Stardust families attack ‘ill-informed, unhelpful’ Casey

PETER Casey was yesterday criticised by the relatives of those who died in the Stardust tragedy. They said his ill-informed remarks on the case were not helping their cause.

Mr Casey said he only became aware last week of the 1980s nightclub inferno and backed survivors’ requests for an inquest.

He said he was in Australia in 1981 when 48 people lost their lives in the Valentine’s Day fire, and was ‘embarrassed and ashamed’ he did not know about the disaster and its impact.

He then wrongly claimed the nightclub site was owned by Nama and the buildings there ‘should be knocked down,’ even though the nightclub was largely demolished after the tragedy.

Describing the case as ‘not being resolved as it should be,’ Mr Casey said ‘a beautiful monument’ should be built to honour those who died – even though a fountain sculpture of dancing young people was built in Artane as a memorial to the dead.

Nama denied it had anything to do with the privately owned properties on the site, while campaigners were irritated over the possible interpretation the existing monument was not beautiful. Antoinette Keegan, who lost two sisters in the blaze, said: ‘The families find Peter Casey’s comments to be a complete misrepresentation of what we asked of him as a Presidential candidate and an attempt to exploit our campaign... At no time did we ask that Peter Casey act as a spokesman for our campaign.’

Mr Casey has now been asked not to attend a major demonstration next month in support of the relatives’ demands.