Protesters mount picket as Stardust pub opens again

Heinrich

Victims' families express outrage


Shane Hickey

THE families of the Stardust victims expressed outrage last night after a pub at the site of the tragedy re-opened for business.

Last night, the 'Silver Swan' opened its doors for the first time since the tragedy 25 years ago which claimed 48 lives.

A group of about 30 protesters, including a large number of victims' relations, continued an ongoing demonstration at the site of the re-opened bar.

But the pub, divided into two separate bars linked by doors, remained largely empty last night as the protest continued outside.


At around 7.30pm, just eight customers sat inside the pub, which had two doormen stationed outside.

Dublin publican, Jason Gamble, was granted an interim licence for the 'Silver Swan' pub at Kilmore Road in Artane a number of weeks ago.

Last night was the first time the pub has been opened since the licence was transferred from Patrick Butterly & Sons Ltd to Mr Gamble.

Antoinette Keegan, who lost her sisters, Mary (19) and Martina (16) in the 1981 blaze, said it was "very emotional" and "very insensitive" that the pub had reopened, with the same name as when the blaze happened.

Mr Gamble, who also runs the Headline pub at the corner of Dublin's North Circular Road, had told the court at the licence hearing that the name of the pub would be changed to Skellys, the name used for the past 15 years.

Last night Mr Gamble said he had no comment to make on the matter.

The group of protesters, which grew steadily during the evening, carried placards in memory of the victims and played the Christy Moore song 'They Never Came Home,' written in memory of the dead.

"I cannot see how anyone would have the heart to hold a licence for that pub," said Ms Keegan.

Mr Gamble had told the court through his barrister at the licence hearing that he had no personal connection with the Butterly family, who own the 'Silver Swan'.

There was substantial support for the protesters yesterday, with cars passing the Artane site continually honking to back the protestors. Sinn Fein Councillor, Larry O'Toole, said the reopening smacked of "contempt for the victims" and was another step back for the families.

Ms Keegan said the families were requesting photos of the post-mortems of the victims, to complete a submission on the blaze which will be sent to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.

A number of the protesters expressed disbelief that the bar had been reopened under its original name, saying that it was an affront to the victims who died.

Inside the pub, two small groups of people sat at the different bars, the rest of the pub remaining quiet.

'No approach'

Ms Keegan said that no approach had been made to the families about the reopening of the controversial venue.

The Stardust tragedy has been reignited in the last two months following the 25th anniversary of the fire and the screening of an RTE docum-drama into the blaze.

Families of the victims will have an oppourtunity to lodge a court objection to the premesis when the licence comes up for renewal in September.

A huge campaign was launched against the reopening of the pub, with in the region of 22,000 signatures collected.

Mr Gamble had said that he would erect a memorial to those wo died after consultation with the local community.

RotalicaV

It having the same name isn't the greatest idea, but i think people should move on.

I understand theres alot more to it though.

Dave!

I agree that having the same name is a bit much, but it's ridiculous to expect nothing to go there ever again, is it not? Where does that stop? The World Trade Centre, should that not be rebuilt? What about a house where someone was shot, should nobody be allowed to live there? A road where there was an accident 15 years ago, should that be closed out of respect?

I can appreciate their feelings, but life must go on.

CoolGuy2006

RotalicaV wrote:

i think people should move on.

well, i think thats the whole point

RotalicaV wrote:

I understand theres alot more to it though.

obviously you dont

CoolGuy2006

I actually really believe these people want to move on with their lives. Of course this is gonna be a knockback for them. Should they not be allowed protest at something that is happening in their commuinity. they obviously have alot of support. 22000 signatures. Is every commmuinity not entitiled to protest against certain developments in their area. I think these people have a valid reason, even if its just an emotional reason. The commuinity has spoken.

People are People, hopefully not many of us have to go through what these people had to. Can we not understand and realise that sometimes a commercial venture with the same name on the same site is not actually the best way to use the space. Commuinites are always allowed to argue against new ventures in their area, why cant they argue for emmotional reason,s reasons many people actually agree with, 22000 people. Who wants this pub there

Dave!

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

well many people would say that nothing should be built on the world trade centre site. Aslo if 48 people had died in a house then im sure nobody would life in it afterwards. i think your examples are a bit off.

I think they're quite relevent... Say a bus containing 50 people was turning a corner and crashed -- they all died. Should that corner be closed and traffic sent in a different direction from then on, out of respect?

I guess your/our answer on that particular example points out the differences of opinion that dictate how we feel about Stardust.

Or maybe I'm way off

EDIT:

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Aslo if 48 people had died in a house then im sure nobody would life in it afterwards.

So is it different if 48 people died in a house, and 1 person? Obviously there's more numbers, but saying that it's ok for business to go on as usual if 'only 1 person died', instead of 48, is a bit insensitive to the 1 person who died, is it not? What about their family? Should they just put up or shut up?

Slippin Jimmy

I think it is a disgrace that they reopened a pub on the site. They should not have allowed any sort of entertainment venue go in there at all. If Eamon Butterly wanted, he could have sold the site. I don't think that the arguement is to do as much with the pub as it is to do with Butterly.

Wolf

While I would agree stongly that opening under the same name it insensitive to say the least, reopening the pub after 25 years is not. I mean there is little or notthing in the name of the pub expect for the fact that it is famous for the tragedy in itself. However, it is a fair comparison to say, for example, that a road where there has been a hugh pile up and many people have died would you close the road?

Also, just noticed that in the story that one of the girls was 16? What was she doing in the pub in the first place? Not that this is really important in the over all picture, but, just a thought.

leeroybrown

The only issue I would have with the re-opening of the pub is that fact that the owner might be attempting to capitalise on publicity by keeping the name. That said I don't really see why a pub shouldn't be opened there.

CoolGuy2006

leeroybrown wrote:

That said I don't really see why a pub shouldn't be opened there.

well the commuinity dont want it there. 22000 people in fact

CoolGuy2006

DaveMcG wrote:

So is it different if 48 people died in a house, and 1 person? Obviously there's more numbers, but saying that it's ok for business to go on as usual if 'only 1 person died', instead of 48, is a bit insensitive to the 1 person who died, is it not? What about their family? Should they just put up or shut up?

well, i could imagine some people living in a house where 1 person has died. I couldnt imagine you finding anyone that would live in a house were 48 people have died. Just something about us being human i suppose. And thats what we are dealing with here, humans.

Same thing, when you hear about a death or a shooting, its really horrible but the greater number of dead people magnifies the pain and horror. The greater loss of life.

RotalicaV

When i said i understand theres more to it, i was refering to the fact that obviously someone profited from the sale of the site and weren't alot of familys screwed over for compensation?

If everyone had been compensated and look after as best as possible when it happened and in the years after, and the building took a different name it would be easier for people to live and forget but i don't think thats the case.

Dave!

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

well, i could imagine some people living in a house where 1 person has died. I couldnt imagine you finding anyone that would live in a house were 48 people have died. Just something about us being human i suppose. And thats what we are dealing with here, humans.

Same thing, when you hear about a death or a shooting, its really horrible but the greater number of dead people magnifies the pain and horror. The greater loss of life.

Maybe from an external viewpoint, but what about the family of the 1 person who died? I don't think if 50 people died it would mean as much to the family of that 1, would it?

So assuming you could find a buyer, would it be morally right to allow the house be sold (a) if 50 people died in it, and (b) if 1 person died in it?

pentesh

I guess there can be no definitive consensus on what should or should not be done in a situation like this because it is underpinned by a terrible tragedy, and where death is involved opinions can be wildly different.

Anyway in my own opinion i am happy to see the pub open, under the same name. I would be the sort of person who would pass the pub on the bus or whatever and remember that the people who died that night were most likely all out to have a good night enjoyed with friends, admirers, admirees etc. And they were all most likely there to enjoy a good night because they had done the on many ocassions in the past.

Don't get me wrong, what happened that night was a tragedy. Whether or not it was or was not an accident is something I dont know the answer to but is it not better to remember fond memories of loved ones no longer with us than to ravage their memory with bitterness, protest and unrest.

If those 48 people were still alive today (and the tragedy had never happened) I would guess that many of them would have fond memories of the pub and night club involved so why not celebrate that?

Its my opinion and I accept that it wont be everyones.

EDIT:

Would the families of the victims prefer to see a block of apartments or a shopping centre etc on the site? Would that not extinguish the memory of the victims more so that a rebuilt safer, better venue?

CoolGuy2006

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

well, i could imagine some people living in a house where 1 person has died. I couldnt imagine you finding anyone that would live in a house were 48 people have died. Just something about us being human i suppose. And thats what we are dealing with here, humans.

Same thing, when you hear about a death or a shooting, its really horrible but the greater number of dead people magnifies the pain and horror. The greater loss of life.

I don't think that is correct. Well, as far as the house is concerned anyways. 48 people died, in possibly a fire. House gets destroyed, and rebuilt. Seeing that 48 people did die, they would realise how to build the house better and to ensure that it will not happen again. The same can be said for this pub. Yes, it was bad naming it the same thing, but in some respects it is keeping the memory of it alive. You change the name, you are basically sweeping it up under the rug and acting like it never happened.

Over 2000 people died in the World Trade Centre. They're rebuilding it. 30+ people died in Omagh, they rebuilt the area. People should move on and get on with their lives. Especially if it happened 25 years ago.

CoolGuy2006

DaveMcG wrote:

Maybe from an external viewpoint, but what about the family of the 1 person who died? I don't think if 50 people died it would mean as much to the family of that 1, would it? ?

I totally agree. look man, the fact is that 22000 people say they dont want this in their commuinity. if there was a huge protest over the 1 death you keep giving examples of then i would say the same. If the commuinity dont want this in their area they should be allowed to protest against it

DaveMcG wrote:

So assuming you could find a buyer, would it be morally right to allow the house be sold (a) if 50 people died in it, and (b) if 1 person died in it?

well, if someone died because the house was unsafe and the owner was to make a profit from the sale then i guess it would be wrong in both cases

CoolGuy2006

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

well, if someone died because the house was unsafe and the owner was to make a profit from the sale then i guess it would be wrong in both cases

But what if the owner made the house better and basically ensured that either nobody died in the same way again. I'm fairly sure that this would be the case in point with this pub.

CoolGuy2006

Deleted User wrote:

Over 2000 people died in the World Trade Centre. They're rebuilding it. 30+ people died in Omagh, they rebuilt the area. People should move on and get on with their lives. Especially if it happened 25 years ago.

I totally understand the point you are making.

Did the people of omagh protest becasue their road was being rebuilt? No

22000 people gave their signatures agianst this new pub license in Artane. This is the difference. The people of Omagh probably wanted their street back, the people of Artane dont seem to want this pub, which insensitively kept the same name.

monkeyfudge

It's really the name that's the only issue.

It's been a pub for around the past 15 years called Skelly's Lounge. I've even drank there once or twice... it's just across the road from the shopping centre so it's a handy one to sneak off to.

It is a bit stupid to call it the Silver Swan though... and to try and open it on the eve of the aniversery like they did is beyond stupid.

It really does look like all this was simply to drum up publicity... very poor publicity though.

Also a lot of those protesters are very much the rent-a-crowd type. I see a lot of the same people protesting every bloody thing possible in the area. I'm talking about the blow ins here.

CoolGuy2006

Deleted User wrote:

But what if the owner made the house better and basically ensured that either nobody died in the same way again. I'm fairly sure that this would be the case in point with this pub.

but the owner made money out of it, he sold it.

Nobody is disputing the fact that this is a new pub which im sure is up to safety standards. If you cant see how having this entertianment venue with the old name on the same site is a bit insensitive then i think you are just being stubborn to prove your point.

The old owner sold this building and must of made some money out of it, the families never received proper compenstation (if there is such a thing)

Now there is a new business man running the pub under the original name, against the wishes of 22000 people.


There was commercial profit made from this site, thats what sickens alot of people. Because they cant move on with their lives just because time has passed by. The passing years dont help, they make things harder, especially now with this pub opening with the same name. They still want justice and the truth

CoolGuy2006

monkeyfudge wrote:

It's really the name that's the only issue.

i think thats simplifying things a bit too much.

monkeyfudge wrote:

Also a lot of those protesters are very much the rent-a-crowd type. I see a lot of the same people protesting every bloody thing possible in the area. I'm talking about the blow ins here.

I dont know about that. yes there are certain types of people who do end up on alot of protests. You could give this a negative connotation like you do or you could believe that these are the type of people who care about things and have the conviction to get off their couches and stand in the rain to support something they believe in. I personally cant see how any "Blow in" as you call them would keep on returning if they didnt have their heart in it

monkeyfudge

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

monkeyfudge wrote:

It's really the name that's the only issue.

i think thats simplifying things a bit too much.

Not really. It's been a pub for a very long time with no protests at all. It gets reopened with the name of a pub that used to be at a completely different location and suddenly it's a problem.

And also certain political partys will latch on to things like this and use it as a vote gainer. These blow in protesters would be most like associated with them.

CoolGuy2006

monkeyfudge wrote:

Not really. It's been a pub for a very long time with no protests at all. It gets reopened with the name of a pub that used to be at a completely different location and suddenly it's a problem.

And also certain political partys will latch on to things like this and use it as a vote gainer. These blow in protesters would be most like associated with them.

Ok, well then you must realise as i believe it that the license name has just recently (couple of months back) changed from Butterly to Mr Gamble. This is when the protesting started, the returning to the old name was obviously something they couldnt ignore aswell. People who felt justice was never done probably were sickened that someone could make a profit out of this site (someone they feel was negligent with safety issues) and that some new guy could come along and start up a new venue and call it the same name. its not just about the name, its about the timing, the changing of the license. A opportuinity for people to make an argument against it. Im sure the name was the icing on the cake though. what brightspark came up with that idea

CoolGuy2006

monkeyfudge wrote:

And also certain political partys will latch on to things like this and use it as a vote gainer. These blow in protesters would be most like associated with them.

i can see your point but you cant paint them all with the same brush

MorningStar

"Last night, the 'Silver Swan' opened its doors for the first time since the tragedy 25 years ago which claimed 48 lives. "

The Sivler swan pub was open for over 20 years after the fire and only closed last year to refurbish it.It is not on the site of the Stardust!!! It was called Skellys but I remember the pool hall connected to it was called the Silver Swan for the 20 + years it was open after the fire

These protestors were nowhere to be seen when a night club opened in the same complex about 15 years ago. THere is more to the story

I think the seperate pub at the time of the fire was called the Lantern Rooms not the Silver Swan but I can't remeber for sure. THe name issue is a lie as far as I can find out. THe pool hall was called the Silver Swan, I could be wrong but I am 90% sure that was the way it was.

Many of the family victims don't live in the area around the pub so the local objections are mostly from their areas not the area around it. I live cloer than most of these people.

Many people complaining here know nothing of these protestors and what they are doing. The want vegence against the owner they hold responsable.

This unfortunate accident discovered many things that people did not know were dangerous. Fire regs around the world were changed as a result of the fire becasue before it they didn't know smoke could catch fire.

These people need to move on for themselves and are just angry

monkeyfudge

A profit has been made out of the site for a very long time.

There is a petrol station, shops, a pool hall and offices and an appartment block that was built recently (greatly over priced if you ask me).

There is nothing inherently wrong with a pub running there, the name is the only thing that is truly distasteful to some degree.

But sure, it's also an opportunity for them to get publicity for the stardust victims committee.

I've lived here all my life, I was even in the Stardust the earlier in the day on the day it burnt down... I fully appreciate the greatness of the tragedy and how it almost wiped out a whole generation in the area. But I really don't know what can come from all this. No one is going to forget about the Stardust fire, there is a large memorial and a park that I can see outside my office window right now. And I think remembering it and ensuring that it isn't repeated is the most important thing.

CoolGuy2006

MorningStar wrote:

"Last night, the 'Silver Swan' opened its doors for the first time since the tragedy 25 years ago which claimed 48 lives. "

The Sivler swan pub was open for over 20 years after the fire and only closed last year to refurbish it.It is not on the site of the Stardust!!! It was called Skellys but I remember the pool hall connected to it was called the Silver Swan for the 20 + years it was open after the fire

These protestors were nowhere to be seen when a night club opened in the same complex about 15 years ago. THere is more to the story

I think the seperate pub at the time of the fire was called the Lantern Rooms not the Silver Swan but I can't remeber for sure. THe name issue is a lie as far as I can find out. THe pool hall was called the Silver Swan, I could be wrong but I am 90% sure that was the way it was.

Many of the family victims don't live in the area around the pub so the local objections are mostly from their areas not the area around it. I live cloer than most of these people.

Many people complaining here know nothing of these protestors and what they are doing. The want vegence against the owner they hold responsable.

This unfortunate accident discovered many things that people did not know were dangerous. Fire regs around the world were changed as a result of the fire becasue before it they didn't know smoke could catch fire.

These people need to move on for themselves and are just angry

hey man, what took you so long, i was getting worried about you :-)

monkeyfudge

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

i can see your point but you cant paint them all with the same brush

I'm not. That's why I stated there were blow in protesters as well as the regular protestors.

Oh and Morningstar, The Silver Swan was a pub that wasn't originally on the site of the Stardust at all, it was much closer to town. But a lot of the victims of the blaze would have drank there before going to the Stardust.

Skellys Lounge and Bar is one of the properties that has been on the site of the Stardust for about 20 years, and it's been renamed the Silver Swan.

CoolGuy2006

monkeyfudge wrote:

I'm not. That's why I stated there were blow in protesters as well as the regular protestors. .

Fair enough

monkeyfudge wrote:

Skellys Lounge and Bar is one of the properties that has been on the site of the Stardust for about 20 years, and it's been renamed the Silver Swan.

I was just gonna ask yis to clear that up, the pictures i have seen of Stardust is where the new Pub is, where Skellys was. In a past discussion here morningstar tried to conicnce me otherwise, that the new pub is in a totally different area

MorningStar

monkeyfudge wrote:

I'm not. That's why I stated there were blow in protesters as well as the regular protestors.

Oh and Morningstar, The Silver Swan was a pub that wasn't originally on the site of the Stardust at all, it was much closer to town. But a lot of the victims of the blaze would have drank there before going to the Stardust.

Skellys Lounge and Bar is one of the properties that has been on the site of the Stardust for about 20 years, and it's been renamed the Silver Swan.

THe pool hall connected to Skellys was called the Silver Swan until last year. What pub are you saying was called the Silver Swan before that they are complaining about. Actually why are they complaining about the name at all then? THey said it was renamed back to what it used to be called at the time of the fire on the radio
Skelly /Silver SWan is NOT on the same site as the Stardust it is the same complex if anything but always seperate

It is clear that the media and the protestors are not telling the truth

MorningStar

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

I was just gonna ask yis to clear that up, the pictures i have seen of Stardust is where the new Pub is, where Skellys was. In a past discussion here morningstar tried to conicnce me otherwise, that the new pub is in a totally different area

If you face the butterly building the right hand side was the nightclub on the left hand side is/was the pub. They have not built on the site of the nightclub. The pub was there before and after the fire not new. THere are car parking spaces on the site of the fire.