Stardust Silver Swan objection

MorningStar

I have heard about the Satrdust Campaginer (SC) are complaining about the Silver Swan opening on the site of the old disco but I am a bit confused. The Silver Swan has been there years and I am not even sure how long it has been closed. There has been a combination of night club,pool hall and pub there for a long time not long after the fire. My understanding of the floor layout was the night club was on the other side of the building which has not been built on (tarmac and parking there now). I am really not sure what the SC are making such a big deal about it now. It is terrible what happened but I can't help think these people are trying to cost the owner finacial loss as a vendetta. Does anybody know more?

Heinrich

You are obviously young and are not properly aware of the tragic disaster which happened in the Stardust!

There are many sites for pubs/clubs in the area and using this one is rather insensitive to say the least.

Scores of young people died of horrible burns and many more were injured or traumatised for life. The whole sorry affair was brushed under the carpet and lay there for twenty five years!

Claims of arson were put forward but not substantiated and the negligent owners were awarded compensation whilst thevictims and families were not.

Fire regulations were abused and proven but for this these serious breeches no action was taken. Huge fines should have been in order. The furnishings were not fireproof as is no the order of the day.

Ironically during the protest outside St. Lukes some protestors went to Fagan's across the road and found a fire exit blocked with a bar stool! A cock and bull yarn about wet cement was proffered.

Money certainly talks and unfortunately does not smell.
:mad:

BadAcidStudios

"I can't help think these people are trying to cost the owner finacial loss as a vendetta"

I wouldnt say thats all they are trying to do but so what if they are. What justice have these people received. What exactly is your problem. How would you feel mate if one of your family members died in a nightclub, the owner was never punished and now he is opening up a new project on the same site. Would you not be out there in the rain like they were last night when i passed them with your plackard.

Why "Cant you help thinking that these people are trying to cost the owner financial loss". Maybe they feel that this is all they can do at the moment. Im sure there is more on those peoples minds than that anyway. I respect them for keeping the fight going so long and fighting for justice. Something you obviously cant see in them. Thats your loss mate. The only thing YOU see in these people is maybe your own crappy attitude. they arent YOU

What a S**t way to look at things mate

MorningStar

Heinrich wrote:

You are obviously young and are not properly aware of the tragic disaster which happened in the Stardust!

There are many sites for pubs/clubs in the area and using this one is rather insensitive to say the least.

:mad:

You would be wrong. I am from Artane and I know the site more from directly afterwards than before. Since the disaster the Silver Swan has been there is my point. There was also a pool hall and another nightclub called Crazy Joe's. AFAIK the actual site of the night club is not where the Silver Swan was. I have been in the Silver Swan drinking with the sister of somebody who died in th e fire

I have heard these campaigners and they are nothappy about how things have gone. I posted this becasue I want to understand their NEW objection to what has been there a long time. UNless you know the eact location and what the exact history you aren't really telling me anything. I get people dislike the idea of theses people just being angry and doing something out of revenge rather than grief. Dislike my mild suggestion but if you don't know the facts you can't just dismiss what I am asking

Heinrich

Assuming that I don't know the facts would you care to enlighten me and indeed others who might be upset by your proclamations?

I would very much doubt if victim's family members would frequent that establishment but perhaps you could supply some of you facts for that one.

Whether it is grief or revenge is immaterial as it has been proved tht the safety regulations were not adhered to and as a result scores of young people dies in horrid circumstances.

Claiming but not actually proving arson was a smokescreen and it must be stressed that fire exits are in place for very specific reasons!

THe proprietors of this ill fated establishment has some interesting friends...

Of course, coming from Artane, you would know that already!

Have you been to that site?
Very little had changed since the fire and its chilling!
The reception is now where the original entrance was and there was a pub on the side of the stardust as well called the lantern rooms

No I don’t think he should have ever made a profit after what happened there that night
it was the result of faulty electrics fuelled by all the unsafe materials onsite and in the building, the people were chained inside unable to save themselves and they died a horrible death

Read the book They never came home and see if then you think their should be a pub on the stardust site their never should have been
The reason the pubs have changed from the silver swan to skellys to pool halls or whatever the fck he put there is because they weren’t popular
a lot of people would never set foot on the site after what happened to their friends or relatives and the gross injustice they suffered.

BadAcidStudios

well man, if you're from Artane like i am, why dont you stroll on down to them tonight and actually ask them what their prupose is. im sure they will be more than happy to tell you how this has really affected their lives and why they feel they need to protest outside.

Why dont you do this instead of complaing on Boards how you cant stop thinking about blah blah blah.

If you really Cant stop thinking this then go down and have that chat. see if you can come away without a lump in your throat and tear in your eye.

MorningStar

Heinrich wrote:

Assuming that I don't know the facts would you care to enlighten me and indeed others who might be upset by your proclamations?

I would very much doubt if victim's family members would frequent that establishment but perhaps you could supply some of you facts for that one.

I proclaimed nothing I asked what are there objection to something that has been there for years AFAIK it is not on the site of the Stardust. Do you know it was? THe Silver swan has been there on the same place for at least 20 years. Why the sudden objection?
I have been in the Silver Swan with victim's family memeber. Are you from the area?
I remeber the night a new night club opened in the same building and there were know objections and that was about 15 years ago.

As for talking to the victims family. Of course it is upsetting but we are talking about a differnt part of the building that has been open for years.

MorningStar

coolsmileygirl wrote:

Have you been to that site?
Very little had changed since the fire and its chilling!
The reception is now where the original entrance was and there was a pub on the side of the stardust as well called the lantern rooms

Yes I have been there. It is a car park as I said. THe site is only chilling if you know what happened. It sounds like you are saying the pub was there the whole time before and after the Stardust.

coolsmileygirl wrote:

No I don’t think he should have ever made a profit after what happened there that night
it was the result of faulty electrics fuelled by all the unsafe materials onsite and in the building, the people were chained inside unable to save themselves and they died a horrible death

So your objection is to the owner making money not that this is a memeorail site?
THere are many competing theories about the Stardust fire. THey did learn that smoke can catch fire which was unknown till after the fire. Regulations around Europe were changed as a direct result. Stardust fire was a very complex matter your opinion on the fire does not hold much with me compared agaisnt expert reports.

coolsmileygirl wrote:

Read the book They never came home and see if then you think their should be a pub on the stardust site their never should have been

Is that not a fictional account of the events of the night? THe pub appears to have been there before and after and it isn't on the site so what is the objection.

coolsmileygirl wrote:

The reason the pubs have changed from the silver swan to skellys to pool halls or whatever the fck he put there is because they weren’t popular
a lot of people would never set foot on the site after what happened to their friends or relatives and the gross injustice they suffered.

SKellys was the pub and the Silver Swan was the pool hall. I don't know when they closed does any body else know. THey were open for well over 10 years so that doesn't sound like a failed business. I agree there is injustice here but if the motive to stop a licence is to make sure the owner doesn't make money then it is a vendetta not to perserve the site.

BadAcidStudios

jeese man, i think you are being a bit cold.
Why are the families protesting again?
well im sure a number of things are after giving them the desire to go out back and protest again.

1. The 14th of Feb was the 25 Anniversary

2. There was a TV Drama on the same day that really horrified most people who watched and really got people talking about it again.

3. The new plans for Mr Swans new venture on the same site(lets not get technical here buddy) if you dont see this as being the same place then you will never understand my argument anyway

4. Justice has never been done

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON OF ALL. Fire dangers still exist in Dublin. These families are protesting for everyones saftey, EVEN YOURS. They dont feel that someone who didnt protect there loved ones should be allowed resoponsibility for more young and old people. CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS. They are making a public protest to show that in this country lessons have not been learnt and the only way to educate and ensure this doesnt happen again is tio have a public voice and punish those responsible for being unsafe.

You really have a shallow view of these strong people. Thats your problem, not theirs.


Would you trust someone with your new car if they have crashed your old one while driving dangerously and did not take responsibility for it?

MorningStar

BadAcidStudios wrote:

jeese man, i think you are being a bit cold.
Why are the families protesting again?
well im sure a number of things are after giving them the desire to go out back and protest again.

1. The 14th of Feb was the 25 Anniversary

2. There was a TV Drama on the same day that really horrified most people who watched and really got people talking about it again.

3. The new plans for Mr Swans new venture on the same site(lets not get technical here buddy) if you dont see this as being the same place then you will never understand my argument anyway

4. Justice has never been done

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON OF ALL. Fire dangers still exist in Dublin. These families are protesting for everyones saftey, EVEN YOURS. They dont feel that someone who didnt protect there loved ones should be allowed resoponsibility for more young and old people. CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS. They are making a public protest to show that in this country lessons have not been learnt and the only way to educate and ensure this doesnt happen again is tio have a public voice and punish those responsible for being unsafe.

You really have a shallow view of these strong people. Thats your problem, not theirs.


Would you trust someone with your new car if they have crashed your old one while driving dangerously and did not take responsibility for it?

Lets be clear here you claim to be from Artane, what has been in the site of the Silver Swan for 20 years at least? It is a differrnt site and it is not a techincality. They didn't complain when the actual site was made into a car park. They didn't complain about the petrol station going in or the look ups/shops beside the sight or the night club if you are claiming it is the same site. They could have complained about the appartments built in the front of the butterly's house too.

Your others points suggest the family forgot and were reminded by the media. Is there objection fuelled by the media then?
The reports and claims by the campaigners that I have heard have never mentioned safety as the reason. I don't beleive that is the reason becasue they haven't said that so lets focus on what they are saying. What is the reasons they are claiming an objection? do you know?

As for justice 2 wrongs don't make a right. I understand these people are upset , angry and frustrated. Do you think the healthiest thing for them to do is to be trying to stop this pub or moving on with their lives? People supporting them in their campaign may not know the reality of the situation. If you were to read the reports you would gather they built on top of the site this is not true and the bussiness being opened is not new and in fact being re-opened after being there for years. Importatn points for many people who don't know the actual situation.

Did you hear the people who used to work there talk about their experiences after the fire? A bouncer was telling how he was attacked repeatedly afterwards even though he was dragged out of the fire more than once trying to save people. People who weren't working on the night had windows smashed, attacked and general menace. I remember this as much as the fire. Do you think these people were right?

Heinrich

MorningStar wrote:

If you were to read the reports you would gather they built on top of the site this is not true and the bussiness being opened is not new and in fact being re-opened after being there for years. Importatn points for many people who don't know the actual situation.

Can you give us a link to these reports so that we can all know the situation?

For the moment the only facts available are that fire issues were not complied with. Had they been then the unfortunate victims could have escaped quite easily and indeed the fire would not have taken such a hold.

Now please help us understand these important points and cut back on the rhetoric.

BadAcidStudios

I was about to give a lenghty reply to all the nonsense in your last post but it would be a waste of time. You did not understand one thing i posted.

I am truely shocked by the way your mind works. im not going to bother as i believe you are truely 1 in a million mate.

goodluck to you.

MorningStar

Heinrich wrote:

Can you give us a link to these reports so that we can all know the situation?

For the moment the only facts available are that fire issues were not complied with. Had they been then the unfortunate victims could have escaped quite easily and indeed the fire would not have taken such a hold.

Now please help us understand these important points and cut back on the rhetoric.

I started the thread to ask what are the exact reason for their complainets not to talk about the casue of the fire. That is another matter well disccused in other threads which I suggest you go to discuss. I specifically want to ask why they are complaining now. Do you know why they are complaining now and didn't for all the other things that happened to and close to the site? Do they have a valid argument?

BadAcidStudios

Taken from Indymedia ireland. it pretty much answers the question you asked.

Why?

The families and survivors of the stardust fire are continuing their picket of the Maxol filling station, which is owned by the Butterly family.
They are looking for justice for all those who were affected by the fire.

Times of pickets are:
Monday to Friday 6 – 8pm
Saturday 10am to 6pm
Sunday 12:30 to 6:00pm

They want the enquiry into the fire re opened, and a memorial on the site of the fire.

The Butterly family have had people out taking down registration numbers of cars, and they have claimed that they are losing 50% of their business. The picket is working. If anyone who reads this post can go out to support them even for only a few minutes they greatly appreciate the solidarity.

On a personal note I have been out on the picket, and I have never been so moved by the strength of the people who have survived such a traumatic event. After 25 years they deserve justice.

BadAcidStudios

simply:

They are looking for justice for all those who were affected by the fire.

They want the enquiry into the fire re opened, and a memorial on the site of the fire.

After 25 years they deserve justice.

MorningStar

MorningStar wrote:

Yes I have been there. It is a car park as I said. THe site is only chilling if you know what happened. It sounds like you are saying the pub was there the whole time before and after the Stardust.

So your objection is to the owner making money not that this is a memeorail site?
THere are many competing theories about the Stardust fire. THey did learn that smoke can catch fire which was unknown till after the fire. Regulations around Europe were changed as a direct result. Stardust fire was a very complex matter your opinion on the fire does not hold much with me compared agaisnt expert reports.

Is that not a fictional account of the events of the night? THe pub appears to have been there before and after and it isn't on the site so what is the objection.

SKellys was the pub and the Silver Swan was the pool hall. I don't know when they closed does any body else know. THey were open for well over 10 years so that doesn't sound like a failed business. I agree there is injustice here but if the motive to stop a licence is to make sure the owner doesn't make money then it is a vendetta not to perserve the site.

That place should never have been reopened it should be a gravesite
Do you not agree that the way the people died there was horrific?
It would be like rebuilding on ground zero
I know that will probably happen eventually but you can bet it reopen on September 11th (yes I know it was death on a much larger and tragic scale but I’m using it as a comparison)
They never came home is not fictional a lot of things I read that I couldn’t believe my dad and his friends were able to back up.

Heinrich

MorningStar wrote:

I started the thread to ask what are the exact reason for their complainets not to talk about the casue of the fire. That is another matter well disccused in other threads which I suggest you go to discuss. I specifically want to ask why they are complaining now. Do you know why they are complaining now and didn't for all the other things that happened to and close to the site? Do they have a valid argument?

They would appear to have a more valid argument that the rhetoric your are proffering.

I believe that they have been complaining for 25 years. I suppose the exact reason would be that they lost so many family members due to NEGLIGENCE which has never been sanctioned in this period.

We live in hope!

skywalker

BadAcidStudios wrote:

jeese man, i think you are being a bit cold.
Why are the families protesting again?
well im sure a number of things are after giving them the desire to go out back and protest again.

1. The 14th of Feb was the 25 Anniversary

2. There was a TV Drama on the same day that really horrified most people who watched and really got people talking about it again.

3. The new plans for Mr Swans new venture on the same site(lets not get technical here buddy) if you dont see this as being the same place then you will never understand my argument anyway

4. Justice has never been done

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON OF ALL. Fire dangers still exist in Dublin. These families are protesting for everyones saftey, EVEN YOURS. They dont feel that someone who didnt protect there loved ones should be allowed resoponsibility for more young and old people. CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS. They are making a public protest to show that in this country lessons have not been learnt and the only way to educate and ensure this doesnt happen again is tio have a public voice and punish those responsible for being unsafe.

You really have a shallow view of these strong people. Thats your problem, not theirs.


Would you trust someone with your new car if they have crashed your old one while driving dangerously and did not take responsibility for it?

I think you pretty much said all the things that needed to be said BadAcidStudios, with the exception that the sites owner has shown that he still has no compassion for the families by doing the reopening on the anniversary. I dont think theres any need to say anything else. If someone legitimately wanted the reasons they are all laid out above, or as has been suggested go & talk to the people on the picket line.

Otherwise they are just looking for a pointless arguemtent on a message board.

MorningStar

skywalker wrote:

Otherwise they are just looking for a pointless arguemtent on a message board.

As you have nothing to add and are off topic you can gladdly ignore the thread.

skywalker

MorningStar wrote:

As you have nothing to add and are off topic you can gladdly ignore the thread.

Your just all to eager to dance all over whats a very emotional topic for a lot of people arent ya? & god forbid anyone should question you. Its strange for someone whos supposedly so close to some of the victims families.

MorningStar

Heinrich wrote:

They would appear to have a more valid argument that the rhetoric your are proffering.

I believe that they have been complaining for 25 years. I suppose the exact reason would be that they lost so many family members due to NEGLIGENCE which has never been sanctioned in this period.

We live in hope!

Explain when and how they complained about the use of these lands for the last 25 years then. I lived there and did not hear or notice any complaints about the use of the building. I would have theought the nightclub opened in the building would have been an issue but as I was there on th eopening night I know there were no objection there.
What ever the reason for the fire (not the point of this thread in anyway) why are they complaining about the reopening of a business that has been there for at lest 20 years as a seperate entity to the night club?
How long is the swan been closed? I thought it only closed for a refit does anybody know?

If you have nothing to offer about the actual logic on suddenly complaining on a building there your opinion of what I think is of no use to what the thread is about. Go talk about the reasons for the fire and the devastation else where. THis thread is to discuss the objection to re-opeing a business which appears to be older than the disaster and open more or less since the disaster.

MorningStar

skywalker wrote:

Your just all to eager to dance all over whats a very emotional topic for a lot of people arent ya? & god forbid anyone should question you. Its strange for someone whos supposedly so close to some of the victims families.

I have seen what grief of these people did to families and what hate did to others in my community when I grew up. The bad people here are on both sides. I have been attacked for being friends with the son of somebody who worked there. Do you know what the security was like around the owner do you know what it is like now. Waht about the manager? The people who had to move out of the country for safety?
Some of these people are very angry and will do some stupid things. WHat do you know of any of these victims? For somebody who thinks of peoples' emotions you should be aware of feed gief and allowing it to be expressed negatively is generally considered a bad thing.
No matter who you are or what happened to you there is a pint where what you do is wrong. People with little are know knowledge of how it actually effected many other people besides those directly involved might not understand this. So I think knowing the full situation instead of over empathising with people that you do know anything about is more important.

If you don't KNOW anything about the actual complaints of RE-OPENING a bussiness not on the site of Stardust then you are not contributing you are just talking about something you have feelings about without full knowledge. Family memebers and friends of the victims of the fire did drink in this pub afterwards. TH epeople protesting are not all the victims but a portion. Do you know what portion? You do realise one of them is going to go for political office soon. If you are unaware of how certain political parties work some tend to use local events to manipulate people to vote for them.
There is more to this than simple grieving families wanting to stop the site of their families deaths to be perserved. Did you grow up in the area? If you didn't you got all information from the media and as I point out the media is currently reporting this incorrectly.

lodgepole

It's very difficult to discuss Stardust on this board without people jumping to tell you horrific it is and how you should think of the families. Which is ludicrous since we all know how horrific it was and we are all thinking of the families. But an event as complex as the disaster itself and the years following it demand you to step back so that you can look at it with some objectivity.

I understand your question Morningstar... Why now? Has it taken the media to remind these people about the disaster? I don't think so. But I think the publicity surrounding the anniversary and film have shown these people that (a) people do still care about what happened even if it appears to have fallen off the map recently and (b) some of the issues that they protested initially still haven't been rectified.

I don't want to speak for them, but I think they probably got sick and tired of protesting these things in the 80s and just kind of stopped.

Protesting the pub itself is a logical way to do it, but I can see a certain element of revenge in it. Which some may say is fair enough.

Incidentally, wasn't it being re-opened on the same day as the anniversary revealed to be bollocks? Wasn't it just around the same time? Anyone have a link? I certainly never heard about some grand gala re-opening, besides angry people who had "heard" it "might" be happening.

This thread will explain that he tried to reopen on the anniversary of the people's death
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054886392

skywalker

MorningStar to tell you the truth I dont have the stomach for a huge thread spanning a week debating the issue with you where neither of us have our opinions changed any at the end. I just dont see that its going to do any good so Im going to do as you suggested & leave the thread. But just let me ask again before I do that, why not go talk to the people protesting? you live in the area. Surely they are better able to answer your questions than we are.

MorningStar

Lodgepole wrote:

Protesting the pub itself is a logical way to do it, but I can see a certain element of revenge in it. Which some may say is fair enough.

Incidentally, wasn't it being re-opened on the same day as the anniversary revealed to be bollocks? Wasn't it just around the same time? Anyone have a link? I certainly never heard about some grand gala re-opening, besides angry people who had "heard" it "might" be happening.

I get people seeing it as fair enough way to go but that is the point it isn't a fair way to go or healthy for these people.

AFAIK the 14th opening was proved to be untrue and it is still being reported as fact today on the radio. They are calling it an opeing on the site which is also untrue.
If there was a fire in Club92 (new name?) and people died they wouldn't close the race course indefinitely. Many people have no idea about theSIlver Swan and where the Stardust was. I don't remember it all but does anybody know when the swan (any name used) actually closed and if it was just for a re-fit or something else. How long the Swan was closed for after the fire?

A lot of people commenting on theis subject really don't know the area and way this subject is used or could be used.

Sarky

Is anyone else kind of hoping Great White get asked to play there?

MorningStar

skywalker wrote:

MorningStar to tell you the truth I dont have the stomach for a huge thread spanning a week debating the issue with you where neither of us have our opinions changed any at the end. I just dont see that its going to do any good so Im going to do as you suggested & leave the thread. But just let me ask again before I do that, why not go talk to the people protesting? you live in the area. Surely they are better able to answer your questions than we are.

The reason for grief makes no difference and unlike you I know some of these people. Many are way past reason and I think what the truth is people here won't accept. These people are angry and want vegance and I have seen them act on it before. You are empathising and have know idea of what these people are like. Somebody who beats somebody up with an iron bar becasue they worked in a place their child died is not a reasonable person. I suggest you leave the thread becasue you are clueless on the subject and contribute nothing. If something bad happens to you you don't change from being a bad person to a good person by default. You don't become reasonable as result either. There can at least be a sneaking suspicion they are doing it for publicity and lying about the actual detail.

coolsmileygirl wrote:

This thread will explain that he tried to reopen on the anniversary of the people's death

What page and what source as I am not reading the whole thing to find out some poster says so. I believe I heard it was not true on a news report which to be fair it sounds like something made up as I doubt anybody is that stupid. I beleive people are more lilkely to make it up based on lose facts.

BadAcidStudios

Man, you asked a question and it has been answered many times. You asked why, here is the answer again, taken from IOL. Please read it carefully. I think you will find it answers your question and maybe will give you a bit more insight into why. Serioulsy though mate, the internet has wealth of information on the subject. Why not do a bit of research instead of coming across with total ignorance

Please read this carefully beofre posting again. It answers all your questions


A family bereaved by the Stardust disaster yesterday pledged to oppose the opening of a new bar on the site of the nightclub and to object to further planning applications.

Yesterday, on the 25th anniversary of the fire which claimed 48 lives, a planning application under the name of Patrick Butterly and Sons Limited, the owners of the Stardust nightclub, appeared in national newspapers. The application seeks permission for alternations to a car park on the eastern side of Butterly Business Park, close to the site on which the Stardust once stood.

Tonight, a new bar called the Silver Swan is expected to open on the Stardust site but families and friends of the Stardust victims have said they will protest outside the building.

Last night, Antoinette Keegan, a spokeswoman for the Stardust Victims Committee, expressed both her surprise and disappointment on hearing that planning application by the Butterlys had appeared on the 25th anniversary of the tragedy.

She would be objecting to the proposal because it is near what is now a "graveyard" to 48 people, and would support any proposed protest outside the new premises. "If this planning application goes to the courts, I am going to need public support so I am asking people to get behind us," she said.

Referring to RTÉ's two-part documentary on the tragedy, which concluded last night, Ms Keegan praised the station's realistic and sensitive portrayal.

Ms Keegan, whose family were the main subjects of the RTÉ drama Stardust, said the scenes of smoke enveloping the nightclub, fire rolling across the ceiling and mass hysteria towards the exit were extraordinarily realistic.

"It brought it all back to me, I felt trapped as I sat on a stool in our kitchen having flashbacks to that night. It was one flashback after another. I don't know how RTÉ made it so realistic. It was like being back in there," said Ms Keegan.

After the first programme on Sunday night, Ms Keegan - who survived the fire but lost her two sisters, Mary and Martina - received numerous calls from strangers offering their support. "There were men crying down the phone, asking us how did we live through it all," she said.

Tonight, a Prime Time interview with a leading specialist in the area of fire dynamics, material flammability and fire-safety design, will question the findings of the 1981 tribunal, which concluded that the cause of the fire was probably arson.

Families bereaved by the Stardust tragedy are now calling on the Government to launch a new investigation into the Stardust disaster. One of the families has called for the exhumation of the remains of their son so DNA testing can confirm his resting place and they can erect a tombstone.

Ms Keegan said she hoped the RTÉ series would encourage the Government, public and media to ask questions of the 1981 tribunal findings. The Irish Times was unable to contact Eamon Butterly last night.

BadAcidStudios

also, if you dont want to hear our point of views and you dont want to read quotes from news agencies please dont ask questions on a message board. You obviuosly arent looking for answers or a debate. just an argument and get up peoples noses

skywalker

MorningStar your last post really is obnoxious you know that, all you know about me or anyone else on here is a name on a message board. Dont presume to know any more.

lodgepole

MorningStar wrote:

I get people seeing it as fair enough way to go but that is the point it isn't a fair way to go or healthy for these people.

I agree with you.



I think a lot of the anger at the business itself stems from the fact that personal blame seems to be attributed to Mr. Butterly and he remains in control of the business to this day. I don't think any such protest would exist if it he weren't still involved.

Personally speaking I imagine a more healthy root for these people to take is to go directly to the Government, or to set up a group which actively seeks to find fire hazards in pubs/clubs around the country to highlight how frequently these problems arise. Venting anger towards one man and his, admittedly slightly tactless, approach to business doesn't achieve much except to prolong their own grief and cause him financial difficulty.

MorningStar

BadAcidStudios wrote:

Man, you asked a question and it has been answered many times. You asked why, here is the answer again, taken from IOL. Please read it carefully. I think you will find it answers your question and maybe will give you a bit more insight into why. Serioulsy though mate, the internet has wealth of information on the subject. Why not do a bit of research instead of coming across with total ignorance

Please read this carefully beofre posting again. It answers all your questions


A family bereaved by the Stardust disaster yesterday pledged to oppose the opening of a new bar on the site of the nightclub and to object to further planning applications.

Yesterday, on the 25th anniversary of the fire which claimed 48 lives, a planning application under the name of Patrick Butterly and Sons Limited, the owners of the Stardust nightclub, appeared in national newspapers. The application seeks permission for alternations to a car park on the eastern side of Butterly Business Park, close to the site on which the Stardust once stood.

Tonight, a new bar called the Silver Swan is expected to open on the Stardust site but families and friends of the Stardust victims have said they will protest outside the building.

OK now you think I am not listening yet miss what I am saying. First off the article is actually wrong is my first point. I am asking why now are they complaining and to an extent why not before.

So on the same day the bar applied to building changes and open? The Silver Swan is not a new bar or on the site of the club. As I said I heard the belief the bar was opening on the 14th was not true. Even this article suggests the 15th. I keep asking when did the Swan closed prior to the reopen and nobody has said. If the place wsa closed 10 years or a month is pretty important to the claims of a "new" bar opening. These people did not complain about the other things built close to the actual site.

The point about not wanting your opinion is I am asking for facts which should effect your views. Stating opinion again and again without actually know the situation is not the point of this thread. THere are other threads you can make allegation, claims and talk about the effects on families. THis thread is to discuss what the actual situation is with the pub. So far news reports have been untrue.

What is the actual planning permission for? Do you know? This is more to do with the thread than how people were treated unjustly.

This may be a ploy by people with political intentions it is certainly being spun a very particular way. You claim to be from the area were you old enough to remember the scumbags attacking people for working in the Stardust?

MorningStar

skywalker wrote:

MorningStar your last post really is obnoxious you know that, all you know about me or anyone else on here is a name on a message board. Dont presume to know any more.

Really did you grow up in the area?
Do you know any victims?
Does a pub reopening there effect you?
To tell me what happened in my area as a I grew up isn't obnoxious?

You persume (from what you said) that these people have the right becasue of grief yet don't seem to have any knowledge of the existing business there.

You don't like what I said leave as you said a few posts ago.

I think it sounds like you persumed things too so get off your high horse.

BadAcidStudios

Look, ive had enough

You say you want to know why they are protesting, i told you
You say you want facts but no facts are good enough

you ask me was i old enough to remember people being attacked. what has this got to do with your original question. what has this got to do with the debate we are even having.
The answer is though, no i wasnt old enough. I pass by the maxol everyday though and i see those people standing in the cold rain. they arent beating anyone up. All they ask people to do is beep their fecking horns and you have a problem with this. I tell you, everycar that passes beeps their horn, at least while im there. they are doing what they believe is right and i hope they get what they are looking for. Answers. they dont want butterly to be executed. All they want is answers and a bit of respect for the area which so many of their loved ones died. It pretty simple really but they still dont have it after 25years



"THis thread is to discuss what the actual situation is with the pub" eh no, you asked why they are "making such a big deal out of it". WE TOLD YOU

lodgepole

BadAcidStudios wrote:

You say you want to know why they are protesting,

Actually the OP wanted to know why they are protesting now when they haven't done so in the past (since the years following the disaster itself).

BadAcidStudios

eh, yes they have protested actually. this is just their next step. they have been battling for 25 years

"Actually the OP wanted to know why they are protesting now when they haven't done so in the past (since the years following the disaster itself)." i answered that question too by quoting one of the actual protesters. Jeez louise :-(

MorningStar

BadAcidStudios wrote:

Look, ive had enough

You say you want to know why they are protesting, i told you
You say you want facts but no facts are good enough

you ask me was i old enough to remember people being attacked. what has this got to do with your original question. what has this got to do with the debate we are even having.
The answer is though, no i wasnt old enough. I pass by the maxol everyday though and i see those people standing in the cold rain. they arent beating anyone up. All they ask people to do is beep their fecking horns and you have a problem with this. I tell you, everycar that passes beeps their horn, at least while im there. they are doing what they believe is right and i hope they get what they are looking for. Answers. they dont want butterly to be executed. All they want is answers and a bit of respect for the area which so many of their loved ones died. It pretty simple really but they still dont have it after 25years



"THis thread is to discuss what the actual situation is with the pub" eh no, you asked why they are "making such a big deal out of it". WE TOLD YOU

Let me clarify for you again. I am asking about the sudden objection to the pub after years of it being there. I have pointed out the article you posted is factually incorrect yet you choose to ignore it. You haven't answered the question and there are other questions too.

How long has the swan being closed?
How long was the pub on that seperate site closed after the fire?

If you don't know then you can stop posting your opinion of what appears to be the reason for a sudden objection. You claimed the pub would open on the 14th yet the article you posted says opposite. In fact as they are applying for a licence today they couldn't have openbed on the 14th as far as I aware but I will stand corrected.

The fact all you see is people walking around in the rain just means you don't know these people or the action of some. I have seen what people have done as a result of this grief. Do you judge thieves on the basis that they aren't stealing right now?

It appears to me that it is likely these people are doing this to hurt the owner financially and opportunists will push for political power on the back of this issue. Some parties particularly use an emotional matter to gain trust and intentionally feed misinformation to people. I remember the garge being built and there were no objections to that and as I said a night club opened in the same building and nobody was there campaigning before or after. You seem to choose to ignore this is not a new bar but an old one re-opening, I don't know how long it was closed for which is a big issue. It could have been a week of two or maybe 5 years, I don't know do you? I played pool in there as I was growing up and lots of people used the place without any problem what changed? Not why are the campaigning but why are they suddenly campaiging?

Heinrich

The OP is intransigent. "No surrender, I have my opioion which overrules yours".

Let him to it. Pity his pool hall which no longer exists or ...


...does it?

:mad:

MorningStar

BadAcidStudios wrote:

eh, yes they have protested actually. this is just their next step. they have been battling for 25 years

"Actually the OP wanted to know why they are protesting now when they haven't done so in the past (since the years following the disaster itself)." i answered that question too by quoting one of the actual protesters. Jeez louise :-(

Are you trying to tell me these people have been protesting about this pub for 25 year? Doing what? I never noticed and tas I said they didn't protest about all the other work around the site but maybe I missed this along with the 25 years they have been campaigning against the pub.
I think you are having trouble seperating the protests for enqires with that of the pub. If you are suggesting this is a political move to get there point accross rather than a justified complaint about the pub licence?
They are object to the licence and that is the subject of this threat the objection the campaigners have suddenly got after so many years.
Were you ever in the Swan?

BadAcidStudios

You claimed the pub would open on the 14th yet the article you posted says opposite.

please show me where I said it would open on the 14th

BadAcidStudios

Not why are the campaigning but why are they suddenly campaiging?

who said they are SUDDENLY CAMPAINING. Maybe outside the maxol but these people have been campaining for the last 25years. this is what you fail to understand.

WHY OUTSIDE THE MAXOL NOW, well as i have said, we have been through all that.

MorningStar

Heinrich wrote:

The OP is intransigent. "No surrender, I have my opioion which overrules yours".

Let him to it. Pity his pool hall which no longer exists or ...


...does it?

:mad:

I am looking for facts and have an opinion. If you have no facts and just opinion why post here. I am not surrendering for the facts I want and I will not choose to accept stories which I know are not true such as this is a new pub on the site of the stardust when it is not. My opinion overrules nobody I just won't accept lies and mistruths because it is a touchy subject. There is room for opinion outside what this thread is. Have facts then state them else leave

BadAcidStudios

Are you trying to tell me these people have been protesting about this pub for 25 year

You really havent read anything i have posted. They have been protesting for the TRUTH for the last 25years. About what actually really happened and whos to blame.

and again i ask?


please show me where I said it would open on the 14th

JimmySmith

I know MorningStar likes a good arguement, but he only asked a question and then got jumped on in this thread.

I can see where the OP is coming from, but can also see where the people against this are coming from. Everyone wants to take the side of the poor person who lost their family..

While this is a good thing, its not always right.
Greiving people do want revenge. Its perfectly natural. Just look at what happens when a suspect is arrested for a murder.
There are mobs out after them, even though they havent been convicted yet and may be innocent. Anyone in the mob would gladly kill this person, just because of to the emotional effects the crime had on them - they need a focus for their anger.

I believe Butterly is this person. While he may be guilty of murder or not, he is certainly the focus of this anger. I think this anger has clouded many of the families judgement here and now they are on autopilot because to them, someone has to pay.

Its a sad sad situation, and even draws out the emotions on message board. Those who are feeling for the families are automatically against someone who just looks at the cold logic of the situation.

Everyone, try to look from both sides of the coin here. Imagine you lost a loved one in that fire, how would you feel.
Also imagine you owned a building that got burned down and people got killed in it. It may have been accidental or arson etc, but you are now the focus of so many peoples anger.

The_Minister

BadAcidStudios wrote:

Taken from Indymedia ireland. it pretty much answers the question you asked.

The families and survivors of the stardust fire are continuing their picket of the Maxol filling station, which is owned by the Butterly family.
They are looking for justice for all those who were affected by the fire.

Times of pickets are:
Monday to Friday 6 – 8pm
Saturday 10am to 6pm
Sunday 12:30 to 6:00pm

They want the enquiry into the fire re opened, and a memorial on the site of the fire.

The Butterly family have had people out taking down registration numbers of cars, and they have claimed that they are losing 50% of their business.
.

That is harrassment

Heinrich

The proprietor would be deemed to be responsible for the DISASTER but possibly NOT THE FIRE because he abused the safety regulations. Fire doors were barred, chained or otherwise unusable as an escape route in the event of a fire. These are facts.

Those 48 deaths could have been avoided if the regulations were adhered to. The subsequent travesty of a tribunal did not answer questions in an imaprtial manner.

The proprietor was awarded damages on the basis of suspected arson. This would certainly be an explanation for the deep miscontent of the families and living victims!

BadAcidStudios

"It may have been accidental or arson etc, but you are now the focus of so many peoples anger."

Jimmy, i am looking at it from both sides of the arguement. iF the protestore were destroying property or hurting people then i would be against that. We are talking about the peacful protest at the Maxol garage, nothing else.

These people are asking for more questions to be asked and they just want a memorial site where the fire was. this is all they want. they dont want blood.

They ask people to beep their horn and show support. They are not the angry relatives you seem to suggest. Go down to them, there is nothing sinister or any anger there.

Also, even if it was arson or an accident. what people are angry about is the fact that fire doors were locked and other safety regulations ignored.

We cannot ignore these mistakes and brush them under the carpet just because justice hasnt been done in 25years

If a criminal is not caught, we do not forget about their crimes after a certain amount of time. The same applies here. I am not saying he is guilty or innocent. I just want the whole case to be reviewd with the new eveidence. this is all the families want. How can we deny them this AND HOW CAN WE BE AGAINST THEIR PEACEFUL PROTEST. They do not stop anyone going into the garage. they simply show their support

BadAcidStudios

That is harrassment

---

Please explain

MorningStar

BadAcidStudios wrote:

You claimed the pub would open on the 14th yet the article you posted says opposite.

please show me where I said it would open on the 14th

Ok I mixed you up with somebody else if didn' t. The point stands that is has been banded about and is not true and actual impossible.

BadAcidStudios wrote:

Not why are the campaigning but why are they suddenly campaiging?

who said they are SUDDENLY CAMPAINING. Maybe outside the maxol but these people have been campaining for the last 25years. this is what you fail to understand.

WHY OUTSIDE THE MAXOL NOW, well as i have said, we have been through all that.

You see you keep missing the point why are they suddenly campaigning about something that has been there along time? Your 4 point opinion of why was answered and I stated why that those reason have little substance. The article you posted states reasons that are fact such as it being a new pub on the site, opening on the 15th.
They SUDDENLY started CaMPAIGNING about the pub that is what this thread is about not about there campaign overall. If you want to talk about the whole thing go else where. You aren't listening read the start. I know they have been campaigning since the start, I never claimed anything to the contry.
THIS IS ABOUT THE OBJECTION TO THE PUB LICENCE BY THE CAMPAIGNERS ALL OF A SUDDEN AFTER OVER 20 YEARS of A BUSINESS BEING THERE
If you are suggesting it is just a way to make a fuss and get attention then say so. That is a reason that makes sense, it doesn't make it the right thing to do .

So to be absolutely clear this is about why they are suddenly after 20 years or more why they are complaining now! I think it is vegance and awarped view of justice through being close to a vigalanty