Stardust - why is it taking so long?

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122055834#Comment_122055834

The point of a tribunal of inquiry is to find the truth. There's no rule that said the government has to wait for the funerals of victims of a disaster to take place before holding a tribunal of inquiry into that disaster. So how was it insensitive? I was reading in The Sunday Times that she said she was labelled as an arsonist. But Judge Keane never accused a particular person or group of people of starting the fire. It wasn't arson but, if it had been arson, it would've been possible for an unknown third party to be responsible for it.

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122053386#Comment_122053386

I think the measure of adequacy here has to be the families of the victims accepting it as such. The apology isn't meant for other people but for them. So if they're happy with the wording of the State apology, I don't think it's up to anyone else to say much on it.

I actually watched the whole session & saw the apologies from Richard Bruton & Sean Haughey. I did think that Bruton's came across a bit more genuine but can understand Annette Keegan's unwillingness to accept it as too little, too late. Haughey's one did not come across as sincere at all. Or didn't seem to recognise his own failings. I wouldn't be asking him to apologise for what his father did or didn't too but his own part in not doing more.

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122057839#Comment_122057839

I think what the families meant is that by coming to the judgement of "probable arson" it was labelling someone who was either a deceased victim or a survivor of it as the person who started it. Therefore all of them essentially under a cloud of suspicion as to being the one who caused this as opposed to what really happened. No direct finger of blame pointed - but the finger of suspicion firmly pointed at the victims. Also there was no evidence of probably arson at the time which really raises questions around that verdict.

Bredabe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122060507#Comment_122060507

THIS, exactly even tho I was far away I was still told I was one of the stardust fire crew(arsonist) because of the residual of my northside accent.

The "shame" attributed to the victims may have been part of the reason ppl didn't push for an inquiry around and after the whitewash. Tho the climate was such that there was no one who could afford to launch one and professionals may have been slow to volunteer their services.

FishOnABike

What insurance did the stardust have if a claim from DCC for malicious damage hasn't been possible if the fire had initially been ruled accidental.

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122062204#Comment_122062204

Apparently they had fire insurance according to evidence given in the inquest. They could have probably claimed on that depending on the details of their policy.

Electric Sheep

Do you think that he was referring to butterly as the likely arsonist?

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122099727#Comment_122099727

In the original inquest? Unlikely as then there's no way that he would have gotten a payout from the council.

JP Liz V1

24 million redress

https://www.rte.ie/news/stardust/2024/0809/1464238-stardust-redress/