM

The owner of the fire-ravaged Santika pub -- described as a "deathtrap" -- may escape charges for violating the Building Control Act through a legal loophole. As the pub was not a ``controlled building'' under the law, it was not required to have a fire control system or emergency exits, according to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's public works department.Chatnai Navaphut, chief of the public works department, yesterday revealed the building was originally registered as a private residence, but its owner later requested a change in the building type to an entertainment venue....

....the owner was unlikely to face charges for breaking the Building Control Act......

``Santika pub's building is neither a large building nor a high rise, therefore it is not required to have fire escapes and exits,''.,..

.... One official said the office could not even find a blueprint of the pub building, submitted for construction approval.....

Full story : HERE

Well let's see how long it takes to close that loop hole and lets see how many buildings in Thailand also meet this criteria.

[taxexile]

Loophole clouds Santika charges

this comes as no surprise , and i think santika loophole related stories will become commonplace as this story and "investigation" unfolds.

the police will be in a hurry to wrap this up and put it to bed by prosecuting and convicting the owner , the owner will be looking to involve the police , the police will be looking to involve the bma , the bma will be looking at the actual legal status of the building itself , and the courts will be scratching their heads for years.

lawyers will be drooling with excitement and rubbing their hands with glee as months if not years of long , complicated buck passing , fact finding , wheedling , scurrying , delaying , loophole crawling , paper chasing accusations and denials ricochet back and forth between all the involved parties.

it would seem that as usual , badly drafted legislation coupled with negligent compliance , poor practice and corruption have led to a state of affairs where nobody will be ultimately be held responsible in the eyes of the law for this tragedy.

a building , registered as a private residence , allowed by the police to operate as a nightclub for years not being required to have fire exits ....... even kafka couldnt have made this one up.

the bereaved will shed tears , the burned will undergo years of plastic surgery , those responsible will remain unpunished and the lawyers will get rich.

its a total disgrace and the people of this country should be ashamed and disgusted with it all , but mai pen rai , this is thailand , they all live in bubbles and just dont care enough to do anything about it.

whats new?

welcome to thailand.

Edited January 9, 2009 by taxexile

[Mobi]

Loophole clouds Santika charges

this comes as no surprise , and i think santika loophole related stories will become commonplace as this story and "investigation" unfolds.

the police will be in a hurry to wrap this up and put it to bed by prosecuting and convicting the owner , the owner will be looking to involve the police , the police will be looking to involve the bma , the bma will be looking at the actual legal status of the building itself , and the courts will be scratching their heads for years.

lawyers will be drooling with excitement and rubbing their hands with glee as months if not years of long , complicated buck passing , fact finding , wheedling , scurrying , delaying , loophole crawling , paper chasing accusations and denials ricochet back and forth between all the involved parties.

it would seem that as usual , badly drafted legislation coupled with negligent compliance , poor practice and corruption have led to a state of affairs where nobody will be ultimately be held responsible in the eyes of the law for this tragedy.

a building , registered as a private residence , allowed by the police to operate as a nightclub for years not being required to have fire exits ....... even kafka couldnt have made this one up.

the bereaved will shed tears , the burned will undergo years of plastic surgery , those responsible will remain unpunished and the lawyers will get rich.

its a total disgrace and the people of this country should be ashamed and disgusted with it all , but mai pen rai , this is thailand , they all live in bubbles and just dont care enough to do anything about it.

whats new?

welcome to thailand.

Post of the month

I'm off for a two week break from Thailand to get the stench of corruption out of my nostrils for a while

[raro]

Look's like Bullshit is digging himself deeper into the hole.

Post Bag: How it was, that's all

Published: 8/01/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

Re: The article on the Santika pub fire (Bangkok Post, Jan 7). I am sorry if my article sounded like any sort of justification; that was not what I was trying to portray in my summing up of the events as they actually happened. All I was trying to do was ensure that the facts as I saw them on the night of Dec 31 were made known, and for some closure for myself.

My intention has not been, nor will it ever be, to justify the lack of emergency procedures. I think the summing up of those will be a matter of public record fairly swiftly and there will be several ''scapegoats'' put to the wall for it. I actually think that the local authorities are as much to blame for the blatant disregard of safety as anyone else involved in this tragedy.

We all know that to remain open there must have been deals upon deals with everyone taking their ''tea money''. This is the point I am making here: it is endemic to Thai society and actually systemic to the day-to-day operations of entertainment venues.

My goal is not to justify anything that went on that night or any points people have made regarding the safety issues; some of them can only be answered by the owners and the authorities. That was never my intention - all I put in the article were the actual facts of the tragedy itself.

There is no absolution for anyone from what I have written, only the actual facts of the evening itself. Only God, and the authorities, can grant that.

JULIAN BULMAN

-----

Once again he is till attempting to push the blame away from the owners. I would imagine he is not too popular with some of the local authorities regarding his continuing claims about "tea money". He fails to see that his friend is just as complicit in this by actually paying out, to avoid regulations.

I read this and I should have figured it out from the first letter. What he is doing, in my view, is publicly presenting Santika's upcoming defense.

He admits that the lack of emergency procedures is undeniable, but goes on to say that "the local authorities are as much to blame for the blatant disregard of safety as anyone else involved in this tragedy." He finishes with "there is no absolution for anyone from what I have written, only the actual facts of the evening itself. Only God, and the authorities, can grant that."

Hence, he is blaming the authorities for being responsible for the fire and then saying it is up to the authorities to grant absolution. On tea money, he can say whatever he wants as it is a non issue in this case as it cannot be proven.

While his position is unpopular, I now don't think this guy is as naive as I first thought.

Disagree again.

He said clearly that he is NOT justifying the lack of emergency procedures.

He said that the "local authorities are as much to blame for the blatant disregard of safety as anyone else involved in this tragedy" - I cannot see where he is protecting the owners with this statement.

The owner took the convenience of the lack of law enforcement and did not put sufficient emergency procedures in place. Hence he has to take the blame/responsibility of doing so and the authorities have to take the blame/responsibility of allowing it to happen.