Protesters mount picket as Stardust pub opens again

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 08:37AM

DublinWriter wrote:

...and they'd trade it all in for their loved ones to still be alive.

I know that and I said it did not make up for the loss. They will never be happy with anything they need to stop and move on.

DublinWriter wrote:

Well Morningstar, since when did the fact that you recently went out for a drink with a sister of one of the survivors make you the moral authority over the motives of the protestors?

I didn't say recently as the pub has been there so long it was a while ago. THe protestors are protesting based on a lie. It is not a new pub on the site of the Stardust. They have pursued the Butterley in everthing he has done.

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 08:53AM

MorningStar wrote:

THe protestors are protesting based on a lie. It is not a new pub on the site of the Stardust. They have pursued the Butterley in everthing he has done.

Can you tell me what lies they made and how you know them to be untrue. You say you heard them lying on the radio, what were they saying.

Aslo, i think you will find many people who would consider the new pub to be on the same site, the whole building was ablaze, same entrance

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 09:26AM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Can you tell me what lies they made and how you know them to be untrue. You say you heard them lying on the radio, what were they saying.

Aslo, i think you will find many people who would consider the new pub to be on the same site, the whole building was ablaze, same entrance

They said the pub was on the site of the stardust it isn't.
The pub is not new.

A nightclub opened up in the same complex and they weren't there complaining.

THey were complaining becasue the licence was in Butterly's name and then claimed other stuff aswell.

If they felt so strongly about the site why didn't they complain about the night club, the petrol station, the business units and the car park spaces put on the site of the Stardust fire?

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 09:33AM

MorningStar wrote:

They said the pub was on the site of the stardust it isn't.
The pub is not new.

A nightclub opened up in the same complex and they weren't there complaining.

THey were complaining becasue the licence was in Butterly's name and then claimed other stuff aswell.

If they felt so strongly about the site why didn't they complain about the night club, the petrol station, the business units and the car park spaces put on the site of the Stardust fire?

Well, the PUB is new, it has been renovated. It is not the old pub.
How do you know there wasnt complaints in the past.

Also, is this not the entrance to the "NEW" pub

http://www.irishexaminer.com/np/graphics/stardustfire.jpg

Most people would consider it the same site, its the same building for christ sake, same enterance.

MorningStar wrote:

and then claimed other stuff aswell.

Please continue

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 09:43AM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Well, the PUB is new, it has been renovated. It is not the old pub.
How do you know there wasnt complaints in the past.

Also, is this not the entrance to the "NEW" pub

http://www.irishexaminer.com/np/graphics/stardustfire.jpg

Most people would consider it the same site, its the same building for christ sake, same enterance.

If you want to be precice it is a renovated pub. THat picture is what the entrance to the pub looked like after a fire next door to it.

The pub is not a a new pub built on the site of the Stardust which what the media have said and the protestors are at the very very least suggesting when they are being interviewed.

I have no knowledge of any protest about this property for the various changes to the buildings in the area. I have paid attention to what has happened around me. Do you know of other complaints? If you don't know of anything about this you can't just make up stuff.

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Please continue

Planning was applied for on the anniversery. THis is also not true as can be seen on the planning application.

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 09:58AM

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/tonightwithvincentbrowne/rams/2006/14february.smil

you will have to open in Realplayer, sorry, i totally *****d that linking job up :-)

skip till at least after 5.45 min. This was a interview done on rte with the protesters outside the new pub on the 14th.

They clearly state that the the new pub is on the site of the old stardust, which it is. You could say the maxol is on the site too. they say that the pub is where the old silver swan is, where everyone went to drink before popping next door into the Stardust

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 10:57AM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

They clearly state that the the new pub is on the site of the old stardust, which it is. You could say the maxol is on the site too. they say that the pub is where the old silver swan is, where everyone went to drink before popping next door into the Stardust

It was never proven the pub was planning to open on that night. That was a claim and I remeber hearing that one of the papers did mention that it wasn't true.

This woman wants the building demolished! She doesn't want anything there and another memorial. Fire experts examined this fire in a huge amount. Experts from around the world examined this and new discoveries were made.

I know you COULD say the Maxol is on the site but my point is they didn't complain when the garage was put there or a night club opened in the building structure. They didn't complain about the parking spots. They are doing this becasue of who owned the licence.

The pub was not closed a number of years it was less than that. It is not a new pub on the site of the Stardust.

The fire department are blamed very heavily in that report. Butterly is not fully reponsible this was an accident with a series of mistakes made by many people. A type of fire spread not known to happen before.

Note the report also says this was common practice around the country. Butterly just happened to be the person in charge on the night.

Any new investigation will just prove it was an accident in a different way if anything and they still won't be happy. Have you seen the fire recreation in scientific tests? The smoke caught fire. Nobody knew this could happen untill they tried to recreate it. It wasn't just done here it was tried out by world experts. You can't use the materials in a nightclub that you could use then as nobody knew the dangers at the time. It was a terrible accident and nobody wanted it to happen or realised the dangers. Survivors guilt and anger over the accident but it doesn't make what they do right or justified all the way along.

THe protest and the stories about the fire are just to provoke debate about the fire. I understand that I just don't think false reporting is justified in order to do that. The truth is important.

Lot of people at the start of this thread supported the people based on incorrect fact the pub is new and built on the site of the fire. Most don't know the pub has been there for years.

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 11:36AM

Look man, that facts are that alot of stuff has happened all at the same time, just after the 25th anniversary.

I dont know why you are confused. You seem to question why the families are only protesting now. They havent, they have been protesting for the last 25 years, albeit, not outside the premisis like they are now.

You also feel that they should just accept the tribunal retults and move on. WHY, if history has taught us anything its that these reults are never set in stone and never the end of it.

How many retrials have come out with a different outcome than the original?
How many familes have had to fight in court to get retrials and ended up getting the reults overturned. The families of the Stardust victims feel that they cant accept the results and there are still too many unanswered questions and want a new investigation. What is your problem with this?

Now lets look at the facts.

The 25th anniversary was coming up

The documentary was shown on telly

Butterly has supposedly applied to construct a carpark near the site, which i have seen on the net as stating a 48 space carpark ( the 48bit is probably bullsh*t becasue i couldnt believe that)

many different sources say that Butterly was planning to open the Silver swan on the anniversary (i dont know where this orriginated from)
Anyway, the families were outside the Site on the 14th not just protesting but holding a vigil, a remembering ceremony, not just about the Rumoured new opening as is clearly stated in the interview i linked to.

They feel that they stopped it from opening and in the meantime Mr gamble took over from Butterly and got an iterim license to open the Silver swan just recently

The renaming of the pub was stupid and bad taste

The protesters are protesting outside the Maxol which is still run by the butterlys, they are protesting because they want a new tribunal and feel that butterly has still alot to answer for.

I ask once again, what is the problem with them protesting. The anniversary sparked off alot of interest again and the momentum of the ongoing campaign picked up. time doesnt erase what has happened

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 12:19PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Look man, that facts are that alot of stuff has happened all at the same time, just after the 25th anniversary.

THe facts of the matter are bing distorted to achieve a goal I object to the distortion and the compliance of the media

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

How many retrials have come out with a different outcome than the original?
How many familes have had to fight in court to get retrials and ended up getting the reults overturned. The families of the Stardust victims feel that they cant accept the results and there are still too many unanswered questions and want a new investigation. What is your problem with this?

How many investigation do you want and how many memorials will be enough?

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Now lets look at the facts.

The 25th anniversary was coming up

The documentary was shown on telly

Butterly has supposedly applied to construct a carpark near the site, which i have seen on the net as stating a 48 space carpark ( the 48bit is probably bullsh*t becasue i couldnt believe that)

THis is not true and can easily be checked just by looking at the planning application which was also said to have been made on the day of the anniversery. Which is also not true

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

many different sources say that Butterly was planning to open the Silver swan on the anniversary (i dont know where this orriginated from)
Anyway, the families were outside the Site on the 14th not just protesting but holding a vigil, a remembering ceremony, not just about the Rumoured new opening as is clearly stated in the interview i linked to.

Name one source that was verified. I belive this was another lie. There are people advising them to use the media and get media attention. False claims have bolsstered support and you know that. THere is motive to lie and I can't think of any motive to open on the night. One is beleivable the other is quite hard to beleive.

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

They feel that they stopped it from opening and in the meantime Mr gamble took over from Butterly and got an iterim license to open the Silver swan just recently

Which they protested against. Can you name the grounds they protested this transfer on? Can you think of any real reason why that pub which was closed for a year should not be reopened considering it was open for over 20 years after the fire?

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

The renaming of the pub was stupid and bad taste

I still am confused on the name issue as I have said a few times. In the Pub after the fire there was a big mirror in the Pool hall side that said the Silver Swan. I don't know the name of the pub before Skellys for sure but somebody else said it had a different name. If the name issue is true it is at best poor judgement. I still remeber the pool hall being called the Silver Swan after the fire.

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

The protesters are protesting outside the Maxol which is still run by the butterlys, they are protesting because they want a new tribunal and feel that butterly has still alot to answer for.

I know they want Butterly to pay and they blame him the judicial system has decided otherwise and these people are harrasing him. Some of them have restraining orders . Butterly is not the only one to blame yet certain people have fixated on him being responsible

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

I ask once again, what is the problem with them protesting. The anniversary sparked off alot of interest again and the momentum of the ongoing campaign picked up. time doesnt erase what has happened

I asked you questions and you ignore them and I have answered yours.

In fact you ignore anything I say which makes my point clear. You want to allow people who FEEL they are baddly treated to do what ever they want I don't. Is it your area these people are disrupting? It isn't even their area? As a resident here I have the right to move on. If these people want to protest let them go to the people that matter and stop trying to destroy Butterly which is their obvious intent and they have attempted to do systimatically. I think their actions dishonour the dead as do some of the victims family members.

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 12:27PM

MorningStar wrote:

In fact you ignore anything I say which makes my point clear. You want to allow people who FEEL they are baddly treated to do what ever they want I don't. Is it your area these people are disrupting? It isn't even their area? As a resident here I have the right to move on. If these people want to protest let them go to the people that matter and stop trying to destroy Butterly which is their obvious intent and they have attempted to do systimatically. I think their actions dishonour the dead as do some of the victims family members.

i still dont undertstand what you mean when you say the protesters are doing "whatever they want". All they are doing is holding a peaceful protest outside a petrol station. what are they doing wrong?

MorningStar wrote:

I think their actions dishonour the dead as do some of the victims family members

Well, i believe your opinion because you have stated it quite clearly here. How many families do you actually know and have actually talked to about this.

And yes it is my area, i live in Artane, pass by the protesters and maxol everyday. I dont see what harm they are doing to anyone

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 12:39PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

i still dont undertstand what you mean when you say the protesters are doing "whatever they want". All they are doing is holding a peaceful protest outside a petrol station. what are they doing wrong?

I am done you choose to ignore anything I say or ask you.

THe campaigners have lied and fed incorrect facts to the media to get their message heard I understand why. I think that is wrong. You want to ignore that and defend their actions. I am not going to agree and I will point out where they are lying and you will keep ignoring it.

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 12:52PM

No, youre not lisitening to me.

Firstly, i wont believe that they are lying until i am shown proof.
Secondly, if you say they are lying then every major news outlet in this country is stupid for publishing facts based just on what the protesters said.

Now, if they have created falsities to the media then yes that is stupid and counterproductive which wont do them any favors in the long term but it is still beside the fact of why they are there and what they want.

They are not specifically protesting for the reasons you say they are lying about. There is a much bigger picture here and you are only focusing on one little aspect, one that you havent proved yet. Do you have any links to anything that contradicts their claims. I am honestly interested by the way. This is all getting confussing, Media and protesters saying one thing and you anohter :-(

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 01:14PM

http://www.evening-herald.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1590140&issue_id=13865

Clearly staing that the objection is who owns the site and falsly claimg it is a Stardust pub by the media.

They did not object to a night club on the same site (using the same logic as them even though it is not the same site) But again you will ignore this fact

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 01:23PM

MorningStar wrote:

http://www.evening-herald.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1590140&issue_id=13865

Clearly staing that the objection is who owns the site and falsly claimg it is a Stardust pub by the media.

They did not object to a night club on the same site (using the same logic as them even though it is not the same site) But again you will ignore this fact

Ok, so you want to believe the media reports that suit your opinions and not the ones i post whcih seem to be more available on the net.
I cant get into the link you posted because im not registered.

When did i ever ignore the fact that they didnt object to a previous night club, i havent ignored this.
And, for the last time it is on the same site. Its all the one structure, they where nextdoor to eachother, under the same roof,

taken from a dictionary

"SITE"

1. The place where a structure or GROUP OF STRUCTURES was, is, or is to be located: a good site for the school.

So, the Silver Swan and the Stardust are on the SAME site. You said the protesters were lying by saying this but it is actually just your lack of understanding for the word "site".

So, thats one of your "Lie" claims to be shown as false

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 01:35PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Ok, so you want to believe the media reports that suit your opinions and not the ones i post whcih seem to be more available on the net.

I cant get into the link you posted because im not registered.[/QUOTE]

Register it is free.

You didn't even read it and you dismissed it.

When did i ever ignore the fact that they didnt object to a previous night club, i havent ignored this.
And, for the last time it is on the same site. Its all the one structure, they where nextdoor to eachother, under the same roof,

THey were not under the same roof it had a differnt roof a seperate roof. You don't even know the building! Do you consider Champion sports to be on the same site as the GPO and the 1916 rising? THe site of the Stardust is not considered the industrial park but it could be. THere have been many changes only this one had objections due to the owner as proof the link I posted.

Clodagh

Sheehy

STARDUST victims will have to wait another six months to lodge a court objection to a licence for a pub on the site of the fire tragedy which took 48 lives.

A Dublin publican was yesterday granted an interim licence for the Silver Swan pub at Kilmore Road, Artane, by Judge Mary Collins, who explained it was outside her remit to hear any objections from local residents.

Jason Gamble (35), of Weaver Square, who runs the Headline pub at the corner of Dublin's North Circular Road was granted the licence.

He told the court he would change the name of the pub back to 'Skelly's' - a name which had been used for the past 15 years - instead of the 'Silver Swan', which was the name used at the time of the fire 25 years ago.

He also said he would erect a memorial to those who died, after consultation with the local community.

Mr Gamble, through his barrister, assured the court he had no personal connection with the Butterly family, who own the Silver Swan; his connection was purely a business one.

Linda Hosey, who lost both her brother and sister in law in the tragedy, addressed the court on behalf of the Stardust Victims Committee. She said she did not know Mr Gamble "from Adam" and had no problem with him. "It's who he's doing business with that's the problem."

As far as the victims were concerned, the Butterly family were still "pulling the wool over the community's eyes".

She pointed out that Mr Gamble had every opportunity to approach the committee to discuss the issue since the last court appearance, but had not done so.

"He knows where we are," she added, referring to the committee's nightly protest outside the Silver Swan.

Sensitive

Judge Collins said while she understood the case was "hugely sensitive", she was "bound by the law and it is quite specific".

In the case of an application for an ad-interim licence, she could only take account of the applicant's character and whether or not there were any objections from the gardai. In this case, there was no garda objection so she was granting the interim licence.

However, Judge Collins told members of the victims committee, present in the court, that the case would be "wide open" in September when the licence came up for renewal. At that point, anyone who wanted to could raise objections.

Yesterday's application was by Patrick Butterly & Sons Ltd to transfer the licence of the Silver Swan pub to Jason Gamble.

Marion Dyer of Trinity College Primary Care and Public Health Department, which looks at the proper control and distribution of alcohol, asked for the case to be adjourned for a month to give her time to make searches on Mr Gamble's licensing record in the area where he currently runs a pub. This was not granted.

After the hearing, Ms Hosey said they now had 22,000 signatures against the re-opening of the Stardust pub.

Now explain to me what the legitimate complaint was about the name tranfer! You avoided this a few times now

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 01:52PM

MorningStar wrote:

Now explain to me what the legitimate complaint was about the name tranfer! You avoided this a few times now

eh, isnt that what was originally posted on the first page of this discussion.

I dont see any legitimate complaint against the name transfer from Butterly to Mr Gamble but i still feel its very bad taste to have a entertainment venue on the same site. The use of the name Silver Swan is stupid and insensitve. When did i avoid this question a few times?. I think you are starting to lose the plot a bit mate.
It is you who keep focusing on these little things. The protesters are there for much much more than the fact that the Silver Swan is opening. It just so happend that it opened at the same time the protest had already startedThis is what you dont see. As i have said, everything seems to have happend all at once around the same time as the anniversary

MorningStar wrote:

you didn't even read it and you dismissed it

Well thats a contradicion. If i didnt read it how could i dimiss it. I didnt want to register becasue i dont like giving out my email. If you wanna paste it then i will read it here becasue i am interested now. Im confussed, you are just after posting what seems to be the same thing Heinrich posted on the first page that actually started this whole discussion:-(

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 02:08PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

eh, isnt that what was originally posted on the first page of this discussion.

I dont see any legitimate complaint against the name transfer from Butterly to Mr Gamble. Just the use of the name Silver Swan which i think was stupid and insensitve. When did i avoid this question a few times?. I think you are starting to lose the plot a bit mate.

Yet they were there making a complaint. I think this was wrong and only there to get Butterly. I asked at least once before and you never answered that is how you avoided it along with numerous other things.

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Well thats a contradicion. If i didnt read it how could i dimiss it. I didnt want to register becasue i dont like giving out my email. If you wanna paste it then i will read it here becasue i am interested now. Im confussed, you are just after posting what seems to be the same thing Heinrich posted on the first page that actually started this whole discussion:-(

"Ok, so you want to believe the media reports that suit your opinions and not the ones i post whcih seem to be more available on the net"

You dismissed it in the above sentence and are also a hypocrite as a result.

THe article proves why these protestors are complaining and what they are doing.

I am truely done because you don't seem to have enough inteligence to understand what is wrong with what these people do. It is not opinion that is the problem just inability for you to understand the arguement I have made. As you keep getting confused I am not going to bother repeating things when you ignore them and/or don't understand. I mean no insult you simply get confused too often and seem to forget what is being said or asked.

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 02:09PM

MorningStar wrote:

THey were not under the same roof it had a differnt roof a seperate roof. You don't even know the building!

http://www.hotpress.com/i/2851599.jpg

they are on the same site, just accept the meaning of the word site and the the way in which it has been used in the context we are discussing. All the building in the complex share the one roof, it is in sections and the sepeate buildings are just seperated by partitioning walls. The roof covers all the building in the "SITE"

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 02:15PM

MorningStar wrote:

I am truely done

I hope so

MorningStar wrote:

I am not going to bother repeating things when you ignore them and/or don't understand.

bye bye

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 02:18PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

http://www.hotpress.com/i/2851599.jpg

they are on the same site, just accept the meaning of the word site and the the way in which it has been used in the context we are discussing.

NO

The pub is not on the siite of the fire you can see that in the picture.

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 02:23PM

taken from a dictionary

"SITE"

1. The place where a structure or GROUP OF STRUCTURES was, is, or is to be located: a good site for the school.

So, the Silver Swan and the Stardust are on the SAME site. You said the protesters were lying by saying this but it is actually just your lack of understanding for the word "site".

I can see both the Stardust and where the pub is on that picture. They are on the same site as the dictionary states

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 02:30PM

a correct definition and not part of a definition

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=0&Keyword=site&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG&NLD=1&FRA=1&DEU=1&ITA=1&ESP=1&v=21626692

1. The place where something was, is, or is to be situated.
Example: the site of the museum
Example: the site of the rebellion
Thesaurus: locality, spot.2. An area set aside for a specific activity.
Example: a camping site
Thesaurus: ground, lot (US), plot.

verb

sited, siting
1. To position or situate.
Thesaurus: locate, place, position, situate, install.

The fire was not on the same site as the pub was and is still standing. Note the root of the word.

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 02:43PM

Your definition supports my view of what the word site means. I dont need it shown to me, it is you who is arguing that they arent on the same site.

They are and this is just getting really silly.

the stardust and the Pub are on the same site.

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 02:53PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Your definition supports my view of what the word site means. I dont need it shown to me, it is you who is arguing that they arent on the same site.

They are and this is just getting really silly

No it doesn't as the site of the fire can be seen in your picture and you can still see the area the fire covered. That area is not where the pub is. YOur definition added a group of buildings which is inaccurate considering the root which is about position not grouping. THe fire did not happen on the site of the pub and that remains the fact.

Kiera · 13-04-2006 02:55PM

Guys you are just going round in circles. Why not agree to disagree?

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 03:01PM

Goodnight. I agree to disagree, however :-)

they are on the same site, any planner, builder, fecking milkman could tell you that. they dont share the same footprint but they are on the same site of land, hence they are on the same site

MorningStar · 13-04-2006 03:05PM

CoolGuy2006 wrote:

Goodnight.

they are on the same site, any planner, builder, fecking milkman could tell you that

As an building engineer I know they aren't on the same site. AS you can't argue a case correctly you are sticking with the one point you think you are correct on it is quite sad really

Cactus Col · 13-04-2006 03:06PM

Kiera wrote:

Guys you are just going round in circles. Why not agree to disagree?

The most sensible thing said in a long time.

but anyway, my two cents, it doesn't seem to be the same site as the fire, in that the fire did not happen where the pub stands.

And using the same name is in bad taste.
I'll assume the new owner will probably change it soon enough, and when he does, the protesters are better off bringing their protest to outside Dail Eireann. Or the four courts (as they're looking for justice).

CoolGuy2006 · 13-04-2006 03:13PM

MorningStar wrote:

As an building engineer I know they aren't on the same site. AS you can't argue a case correctly you are sticking with the one point you think you are correct on it is quite sad really

the context in which the word site was used wasnt to make people think it was the same building but that it was on the same site.

When the complex was being built it would have been a building site. You can correctly call the complex a site.
the fact that the buildings are so close together and part of the same complex of buildings means that they are on the same site.

It is you who is just focusing on your definition. The word "site" was used correctly in the context it was written

parsi · 13-04-2006 03:19PM

MorningStar wrote:

As an building engineer I know they aren't on the same site.

I thought you worked in the Retail Trade ?

Protesters mount picket as Stardust pub opens again

Comments