Stardust - the arson allegation.

political analyst

In 2009, the Dáil acknowledged that Judge Ronan Keane's finding of probable arson as the cause of the Stardust tragedy was hypothetical and that none of the people who were present in the disco on that night in 1981 caused the fire.

Antoinette Keegan, who lost her sisters in the fire and herself suffered serious physical injury, and researcher Geraldine Foy appeared on tonight's edition of TV3's tonight programme.

Antoinette mentioned Judge Keane's finding of probably arson and said that the 48 people who died in the fire were slandered. But Judge Keane never accused a particular person or group of people of starting the fire. If it had been arson it could have been caused by a third party. So why does Antoinette believe that the deceased were slandered?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Turning the victims into the accused when they're no longer able to clear their name or defend the accusations?

political analyst

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Turning the victims into the accused when they're no longer able to clear their name or defend the accusations?

No.

Nobody accused the victims of starting the fire - that's the point! Therefore, what Antoinette Keegan said - that the deceased were slandered - isn't true.

Ted111

There was an agenda at play. Judge Keane didn't accidentally misread the situation.

In any event there was no evidence of arson.

There was evidence of previously identified electrical issues in the roof space. And in regard to that particular area, there was evidence of large quantities of flammable cooking oils and cleaning products stored in the upstairs room. The sequence of events of eye witnesses both inside and outside the building clearly put the fire starting in the roof space.

political analyst

Ted111 wrote: »

There was an agenda at play. Judge Keane didn't accidentally misread the situation.

In any event there was no evidence of arson.

There was evidence of previously identified electrical issues in the roof space. And in regard to that particular area, there was evidence of large quantities of flammable cooking oils and cleaning products stored in the upstairs room. The sequence of events of eye witnesses both inside and outside the building clearly put the fire starting in the roof space.

What agenda? Judges are independent of the government. Haven't you heard of the separation of powers?

Ted111

political analyst wrote: »

What agenda? Judges are independent of the government. Haven't you heard of the separation of powers?

Lol. Are you being serious?

oppenheimer1

Ted111 wrote: »

Lol. Are you being serious?

Now I don't know anything about Stardust or who was involved but why wouldn't the state want to get to the bottom of what happened? Its not as if the state would be liable.

Ted111

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Now I don't know anything about Stardust or who was involved but why wouldn't the state want to get to the bottom of what happened? Its not as if the state would be liable.

A certain family was close to a certain politician of great notoriety.
That family were in jeopardy.
The emergency services also came in for some criticism.

However events played out to indicate that nobody was negligent or at fault and it was probably one of the little north side skangers who set something on fire at the dance with a cigarette - because that's what gurriers do.

And that rapped it all up in a nice neat little bundle.

kneemos

Ted111 wrote: »

A certain family was close to a certain politician of great notoriety.
That family were in jeopardy.
The emergency services also came in for some criticism.

However events played out to indicate that nobody was negligent or at fault and it was probably one of the little north side skangers who set something on fire at the dance with a cigarette - because that's what gurriers do.

And that rapped it all up in a nice neat little bundle.

No the judge said nobody present caused the fire.

Ted111

kneemos wrote: »

No the judge said nobody present caused the fire.

The Judge said that the cause was probable arson. He said that evidence that it was caused by somone on the premises was "tenuous"
That in no way says that it 'nobody present caused the fire' - so you're making up what the judgement was.

Since there was no evidence that someone either inside or outside had deliberately started a fire then the conclusion of arson was ill founded and incorrect.

Unless of course you can point to evidence of arson?

kneemos

Ted111 wrote: »

The Judge said that the cause was probable arson. He said that evidence that it was caused by somone on the premises was "tenuous"
That in no way says that it 'nobody present caused the fire' - so you're making up what the judgement was.

Since there was no evidence that someone either inside or outside had deliberately started a fire then the conclusion of arson was ill founded and incorrect.

Unless of course you can point to evidence of arson?

It says in the OP nobody present caused the fire and the judgement of arson was hypothetical.

Ferrari3600

Most likely a discarded cigarette butt combined with lax safety regulations caused it. Similar to the Kings Cross fire and the Isle of Man Summerland disaster.

A dreadful tragedy, but I see no particular point in tax-payers' money being spent on getting some retired judge to run an expensive inquiry into tragic events from 30+ years ago.

Ted111

kneemos wrote: »

It says in the OP nobody present caused the fire and the judgement of arson was hypothetical.

So just to be clear about it you have never read part or all of the Ronan Keane's findings, and your knowledge of the stardust comes from reading a post on Boards.ie.

I'll just quote you a piece of Keane:-
"It may be, and this again must remain no more than conjecture, that the object of the arsonists was to do no more than cause a fire in the alcove itself, for whatever motives: and that, in carrying out this reckless criminal enterprise , they had not intended to cause any injury or death, still less on the appalling scale that, in fact, resulted."

The alcove was the area where they maintained a fire was deliberately started inside the premises.

kneemos

Ted111 wrote: »

So just to be clear about it you have never read part or all of the Ronan Keane's findings, and your knowledge of the stardust comes from reading a post on Boards.ie.

I'll just quote you a piece of Keane:-
"It may be, and this again must remain no more than conjecture, that the object of the arsonists was to do no more than cause a fire in the alcove itself, for whatever motives: and that, in carrying out this reckless criminal enterprise , they had not intended to cause any injury or death, still less on the appalling scale that, in fact, resulted."

The alcove was the area where they maintained a fire was deliberately started inside the premises.

Fair enough. You know better how?

Ferrari3600

Ted111 wrote: »

So just to be clear about it you have never read part or all of the Ronan Keane's findings, and your knowledge of the stardust comes from reading a post on Boards.ie.

I'll just quote you a piece of Keane:-
"It may be, and this again must remain no more than conjecture, that the object of the arsonists was to do no more than cause a fire in the alcove itself, for whatever motives: and that, in carrying out this reckless criminal enterprise , they had not intended to cause any injury or death, still less on the appalling scale that, in fact, resulted."

The alcove was the area where they maintained a fire was deliberately started inside the premises.

Do you have a link to Ronan Keane's report please?

Ted111

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Do you have a link to Ronan Keane's report please?

https://archive.org/stream/329996-7964/329996-7964_djvu.txt

Ted111

kneemos wrote: »

You know better how?

If you think I know better Kneemos, maybe it's because I try to
base my ideas on facts or evidence. You may have a different view but
at least you should be able to back it up.

kneemos

Ted111 wrote: »

If you think I know better Kneemos, maybe it's because I try to
base my ideas on facts or evidence. You may have a different view but
at least you should be able to back it up.

Where's the facts for your conspiracy theory?

Ted111

kneemos wrote: »

Where's the facts for your conspiracy theory?

Which conspiracy theory is that?

kneemos

Ted111 wrote: »

Which conspiracy theory is that?

The one on the previous page where you claim a certain politician was connected to a certain family and they conspired to blame a northside skanger.

Ted111

kneemos wrote: »

The one on the previous page where you claim a certain politician was connected to a certain family and they conspired to blame a northside skanger.

Forty eight people died in a fire in a building where every fire exit and secondary exit was chained up and barred up. Nobody was prosecuted.
There's a couple of facts to start with.

kneemos

Ted111 wrote: »

Forty eight people died in a fire in a building where every fire exit and secondary exit was chained up and barred up. Nobody was prosecuted.
There's a couple of facts to start with.

Piss poor regulations at the time,chances are no laws were broken.

Ted111

kneemos wrote: »

Piss poor regulations at the time,chances are no laws were broken.

Chances are the law was broken. Butterly should have been charged with manslaughter through reckless endangerment leading to death.

Lollipops23

My mother was a regular at the Stardust- in fact the only reason she wasn't there that night was because she'd had a fight with her boyfriend. He went though, and survived after being knocked to the ground by the stampede (meant he crawled out and was below all the noxious fumes caused by the vinyl seating burning).
She believes Butterly should have been prosecuted and charged with manslaughter.

political analyst

Ted111 wrote: »

The Judge said that the cause was probable arson. He said that evidence that it was caused by somone on the premises was "tenuous"
That in no way says that it 'nobody present caused the fire' - so you're making up what the judgement was.

Since there was no evidence that someone either inside or outside had deliberately started a fire then the conclusion of arson was ill founded and incorrect.

Unless of course you can point to evidence of arson?

Neither does it say that anybody present caused the fire. It wouldn't have been impossible for an external person to start the fire if it was arson, e.g. the following atrocity, which took place in New York 9 years after Stardust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

political analyst

Ted111 wrote: »

There was an agenda at play. Judge Keane didn't accidentally misread the situation.

In any event there was no evidence of arson.

There was evidence of previously identified electrical issues in the roof space. And in regard to that particular area, there was evidence of large quantities of flammable cooking oils and cleaning products stored in the upstairs room. The sequence of events of eye witnesses both inside and outside the building clearly put the fire starting in the roof space.

I don't think he'd be pleased if he got to hear about your statement.

political analyst

Ted111 wrote: »

Forty eight people died in a fire in a building where every fire exit and secondary exit was chained up and barred up. Nobody was prosecuted.
There's a couple of facts to start with.

That decision was made by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which is independent of the government.

political analyst

kneemos wrote: »

It says in the OP nobody present caused the fire and the judgement of arson was hypothetical.

That is what the Dáil stated in 2009, when it struck the finding of probable arson from the public record.

political analyst

Ted111 wrote: »

A certain family was close to a certain politician of great notoriety.
That family were in jeopardy.
The emergency services also came in for some criticism.

However events played out to indicate that nobody was negligent or at fault and it was probably one of the little north side skangers who set something on fire at the dance with a cigarette - because that's what gurriers do.

And that rapped it all up in a nice neat little bundle.

If an attendee at the disco had discarded a cigarette it would have been gross negligence, though not arson.

BattleCorp

political analyst wrote: »

If an attendee at the disco had discarded a cigarette it would have been gross negligence, though not arson.

If a discarded cigarette caused this fire, it would be carelessness on behalf of whoever discarded the cigarette.

What would be negligence is the fact that the fire escape doors were chained. I'm no legal expert but I'd assume that there were regulations back then against such practices.

political analyst

BattleCorp wrote: »

If a discarded cigarette caused this fire, it would be carelessness on behalf of whoever discarded the cigarette.

What would be negligence is the fact that the fire escape doors were chained. I'm no legal expert but I'd assume that there were regulations back then against such practices.

Negligence is caused by an omission, e.g. not fixing the electrical system. Chaining the emergency exits is an act and so is worse than negligence. That means that I was wrong to refer to discarding a cigarette in a disco as negligence - it's recklessness, as is chaining the exits.