57th day of the hunger strike of Peter Preston.

by Finglas Tue Jul 18, 2006 05:31

C'mon Boyo 10 more days & You'll have beaten Bobby Sands record

by mOuse Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:27

Give him our love and a bang on the ear.

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:53

I have serious doubts as to whether Mr Preston has been on hunger strike for 57 days. At this stage during the H Block hunger strikes fit young men were unable to walk, their sight was failing and their liver and kidney functions were seriously impaired. Mr Preston does not display the signs of a prolonged abstinence from food.

At the very least someone that advanced on hunger strike should be in hospital. I am not a troll. I just want some answers as to why Mr preston does not display the symptoms of a man who has spent almost 60 days fasting. Does Mr Preston have extraordinary powers?

Indymedia correspondents should investigate this case more carefully. I feel sorry for Mr Preston because I reckon his daughter suffered an injustice. But no hunger strike, real or imaginary can alter a Court decision.

by Mark G Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:01

On an earlier thread more details on his hunger strike were published. Included in the post was details of hunger strikes from around the world and how long they last. Peter Preston has been drinking tea with sugar in it (although he stopped taking sugar recently), which would help explain why he is not dead. In Turkey Hunger strikers take Vitamin B tablets and can last for over 200 days on Hunger strike. I hope this info helps.
http://www.slate.com/id/2102228/

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:08

The Turkish prisoners are also force fed. Vitamin B tablets would not keep you alive. The Turkish protest is one which has sadly been largely forgotten. I remember when about 2,000 marched in Dublin in support of the Turkish prisoners.

But getting back to Mr Preston I still have my doubts. He is at least in late middle age and its difficult to see how he could be in such good condition at this stage if hes only drinking sugary tea. I also dont see how his fast can get him any satisdfaction.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:31

Mr. Preston is not starving himself to death for satisfaction.

If you feel that the 'quality' of his hungerstrike ought to be investigated, go ahead and do so.

My interest in Mr. Preston is that he gets justice and that he ends the hungerstrike.

Mr. Preston's hungerstrike is not about altering a court decision. It is about the malpractice of justice and government.

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:40

I never meant to suggest that Mr Preston was doing anything for satisfaction. I have reasonable doubts regarding the genuineness of Mr Prestons fast. You have written about this huinger strike so you should take a closer look at things. Put the emotion away for a moment and think like a journalist. Could an elderly man who was 57 days on hunger strike be this healthy?

There may have been a miscarriage of justice. Looking at the bare facts as I know them I would say there was. Mr Prestons daughter did not get justice and the person who slashed her face got off with a suspended sentence. Unfortunately this kind of thing happens all too often. Thugs get off. But a hunger strike wont solve this. There is no conspiracy. The State did not set out to harm Mr Preston or his daughter.

His hunger strike will gain nothing. To egg him on, to encouage him in his belief that the Minister for Justice can over rule a Court decision is dangerous.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:55

I don't want Mr. Preston's hungerstrike to continue. I have no interest in investigating the quality of his hungerstriker whatsoever.

Again this is not about overruling a court decision. And I'm not egging him on in any fashion.

I would argue that the State has set out to harm Mr. Preston and his family. And it has continued to do so by refusing to listen to his very well substantiated argument.

I appreciate you having an opinion on all this and I'd not argue that you are not entitled to it. But I'd suggest to you that an opinion not based on investigation, or on knowledge of the facts is not in itself newsworthy or substantive.

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 13:03

"But I'd suggest to you that an opinion not based on investigation, or on knowledge of the facts is not in itself newsworthy or substantive."

Exactly so why dont you properly investigate the situation. You are the one who is suposed to be a journalist, you are writing articles about the fast. Mr Preston does not have the appearance of a man who is almost 60 days on hunger strike. You should investigate the reason for this.

I have not seen any evidence of a State conspiracy against Mr Preston or his daughter. Why would the State conspire against him and all over a District Curt case? I am all for uncovering wrongs committed by the State but conspiracy theories dont help. Mr Preston may have a sincere belief that the State conspired against his family but in the abscence of evidence it is just another conspiracy theory.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jul 18, 2006 13:48

The reasons I'm not investigating the hungerstrike are as follows.

i. It does not take from what I have investigated, ie. that the State has wronged Mr. Preston and that it continues to do so.

ii. To suggest to Mr. Preston, that his hungerstrike is invalid would be to offer him insult and would in my opinion, 'egg him on' - which you've suggested would not be ethical. I believe it would be unethical too.

iii. I want Mr. Preston to end his fast because it is harming him and his family - I have seen this for myself - and I want it to end.

The reason you have not seen substantiation of Mr. Preston's arguments is that the media and the Government have not been listening or publishing. Elaine and myself have a recording of Mr. Preston, where he goes into great detail as to his allegations. It is not fully published as of yet, for a number of good reasons. Time is one of them, but other considerations must bear in this also. The legal aspect - Mr. Preston has named names - thus far we have not published names due to future legal considerations. Another reason would be the Peter was quite ill at the time we made the recording and he probably wouldn't want everything made public until after the McDowell talk. He has a right to speak for himself to McDowell. Enough has been published that this meeting is warranted and justified. Finally - after the McDowell meeting and with Peter's permission we shall publish the lot, names and other omitted details included and we'll even upload the full audio itself.

You may not like the way we're doing it. But I suggest you withold your arguments until you are in possession of the full and thus far, undisputed facts.

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 14:00

You are too emotionally attached to the issue. To investigate the veracity of the hunger strike is the duty of an ethical journalist. Reasonable people would not accept that Mr Preston has been on hunger strike for 58 days. He does not show the signs normally associated with such a long fast. Doesnt this make you curious.

With all due respect Mr Prestons account of what has happned is just that, the account of one person. No other evidence has been advanced by you or other journalists on Indymedia.ie to back up this account. Why do you unwaveringly believe Mr Preston? Do you think it correct that a journalist should believe the word of one person regarding a State conspiracy when there is no corroborative evidence?

If you have any corroborative evidence then its in Mr Prestons interests for you to produce it.

I have nothing against Mr Preston but I also have no reason to believe that he is the victim of a State conspiracy. Many people get rough justice at the District Court. They dont all claim that it was the result of a State conspiracy. Lets deal with the real conspiracies.

by mOuse Tue Jul 18, 2006 14:00

Made a statement about how he wants to be treated and why he is striking.

He is a citizen of this state and within his rights to so do.

It might be difficult for some people to empathise with or support what he is doing, but it is his right as a human being to choose how to protest.

He is a dignifyed man.

The reporters , who covered this story have respected that and this is why he has spoken to them.

Sean has spoken to Mr Preston and typed the interviews.

Abstracting and obfuscating an issue of such weight does not allow for the individual in crisis to have his voice heard.

As I said earlier. Mc Dowell needs a bang on the ear-

(thats by the waterboys btw)

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 14:08

"Abstracting and obfuscating an issue of such weight does not allow for the individual in crisis to have his voice heard."

Asking questions is not an attack on an individual. Mr Preston is upset but I do not believe there is a State Conspiracy against him. No evidence other than Mr Prestons opinion has been advanced tin support of such a conspiracy existing. McDowell, Bertie, Mary Harney, none of them can over rule the decision of a court.

Mr Preston should come off his "hunger strike". I am dubious as to whether he has been 58 days fasting.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jul 18, 2006 14:17

Cynical, this will be my last response to you. You are now trolling. And my brief investigation will prove it to you and others.

Exhibit A : "There may have been a miscarriage of justice. Looking at the bare facts as I know them I would say there was."

This was from an earlier comment by you.

Exhibit B: "I have nothing against Mr Preston but I also have no reason to believe that he is the victim of a State conspiracy"

This is from your last comment.

Contradiction.

You might fudge the argument by bringing in semantics, ie. that the courts and the State are different. However this will further prove that you are trolling. Are you perchance an 'ethical' journalist from the Sindo?

Produce your own evidence, your imagination is spent and it's tiring me.

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 14:27

Yes I do believe that there was a miscarriage of justice. This occurred in the District Court. The man who slashed the face of Mr Prestons daughter got a suspended sentence. This was rough justice for the Preston family. But this sort of thing happens every day in the courts. A thug got away with a very light sentence, an actual suspended sentence.

But this does not mean that a conspiracy was going on. If this is a conspiracy then thousands occur every year. Thousands of families are aggreived because thugs either get light sentences or get away scott free. I dont believe any State conspiracy existed because you have produced no evidence.

I see no contradiction in what I wrote and I am not trolling. You are an Indymedia journalist who has written about this case so you would be helping Mr Preston if you produced evidence of a State conspiracy. Given that Mr Preston does not have the appearence of someone who has been fasting for 60 days you might also look at this. Its your credibility which is at stake.

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 14:32

I am not a journalist with any media organisation, I am just a bit puzzled by this whole case. I am also puzzled that you do not seem to realise that the Courts are actually seperate from the Minister per se. If you think that a District Court Judge has involved him or herself in a conspiracy against the Preston family then I find that interesting. But you will have to produce evidence if you are going to convince me. I think that even in radical circles you will find that there is little appetite for conspiracy theories unless they are backed up by evidence.

by Bad Girl Tue Jul 18, 2006 14:38

who owned the pub? Not unlikely that the owners were part of the 'golden circle'. Especially considering that it has been alleged that witness statements were changed, with the knowledge of the guards concerned.

by mOuse Tue Jul 18, 2006 14:57

Public house or tavern. is Bertie's local hostelery.

He wasn't there the night the girl had her face opened by a local drug dealer, but the witness statements excised from the transcripts included statements from younger (underage)witnesses.

it is not conspiracy. as I see it. but a simple act of fecking with legal documents by a sitting TD, who will not reply to the allegation that he handed them to someone else.

On the night of the attack, the bouncers called the cops, not the ambulance.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jul 18, 2006 15:27

The person who glassed Mr. Preston's daughter's face was female not male.

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 15:33

Thank you for the correction. Saturdays Irish Times referred to a male. I found it diificult to follow Mr Prestons account which you posted in a verbatim manner.

by Chris Murray - The unmanageables Tue Jul 18, 2006 16:09

any press release from dept of justice.

or anything from Peter: such as it was open and co-operative?

by pat c Tue Jul 18, 2006 16:15

I think the meeting is on tomorrow 19 July.

Could anyone provide a brief summary regarding the case? Please leave out names of TDs. Allegations are made against a certain TD which I do not believe. I know the TD in question for 20 years and I do not believe that he is league with anyone else against Peter Preston. Such outlandish allegations are damaging to both Peter Prestons case and to the credibility of those who spread them.

by Michael Gallagher - libertypix@yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 18, 2006 19:30 www.freewebs.com/libertypics

Peter Preston misquoted by media
Peter Preston is now on the 59th day of his hunger strike outside the Dail. Tomorrow, Wednesday 18th July at 9.30 am, Peter will have a meeting with Minister for Justice etc, Michael McDowell in relation to the reasons as to why he is on hunger strike. Peter asked me to post this statement on his behalf. Lets hope this meeting comes to a successful conclusion and he can get well and begin to live a normal life.
I Peter Preston never said that I would come off my hunger strike if Minister McDowell met with me as all newspapers are making out on 14-7-2006. It is all lies and spin. The reason I am on hunger strike is not because of any criminal case, it is because of a conspiracy to defraud my daughter of due compensation in a civil action that my daughter took against this pub that Bertie Ahern drinks in. This conspiracy of corruption involves my daughters legal team, pubs legal team, gardai from two garda stations, a high court judge, Joe Costelloe T.D. (Labour Party) and others. The Minister for Justice knows this since 2004.

End of statement
_______________________
Peter Preston

by Cynical Tue Jul 18, 2006 19:59

How can I be expected to take this seriously? There is a conspiracy involving Bertie Ahern, a High Court Judge, Mr Prestons daughters legal team, the pubs legal team, Joe Costelloe TD. Why would all of these people gang up on the Preston family?

Mr Preston is obviously very emotional right now and his reported staement reads like the ravings of a disturbed person. I do not write this as an insult. Those of you who are publishing his statements should think again. Do all of you really believe in this all encompassing conspiracy? Or could it be that Mr Preston has exagerated things out of all proportion? You are not helping him by giving credence to this bizarre story. You are not doing anything for your own credibility either.

by mOuse Tue Jul 18, 2006 20:20

Things have gone missing from other cases in this state including that of a Shannon activist,

from the point of view of 'corruption', as any one who has fought the offices of 'the triple arm of good governance', anything goes- and does.

Vast conspiracy it is not, just some localised problems, this too, not unusual as certain RTS campaigners, families of children who died in Garda custody may attest.

The man is on hunger strike because he feels he has nothing left to fight with. to him it is an act of love and though I personally cannot buy martyrdom, I'd respect his choice to fight his battle any way he chooses- which all of us have to do in our choices on a daily basis. unless we are blinkered....

by pat c Tue Jul 18, 2006 20:24

i dont wish to be nasty but i cannot believe this either. it just doesnt make sense that the following would line up together:

1. The Judge.
2. The pubs lawyers.
3. the pprestons lawyers.
4. the gardai.
5. joe costello

what reason would bring them together? why would they decide to persecute the preston family? how is the fact that bertie drinkls in the pub relevant?

by pat c Tue Jul 18, 2006 20:29

this has nothing to do with RTS or Deaths in Custody cases. its a civil case.

what has the state got to gain from persecuting the prestons?

by mOuse Tue Jul 18, 2006 20:54

The writers of the stories to do with the Peter Preston case:

have taken direct statements from the man and written them down, published them.

this is open publishing.

Peter Preston takes the allegations seriously enough to be on hunger-strike.

(read the disclaimer)

Mr Mc Dowell takes the case seriously enough to advance a meeting with Mr Preston.

Cynical , indy is not actionable. Preston is , if he is making these statements. and guess what? he knows this-

though no-one has acted against him in his allegations 50+ days with that statement printed outside the Dail

by SeaicilínF Tue Jul 18, 2006 21:53

There's not much detail being given about this case. I have so many questions like:

Are the owners of the pub related in any way to any politician or connected to someone who can influence matters (it's not good enough to say that Bertie Ahern drinks there, I'm sure he drinks in many a pub) - has Joe Costelloe any connection with the pub's owners?

Why would this assortment of characters: Joe Costelloe, the Gardaí, a judge, Mr. Preston's daughter's solicitor and the pub's solicitor all team up against Mr. Preston in a civil action - what's in it for all of them? Who are they protecting? The reason Mr. Preston gives for the conspiracy, that there would be a black mark against the pub, I can't see this at all, the pub's owners did not push the glass into Mr. Preston's daughter's face. Attacks happen in pubs and some like this one are of a particularly vicious nature, but I don't blame the pub's owners, they can't be responsible for how customers behave on their premises.

Who were the people that intimidated Mr. Preston's wife and daughter?

I hope to God that Mr. Preston comes off this hunger strike and I don't think he is in any fit condition to be dealing with the likes of Michael (Heart of Stone) McDowell, you need to be in the fullest of health to deal with the likes of him (I hope there is someone else going in with him to advise him) .

I wish Mr. Preston well and I hope to God he comes off his hunger strike, it will be more traumatic for his family than the incident itself if he ends up dead.

by mOuse Tue Jul 18, 2006 22:05

Day 37 on, (enter MOuse into search engine -indy) is recorded.

As to surviving what is *suicide*, unless the issue is dealt with-

The family wd have to cope with:

1. Long term medical implications of prolonged hunger strike complications.

2. Carrying on the campaign. (they are there every day, they can't get him to give up)

3. If he does die_ (survivors Guilt)

He is aware of all of this and has informed them and us of these issues.

by anon Tue Jul 18, 2006 22:06

Why would this assortment of characters: Joe Costelloe, the Gardaí, a judge, Mr. Preston's daughter's solicitor and the pub's solicitor all team up against Mr. Preston in a civil action - what's in it for all of them? Who are they protecting? The reason Mr. Preston gives for the conspiracy, that there would be a black mark against the pub, I can't see this at all, the pub's owners did not push the glass into Mr. Preston's daughter's face. Attacks happen in pubs and some like this one are of a particularly vicious nature, but I don't blame the pub's owners, they can't be responsible for how customers behave on their premises.

So you reckon that a pub would never ever get its staff to change their story to help them and the local gang out?

by SeaicilínF Tue Jul 18, 2006 23:14

"So you reckon that a pub would never ever get its staff to change their story to help them and the local gang out."

Yes, of course, that happens, if a pub is threatened by a gang, the pub's owners might get their staff to change their stories for fear of retribution, or if the pub is owned by a member of a gang or someone connected to the gang they will definitely get their staff to change their stories to preserve themselves. But, in this case, I've read nothing to suggest this, but then I don't have the full story, that's why I'm seeking clarification here.

I hope Mr. Preston comes of his hunger strike, it's only weakening him further and will not help his case or his family in the long-term. You can't rely on others being sympathetic, everyone has their own agenda and everyone in the end takes care of themselves. There are other ways of fighting injustice besides hunger strike (although I'm aware it is an old Irish custom and throughout history it was a popular method used to embarrass those who did them an injustice, but I fear, the present political establishment are not easily embarrassed).

by Michael Gallagher Tue Jul 18, 2006 23:42

Why don't all of you who are asking these questions pay a visit to Peter outside of the Dail? (If you are in Dublin and that concerned).

Any statements put out my me are almost word for word of what Peter had written by hand...they had to be edited for grammer etc.

by mOuse Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:13

*Indy have published without predijuice the words of a man, who has been independently examined by a doctor, who asserts he is on hunger-strike.

*Who will , or is meeting Michael Mc Dowell now.

* Who is and has been ignored by the mainstream media, until two days ago.

* Who may die, or suffer severe post-fasting medical complications.

*Who, is putting a lot of effort into what he is doing and is aware of all medical , personal and legal obligations.

*it is about choice.

*it is about representing choice.

Please do not judge the merits of the situation from the point of view of predijuice.

or . Peter Preston has exposed himself as a fool or charlatan and therefore does not have to be believed. His family are there. numerous TD's have spoken to him.
The passing public support him.

by SeaicilínF Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:45

I hope Mr. Preston is not attending this meeting with Mr. (Heart of Stone) McDowell on his own - he should have someone with him to advise him. It's not fair to him to be meeting Mr. Dowell on his own in his weakened state. Could someone clarify if he is going in there on his own?

I don't understand why Mr. Preston has taken this action against the pub, in my opinion, pubs should not be responsible for the actions of their customers, unless the pub's owners took part in the action or assisted the attackers in the actual attack otherwise, I do not agree that pubs should be brought before the courts. The only people who should be brought before courts are the attackers themselves.

by psi Wed Jul 19, 2006 18:17

On one side we have those who don't believe PP and think its all his conspiracy & argue we ought not give him attention (thinking he'll just give up and have a cheese sandwich).
On another side we have those who don't believe PP but think there's a bit of truth & argue we ought not give him attention (thinking he'll stop soon enough and have a low fat yoghurt)
Yet another side don't really believe PP's acusations are important any longer whether based on conspiracy or not - what are important are quite simply his actions & location.
Which brings us to even another side of opinion - who question not only the accusations as "conspiracy theory" but also question the "hungerstrike" as real. These people presumedly not only think he's being irrational but also sneaking in cheese sandwiches and low fat yoghurts.

The man has been in a tent on Kildare street for over 50 days.
I called him "General Titus Andronicus" for a number of reasons several weeks ago now. Titus mutilates himself believing it will keep his honour, he receives his two sons' heads in reward. By which stage his daughter has been raped, and her attackers have removed her hands and tongue so she can't tell the Shakespearian audience "who dunnit?". Titus goes mad - who wouldn't? He starts writing letters using his own blood as ink attacking the Emperor and Senate of Rome.

If you're still wondering about whether or not the letters of Titus are wholly and completely based on truth - you've not been paying attention to the opening acts. If you're wondering about the Hunger Strike you've missed a few important "asides". If you're wondering about how the Senate, People and Emperor of Rome deal with this - you're on track.

58 days on Hungerstrike. (we'll debate vitamins, codeine, glucose, &c... when it ends)
51 days in a tent. (in front of your government)
5 official meetings with public representatives.

At the end of Titus, Shakespeare launches his most bloody "they all go down". Titus kills his daughter for her shame after Caesar approves it. Titus then tells Caesar that his wife the Empress is mother to the sons who killed the sons of Titus and raped the daughter, and that he as cooked them up in a pie which Caesar and his Mrs just ate. A last moment of rage sees Caesar and Titus kill each other.

Its my experienced opinion that PP will not give up till he gets a reason to live, & I'm not convinced he's going to get that in a tent. Which means I think he's going to die. & we'll put up a little Cross.

Its not about publicity. Its not even about anti-depressents. Our ill-equiped hospitals and mental service deal with countless unfortuantes in the grip of real "conspiracy". But at least we don't have to deal with that irrationality or contemplate the chasm between State, Public Representation and a little tent on Kildare Street.

by Seán Ryan Wed Jul 19, 2006 19:07

Mr. Preston has claimed that the evidence in each of the trials differed. The powers that be could have easily and still could debunk this.

But they haven't.

Why?

by Brian Wed Jul 19, 2006 20:01

I guess it is correct to say that if what Mr Preston is saying is true then the country we live in (particularly its justice system, media, and the true role of opposition parties)
works a lot different in practise from the way its usually presented in the mass media.
But I think there is one way to test his hypothesis at least as regards the media. I propose the following scientific experiment. Ok this will only take a few minutes and require just an internet connection.
Stop messing with the bunsen burner now and pay attention!lol
Step 1: Read the ongoing story of Peter Preston as it has emerged say here on indymedia over quite a long period of time (eg MOuse's articles: http://www.indymedia.ie/index.php?obj_id=2117&author_na...MOuse). You might like to read also his own statement (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76572) and Sean's interview with him (http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77072) although dont worry about reading every word there, if you have followed the story at all then you probably have the picture by now.
Step 2: Now read the media articles that have just appeared recently like the Irish Times 17 July http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/0717/3638....html , Examiner www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg%3Direland-qqqm% , and Daily Ireland http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_scope=DailyIrelan...opp=1 .

Now compare the two. Obviously Peter Preston has consistently talked about the conduct of a Civil case in the High Court. AFAIK he never once complained about the sentence given in the criminal case in the District court.
So the media black out the case for 50 days and then 3 articles appear (2 on the Friday and then the following Monday) almost simultaenously and each of them spin it that Mr Preston is 'hurt' at the low sentence given in the criminal trial.
Not a whisper is allowed to emerge about any political figure (even without naming him) or forgery or any of the really interesting aspects of the case.
e.g.:
Irish Times 17 July 2006: "Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has agreed to meet a man who has been on hunger strike outside the Dáil for almost 60 days in protest at what he says is the failure of the justice system to adequately punish a gang who attacked his daughter.
....
When the man and his accomplices were subsequently arrested and brought to court, they were given suspended sentences.

"Peter, who is a constituent of mine, was extremely upset at this and came to me with his concerns," said the Independent TD for Dublin North Central, Finian McGrath, who raised the issue in the Dáil with Mr McDowell.

However, the Minister had no power to intervene in the case, given the separation of powers between the executive and the courts."

The Examiner 14 July 2006: "A successful prosecution was brought by gardaí but Mr Preston is not satisfied with the police investigation of the incident or the 18-month suspended sentence handed down by the courts to the female culprit."

Daily Ireland 14/7/2006:"Gardaí brought a successful prosecution. However, Mr Preston said he was not satisfied with the investigation of the incident or the 18-month suspended sentence handed down by the courts to the person convicted."

Notice how this District Court/Criminal Case spin is exactly the line that McDowell took in answer to the Dail question on the case, which Mr Preston has already pointed out as inaccurate: "This is not about the criminal case that I am on hunger strike: it is about a conspiracy of corruption in a civil case and Mr Mc Dowell knows this"
Signed : Peter Preston."(http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76910)

So when Mr Preston states that these new media articles are "all lies and spin. The reason I am on hunger strike is not because of any criminal case," (in comment above) Then I think you can see that he is telling the truth and not exaggerating either.
And if he is right about that then what about the other issues? Its like if the media can operate a lot like that of East Germany under communism then why not the other organs of the state?
Unfortunately!(Hopefully he will go off the hunger stike though, before it permanently damages his health.)

by pat c Wed Jul 19, 2006 20:43

ah, now i get it! mcdowell is also in on the conspiracy as are the media!

so:

1. A High Court Judge.

2. The Preston family lawyers.

3. The Pubs lawyers.

4. The guards.

5. Joe Costello.

6. Michael McDowell.

7. The Bourgeois Media.

(Have I left anyone out? Is the Papal Nuncio involved?)

All of these are conspiring together to persecute Peter Preston.

How likely is this?

Applying Occams Razor I reckon Peter Preston has had a raw deal and as a result thinks the world is against him.

I have nothing against Peter Preston but I dont think this story has legs.

by an D.roimean donn dhilis. Thu Jul 20, 2006 02:12

The man in a tent on Kildare street claims many things. So do we all. But he also claims days.
He's been in a tent at the National Library entrance of the Dail for over 50 days.
chalking up numbers.
sitting next to publically issued and read material by his own hand.
Chatting away to people.
Trying to steer clear of others.
Getting on with it.

He's attracted our attention.

His little tent sits in the corner of political protests at the gate to the Irish Government, and when he leaves it the deputies and senators within as well as teh public get to look at him "free of charge, powerful indictment or publically signed condemnation"

Recently discussion on the newswire on this man's plight, condition, location and action - suggested a conspiracy theory in 8 parts.
A deputy : the police force : a vitner : a minister : commercial and state media : a firm of lawyers : a second firm of lawyers : & a high court Judge.
(one of the people who decide about frozen embryos.)

All that simply tells you is that people read what he says, listens to what he says. They engage with him. He's still on hungerstrike. Heading for the history books some might calculate.

Today if nothing else consider a possible 9th element ( & last element) of how people deal with this "issue" might be -


Would or Will his death or exit from the stage result in a public inquiry?


reports from his 57th and 58th day -

by mOuse Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:05

Would depend on the intimacy of knowledge of the case within the family, this would extend to the community and outwards.

Given that the family visit every day and support him in his anger ,and are already preparing for the worst, this would mean yes.

I am sorry for saying this, and I apologise to his family members for bringing the issue up. but grief (and he has prepared them for the possibility) when expected, even then -takes time and process.

The statute of limitations on enquiry is also a process and if Peter dies the first journey is the most important, the second , only when you are ready.

However- the focus , at the moment should be on support and medical monitoring.

by R Thu Jul 20, 2006 16:33

The very fact that a man has taken this serious action led me to visiting him yesterday. He had just come back from meeting McDowell and was very week. He said that he'd explained his case and he felt he had done his best and that it is now over to them. I found Peter to be a very sincere, articulate, courageous and resolved person that is motivated out of very genuine reasons. It is a disgrace to our society that people need to resort to these drastic actions in order to claim a space to be heard.

by Seán Ryan Thu Jul 20, 2006 18:12

Ockham's or Occam's Razor - is a methodology that reduces a complex argument down to simple terms that might shed light on the truth of an argument. To apply Occam's razor one must make the fewest assumptions possible and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities possible.

It can be seen that some do not understand this process and quote it because it appears to make them knowledgeable. Quoting a list of asinine assumptions, and then applying Occam's Razor is an act of futility and a tool of the conspiracy theorist. And is fundamentally opposed to using Occams Razor to begin with.

Peter Preston has made no assumptions whatsoever, other than using a hungerstrike in the hope that he might be listened to.

He has made many assertations, many of which could be verified by the powers that be, but haven't. Eg. that witness testimony in the civil case differed substantially from the testimony given in the criminal case.

Peter Preston's story deserves to be heard. It's a human story, to begin and end with. He has made many charges and accusations, that are for the authorities to prove or disprove, not some fortune teller who uses the Aether to pull 'facts' from.

There's a man dying outside the Dáil, in a tent, for the express purpose of being heard, and nobody wants to listen to him. Shame on anyone who'd begrudge him this!

by pat c Thu Jul 20, 2006 18:33

Ockham's or Occam's Razor - is a methodology that reduces a complex argument down to simple terms that might shed light on the truth of an argument. To apply Occam's razor one must make the fewest assumptions possible and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities possible.

Exactly so you ask yourself which is the more likely:

1. A judge, 2 sets of lawyers, the Gardai, Joe costello are combining together to persecute Peter Preston.

2. Peter Preston believes what he is saying but he is in fact deluded.

It can be seen that some do not understand this process and quote it because it appears to make them knowledgeable.

IMHO any reasonable person would accept that I have applied it correctly.

Quoting a list of asinine assumptions, and then applying Occam's Razor is an act of futility and a tool of the conspiracy theorist. And is fundamentally opposed to using Occams Razor to begin with.

You are the one who believes that vast numbers of people are plotting against Peter Preston. You are the conspiracy theorist. Again you display your ignorance of the process.

Peter Preston has made no assumptions whatsoever, other than using a hungerstrike in the hope that he might be listened to.

Peter Preston claims that Joe Costello and others are plotting against him.

He has made many assertations, many of which could be verified by the powers that be, but haven't. Eg. that witness testimony in the civil case differed substantially from the testimony given in the criminal case.

Why is there no evidence of this? Have you seen such evidence? If so why dont you produce it?

Peter Preston's story deserves to be heard. It's a human story, to begin and end with. He has made many charges and accusations, that are for the authorities to prove or disprove, not some fortune teller who uses the Aether to pull 'facts' from.

No, its up to Peter Preston and his supporters to produce evidence. If someone makes extraordinary claims then they must produce extraordinary evidence to back it up. Its not up to anyone to disprove wild allegations. Asking for evidence does not make me a fortune teller.

There's a man dying outside the Dáil, in a tent, for the express purpose of being heard, and nobody wants to listen to him. Shame on anyone who'd begrudge him this!

He deserves to be heard but he has to produce evidence if he expects to believed. I begrudge him nothing but he has already got a lot of leeway on Indymedia. Its not my fault that hes dieing. Those who publish his every word without asking for any proof should advise him to end the hunger strike.

by Seán Ryan Thu Jul 20, 2006 18:50

You keep quoting me and telling me I'm wrong. This is not debate, it's childishness at best.

List the facts that you have brought to this story. And remember facts do not have assumptions at their root.

Again this is a story about a man dying - that's the story and that's a fact. As for proving his assertations, as I've said already, that's for the authorities to prove or disprove. Your conjecture does not help with this. It muddies the water. I have not set out to prove Peter Preston's assertations, and have not tried to do so, I have but told his story, and it's not for you to tell me what I should and shouldn't do. Period. If you wish to disprove Peter's allegations, fine, but do so using factual evidence.

So like I said, list your facts. I've read your repetition and I cannot find a singular piece of factual evidence, to back you opinion up, other than your opinion. Tis a fact that you possess an opinion but this in itself is not factual proof of what you allege.

by pat c Thu Jul 20, 2006 19:11

You keep quoting me and telling me I'm wrong. This is not debate, it's childishness at best.

It is debate. I am disagreeing with you. You dont like that. You are the one who is being juvenile.

List the facts that you have brought to this story. And remember facts do not have assumptions at their root.

Sean I question Peter Prestons story. I am the one who is asking you to produce evidence.

Again this is a story about a man dying - that's the story and that's a fact.

I didnt question that. You are just being emotional now.

As for proving his assertations, as I've said already, that's for the authorities to prove or disprove.

No its not. If someone makes wild allegations then they should produce evidence to back it up.

"our conjecture does not help with this. It muddies the water. I have not set out to prove Peter Preston's assertations, and have not tried to do so, I have but told his story, and it's not for you to tell me what I should and shouldn't do. Period. If you wish to disprove Peter's allegations, fine, but do so using factual evidence.

I have not muddied the water by asking for evidence. Its not up to me to disprove Prestons story. If you believe it then produce evidence. If its not for me to tell you what to do then why do you put demands on me?

So like I said, list your facts. I've read your repetition and I cannot find a singular piece of factual evidence, to back you opinion up, other than your opinion.

Yes its my opinion that there is no evidence to back up Peter Prestons claims. You seem to have a weak grasp of logic. I doubt the story, I ask for evidence. You produce no evidence.

Tis a fact that you possess an opinion but this in itself is not factual proof of what you allege.

The same is true of you. You believe that : a judge, 2 sets of lawyers, the cops & Joe Costello are conspiring against Peter Preston. Other than Peter Prestons assertions you have no evidence to back this up. Why should any reasonable person believe such a mad conspiracy theory in the abscence of any supporting evidence?

If Peter Preston dies I wont be responsible. Those who unquestioningly publish his every word should concentrate on getting him to end his fast.

by iosaf Thu Jul 20, 2006 19:35

People will ask when I started.
What I did.
Exactly what I said.
Was it true?
Do you eat yoghurt?
Are you aware of the diminishing returns on eating only yoghurt?
If you didn't start a few weeks ago when is the last time you ate?
Did you see a doctor?
Did you see a barman?
Did you talk to the guards yet?
You've seen a minister and TD- & very well done.
Have you given an interview?
Do you feel presurred in any way?
Are you just getting on with it?

I must admit the later writings of Samuel Beckett really got into my head.

60 days chalked up tomorrow.

Peter's a story, a character, a protester, a hunger striker, an issue, news, history, misunderstood, oft qouted, insecurely housed, malnutritioned, ridiculed, vulnerable man.
I'm sorry but this isn't a dialectic, its not a game, I told you all it had as much if not more to do wqith community first and politics later a long time ago.

Is it too late for him to "go on"?
Are one of the really scientific people at the inquiry going to produce an analysis of these last 60 days?
& say when It was too late for him to "stop"?

by Seán Ryan Thu Jul 20, 2006 20:12

Would you like to qoute one sentence, that I've uttered about Peter Preston and his fast, that is either innaccurate or not factual.

You keep saying I believe this or that I believe that, but you never quote me when doing so. That's pathetic.

You equate disagreement with debate. That's stupid.

I have told Peter Preston's story, I have not judged him, one way or the other. That's for history to decide, not me.

Allow me to quote you answering me, even though I loathe to do so, because you've repeated yourself enough already.

"Me: Ockham's or Occam's Razor - is a methodology that reduces a complex argument down to simple terms that might shed light on the truth of an argument. To apply Occam's razor one must make the fewest assumptions possible and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities possible.

You: Exactly so you ask yourself which is the more likely:

1. A judge, 2 sets of lawyers, the Gardai, Joe costello are combining together to persecute Peter Preston.

2. Peter Preston believes what he is saying but he is in fact deluded."

Your first bit, you ask me to theorize - supposition. No fact there.

Your statement preceded by "1" You don't know whether this is factual or not - guesswork.

Your statement preceded by "2" you say Peter is deluded - more guesswork, or do you have factual evidence to back this tripe up?

So we have supposition followed by guesswork which is followed by more guesswork, from which you arrive at an answer that you call factual. And you have the audacity to say you used Occam's razor.

That's incredibly stupid, and I hope you see why I won't be taking instruction from you.

Let me quote from Iosaf, above this, because it's important to keep perspective and factual reporting together (you might remember this - I suggest wrapping a piece of string around your finger or something).

"Peter's a story, a character, a protester, a hunger striker, an issue, news, history, misunderstood, oft qouted, insecurely housed, malnutritioned, ridiculed, vulnerable man.
I'm sorry but this isn't a dialectic, its not a game, I told you all it had as much if not more to do wqith community first and politics later a long time ago."

by Mr. T. Thu Jul 20, 2006 20:59

Mr. Ryan:

As a self-described "journalist", you should be aware that when you publish accusations of corruption, collusion and conspiracy and name the accused directly or indirectly that you expose yourself and the publisher to prosecution for libel.

In a libel court, the onus of proof falls on you to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the allegations you printed are factual - not on the claimant to prove they are untrue.

Comment on Editorial Policy removed. All such comments are welcome via the Contact form, or better still, by emailing the editorial mailing list

by mOuse Thu Jul 20, 2006 21:09

The facts of Peter Preston's case were printed by Indymedia.

The allegations against a named TD came from Mr Preston. (not anyone else)

These allegations have been openly published also in the Village magazine, some time ago.

As to the 'conversations', debates, sword -fights that have ensued, these are a matter for
the contributors and not the person who stands outside of the debate in blank amazement.

to re-iterate:
The Td was named on a board outside the Dail.
To the Village magazine.
To Indymedia.
To Michael Mc Dowell.
To every TD who deigned to speak with Mr preston (SF,Green, Ind, ) and Dr Cowley (from Rossport)
To the passing Public.

Sentence in breech of guideline edited out

Thus contribute, by all means but twirling your legal baton will not change
the facts as presented herein.

by iosaf Fri Jul 21, 2006 17:18

Ockham's razor is a medieval reductioninst principle often called lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness): and expressed in Latin entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates to: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor
Its an axiom which comes up in the discussion of "conspiracy theories" as one of the most common features of such theories is the abundance of entities or uncertain roles played. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Features

I don't think both Pat & Sean arguing is going to solve this situation.

Let's be very simplistic. Peter Preston is malnutritioned, vulnerable, and has obviously slipped through the net of social, community, political, judicial and even family support.
Its obvious people disagree as to the material he's published on the street which he said was the reason for his action "starving himself or doing himself harm" & his location "the Irish government".

But I'll put it this way, all the tourists who visit the National Museum and Library and look at Kildare Street this Summer don't really care who Costello is, don't really wonder what happened in the pub -
They just a "hungerstriker" and "60 days" chalked up. For some of these tourists "hungerstrike" is one of the few words of English of any length they immediately recognise, and they associate that word with Ireland.

So If by crediting his story he doesn't move on -
& if by discrediting his story he doesn't move on-
Will we agree he shall deserve an autopsy or coroner's report some day by which hopefully none of us will feel responsible?

by RobbieS Sat Jul 22, 2006 08:47

iosaf, nó DDD
You’re reading is obviously infactual. The most important side, you miss; those who have an open-enough mind about Peter Preston’s allegations to want them to be investigated by an independent inquiry, or at least to have some open, accountable explanation of events by all the actors involved.

pat c
expresses mock surprise that McDowell should be considered part of the conspiracy. No-one has made that link, on his thread anyway.

Pat C speaks of Judge, lawyers, gardaí and two mainstream TDs involved, and he finds that incredulous? Take a look at the tribunals, then come back on that one.

Calling the extent of the hunger-strike into question is understabdible, but attacks on its authenticity or bonefides without wishing the causes to be further investigated, amount to suspect opinion.

“in the abscence of independent evidence i would not believe that a high court judge, the preston family lawyers, the pubs lawyers, the guards and joe costello are all plotting against the preston family”

How does one go about getting an independent investigation if such a (plausible) conspiracy does exist? Ergo, Peter Preston’s hunger strike.

That When They Came for Me poem, I’ve always thought to be trite, but this is one example (with your response) where I see its resonance.

SeacailinF
The nub of the story here is that documents pertaining to a Civil case went missing, that only the state could have been responsible for this, and as such, questions must be answered and the state be held accountable.

If these documents had been furbished to the courts, who knows, but that the law may well have disagreed with Seacailin’s assessment, and awarded compensation. Often enough, SF have heard lectures about ttaking the law into their own hands or acting outside the law. Many of us are quite sure that those doing the lecturing have been acting outside the law for years. Such hypocrisy, when exposed, undermines the legitemacy of a regime.

The very people one would expect to offend in this way, and assist in a cover-up, would be those behind the law – i.e., gardaí, legal eagles, judges and mainstream TDs – for the only other people who could possibly do so, are wealthy lobbyists.

The most variable in this list of conspirators is the media – a mass-media whose obvious shortcomings has given rise to www.indymedia.ie. Mass media is afraid of libel actions from the estates, and afriad of rocking the boat more generally when it comes to ideology – so no big deal about that one.

The most vital link in the plausible conspiracy is the solicitor. If your legal advisor is not behind you fully, for whatever reason, you’re better off without them. Generally speaking, I know of several anecdotal civil cases where the solicitor for the plaintif has had an irrational change of mind. Even the Law Society have never claimed that all solicitors are principled.

Peter Preston’s solicitor may have had good reason for losing interest, and hence, he nor anyone else have nothing to fear from an independent inquiry.

by SeaicilínF Sun Jul 23, 2006 00:23

Still no answers to my original questions.

The worrying thing here, is the altered documents and missing documents, what the hell is going on here? Joe Costelloe should meet Mr. Preston and supply a list of names of who he passed on the documents to and who worked on these documents and altered them. There should be a thorough investigation into this. These were Mr. Preston's documents and they should have been all returned to him.

I don't know how Mr. Preston got on with Michael (Heart of Stone) McDowell but I wouldn't be too optimistic there!

I have no time for people who wish to sue pubs for an attack that occurred in or around its premises when neither staff nor owners took part in the assault. If everyone was to resort to the courts and sue a pub for injuries suffered in or around its premises, there would be no pubs at all.

Parents are always blaming the pubs for serving underage teenagers and they should not, if they are so worried, why the fuck don't they know where their under-age teenagers are going. Pubs are not a babysitting service for teenagers, they are there to make a profit out of alcohol so they can stay in business. I got served drink myself when I was fifteen (I had fake i.d.) on many of an occasion, it is very hard to judge when a girl is dressed-up with loads of make-up on what age they are? Teenagers are never honest about their age when questioned in a pub and it is very easy to fake i.d. which I did years back. I don't blame pubs at all, teenagers have to take responsibility for their actions and the parents who complain I have little time for.

As for the door staff, yes, it would be interesting to find out who they are, but with regard to the accusation that they should have called an ambulance, everyone has mobile phones these days, just simply dial 112/999, it is not that hard to do, I've done it myself when I've witnessed someone injured from an attack, you don't need to ask door staff to do this, and I certainly would never depend on door staff to do anything, oh! they'll ring the Gardaí alright to assist them, but forget it, if you want them to be concerned for an injured person after a fight.

I wish Mr. Preston would come off his hunger strike. Why is it always the men who resort to extreme measures and die and women are left to cope with the original crisis and the additional crisis of the husband's/Dad's death on their own?

by anon Sun Jul 23, 2006 00:27

Its not libellous to say that the documents weren't always in Joe costellos posession after they were given to him by Mr Presten and its not libellous to say Joe costello is part of broken system.

by mOuse Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:50

Peter Preston required a list of solicitors implicated in double charging on Church abuse or in the army deafness scheme. Unfortunately the law society could not supply the list , (have their response).

He wanted legal representation that was not part of the systemised abuse or implicated in double charging (this in relation to well-publicised cases of corruption , wherein solicitors paid by the state for representing victims of sexual abuse, then charged the client again)

As the list was not forthcoming, Mr Preston does not have adequate legal representaion at the moment.

This question of representation can be verifyed through Mr Preston or his family/spokesperson.

Given that the situation he would find himself in has weakened his ability to continue his fighting,

Clarification of the points raised by this hunger-strike are necessary not a debate on the morality of his choice.

by sylvia wall - none Sun Jul 23, 2006 17:38 sylvia_m at hotmail dot co dot uk

bulletin board chat edited out

Mr. Preston has stated to me his intention to take only water from next Friday - not as
he is currently taking, water, tea and salts.

by Sheepstealer Sun Jul 23, 2006 21:47

"Peter Preston required a list of solicitors implicated in double charging on Church abuse or in the army deafness scheme. Unfortunately the law society could not supply the list , (have their response)."

What was the Law Society's excuse for not providing the list of solicitors implicated in double-charging? Surely, people have the right to this information, it seems a reasonable request to me. Please could you give details of the élite secret Law Society's response.

What was the outcome of his meeting with the Minister for Injustice, did Mr. Preston say anything about this, I take it that nothing came from it if he is continuing with the hunger strike.

Maybe, if people could suggest honest solicitors (I personally don't know of any) that he could use that would be helpful.

by Robert Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:30

"Peter Preston required a list of solicitors implicated in double charging on Church abuse or in the army deafness scheme. Unfortunately the law society could not supply the list , (have their response)."

What has army deafness or Church abuse got to do with his daughters case against a pub? I am truly mystified. Was Mr Preston or his daughter in the army? Do either of them have a case against a Church for abuse? Why should the Law Society supply Mr Preston with this information? As far as I am aware the Law Society do not run a general information service.

"He wanted legal representation that was not part of the systemised abuse or implicated in double charging (this in relation to well-publicised cases of corruption , wherein solicitors paid by the state for representing victims of sexual abuse, then charged the client again)"

Are you suggesting that all solicitors involved in these schemes were crooked? That is not the case. Victims groups would supply this information to Mr Preston.

"As the list was not forthcoming, Mr Preston does not have adequate legal representaion at the moment."

That statement is not sustainable. Mr Preston chooses not to have adequate legal representation. It looks as if Mr Preston does not trust any solicitor.

"This question of representation can be verifyed through Mr Preston or his family/spokesperson."

What can be clarified? The only thing that could be clarified is that Mr Preston is suspicious of all solicitors because the Law Society is refusing to disclose information to him. Confidential information which he is not entitled to.

"Clarification of the points raised by this hunger-strike are necessary not a debate on the morality of his choice."

Mr Preston could clarify points by releasing information to support his allegations.

by mOuse Mon Jul 24, 2006 15:02

he wanted to base his choice of legal representation on a pool of solicitors
that were not implicated in wrongdoing.

by Robert Mon Jul 24, 2006 15:04

'he wanted to base his choice of legal representation on a pool of solicitors that were not implicated in wrongdoing.'

It seems to me that Mr Preston is suspicious of everyone. Why automatically assume that certain solicitors might be crooked?

by Seán Ryan Tue Jul 25, 2006 02:57

One must remember when one hires a solicitor, that one is the employer in this transaction and relationship.

An employer has a right to know if he or she is hiring scum, particularly if there is a record available of scum-like behaviour.

There should be no automatic trust.

Try opening a bank account using the concept of trust in lieu of presenting details.

Try getting a job using the same methodology.

When giving instructions to one's employee (solicitor), issue them in the form of a letter that has been registered, and mail a copy of this letter by registered post also, to yourself. Make sure someone who has witnessed both letters, signs their name to that effect on your letter. Keep this letter unopened, to be used as evidence, if and when it is needed.

by Robert Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:13

Thanks for your response. I very strongly agree with you that the client is the employer of the solicitor but if you assume that all solicitors are scum then you wont get very far. There are honest solicitors out there, maybe if Mr Preston approched the Irish Council for Civil Liberties they would confidentially direct him towards one.

Its always a good idea to keep a personal record of all of your transactions, business, personal, financial and legal. For your own peace of mind and to make sure that you can keep track of your affairs. But to do so because you mistrust your banker, partner, spouse, solicitor is probably not the best way to live ones life. In the end we have to trust people to some extent or we will be cursed to a fear filled and paranoid existence.

by Seán Ryan Tue Jul 25, 2006 17:40

I'm very aware that there are some very decent and hardworking solicitors out there, and would even claim to know some of them.

However Robert, and I'm sure you'll agree with me - one must be as willing to work for one's self, as hard at least as one would expect one's solicitor to. This means check-out, and check-up on quality and progress, or lack thereof. And keep a provable record.

If one looks at the damage caused by criminality in this country and equates it in hard cash, it is easy to see that legal monies spent to put this right by far outweigh it. In other words Justice costs a lot more than criminality. Because of this one would expect to be living in a just society. The proof however, is in the pudding. And that's without mentioning civil matters.

I'm all for the concept of trust. But this must at all times be based on reason. I think wishful thinking has ruled the roost thusfar.

by pat c Wed Jul 26, 2006 20:01

pat c expresses mock surprise that McDowell should be considered part of the conspiracy. No-one has made that link, on his thread anyway.

Here it is. Its in Brians comment. "Notice how this District Court/Criminal Case spin is exactly the line that McDowell took in answer to the Dail question on the case, which Mr Preston has already pointed out as inaccurate: "This is not about the criminal case that I am on hunger strike: it is about a conspiracy of corruption in a civil case and Mr Mc Dowell knows this"
Signed : Peter Preston.""

So even prior to his meeting with McDowell, Preston was saying that McDowell was aware ogf a conspiracy.

Pat C speaks of Judge, lawyers, gardaí and two mainstream TDs involved, and he finds that incredulous? Take a look at the tribunals, then come back on that one.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Remember what is being suggested here is that even the Prestons own lawyers are conspiring against them.

Calling the extent of the hunger-strike into question is understabdible, but attacks on its authenticity or bonefides without wishing the causes to be further investigated, amount to suspect opinion.

What are you accusing me of?! Because I doubt Preston I am part of the conspiracy! I am not opposed to an investigation. I find it difficult to believe that Preston has been on hunger strike as long as he claims. He doesnt show the signs of someone who has been on hungerstrike for 60 days. As has been pointed out, at 60 days during the H Block Hunger Strike, the men were exteremely il, mostly couldnt walk, were almost blind, their vital organs were starting to fail.

“in the abscence of independent evidence i would not believe that a high court judge, the preston family lawyers, the pubs lawyers, the guards and joe costello are all plotting against the preston family”

How does one go about getting an independent investigation if such a (plausible) conspiracy does exist? Ergo, Peter Preston’s hunger strike.

I dont think the theory put forward by Preston is a plausible one. There is no evidence to back up his claims.

That When They Came for Me poem, I’ve always thought to be trite, but this is one example (with your response) where I see its resonance.

Shame on you Robbie. You are abusing a great Anti-Fascist poem to score cheap points against me. I dont believe Prestons story because it sounds like a mad conspiracy theory. If you have any evidence to back up the story then you should produce it.

If Peter Preston dies, I wont be responsible. Joe costello wont be responsible. Those who unthinkingly believe Prestons every word and publish them will have to examine their consciences. You would be better off spending your time trying to get him to end his fast.

by pat c Wed Jul 26, 2006 20:08

Would you like to qoute one sentence, that I've uttered about Peter Preston and his fast, that is either innaccurate or not factual.

You have given me reason to think that you believe Preston. You claim that it is up to me to disoprove his wild allegations. You say that I am peddling a conspiracy theory because I question his story. On the one hand you say you are just relating Peter Prestons story as related to you yet you also attack me for doubting him.

You keep saying I believe this or that I believe that, but you never quote me when doing so. That's pathetic.

Please stop the abuse. I dont believe that theres a mass conspiracy against Preston. I have made that clear. You consistently attack those who doubt Preston

You equate disagreement with debate. That's stupid.

Sean debate arises from disagreement. If you dont have disagreement then you dont have debate. If everyone is in agreement then what is there to debate about?

I have told Peter Preston's story, I have not judged him, one way or the other. That's for history to decide, not me.

Yes you have. You challenge my queries about his story but you offer no evidence in defence of it. IMHO I have reason to assume that you accept Prestons story.

Your first bit, you ask me to theorize - supposition. No fact there.

I ask you to consider 2 scenarios and decide which is the most likely.

Your statement preceded by "1" You don't know whether this is factual or not - guesswork.

No evidence is offered in defence of Prestons conspiracy theory. I reckon that very few rational people would believe such a story without evidence

Your statement preceded by "2" you say Peter is deluded - more guesswork, or do you have factual evidence to back this tripe up?

Its a case of do I believe that Joe, a Judge, lawyers & cops are all conspiring against Preston or do I believe that Preston is deluded. On balance I reckon Preston believes his story but is deluded.

So we have supposition followed by guesswork which is followed by more guesswork, from which you arrive at an answer that you call factual. And you have the audacity to say you used Occam's razor.

Its obvious that you have no understanding of how Occams Razor operates.

That's incredibly stupid, and I hope you see why I won't be taking instruction from you.

Sean, you are the one who is making a specatacle of his stupidity. If you want people to believe the stories you publish then provide evidence

Let me quote from Iosaf, above this, because it's important to keep perspective and factual reporting together (you might remember this - I suggest wrapping a piece of string around your finger or something).

Theres nothing in Iosafs piece that undermines my contentions. Your comment about a string once again illustrates your childishnes. This is not a game or a joking matter. If you want to help Preston then you should advise him to come off his hunger strike.

If Peter Preston dies it wont be my responsibility. But people like you who have published his every word as if it was the truth will have to examine your consciences.

by Robert Wed Jul 26, 2006 20:30

'Here it is. Its in Brians comment. "Notice how this District Court/Criminal Case spin is exactly the line that McDowell took in answer to the Dail question on the case, which Mr Preston has already pointed out as inaccurate: "This is not about the criminal case that I am on hunger strike: it is about a conspiracy of corruption in a civil case and Mr Mc Dowell knows this"
Signed : Peter Preston.""'

I am fascinated by that. I must have missed it previously, I will certainly thoroughly reread this entire thread in case I overlooked any other gems. But it causes even more problems I have to admit.

Along with long list of organisations and individuals both public and private who are plotting against Peter Preston we must now add Minister McDowell. I am a bit unsure about the District Court but I suspect that Mr Preston also has a bone to pick with them.The more I read of this case the surer I am that the whole thing is a house of cards.

by Seán Ryan + Elaine Thu Jul 27, 2006 14:28

Peter Preston was rushed to St. James' Hospital yesterday morning, after suffering from fainting spells.

Our thoughts are with him and his family.

by Robert Thu Jul 27, 2006 14:34

I hope Mr Preston is well. This would be a wonderful opportunity for the doctors in St James to confirm that they believe Mr Preston has been on hunger strike for 65 days. If they were to release such a statement then it would go a long way towards silencing the doubting Thomases.

by iosaf Thu Jul 27, 2006 22:21

He has been through and is yet to go through a very ardous ordeal, an awful lot of suffering has gone his way & it has not all just been "passing time". The best that we all may wish at this stage of his protest is that he's well and his integrity & sincerity & his privacy & that of those close to him - is respected from now on "at least".

by Sheepstealer Thu Jul 27, 2006 22:55

Oh God! That is terrible news about Mr. Preston being rushed to St. James' hospital, I hope to God, he'll recover and call off his hunger strike now before he damages his health beyond repair.

God bless him and his family at this time.

Beannacht Dé air.

by K and K Tue Aug 22, 2006 23:45

Peter and his family have suffered an injustice. Keep up the fight Peter and the truth of this corruption will emerge.

Look after yourself.

by Robert Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:59

I wonder if there is any more news about Preston and if he continued his "hungerstrike" in hospital. Perhaps one of his supporters would provide an update. It would really help Mr Prestons case if one of the hospital doctors confirmed that he had been on a lenghty hungerstrike prior to his admission to hospital.