Dozens die in night club fire

[villager]

Mac, thank you for your unbelievable reply, of which i believe every single word, as in most cases if a farang has an accident with a Thai the farang will adjudged to be at fault!!.

[pachangamac042]

Somebody got to help me out here.

“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 favor 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 local police does refuse the permit but the CAC ruled in favor of the pub, because the owners were qualified to operate a nightclub and the venue's location was not prohibited by law. In the BP I read; “It could not register as an entertainment venue in 2003 after City Hall enforced zoning in Bangkok”. So in 2003 it could not register, because of the enforced zoning in Bangkok, but in 2007 the venue's location was not prohibited by law? Was there no more zoning in 2007 or what? And if you build outside the zone, is it not against laws?

“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 as the issue of possible violations of the building law by the pub operators was not mentioned in the testimonies given to the court.

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.”

The police refused the operation of the pub based on building-law violation, which is the matter of the police, but the court overrules it. But then the court says that the court had nothing to do with the building-law violation, because it is police matter, so why would the court rule in favor of the pub owners and against the responsible police? I mean, the court’s rules count, so they look like the responsible, but now they say that it has nothing to do with the court, but with the police?

"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.

Again, what counts at the end, the court’s ruling or the police decision not to let the pub operate, based on police matters, like the building law violation? The final decision was with the court, not the police, but the court does not want to have anything to do with the disaster which happened because their final ruling?

“On Friday, deputy police commissioner-general 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. However, he added, the pub had opened anyway following an Administrative Court injunction pending a ruling.”

So it does not really matter if it was against the law, as long as it is not said so by the court? And how long does it take for the court to rule?

“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.”

The pub operators met the legal qualifications, even if it was against the building regulations? Are building regulations not regulated by the laws? If they are, how could the pub owners have met the legal qualifications? The legal qualifications, has it to do with the qualifications to operate a pub only but nothing to do with the building itself?

“He said, however, that the Supreme Administrative Court in October that year withdrew the injunction as it disagreed with the lower court's decision.”

The stat*ments in italics are from The Nation. I wonder, if The Nation may have messed up some stat*ments translating them into English? I think that there are a lot of contradictions in this Nation report. Maybe it is just me not really understanding it? Do I read something wrong in this article? I am lost here. To me it sounds like; me not, you as well!

[pachangamac042]

“Pol Col Kajornsak Pansakorn, one of the senior investigators, said that Mr Visuk would be charged with carelessness resulting in death and admitting under-age people to the club, the AFP news agency reported.” - By: BangkokPost.com and AFP, Published: 4/01/2009 at 10:49 PM.

Charges for carelessness resulting in death, sounds quite appropriate, but that was yesterday said a by a police Cornel.

“Police say Santika had been refused an operating licence since 2004 because of safety concerns but it remained legally open while appealing that decision.” - By: BangkokPost.com and AFP, Published: 4/01/2009 at 10:49 PM.

Apparently the safety concerns were more then justified, but the pub can still operate legally for FOUR years while appealing the decision? Something is badly wrong here and how long may it take for a court to make such a decision? Here it seems like the police’s responsibility is not a question at all. They have done their job and that is it. What about the court?

“If the fire was caused by stage effects, musicians or the production team would be held responsible. If it was caused by fireworks, police would take legal action against the customer.” – By: POST REPORTERS, Published: 5/01/2009 at 12:00 AM .

How convenient it was either the musicians, the production team or the customers, the responsible ones. Of course, how could it be the responsibility of the police, the court or the owners. They have done no wrong, they have not caused the fire.

“Regardless, owners of the pub could not avoid a charge of allowing underaged revellers to enter the venue, said Pol Gen Jongrak.” – By: POST REPORTERS, Published: 5/01/2009 at 12:00 AM .

Suddenly no more charges for carelessness resulting in death? Just a charge of allowing underaged revelers to enter the venue. What do you get for letting in underaged revelers? Two slaps on your hand? But hey, now it is a police General talking.

Other charges will follow by authorities against Suriya Ritrabue, the registered owner. I guess it should have said, the registered owner without a license. Or did he have one?

Yesterday, it seemed like a big argument was going on between the Administrative Court and the police, blaming each other for being responsible. Today nobody speaks about the authorities anymore?

Just some questions; Was the pub against the laws? Did it have proper licenses? Who issued those licenses? Was it registered as a late food place or pub? Can you run a pub with no insurance? Can you get an insurance if the place would have been illegal? Was the building build according to the building laws? Who checked the building? Did they give their ok to the building? And so on…

To me it looks like, the police are just interested to blame somebody for the fire and somebody else for letting underaged kids in. And that is it?

[Chaiyuth]

Looks like the court took the money on this one. Anywhere else the court would have sided with the police in matters concerning safety.

[villager]

Mac, you ask quite a lot of very pertinent Questions , non of which will be truthfully answered , I just give up!!, the reason being that Thailand is a nation of buck passers and the buck never stops anywhere.

[Chaiyuth]

J1V, I just learned of your wife's accident from your prior posts. She and the other lady are in my prayers. Wishing them a speedy recovery.

[SARDINES]

Hi J1V,

Very, very sorry to hear that you wife has been hurt. My sincerest condolenses to you and hope that she can come home from the hospital and be back with you very soon. Once she's back, please let us all know.

Take care...
SARDINES

[pachangamac042]

Sardines, condolences are made when someone died. His wife is “just” injured. Anyways, he will understand and appreciate.

[SARDINES]

Sardines, condolences are made when someone died. His wife is “just” injured. Anyways, he will understand and appreciate.

Hi Pach,
Thank you for the pointer.

J1V,
sorry for the mis-use of the term and no disrespect was intended.

sincerely,
SARDINES

[stilljustbrowsing]

J1V, I hope your wife makes a speedy recovery.

On topic, perhaps the Thai police and the Thai justice system ARE WORKING TOGETHER!