Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Demolishing the historic British Embassy to make way for a shopping center

Recommended Posts

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How appropriate, the spirit of brexit 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, soalbundy said:

How appropriate, the spirit of brexit 😆

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

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, miamiman123 said:

Capitalism eats its own!

 

So socialism is better

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical greed. What do you expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, miamiman123 said:

Capitalism eats its own!

 

Large Embassys are unnecessary these days 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Large Embassys are unnecessary these days 

Tell that to the Americans :wink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.’

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...