Stardust Tragedy

politicaldonations

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Messages
681
What about a civil case? I worked for the Butterlys in their Maxol garage years ago when I was in school. Not very nice people in my opinion.
 


Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
bboruimhe said:
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.
Did they just pick the figure out of the air or was it properly detailed or an open ended commitment like the Tribunals

They were offered a figure to work within but instead they refused it.

What Butterley had against him before is irrelevant as there was no prima facie evidence for him to be charged for the night in question.

Again I ask the question if the outcome is the same what will the families do ?
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
politicaldonations said:
What about a civil case? I worked for the Butterlys in their Maxol garage years ago when I was in school. Not very nice people in my opinion.
Er so what ?

What is the purpose of a civil case ?
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
815
odie1kanobe said:
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.
The hypothesis put forward in the verdict would be null and void if it were shown that the origin of the fire were in an area inaccessible to customers. There's also the issue of what was stored in that storeroom.
 

Sancho

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
364
odie1kanobe said:
bboruimhe said:
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.
Did they just pick the figure out of the air or was it properly detailed or an open ended commitment like the Tribunals

They were offered a figure to work within but instead they refused it.

What Butterley had against him before is irrelevant as there was no prima facie evidence for him to be charged for the night in question.

Again I ask the question if the outcome is the same what will the families do ?
That's just insulting. The figure was fully costed out and presented to the Office of the Taoiseach. He came back with a figure of less than half of what they required. After 26 years these people are not interested in anything other than the truth. What were Ahern's reasons for refusing to agree to their figure? Why did Ahern appoint a chairman that he must have known would be unacceptable? If other hearsay evidence I have come across (which I won't disclose since I can't prove it) is true, there is something appalling at the bottom of this.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
bboruimhe said:
odie1kanobe said:
bboruimhe said:
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.
Did they just pick the figure out of the air or was it properly detailed or an open ended commitment like the Tribunals

They were offered a figure to work within but instead they refused it.

What Butterley had against him before is irrelevant as there was no prima facie evidence for him to be charged for the night in question.

Again I ask the question if the outcome is the same what will the families do ?
That's just insulting. The figure was fully costed out and presented to the Office of the Taoiseach. He came back with a figure of less than half of what they required. After 26 years these people are not interested in anything other than the truth. What were Ahern's reasons for refusing to agree to their figure? Why did Ahern appoint a chairman that he must have known would be unacceptable? If other hearsay evidence I have come across (which I won't disclose since I can't prove it) is true, there is something appalling at the bottom of this.
Fully costed out by whom ?

As for the hearsay evidence , so what its hearsay and unproveable.
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
odie1kanobe said:
Bertie was just a govt whip so idea he had the power to influence is a joke.
:shock:

Surely you jest. The Govt Whip knows where the bodies are buried. The Govt Whip has the dirt on every single deputy. The Govt Whip has more influence than anyone apart from Taoiseach and Finance. Getting the Govt Whip post is essentially an annointment from On High that you are being groomed for higher things.

Ahern must know the truth about the Stardust, or he wouldn't have spent 10 years messing everyone around on the issue.
 

Sancho

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
364
Fully costed out by whom ?

As for the hearsay evidence , so what its hearsay and unproveable.[/quote]

By the Committee, why are you bucking against this? These families lost their children in the fire, what do you think they are doing, trying some kind of stroke ??
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
bboruimhe said:
Fully costed out by whom ?

As for the hearsay evidence , so what its hearsay and unproveable.
By the Committee, why are you bucking against this? These families lost their children in the fire, what do you think they are doing, trying some kind of stroke ??[/quote]

So a commitee gets together decides we need €800k and Govt should just hand over.

As for asking question about the outcome everybody seems to think it will change but nobody seems to be willing to ask what happens if the outcome doesn't change.

To spend 26 years looking for another inquiry and the result stays the same will do what to the families ?
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
815
odie1kanobe said:
So a commitee gets together decides we need €800k and Govt should just hand over.
Why do you presume they have no proper costings?
odie1kanobe said:
As for asking question about the outcome everybody seems to think it will change but nobody seems to be willing to ask what happens if the outcome doesn't change.

To spend 26 years looking for another inquiry and the result stays the same will do what to the families ?
There's no reason to assume the families will reject the findings of a fair inquiry. They are entitled to a fair inquiry.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
So a commitee gets together decides we need €800k and Govt should just hand over.
Why do you presume they have no proper costings?
They could have published them they didn't.



odie1kanobe said:
As for asking question about the outcome everybody seems to think it will change but nobody seems to be willing to ask what happens if the outcome doesn't change.

To spend 26 years looking for another inquiry and the result stays the same will do what to the families ?
There's no reason to assume the families will reject the findings of a fair inquiry. They are entitled to a fair inquiry.[/quote]

Actually there is every reason. They want someone responsible to pay, if there is no one responsible then they wil still seek someone to blame be it the politicians who they will claim stopped the inquiry, the garda for not investigating fully or someone else.
 

Sancho

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
364
odie1kanobe said:
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
So a commitee gets together decides we need €800k and Govt should just hand over.
Why do you presume they have no proper costings?
They could have published them they didn't.



odie1kanobe said:
As for asking question about the outcome everybody seems to think it will change but nobody seems to be willing to ask what happens if the outcome doesn't change.

To spend 26 years looking for another inquiry and the result stays the same will do what to the families ?
There's no reason to assume the families will reject the findings of a fair inquiry. They are entitled to a fair inquiry.
Actually there is every reason. They want someone responsible to pay, if there is no one responsible then they wil still seek someone to blame be it the politicians who they will claim stopped the inquiry, the garda for not investigating fully or someone else.[/quote]

Did you see the Primetime program? If not, go and educate yourself.
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
815
odie1kanobe said:
Actually there is every reason. They want someone responsible to pay, if there is no one responsible then they wil still seek someone to blame be it the politicians who they will claim stopped the inquiry, the garda for not investigating fully or someone else.
It's amazing that you have such insight into the minds of these people.

I would personally like to see a new inquiry based on the concerns raised and support the families in their quest to get one.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
bboruimhe said:
odie1kanobe said:
HanleyS said:
So a commitee gets together decides we need €800k and Govt should just hand over.
Why do you presume they have no proper costings?
They could have published them they didn't.



odie1kanobe said:
As for asking question about the outcome everybody seems to think it will change but nobody seems to be willing to ask what happens if the outcome doesn't change.

To spend 26 years looking for another inquiry and the result stays the same will do what to the families ?
There's no reason to assume the families will reject the findings of a fair inquiry. They are entitled to a fair inquiry.
Actually there is every reason. They want someone responsible to pay, if there is no one responsible then they wil still seek someone to blame be it the politicians who they will claim stopped the inquiry, the garda for not investigating fully or someone else.[/quote]

Did you see the Primetime program? If not, go and educate yourself.[/quote]

Its a TV program thats it nothing more nothing less.

You mean you assummed it was correct in everything !!!!!!
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
HanleyS said:
odie1kanobe said:
Actually there is every reason. They want someone responsible to pay, if there is no one responsible then they wil still seek someone to blame be it the politicians who they will claim stopped the inquiry, the garda for not investigating fully or someone else.
It's amazing that you have such insight into the minds of these people.

I would personally like to see a new inquiry based on the concerns raised and support the families in their quest to get one.
Again to achieve what ?

You avoiding the question that are the families prepared to get the same result and what then.
 

HanleyS

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
815
odie1kanobe said:
Again to achieve what ?

You avoiding the question that are the families prepared to get the same result and what then.
I share the concerns of the family about the previous investigation into this incident.

I'm not avoiding the question. I wasn't aware you were asking me to pre-suppose the families' reactions to an as yet undetermined verdict to an as yet unscheduled inquiry.
 

Sancho

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
364
Its a TV program thats it nothing more nothing less.

You mean you assummed it was correct in everything !!!!!![/quote]

Nothing in that program was subsequently denied, including the claims that chains were put on the exit doors. I heard this originally from survivors, at the funeral of the guy I knew who died. George O'Connor. He was 17 on the night in question. 47 other people also died. Why would anyone - including yourself - be unwilling to answer the questions of their families about the Inquiry ??
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
bboruimhe said:
Its a TV program thats it nothing more nothing less.

You mean you assummed it was correct in everything !!!!!!
Nothing in that program was subsequently denied, including the claims that chains were put on the exit doors. I heard this originally from survivors, at the funeral of the guy I knew who died. George O'Connor. He was 17 on the night in question. 47 other people also died. Why would anyone - including yourself - be unwilling to answer the questions of their families about the Inquiry ??[/quote]

Denied by whom ?

Its a TV program and no one is going to say anything to a TV program that will subsequently be used against them.

Even the language used would come into question as someone saying chains were put on a door v chains not taken off, one could be seen as a deliberate act, one is negligence or poor carelessness but identifying responsibility is another thing.

I don't see a new inquiry happening and don't notice there much political support for it either.
 

Sancho

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
364
"Deliberate act ?? " You don't get it. The obstruction of the emergency exits was not a deliberate attempt to stop people from getting out. No-one suggests that. Why in the name of God would the owners do that?
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
bboruimhe said:
"Deliberate act ?? " You don't get it. The obstruction of the emergency exits was not a deliberate attempt to stop people from getting out. No-one suggests that. Why in the name of God would the owners do that?
He's just muddying the waters with semantics, nitpicking, deliberate misdirections, false rabbit trails, strawmen and outright meaningless spoofery. Standard FF practice when called on their misdeeds. Those boyos could be caught in a crowd, bloody knife in hand standing over a dead body, and spin it out into 37 pages of wankology and gibberish. Arguing with them is like being tangled up in a massive, endless spider web of confusion, barefaced lies, and stunning leaps of illogic.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top