Stardust - why is it taking so long?

Kaisr Sose

I did not know it was from the council. I assumed insurance. I had forgot the evidence on the fire risk you linked. Hope they can claw it back now it's not.

JupiterKid

After over four decades fighting for the truth and the justice that was denied to them for so very long, the families of the Stardust victims have finally been vindicated. Butterly is a scumbag and a gangster of the highest order. The 1983 whitewash of an “enquiry” where the victims were blamed has now been expunged.

I dearly hope files are now sent to the DPP in terms of a criminal prosecution.

I also agree with the others here who opined that if this very avoidable tragedy had taken place in, say, Annabels in Dublin 4, at the time there would have been a very different verdict. Ireland was essentially a deeply corrupt, deeply inegalitarian banana republic in the early 1980s.

One good outcome of Stardust that was that fire safety standards were greatly improved. In hindsight, it was a tragedy waiting to happen.

Now, will the families of the victims May 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings, now almost 50 years ago, get to see a proper inquiry?

Jack Daw

It's a complete disgrace it took over 40 years to get this case settled and justice for the people who died.

My question is why did it take so long and why didn't the TD's for the area not raise hell every week in the Dáil until something proper was done.If I was one of the families I'd be very pissed off at the local TD, no way if this was continually being made an issue in the Dáil over and over again that it would have been ignored for so long.

Montage of Feck

Never knew that Butterly got a half million payment, utterly disgusting considering what must now be his own criminal negligence with regards to safety is responsible.

Baba Yaga

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122037046#Comment_122037046

ive always wondered the same…was that charlie haugheys area?

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122037046#Comment_122037046

Haughey (then Taoiseach and one of the TDs for the area) instigated a Tribunal within 2 weeks of the fire. Which looked great on paper.

Of course, that tribunal (erroneously) found that arson was the cause of the fire and exonerated the management, which allowed the Butterlys to claim their £580K from Dublin Corporation.

The families didn't accept the verdict, but it was very easy for TDs at the time to shrug their shoulders and say that they had done their bit in holding an investigation - even though the fact is that "their bit" actually added to the injustice of the disaster.

acceletor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122037758#Comment_122037758

yep

MrRigsby

Does this verdict mean Butterly can be criminally prosecuted? I wouldn’t imagine there is a statute of limitations on killing people . At the very least he should be sued for everything he owns . Unfortunately it probably won’t happen and the taxpayer will carry the can as usual. I could never understand how people went into the pub that was built on the site . I certainly wouldn’t set foot in it

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122038000#Comment_122038000

In itself it doesn't. The inquest jury's verdict of "Unlawful Death" doesn't apportion culpability to to any individual - it's simply a statement on how the victims died.

When Eamon Butterly instigated the proceedings to get Unlawful Killing removed as an option from the inquest, his claim was that because there was a very limited number of people that were responsible for the premises and event on the night in question, a potential verdict of Unlawful Killing would effectively be apportioning blame on them - which is outside the legal remit of an inquest. The High Court rejected his argument.

That said, it's been confirmed that the Gardaí and DPP will be reviewing the Coroner's report with the view to seeing if any new criminal charges should be brought. There's a lot of testimony and evidence within the report that could go towards a variety of criminal charges.

Edit: removed last paragraph as I misunderstood the statement.

Shoog

Since Butterly has shown himself incapable of contrition or remorse he needs to be prosecuted for manslaughter. I suspect he would not be due to the statue if limitations.

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122038317#Comment_122038317

The poster is presumably talking about a pub that operated there, post-fire.

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122038335#Comment_122038335

There's generally no statute of limitations on indictable offences (criminal offences which must be tried by a jury) under Irish law, save a few exceptions (like tax evasion): https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1951/act/2/section/7/enacted/en/html

There are limitations to summary offences and certain classes of civil cases.

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122038368#Comment_122038368

Sorry, of course! Yes, I could never understand how it got any business at all. My apologies to MrRigsby. I've edited my post.

Roald Dahl

Even though I was young at the time I still clearly remember this tragedy and for me it always came down to exits being chained shut. Whoever was behind this decision - not the mere employees who were ordered to do so, but the order giver, and the order giver alone - should now be made answer in front of a judge and jury at a criminal trial.

The fact that the insurer refused to quote for fire cover is also remarkable and as such the owner would have been made quite aware of the reasons behind the decision. Even more astonishing is the payout out over half a million early-eighties pounds as a reward from the council! One of the central principles of insurance is that the compensation should only ever restore and not result in a profit, but the payout Mr. Butterly got is a full-on National Lottery win!

As the Taoiseach back in 1981 personally involved himself in the momentum of the investigation so will hopefully the Taoiseach in 2024.

As a final note, I would also have never set foot in the Artane House or Silver Swan in light of these events, but perhaps Mr. Butterly and his patrons had a different outlook on the cause of the fire and its victims.

FrancieBrady

I hope it is asked how come the Gardai or investigators did not find clear evidence the doors were chained. Chains don't burn nor would the steel bars that keep fire doors closed.

Was the wreckage swept by someone and the chains removed or was this evidence ignored or covered up.

xabi_a

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122039190#Comment_122039190

I totally agree. I was young at the time too but remember it all too well. I'm not so concerned about how it started, fires can happen. But the fact the exits were chained is just astonishing. I could never understand why the owner and manager of the place weren't charged with a crime right there and then.

FrancieBrady

I think the families might be making a mistake today.

The full unequivocal apology from the government should have come first.

Then meet to discuss redress and next steps.
I have no doubt Harris is as personally appalled and sympathetic as every normal person is, but as head of government he should have taken responsibility immediately after the verdict.

Bredabe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122040218#Comment_122040218

Owner and manager (who I think are the same person) are known for being difficult ppl, also they are known to be well connected to a certain govt party, and the cost for the first whitewash inquiry were paid for by the state and mostly given to known associate of the then pm.

podge3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122035605#Comment_122035605

Yeah, it looks like the taxpayers of today will again be paying for the mistakes of the past.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122035290#Comment_122035290

maybe, if he can be found….

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/go-and-find-him-yourself-stardust-manager-eamon-butterly-lying-low-in-wake-of-unlawful-killing-verdict/a388874354.html

political analyst

Why did the families not challenge the 'probable arson' finding in the courts in the 1980s?

doc22

What was the new information that changed the decision from 40 years ago? Why does the state seem to be on the hook for more redress from what it paid 30 years ago?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122047021#Comment_122047021

It was unlawful killing. That is why the families are entitled to redress. Personally I think they should recieve healthy compensation as well for what they have been put through by governments and others to get to this point.

pjordan

It's also worth remembering that it was the FF/PD Government of as recently as 18 years ago led by Bertie (with Micheal Martin as cabinet minister) and with Michael McDowell as Justice minister, that were continuing to deny the relatives the inquest they had long sought. It was only the postcard campaign constituted in the face of that crushing resistance that brought about the process that finally came to fruition last week. Even that recently we were still being presented with a multitude of reasons why such inquest wasn't possible or being told it was unlikely to bring about conclusions any different to the original inquiry.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-10053291.html

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122046797#Comment_122046797

With what money?

It would have been exceptionally expensive to do so, and unlikely to find any legal team to do it pro bono and go up against what was clearly an FF related wall of complicity.

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122046797#Comment_122046797

Well considering the victims were all from working class families & I remember hearing a statistic that something like 23 of them were the main breadwinner in the house, that might explain why they couldn't. Also trying to fight the establishment of the time - is it not obvious that considering it took 25 years to get the arson decision reversed & then another 10 before the then AG agreed to a new inquest as the original had an "insufficiency of inquiry". The hints are there.

I grew up in the area. Granted a few years after it happened. But something like that does seep into the fabric of the area & we all were aware of it. Growing up not only checking the fire exits in pubs/clubs but making sure they were clear. It was like it was ingrained in you from such a young age because of what happened. I am beyond happy that the families have now, finally, gotten the inquest they wanted & deserved & the verdict that was only right & proper.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122048746#Comment_122048746

But there were plenty of left-wing lawyers in this country back then, weren't there? One would've thought that some of them would've been willing to work pro bono in this case.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050019#Comment_122050019

You would have needed lawyers, barristers, engineers and other expert witnesses etc.

It didn't happen because neither the money nor volunteers were there.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050019#Comment_122050019

Are you trying to find an excuse to feel good about refusing them redress?

I am sure people who campaigned unrelentingly would have taken whatever avenue was feasible. It obviously was not feasible.

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122050019#Comment_122050019

Someone to work for free in the middle of a horrible recession? With the amount of work that would have had to go into this, it would have been mental for anyone to take this on. Fighting an uphill battle against a wealthy & well connected business man alongside the establishment itself who found that it was "probable arson". I think even with money, the families would have struggled to find someone to take that on!

You can see from the inquest that just happened that there was a huge team of lawyers & the inquest itself was a year long. People couldn't afford to work for nothing in the 80's.

greenspurs

Why would the Government now seemingly 'fawn' all over the survivors families now - after the verdict?

Is it through fear? Trying to buddy up with them now to seem caring and sympathetic?

Perception ? "arent they great , sympathetic"….

They denied the families closure for nigh on 4 decades, and now once the ruling is made, they cant do enough for the families …..

If i was one of those poor families , id be telling Harris and all Government reps to go fcuk themselves ………….

Thats just me …..

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122051915#Comment_122051915

Maybe if we're nice to them, they won't try and sue us for continually blocking them over decades?

greenspurs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122052002#Comment_122052002

…or that… yeh that …

Nermal

I asked in the other thread but got no answer - why did the owner of the premises receive compensation, and why was the arson finding important in him getting it? There isn't any general entitlement to compensation as a result of arson, is there?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122052137#Comment_122052137

There was back then.

I believe this act is what got rid of it - https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1981/act/9/enacted/en/print.html - commenced November 1981, so months after the fire.

There is still some entitlement to compensation but massively reduced, to real loss and also nothing for unauthorised structures which might have been relevant here (the fixtures and fittings were non-compliant, e.g. the synthetic carpets on the walls)

Bredabe

Does anyone know if/when the govt apology is televised?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122052762#Comment_122052762

Yes, apparently it is scheduled for transmission during Liveline. Exact time I am not sure of.

FrancieBrady

Should have been far more criticism of the government's record in Harris's speech instead of TD'splaining the horror to the families, who are only too well aware of it.
Might have been adequate if the state didn't have a track record of treating people like this.

political analyst

This article is free of charge.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/stardust-tragedy-lax-fire-laws-and-outdated-legislation-led-to-tragedy/a1543588883.html

Senior officials at the Dept of Local Govt (DLG) tried to thwart the effect of a 1979 ministerial directive giving more independence to chief fire officers, who had hitherto reported to county engineers and had no direct access to county managers.

One source said the engineers can strangle the fire services simply by not passing on more requests for more staff and better equipment and so on.

Why did DLG officials try to frustrate the 1979 directive?

What motive would county engineers have for obstructing chief fire officers?

pjordan

Annette Keegan's comments on Morning Ireland this morning re the individual weasley apologies of Richard Bruton and particularly Sean Haughey were telling if even a bit understated. As she put, it they smacked of now jumping on the bandwagon and trying to CYA's for PR purposes now that the narrative has changed utterly. I appreciate a son can't be held totally responsible for their fathers faults, but Sean Haughey was actively complicit for years as both a councillor and within the Dail in defending and upholding his fathers appaling legacy re the Stardust. Even the insensitivity of CJH in announcing the initial Justice Keane led inquiry during the funerals of Keegan's sisters was telling. Finally one must wonder does the still living 91 year old Justice Keane also have serious accountability issues arising out of this? He has also been notably silent over his part in the initial whitewash over the past few days

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/