Log in

No account? Create an account

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006, 09:41 am

Note to Americans - you may be seeing some mentions of the Stardust Nightclub over the last few days (and possibly for another few to come). If you're confused, read on, if not then theres nothing new here for you.
The Stardust nightclub was a venue owned by a miserable tight sod who was so terrified of people sneaking in via emergency exits and not paying the cover fee that he had the emergency fire exits chained and padlocked shut. Needless to say a fire broke out one night when the place was packed and forty eight people died as a result. Now, one would assume that for chaining shut the fire exits the owner would be getting his experience and colon expanded in a jail cell for quite some time but unfortunately a functionally retarded judiciary is not the sole domain of your Florida. The upshot is that he not only got away with it but was compensated by the insurance company. Christy Moore now enters the story. He is a singer/songwriter who I honestly can't abide but has an undeniably amazing talent and energy and ability to perfom evocative songs that'd have a perfectly sober fella hugging the bloke next to him and calling him "brother" or could just as easily sing a ditty that'd have Ghandi taking a swing at the bloke next to him. Christy wrote a song about the events that night, I'm guessing he was a bit unimpressed by the result of the court case. Get this though, the owner, whose actions caused the deaths of forty eight people, sued Christy to get him to stop performing the song.
Thats right, the only person in the entire debacle to have a successful case brought against him was Singer/Songwriter Christy Moore who did not chain and padlock the fire exits.
The story took a new twist yesterday when the owner who chained and padlocked the fire exits causing the death of forty eight people decided that he either (depending on which piece of crap newspaper with lazy useless reporters you believe) wanted to apply for planning permission to re-open a new club on the sight OR wanted to *open* his newly built nightclub on the site of the old one.

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 10:24 am (UTC)

Actually, I believe it wasn't Eamonn Butterly who was/is re-opening a new bar on the site (and bear in mind, there's still been a bar there all this time, called Skelly's Lounge - it's only the timing of the re-opening and calling it the bloody same name as the pub that was there at the time of the Stardust! that are the issues, not the existence or opening of the bar per se. And it's a cocktail bar, as opposed to a nightclub, apparently) but his nephews or cousins or some other members of the extended Butterly clan.

Not that it makes that much difference I know, I just like to be precise :)

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 10:34 am (UTC)

What the hell is going on with the reporting on this one? The story I read yesterday said he wanted to dig out a car park and put a nightclub there, then it was that he wanted to build it on the site of the old one, now its actually been/being opened. No two papers have had the same story regarding the timing, location, ownership or nature of this bloody pub/nightclub/cocktail bar.

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 11:28 am (UTC)

Well, the only version I'd heard was that there was a venue of some description opening last night, and reported in at least one place that it was going to be called The Silver Swan, which is apparently the name of the pub that was there at the time of the incident (I can't verify that yet) It was only you or Dorian or someone else on LJ that mentioned planning permission being sought this week. I think it's entirely possible that both are true, but that the planning permission sought this week was for something else.

The HeraldAM lead story this morning was how the pub, due to open last night, had not opened because of 200 friends and families of the victims protested outside last night. Since it had a photo of a protesting crowd, complete with signs, outside a pub, on which the name The Silver Swan can be seen (partially obscured, but clear enough) I'm thinking this version is pretty correct :)

They were the ones who reported that it was what was Skelly's Lounge, which is a bar I'm familiar with since I pass it regularly on my way to do my grocery shopping :)

As for who actually owns and is opening the bar, I admit I can't vouch for the veracity of what I read. I can't remember where I read that it was Paul (I think) Butterly, nephew or something of Eamonn Butterly (certainly Colm Butterly, Eamonn's brother I believe, owns the Maxol station there, and his daughter is manage of the business park, cos I worked in that station one summer) rather than Eamonn Butterly himself, but it seems feasible. Especially since something else I read, and my own scantly knowledge, implies that Eamonn isn't massively involved in running the empire at all anymore.

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 11:31 am (UTC)

Meant to add I intend driving up there this evening or tomorrow to see whatever I can for myself.

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 11:39 am (UTC)

I couldn't tell you exactly what paper(s) it was I saw the various versions in since we usually have a bunch of tabloids knocking around the office every day (hell, its even possible I read it wrong). Anyway, they all seem to agree with something more approximating your version today, and yeah, it would seem to be Patrick Butterly thats doing the dirty here, not Eamonn.

Shockingly crass insensitivity towards the fears and objections of the locals seems to be rather the vogue this year, hopefully before the end of it we'll have the Osama Home Abortion Pot & Commie Jizzporium opening in Donnybrook.

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 03:59 pm (UTC)

according to today's Irish Times, the cocktail bar was due to open yesterday (the 25th anniversary of the Stardust, let us not forget), but didn't because some of the paperwork hadn't come through. reputedly. never mind the fact that there were a couple of hundred unhappy people outside...

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 11:06 am (UTC)

Actually, there was another prosecution in relation to the Stardust - the father of one (or two?) of the victims was prosecuted for assaulting one of the Butterlys.

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 11:22 am (UTC)

RTE's take on it: http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0214/stardust.html

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 01:04 pm (UTC)

Unbelievable. Completely unbelievable. I hope that asshole gets what he deserves one day. How come the family of the dead haven't organized themselves to sue the crap out of him?

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 01:18 pm (UTC)

Many of them were indeed in the process of litigation when the government announced an enquiry/tribunal which would have the power to award compensation. The person in charge of this took the decision that it would be best to have any compensation due paid quickly, and that as you can't be compensated twice for the same loss, anyone who wanted to partake would have to abandon any other legal action they had pending.

That's more or less the gist of what he said the other night on the radio, anyway, when asked about events at the time.
(Deleted comment)

Wed, Feb. 15th, 2006 07:52 pm (UTC)

Honest to god, it'd make your brain explode.