• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Stardust Tragedy


thetruth

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
15
Despite all the new evidence uncovered in recent years and the findings of experts employed by the victims families, that question the original verdict of ‘Probable Arson’ rendered after the Tribunal of Enquiry set up to investigate the causes of the Stardust fire in Artane, is there a chance that when Brian Cowan takes office he will agree to a new inquiry?

It has been common knowledge, to interested parties, that Bertie Ahern has done everything in his power to halt any such proceedings, for reasons best known to himself.
 

TheBear

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
234
<Mod>Moved to the Justice forum.</Mod>
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
817
odie1kanobe said:
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
Purpose of a new inquiry is what ?
To get much deserved justice for the victims and their families.
Define justice v witchhunt because some people feel that there has to be someone to blame.
I think that feeling is justified and hardly a 'witchhunt'. They deserve to have their concerns about the original inquiry addressed and a new inquiry if necessary.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
HanleyS said:
To get much deserved justice for the victims and their families.
Define justice v witchhunt because some people feel that there has to be someone to blame.
I think that feeling is justified and hardly a 'witchhunt'. They deserve to have their concerns about the original inquiry addressed and a new inquiry if necessary.
They won't accept the result of a new inquiry if it comes back with the same findings as the old one.
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
817
odie1kanobe said:
They won't accept the result of a new inquiry if it comes back with the same findings as the old one.
I think it's deeply insensitive to make such a presupposition. The family had legitimate concerns about the manner in which the orignial inquiry was carried out. They have legitimate concerns about the nature of the present investigation. Perhaps Brian Cowen can, being more removed from the parties involved, address the concerns of the victims and families properly.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
They won't accept the result of a new inquiry if it comes back with the same findings as the old one.
I think it's deeply insensitive to make such a presupposition. The family had legitimate concerns about the manner in which the orignial inquiry was carried out. They have legitimate concerns about the nature of the present investigation. Perhaps Brian Cowen can, being more removed from the parties involved, address the concerns of the victims and families properly.
You know it and I know it that the families want a different outcome and anything short of that will be a slap on the face for their campaign.

In the couple of years following the tragedy there was a campaign and invited Noel Browne who was a TD for the area along as assummed he would go along with them, he attended 1 meeting and refused to get involved again.

Morning after the fire I thought for a while it could have been UDA but that was just hearing the reports of the fire on the radio where information still sketchy.
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
817
odie1kanobe said:
You know it and I know it that the families want a different outcome and anything short of that will be a slap on the face for their campaign.
If the investigators were more removed from the Butterlys and Haughey/Ahern there wouldn't be as much controversy. Hopefully Cowen can sort it out.
odie1kanobe said:
In the couple of years following the tragedy there was a campaign and invited Noel Browne who was a TD for the area along as assummed he would go along with them, he attended 1 meeting and refused to get involved again.
I'd say they aren't as well organised or politically aware as they could be. It must be difficult with such a large group.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
You know it and I know it that the families want a different outcome and anything short of that will be a slap on the face for their campaign.
If the investigators were more removed from the Butterlys and Haughey/Ahern there wouldn't be as much controversy. Hopefully Cowen can sort it out.
odie1kanobe said:
In the couple of years following the tragedy there was a campaign and invited Noel Browne who was a TD for the area along as assummed he would go along with them, he attended 1 meeting and refused to get involved again.
I'd say they aren't as well organised or politically aware as they could be. It must be difficult with such a large group.
Bertie was just a govt whip so idea he had the power to influence is a joke.

Families want someone responsible and will not stop until that happens.
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
817
odie1kanobe said:
Bertie was just a govt whip so idea he had the power to influence is a joke.

Families want someone responsible and will not stop until that happens.
Bertie appointed John Gallagher to the second probe. The families weren't happy with this choice for stated reasons. Bertie is too close to the Haughey school of Fianna Fail to be involved in my opinion. Hopefully Cowen will be removed enough.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
Bertie was just a govt whip so idea he had the power to influence is a joke.

Families want someone responsible and will not stop until that happens.
Bertie appointed John Gallagher to the second probe. The families weren't happy with this choice for stated reasons. Bertie is too close to the Haughey school of Fianna Fail to be involved in my opinion. Hopefully Cowen will be removed enough.
What purpose would John Gallagher have for trying to cover up something that happened over 25 years ago ?

Remember the Inquiry reported when FF wasn't in power so there was clearly an opportunity then to have hammered FF but it never happened.
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
817
odie1kanobe said:
What purpose would John Gallagher have for trying to cover up something that happened over 25 years ago ?
The families objected to Gallagher's appointment on the basis of his prior involvement. That's their prerogative.
odie1kanobe said:
Remember the Inquiry reported when FF wasn't in power so there was clearly an opportunity then to have hammered FF but it never happened.
New information has come to light since then as far as I am aware from the Prime Time documentary.
 

Dasayev

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,825
How come no one was ever charged with blocking the emergency exits?
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
What purpose would John Gallagher have for trying to cover up something that happened over 25 years ago ?
The families objected to Gallagher's appointment on the basis of his prior involvement. That's their prerogative.
odie1kanobe said:
Remember the Inquiry reported when FF wasn't in power so there was clearly an opportunity then to have hammered FF but it never happened.
New information has come to light since then as far as I am aware from the Prime Time documentary.
25 years on its pretty hard to remember what occurred and a documentary where people think they remember is not a good case to have another inquiry.
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
817
odie1kanobe said:
25 years on its pretty hard to remember what occurred and a documentary where people think they remember is not a good case to have another inquiry.
The original inquiry was flawed because the building plans used were inaccurate.
odie1kanobe said:
Dasayev said:
How come no one was ever charged with blocking the emergency exits?
Probably because there was no enough evidence to do so.
I believe the original report was highly critical of Eamon Butterly in this regard.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,911
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
25 years on its pretty hard to remember what occurred and a documentary where people think they remember is not a good case to have another inquiry.
The original inquiry was flawed because the building plans used were inaccurate.
Doesn't mean verdict would be different.

odie1kanobe said:
Dasayev said:
How come no one was ever charged with blocking the emergency exits?
Probably because there was no enough evidence to do so.
I believe the original report was highly critical of Eamon Butterly in this regard.[/quote]

Critical and criminal are different.

Knew people who lost friends but new inquiry doesn't bring them back and doesn't solve what realy happened as we will unlikely every know.

If result of new inquiry comes out with same result will families seek another one ?
 

Sancho

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
365
Ahern's behaviour alone is enough to raise suspicions. The Families requested 800K to pay for the expenses of the re-examination of the evidence: barristers fees, experts travel and accommodation, etc. Ahern offered them 300K. Every spanner in the works he could think of, as a previous poster said. A schoolfriend of mine died in the Stardust. Those families have been in pain for 26 years. Butterly had 18 previous health and safety violations against his name. This could be the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of the state.
 
Top