Fire at Chatuchak beer house kills 30

[mauRICE]

The death toll is now 32 and counting. Apparently the owner of the venue is among the injured and is in hospital. He knowingly and wilfully neglected safety regulations and has the blood of 32 people on his hands and made orphans out of children. How is he different from the Aussie guy who killed the teenage Isaan girl in Pattaya? Shouldn't he face the firing squad too?

[vinapu]

there's bit difference between causing death by neglect and cold, premeditated murder, even in accection. No ?

[daydreamer]

Sure, the club owner should be held accountable for his actions, but what about the government officials who looked the other way?  They should also be punished.  This is one reason these deadly fires happen again and again. 

Certainly there were required fire and safety inspections, and the licensing officials that allowed a licensed restaurant to instead operate as a pub.  It has been in the news that the pub was last inspected in April.  If so, how was it not noticed that this was an entertainment venue, and not a restaurant?  The tables and seating arrangements, the stage for the live band, and the large neon Jameson Whiskey sign above the stage should have been obvious clues.

If the people responsible to ensure compliance were disciplined in a significant way, these death traps would not as easily evade the laws, and continue to operate, putting lives in jeopardy.  

The Australian man who murdered the 17 year old girl had no accomplices in his crime, and as @vinapu pointed out, his crime was cold blooded murder.  

In the case of the pub fire, it was not just the pub owner who violated the law, there were also officials complicit in this crime, whether through incompetence, acceptance of bribes, or lackadaisical attitude.  They will not be held accountable, and this will happen again because of it.

 

[PeterRS2]

2 hours ago, daydreamer said:

Certainly there were required fire and safety inspections, and the licensing officials that allowed a licensed restaurant to instead operate as a pub.  It has been in the news that the pub was last inspected in April.  If so, how was it not noticed that this was an entertainment venue, and not a restaurant?

As usual in Thailand there are loopholes. After the dreadful Santika Club death toll, the BMA did carry out improvements. From 2012, all nightclubs had to use fire resistant materials for sound insulation, have wider exits that opened outwards, and power backup systems that would keep exit signs illuminated. For larger clubs with a capacity of 500 or more, sprinker systems were mandated.

The loophole is that these new regulations only apply to venues in designated entertainment zones - the ones estabished by the first Thaksin government and his ultra-religious minister of the Interior. In Bangkok that means just three - parts of Silom, RCA and Khao Sarn Road. Most pubs are outside these zones and so are categorised as restaurants permitted to have live music. The regulations in the previous paragraph did not apply to the Rong Beer Na Ladprao pub. Consequently, it may be - but this is a guess - that those who inspected the pub in April did in fact ensure that the pub was operating legally.  At his press conference, the BMA Governor said -

"From now we will apply the stricter standards to venues like these. Even if we do not have full legal powers we will make suggestions. If they don't follow these, we will try to find ways to stop them from operating. We must be able to shut them down if there's a risk."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd6e68n3jz5o

It is perfectly obvious that the zoning laws have to be changed. At present there can be no pub within 2 kms of a temple or a school. That is a near impossibility in a city like Bangkok. But - there's always a but in Thailand -  the number of such establishments is well in excess of 1,000.

But these are just words! Where will the BMA find the staff? And how will it deal with the endemic corruption that will result in certain police and officials turning a blind eye? The owner of the Santika Club was given 3 years in jail, but was able to remain a free man for six years before serving his sentence. And it is interesting that the Prime Minister in his recent press conference was asked this -

When asked by a reporter Prime Minister Anutin in his [previous] capacity as Minister of the Interior, whether he should resign given the large number of deaths, he laughed and said -

"That question is designed to provoke emotions; it should not be asked."

So the snake just laughed!!

https://www.thaienquirer.com/72103/thai-enquirer-news-summary-july-15-2026/

[Keithambrose]

5 hours ago, vinapu said:

there's bit difference between causing death by neglect and cold, premeditated murder, even in accection. No ?

In English law, it's the difference  between  murder and manslaughter,  for murder, as well as the act, actus reus, you also need the intention to kill, or cause serious harm, mens rea. Sometimes rendered as the guilty act, and the guilty mind.

[mauRICE]

Sure, the authorities responsible for enforcing the safety regulations should be held responsible too but the buck stops with the owner. What is neglect? He knew what safety measures needed to be implemented but he wilfully chose to ignore them; in fact he actively employed dangerous measures on his premises and now he's killed 32 people as a result.

Cold blooded murder? Look at some of the videos of the trapped victims screaming for help before they suffocated and burnt to death. Tell the families who had to identify the dead bodies of their loved ones - some of which were charred beyond recognition - that it was just neglect. Tell the kids whose parents are never coming back because the owner "neglected" to ensure proper, working exits from the burning building and had in fact at least one emergency exit locked on purpose.

What message are we sending to the kids?

Forgetting to feed the cat is neglect; wilfully and intentionally locking emergency exits, allowing faulty electrical equipment to be used and using highly flammable material as decoration which resulted in the deaths of 32 people is not.

 

[daydreamer]

4 hours ago, mauRICE said:

What message are we sending to the kids?

 

What message are we sending to the kids?  Maybe this message:

Your government is unable and unwilling to prevent these tragic events from happening, so you should be prepared to look out for your own safety.

It's the same story when crossing the street on a marked pedestrian crosswalk in Thailand.  Be aware of your surroundings, and although safety laws exist, your government is unwilling to enforce those laws.

[vinapu]

13 hours ago, PeterRS2 said:

As usual in Thailand there are loopholes.

6 hours ago, daydreamer said:

 

It's the same story when crossing the street on a marked pedestrian crosswalk in Thailand.  

not to defend Thailand 's actions but I'd not single out  that country as particularly neglectful. Those things happen everywhere , enough to recall that is happened in Switzerland  not long ago. 

as for crossing on marked crosswalk, close call happened to me thrice over the years on my quiet , suburban , local intersection and I live very far from Thailand.

As you said

6 hours ago, daydreamer said:

Be aware of your surroundings, 

 

[vinapu]

10 hours ago, mauRICE said:

....buck stops with the owner. What is neglect? He knew what safety measures needed to be implemented but he wilfully chose to ignore them; in fact he actively employed dangerous measures on his premises and now he's killed 32 people as a result.

 

absolutely correct but calling him murderer  makes as much sense as calling victims suicidal , only because they chose to entertain themselves in such doubtful enterprise.

In short , jail yes, gallows no.

[Moses]

On 7/14/2026 at 4:43 AM, PeterRS2 said:

And what is this about?

On 7/14/2026 at 4:43 AM, PeterRS2 said:

The fire was assumed to have been caused by an indoor firework.

"indoor firework" can't ignite fire if

On 7/13/2026 at 10:01 AM, PeterRS2 said:

all materials used in a theatre stage - scenery, costumes, props etc. - have to pass fire inspections every time before a show can open.

do you copy?
 

[daydreamer]

6 hours ago, vinapu said:

not to defend Thailand 's actions but I'd not single out  that country as particularly neglectful. Those things happen everywhere , enough to recall that is happened in Switzerland  not long ago. 

Yes, I agree, fire disasters happen everywhere, but they happen in Thailand with the same causes, blocked exits, unapproved flammable fixtures and decor, locked fire exits to prevent customers leaving without paying, etc - time after time, with dozens of deaths in many cases.

Quote from today's article in the Bangkok Post: 

"How did a night out become a mass-casualty disaster? Why were so many people unable to escape? And after years of promises following previous tragedies, will this time be different?

Those answers may ultimately determine whether the deaths at Rong Beer Na Ladprao become another forgotten chapter in Thailand's long history of fire disasters -- or the catalyst for lasting change."

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/3287144/deadly-pub-fire-triggers-nationwide-probe

 

6 hours ago, vinapu said:

as for crossing on marked crosswalk, close call happened to me thrice over the years on my quiet , suburban , local intersection and I live very far from Thailand.

Certainly there are incidents and close calls with pedestrian safety anywhere, however in Thailand, pedestrian safety is a complete joke, not a close call, or an occasional safety glitch.  After the famous case when a young female doctor was mowed down in a crosswalk a couple years ago in Bangkok, there was a brief campaign focused on crosswalks and pedestrian safety.  Lots of red paint was purchased to highlight crosswalks.  And today?  The same old flagrant disregard for pedestrians.  No enforcement, and no consequences for violating the law.

As an example, to cross Silom Road at a marked crosswalk, often twenty or more vehicles will zoom past without making any attempt to slow down.  Passenger cars, motor bikes, city buses, taxis, trucks, tuk-tuks, none of them will stop.  The only time vehicles will reluctantly allow pedestrians to cross is when a number of people gather at the crosswalk, and the crowd sheepishly inches forward, until one driver slows, allowing the crowd to hesitantly step forward, until all three lanes of traffic come to a stop.  Then it's the same cat and mouse game to cross the traffic in the other direction, to finally reach the far side of the road.

Crossing Surawong Road is similar.  How many times have I read forum members write about the hazards of crossing there?  Forum members have even written that they choose a hotel based on which side of the road it is located, so they can avoid the danger of crossing Surawong Road. 

Does that happen or sound familiar in your city?

 

[PeterRS2]

I have noticed cars not giving pedestrians right of way at these supposed pedestrian crossings. And I have spent time in taxis looking ahead trying to see where the crossings are. The fact is that if the car is going at a reasonable speed - not fast! - it is often quite difficult to see small humps or even no humps on the road with paint on them. A driver's eyes are primarily looking forward and to the side for traffic. If Thailand had the same system as the UK there would be warning lights at driver's eye level. Then you don't need these ridiculous humps. Warning lights plus large white/orange striped crossings work far better.

But then there is also the issue in Thailand of the police doing precisely nothing about protecting pedestrians. They spend vast amounts of time making a mess of traffic congestion and pedestrians are just an inconvenience.

[vinapu]

22 minutes ago, PeterRS2 said:

 

But then there is also the issue in Thailand of the police doing precisely nothing about protecting pedestrians.

+1

[PeterRS2]

8 hours ago, vinapu said:

absolutely correct but calling him murderer  makes as much sense as calling victims suicidal , only because they chose to entertain themselves in such doubtful enterprise.

Deciding to make those who died and were terribly injured victims through their selection of pub would, I suggest, be completely missing the point. DId they know about Thaksin's Entertaining Zoning, a decision made 25 years ago? Did they know that the pub was not subject to more stringent fire precautions? The answer in each and every case will I am certain have been "No!" If a tourist goes to a pub in any city, they have a reasonable right to assume they will be safe. I agree as stated in my earlier post that each customer should undergo some simple checking. But let's face it, most don't. The blame here lies almost totally with the government and the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority.

As for calling the owner a "murderer" there is possibly a valid reason. There are many bars in Bangkok whose owners, having obtained their safety certificates, then deliberately forget about them and go back to their old ways. Most fire experts have zeroed in on the foam sound insulation material on the ceiing. As reported in The New York Times -

“Once the fire starts, the foam basically will make a small fire an inferno,” said Xinyan Huang, an associate professor and fire safety engineer at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Mr. Huang said this kind of foam has accounted for a sizable chunk of the deadliest nightclub fires around the world in recent years.

The problem is so bad that Steven Badger, a lawyer based in Dallas with expertise on cases involving indoor fires, said that whenever he sees foam soundproofing in a venue, he immediately leaves.

“People putting up the foam don’t know how dangerous it can be. But the building officials from the government should know,” Mr. Badger said. “It is surprising to me that any code official, who goes into a building, would not identify the presence of these materials, and ask that they be removed.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/14/world/asia/bangkok-bar-fire-flammable-foam.html

[PeterRS2]

19 hours ago, mauRICE said:

Sure, the authorities responsible for enforcing the safety regulations should be held responsible too but the buck stops with the owner. What is neglect? He knew what safety measures needed to be implemented but he wilfully chose to ignore them; in fact he actively employed dangerous measures on his premises and now he's killed 32 people as a result.

As my earlier posts have suggested, I could not agree with this. As far as we know at present, the owner had done nothing wrong because the government and BMA rules specifically do not cover pubs outside the three Entertainment Zones. And that pub was not in an Entertainment Zone so there is strong reason to believe he had no idea what rules covered those within the Zones. How, then, could he "wilfully" choose to ignore them? You could blame him for not using a bit of common sense regarding blockage of exit doorways. But lack of common sense is I believe rarely a legal liability.

[PeterRS2]

4 hours ago, Moses said:

do you copy?

Seems like you are merely repeating the argument i made in an earlier post!

[macaroni21]

Nothing much new in this video, except for the floor plan.  For a place licensed as a restaurant, look how small the kitchen is; surely no one should be fooled into thinking it was a restaurant.

 

[PeterRS2]

9 hours ago, macaroni21 said:

Nothing much new in this video, except for the floor plan.  For a place licensed as a restaurant, look how small the kitchen is; surely no one should be fooled into thinking it was a restaurant.

True, but how many customers would bother. It would not matter to them if the kitchen was the size of a toilet or a temple. I'll bet no one in that conflagration even looked at the kitchen. In any event, the bar had passed the BMA inspection in April and had been open as a place of live entertainment since 2023. I suspect many in the bar at the time of the fire were regular patrons.

As mentioned in my earlier post, the issue goes all the way back to Thaksin's dreadful Interior Minister, his old crony, Purachai Piumsombun decision in 2001 limiting places of entertainment to three zones where much stricter regulations apply. Thereafter both the government and the BMA are both negligent and guilty for not updating the regulations, the more so in the light of other fires over the last 25 years.