There are moments when Parliament must intervene not because it is politically convenient, but because failure to act would be morally indefensible. This is one of those moments.
Lawyers representing several Palestine Action linked prisoners have now warned that their clients may die without urgent ministerial intervention. Some have been on hunger strike for more than 40 days. Medical collapse, loss of consciousness, and dangerous blood test results have already been reported. These are not speculative concerns. They are immediate, time sensitive risks.
The Liberal Democrats exist to hold government to account when power is exercised without humanity or scrutiny. That responsibility now falls squarely on our Parliamentary team. The government has attempted to blur this issue by framing it as a continuation of the proscription debate. It is NOT!
Whatever view one takes of Palestine Action and whatever view one takes of the government’s decision to bundle organisations into a single proscription order, none of that justifies allowing people to deteriorate to the point of death in state custody.
These individuals are on remand. They have not been convicted. The government has a non-negotiable duty of care. Refusing to meet legal representatives while credible warnings of impending death are being made is not a neutral administrative choice. It is a failure of ministerial responsibility.
This is precisely the type of situation where the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary team must act decisively and visibly.
These actions should include:
- Urgent parliamentary questions to the Justice Secretary on the health of the hunger strikers;
- A formal request for an immediate ministerial meeting with lawyers and MPs representing the prisoners;
- Written questions on medical oversight, remand decisions, and alleged interference with legal correspondence;
- Cross-party engagement, led by Liberal Democrats, to prevent any death.
The Liberal Democrats should not wait for tragedy before acting.
* Tanvir Ahmad is a Scottish Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate with over 20 years of experience in telecommunications; A former Royal Navy Reservist, Youth Centre Manager and Founding chair of Liberal Democrats Commonwealth Forum.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
90 Comments
If you went out among people – in the shopping malls, the pubs, restaurants, football grounds etc – I don’t think you will find many away from the muslim community who really care. Not trying to be hard, but we all have problems and worrying about criminals who choose not to eat is not one of them.
I’m not sure what the writer is seeking. For the government to give into the demands of hunger strikers? A precedent no government is going to want to set.
One of their simpler demands is immediate release on bail, for instance. Bail may or may not be merited, but it cannot be determined by defendants refusing to eat.
‘….allowing people to deteriorate to the point of death in state custody’
Are you saying they should be force-fed?!
This is not about whether people care or not, it’s about humanity. We should act as suggested by Tanvir Ahmad to prevent a tragic outcome.
Thank you for a most important article!
No one is a criminal unless/until they have been convicted.
Below are the rules governing remand prisoners, which do not appear to have been followed in this set of cases.
Similarly, the main stream media seems not to have reported whether the proper procedures have been followed or not [much].
Disturbingly, the appointments of judges related to this matter are questionable.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/12/hunger-strikes-and-court-cases/
https://www.google.com/search?q=rules+on+being+held+in+prison+prior+to+trial&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgAECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCA
https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/custody-time-limits#a02
Might it be that, besides the humanitarian grounds, there are deep and wide grounds concerning a fair legal system in practice, the reality of liberty for the individual, and the abuse of infrastructures by government, about which the L. D. party needs, and should, speak and act loudly and effectively?
“The Liberal Democrats exist to hold government to account when power is exercised without humanity or scrutiny. ”
Surely the test for Liberal Democrats in this situation is whether the prisoners’ human rights are being honoured. Is there any reason to believe they’re not ?
There was a series of cases under the ECHR in the 1980s arising out of the Naze Prison Hunger strikes (there were 10 deaths). Generally the court viewed the death as as self-inflicted, making it difficult to establish a direct causal link between state action (or inaction) and death under Article 2 of the ECHR.
While acknowledging the suffering, the Court generally found no breach of the Convention, balancing prisoners’ rights with the state’s duty to maintain order and the self-initiated nature of the deaths.
I do not believe it would be Liberal for the state to force feed any adult who has the mental capacity to decide whether or not they want to eat. I do not believe it should be part of any programme for a Liberal government to say that any prisoner on remand should be able to opt for bail instead by going on hunger strike.
@ Richard : “I do not believe it would be Liberal for the state to force feed any adult who has the mental capacity to decide whether or not they want to eat”.
In which case you would have been out of step with the last Liberal Government and its Home Secretary Herbert Gladstone, who inflicted forced feeding on literally hundreds of suffragettes.
Surely there is a very easy way for the hunger strikers to survive – start eating ? Does the author really believe that Government’s should agree to change their policy because someone is threatening to kill themselves ?
Would he take the same view for people whose policy request he doesn’t agree with ?
@ Simon McGrath “Does the author really believe that Government’s should agree to change their policy because someone is threatening to kill themselves ?”
Clearly, Simon, if you’d been a Liberal MP at the time, you would have rebelled against the last Liberal Government’s ‘Cat & Mouse Act’ in 1913. The Chief Whip would have had serious words with you.
So far about 2,300 people have been arrested on Terrorism charges though less than 200 have actually been charged, the Terrorism in most of these cases involved holding up pieces of paper.
The hunger strikers are accused of a variety of acts, most of them climbed a wooden fence & spray-painted some unguarded planes. That’s not Terrorism its criminal damage & trespass, for this they seem likely to suffer a slow Execution.
@ Simon McGrath It genuinely does not matter to me what their views are, or whether I agree with them.
Human rights are not a reward for holding the “right” opinions. They exist precisely to protect people the state or the majority may dislike. If rights only apply to people whose politics we approve of, then they are not rights at all.
Once the state locks someone up, especially without trial, it assumes a legal and moral duty of care. Under European human rights law, that duty includes taking active steps to prevent death in custody; even if the risk arises from a hunger strike. Saying “they could just eat” misunderstands the obligation entirely.
If we excuse deaths in custody by saying “I disagree with their cause”, then we abandon any credibility when we criticise countries like Egypt, or Iran for doing exactly the same thing.
A civilised society is judged by how it treats people it disagrees with not how it treats people it finds convenient.
@Tristan Ward You’re right that the test is whether human rights are being honoured. Where your analysis falls short is relying on 1980s Strasbourg case law without recognising how the law and detention standards have evolved since then.
The Maze hunger strike cases arose in a very specific context; a conflict situation, convicted prisoners, and a Strasbourg court that then took a much narrower view of the state’s positive obligations under Article 2.
Since the 1990s, the Court has been clear that Article 2 imposes a positive duty on the state to take reasonable steps to protect life where authorities know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk including in custody, and even where the risk arises from the detainee’s own actions.
Cases such as Keenan v UK and Renolde v France shifted the focus away from “who initiated the risk” to whether the state:
– recognised the seriousness of the situation,
– engaged meaningfully,
– ensured timely medical care,
– and took proportionate preventative steps.
That duty is stronger still for remand prisoners, who are legally presumed innocent, especially where detention is prolonged and medical deterioration is documented.
This is why the comparison with Maze fails. We are not assessing events after a death in a conflict-era prison.
Modern Article 2 also includes a procedural obligation: passive reliance on “policy compliance” is not enough once a real risk to life is known.
So yes , rights being honoured is the test. And where people are held for over a year without trial, are medically deteriorating, and ministers refuse to engage despite clear warnings, parliamentary intervention is not optional. It is necessary.
@Malc Human rights are not decided by opinion polls in shopping centres or football grounds. If they were, they wouldn’t be rights at all they’d be popularity contests. The whole purpose of human rights law is to bind the state even when the people affected are unpopular or inconvenient.
Two basic corrections as well:
First, these people are not convicted criminals. They are being held on remand in some cases for over a year and are legally presumed innocent.
Second, once the state detains someone, it assumes responsibility for their life. Saying “they chose not to eat” does not remove that duty. If it did, we would have no basis to criticise countries where detainees routinely die in custody and the authorities shrug.
You don’t have to “care” about their politics. I don’t either. What matters is whether we want to live in a country where the government can ignore a foreseeable death in custody because it thinks most people won’t mind.
If we only defend rights when it’s popular, we don’t have rights, we have permission.
@Cassie I’m not seeking the government to “give in” to demands, and I’m not advocating force-feeding. Neither of those positions follows from what I’ve written.
No one is arguing that bail should be granted because someone refuses to eat. Bail decisions must be made lawfully, individually, and on their merits as they should be. But where people are on prolonged remand and their health is rapidly deteriorating, the government has a duty to review detention, engage with legal representatives, and ensure that continued custody remains lawful, proportionate, and humane.
That is not setting a precedent. That is basic due process.
On force-feeding, European human rights law is clear that it is generally inappropriate unless it is medically necessary, proportionate, and genuinely aimed at saving life, not punishment or coercion. The alternative to force-feeding is not “do nothing and let someone die”. It is active engagement, proper medical oversight, and political responsibility.
Allowing someone to deteriorate to the point of death in state custody is not a neutral outcome. Once the risk is known, inaction becomes a choice.
This isn’t about endorsing demands or tactics. It’s about ensuring that the state does not allow a foreseeable death in its care; especially where people have not been convicted and are still awaiting trial.
Tanvir has revealed a remarkable amount of cynicism among the readers of the LDV, but whatever the real truth about the thoughts of people in shopping malls, I’m sure no true Liberal Democrat would be willing to see young people die for trying to shine a light on the complicity of our government in the genocide in Gaza. Those dedicated, noble, brave, principled people are being held without trial in British prisons, and we should all be in awe of them.
As I said in an email to my (Labour) MP earlier this week, because of the delays in the British criminal justice system, these honourable people should be immediately released on bail. That is what a fair government would want.
Of course, the opposite is the case here. No doubt Yvette Cooper and those in government with her punitive mindset are very happy to exploit the current backlog, and see their enemies locked up for years without facing trial. This is the kind of government we have today – one which holds political prisoners and is happy to see them die in prison.
The real ‘crime’ of the Palestine Action is that they dared to carry out what international law requires our government to do, namely to prevent our country being complicit in a genocide. The international law I refer to was written largely by British lawyers.
@ David Raw “In which case you would have been out of step with the last Liberal Government and its Home Secretary Herbert Gladstone, who inflicted forced feeding on literally hundreds of suffragettes”. Indeed I would. Just because it was a Liberal Government does not mean all the measures it pursued were liberal ones. Clearly what Herbert Gladstone should have been doing was bringing in a bill to extend the vote to women.
@ Andy Daer. The English principle is “innocent unless proven guilty” however I shall suspend my judgement on whether or not those young people currently held in detention awaiting trial are “noble” until a jury has determined whether or not one of their number struck Kate Evans with a sledge-hammer. There is a great tradition of non-violent direct action in our country but it is not yet clear that ‘Palestine Action’ has always kept to that tradition.
Richard, you also seem to be an advocate of joint enterprise convictions, even if most of the ‘guilty’ didn’t do, or condone, what may or may not have happened on the spur of the moment. Most people would realise the sledge hammer was taken on site to help with the break-in, not in order to murder policemen. I’m afraid you are giving Yvette Cooper’s rhetoric too much weight. As for the jury, you might be disappointed; the government doesn’t trust juries for politically motivated offences, and there probably won’t be one.
Surely if you have agreed to join a small group on a protest that involves someone bringing a sledgehammer, then you have already gone beyond the realms of legitimate non-violent protest. There is no conceivable purpose in having a sledgehammer if your intention is non-violent protest.
@Tanvir: You argue passionately for duty of care, but to my mind you seem to be missing the aspect of personal responsibility. If I refuse to eat to the point where I might die then that is my decision and my responsibility. And if I’m doing so in order to demand political change then that amounts to, trying to blackmail the Government into meeting my demands. Assuming the Government isn’t mistreating me in any way, then I don’t see how you can fault the Government for duty of care if that’s what I choose to do. My own behaviour and choices are not (morally) the Government’s responsibility.
Deciding whether or not to ‘force feed’ those on hunger strike should be a medical decision and a medical decision ONLY..
If these people were deemed at suicide risk by hanging themselves in protest, or by other ‘direct’ means, all possible steps would be taken to ensure THAT choice would not occur; a hunger strike is just a prolonged suicide attempt..
What must not happen is political interference in due process; that is a very slippery slope and, whatever the temptation to act, we should consider the old adage about how, “The road to hell is …etc.
Simon Robinson, I’m baffled by your use of the word ‘conceivable’. I can only make generic comments with the court case pending, but the purpose of taking a sledgehammer to a compound which is locked up is to break something made of metal, like a padlock. You would not take a sledgehammer for the purpose of hitting a person. Have you ever used a sledgehammer to break up concrete? I have. Not only would it be far to unwieldy to use against a person, it would inflict terrible, and probably fatal, injuries if it actually hit anyone, if used with real aggression.
A political activist doesn’t set out to kill innocent policemen, and spend the rest of their life in prison, they want, in this case, to make a point about the failure of the government to stop arms manufacturers aiding and abetting a genocide.
If you can’t conceive of any of that, I hope my comment is of use to you.
Did the policewoman hit herself with the sledgehammer?
This terrible injustice does not have to be solved by force-feeding. The government simply has to instruct the courts to release these people on bail. If they weren’t political prisoners they would already be out on bail.
Refusing to release them until they have their day in court could amount to a death sentence. Is that what Yvette Cooper requires when people disobey her rulings?
What makes this even worse, if that were possible, is that the British Government is in breach of its obligations under international law to prevent genocide, so the people who really ought to be in prison are the government ministers who have made the UK complicit in the genocide. To cover their shame, they are designating their critics as terrorists, and sadly, some people are taken in by that.
Slamdac, no of course she didn’t, but we really ought to wait and see what comes out in court about how seriously she might have been assaulted.
My uninformed guess is that in a scuffle between protestors and the police things happen that shouldn’t, and people on both sides get hurt.
My point to Simon Robinson is a general one about the likelihood that anyone who believed they were acting in good faith to prevent their country from aiding a genocide, and wanted to have the general public on their side, would break in somewhere with the intention of using a sledgehammer as a weapon.
@ Richard. Glad to hear that Richard, but I’m not sure the PM Asquith would have been.
@Tanvir
Thanks for your response. I have had a quick look at both Keenan and Renolde. I’m a lawyer but not a human rights lawyer. Both those cases involved mentally ill prisoners who committed suicide by hanging, so I suggest they can be distinguished on the facts from both the current case and the Naze cases.
In another post you say “European human rights law is clear that it is generally inappropriate unless it is medically necessary, proportionate, and genuinely aimed at saving life, not punishment or coercion”. I’d be interested to have a look at those, if you could reference them.
Leaving aside the law, my instinct is that the states’ duty of care to prevent inhuman and degrading treatment in the case of a hunger strike should not extend to force feeding or other forced medical treatment though of course decent food and medical attention must always be available.
@ Andy Dear
A political activist doesn’t set out to kill innocent policemen, and spend the rest of their life in prison”
Occasionally they do. These get called terrorists or freedom fighters.
@Tanvir >They are being held on remand in some cases for over a year
That anyone should be on remand so long, on any charge, is dreadful.
@Andy >a remarkable amount of cynicism among the readers of the LDV
Would you ‘be in awe’ if the next group of hunger strikers were on remand for smashing up an asylum hotel, as an act of political activism?
Because any kind of precedent made for your ‘noble’ group would thereafter HAVE to apply to anyone and everyone who followed their example. That’s all the ‘cynics’ is this thread are pointing out.
Footage of the incident here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P7p_5D4hw
Cassie, thanks for your response. No, I think I’m capable of distinguishing between people whose motives are noble, and those whose motives aren’t, and I’m sure you are too. We are not obliged to apply a view about one thing to something which is completely different.
The government is morally and legally bound to implement International humanitarian law, and it is not doing so over the genocide in Gaza. In fact it’s not merely failing to end the killing, as it is required to do, it’s actively supporting Israel. Acting in defiance of a government which is failing to that extent ought to be regarded as noble in anyone’s book.
I don’t think their actions were noble.
Your argument sounds like one rule for people you approve of and a different rule for people you disapprove of.
This fails to realise that different people, me for one, may not approve of the same people.
Slamdac, thanks for putting the bodycam video in the thread. It’s a little difficult to figure out what happened, other than there was understandably a lot of aggression on both sides, and not very much in the way of ideological debate, unless repetitive use of the word fuck and its derivatives counts in some way.
I don’t know why this Police footage is publicly available, given that a potential jury might form a pro-government position in advance of the trial, but presumably those kinds of rule don’t apply when we’re dealing with “terrorists”. And, of course, there probably won’t even be a jury, in case they come to the ‘wrong’ decision, as they have in the past when protesters have done things which incur government disapproval.
Slamdac, I think you’ll find that most people treat those they approve of differently from those they don’t approve of – there wouldn’t be much point in having opinions about anything if we didn’t act on them.
It would be rather surprising if we all agreed about what those people did at Elbit Systems, and it’s fine by me if some people don’t think they are noble and admirable.
What is not fine by me is that the government has a moral duty to release them on bail, in order to prevent them from dying. They are not trying to blackmail anyone, they are using the only power they have left to them, against a government which has locked them up and deprived them of all other agency, and that is the power to take their own lives, a terrible and desperate act.
So if anybody is on remand and wants to be released, they should go on hunger strike and the government will have a moral duty to release them?
No Slamdac and others. If people are held on remand, the government has a duty to make sure they are tried and sentenced/released as soon as possible.
If we had a courts system that worked, the hunger strikers would have been in court long ago and the question of their guilt/innocence would have been settled.
In the meantime, common decency would have them released pending trial. They are hardly a danger to the public and holding their pssports would surely obviate any flight risk (very small in my opinion)
David Raw. Not really sure about your point. The mores of the time were different, but looking back it seems that the right solution to the suffragettes would have been to grant women the vote. Force feeding is and of itself brutal and degrading. Are you suggesting HG was right?
Slamdac, I don’t know how many people are locked up awaiting trial as long as the Elbit Systems attackers, but I haven’t heard of anyone suspected of other crimes who’ve gone on hunger strike.
If you look back at the history, I think you’ll find that most hunger strikers have been political prisoners.
My belief about the moral duty of the government should be clear from other posts in this thread, but if it isn’t, international conventions oblige the British government to stop allowing businesses in the UK to export weapons to Israel; the government has failed to do this, and is therefore partially responsible for thousands of innocent civilians being killed in Gaza; Palestine Action felt they had to attack Elbit Systems because the government did not do its duty. For me, that means Palestine Action occupies the moral high ground compared with the government’s position, even if some (regrettable) injuries occurred.
@ Mick Taylor
“the government has a duty to make sure they are tried and sentenced/released as soon as possible”
Absolutely right – Article 6 ECHR (Right to a Fair Trial) and there may well be a claim under that Article.
But this is not really same as the claims that medical treatment is not available (it is) and starvation prevented (is force feeding permitted/required?) which presumably fall under (Article 3 Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment).
Nor do I think it is a given that the prisoners must be released. They could try Habeous Corpus of course.
@ Mick Taylor Gladstone H. correct ? Of course not, Mick, ……. and what you call ‘the mores of the time’ was neither universal or excusable – as was demonstrated post WW1.
Tristan Ward. The big question is why are these alleged offenders on remand? This is usually only necessary if there is a risk to the public or a flight risk. Neither seems at all likely, so surely released on bail would be far more appropriate.
That they are in prison, with no trial date in sight is a clear indication of the dislike of the current Home Secretary’s of people who don’t accept her view on Palestine Action.
Time our party spoke out about this unacceptable state of affairs
@ Paul Harker
“That’s not Terrorism its criminal damage & trespass, for this they seem likely to suffer a slow Execution.”
Death by starvation because the deceased was on hunger strike is not “execution”, any more than (say) eating meat is “murder” or abortion is “health care”.
This kind of silly sloganizing does much to discredit what otherwise may be reasonable positions.
@Slamdac
Thanks for posting that video clip which certainly provides useful insight. I would not wish to comment on those involved in this footage but would say that anyone who uses violence against others as part of a political protest deserves the toughest sentence within the power of the court if duly convicted. The ‘cause’ is not relevant – violence as part of political protest can never be tolerated and has absolutely no justification within a democracy.
Jenny Smith, your faith in democracy would be fine, if only it stood up to scrutiny. Most of us who voted Labour last year did so to oust a Conservative MP, in my case having canvassed for a Lib Dem MP in a different constituency, not because we agreed with everything in the Labour manifesto, or had much faith in Keir Starmer.
In voting that way, I didn’t give consent for the Labour prime minister to take actions which some say would make him liable to prosecution for the egregious war crime of aiding a genocide. All most of us did was vote for the least worst option.
Since that election in July 2024, opinion polls have shown that the British people disagree with the way the government has conducted its response to the genocide in Gaza. This means the democratic will of the British people has been updated in the light of events, but the response of the people in power has been to stick their fingers in their ears at best, and at other times to actively denigrate those who take part in peaceful marches and call them terrorist sympathisers.
Sometimes democracy needs the intervention of people whose standards of care for an oppressed people who are being slaughtered by a relentless and powerful neighbour, are a lot higher than those of the prime minister and successive foreign secretaries.
@Andy: If someone is taking a sledgehammer in order to break into private premises, then they are not engaged in legitimate protest: At a minimum, they are engaged in violent criminal damage. I stand by saying that there is no conceivable purpose in having a sledgehammer if your intention is non-violent protest.
I actually agree with you to the extent that I’m concerned at the PA protestors having been held on remand for so long. You could well argue the Government has a moral duty to release them in order to prevent the injustice of people being held for so long without a trial. But ‘moral duty … in order to prevent them from dying‘ does not seem right to me. It is the PA protestors’ own decisions to go on hunger strike, and if they don’t wish to die then there is a very obvious course of action open to all of them: Simply start eating. It’s not the Government’s responsibility if they refuse to do so.
@Andy Daer
“I don’t know why this Police footage is publicly available, given that a potential jury might form a pro-government position in advance of the trial”
Equally the jury might form a pro-defendant view in advance of trial. It should work both ways. I entirely agree in this kind of of political case a jury is essential.
Trristan, of course you’re right. However, normally when someone has been charged with a offence there’s a convention that the news media back off, and allow a fair trial to ensue. I don’t think the current government wants a fair hearing, I think they want one they will win.
The footage had been shown to the Jury when it was released to the public.
Maybe we can stop the Trumpian attacks on the integrity of the Courts and Judiciary.
Either we believe in an independent Judiciary and court system or we don’t. There shown be no *(except for defendant’s that we approve of) when it comes to the independence of the Courts and Judiciary.
https://news.sky.com/story/bodycam-footage-of-alleged-sledgehammer-attack-on-police-shown-at-trial-of-palestine-action-activists-13474923
“Bodycam footage of alleged sledgehammer attack on police shown at trial of Palestine Action activists ….
PS Evans, PC Aaron Buxton and PC Peter Adams gave evidence at Woolwich Crown Court on Monday and jurors were shown police bodycam footage of officers confronting the suspects.”
I would add that anybody considering commenting on on whether these are peaceful protestors needs to watch the bodycam and drawn their own conclusions before commenting.
https://news.sky.com/story/bodycam-footage-of-alleged-sledgehammer-attack-on-police-shown-at-trial-of-palestine-action-activists-13474923
Might the article below be of interest/relevance?
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/12/19/hunger-strike-bbc-finally/
@steve. For all the failings of the ‘mainstream media,’ I’m not sure ‘an angry, totally biased article by some anonymous person on the internet’ (on any topic, ever) is ever THAT interesting or illuminating!
Might content matter more than style?
It would be much appreciated if anyone could find significant errors of fact in The Canary piece above.
I haven’t looked into it in detail but I can see one error of fact immediately
“The fact that Starmer’s CPS involved the Israeli embassy in the decision to prosecute and imprison before trial”
The CPS don’t have the power to decide a suspect is held on remand. Only a Judge who is part of the independent Judiciary can make that decision.
The CPS aren’t ‘Starmer’s CPS’ either, come to that. They are rightly independent of the police and Parliament.
@ Slamdac,
“The fact that Starmer’s CPS involved the Israeli embassy in the decision to prosecute and imprison before trial”
You replied :
“The CPS don’t have the power to decide a suspect is held on remand. Only a Judge who is part of the independent Judiciary can make that decision.”
You’re correct. The power to decide if a suspect can be held on remand rests solely with the court (judges and magistrates). The Crown Prosecution Service presents arguments and evidence to the court, but the final decision is a judicial one.
However, this doesn’t answer the question of why the Israeli Embassy had to be involved in the first place.
The CPS will be canny enough to know how to best persuade the court to get the result they seek, and back this up with some signals through informal channels -just to be sure.
@ Cassie,
“The CPS aren’t ‘Starmer’s CPS’ either, come to that. They are rightly independent of the police and Parliament.”
Yes, this is the theory.
Are you saying that this is also how it works in practice? Neither the government nor the Police can bring any influence to bear on the day to day operations of the CPS? Are you saying it’s highly unlikely that Starmer had a chat with one of his old mates at the CPS to express his view about how the Elbit saboteurs/protestors case should be handled?
The Canary article provides a lot of doubt about whether the Filton 24 are being treated fairly, and even if it isn’t 100% accurate an unbiased observer would want a proper investigation into things like the role of the Israeli embassy, and what the police did with the evidence. But without wishing to be rude or name names, not everyone in this thread is unbiased.
To me, the crucial question now is why David Lammy refuses to get the hunger strikers released on bail. My question to those of you who have been generally unmoved by their plight is this; if you were the person who had the sole power to get them released on bail, and chose not to, when the first one died, how would you feel ?
“My question to those of you who have been generally unmoved by their plight is this; if you were the person who had the sole power to get them released on bail, and chose not to, when the first one died, how would you feel ?”
All very nice , but the question the decision maker should ACTUALLY ask themself is “What is the right thing to do in the interest of the country (*)?” Yes, that may result in death. If a decision maker’s personal feelings prevent them making a decision that they think is right probably should be a decision maker in the first place.
(*) or whatever group that person is accountable to. A liberal decision maker would (one hopes) be guided by liberal principles in making the decision, and one would assume reference to human rights would be central to that. Once they had made the decision, and if it had resulted in death, then one would expect them to take moral responsibility for the decision (and feel crap about it) but be fortified by the fact that the decision had been made in line with principle.
Sorry – should read:
If a decision maker’s personal feelings prevent them making a decision that they think is right, that person should probably not be a decision maker in the first place.
@Tristan, I admit that it hadn’t occurred to me that it might be in the best interests of Great Britain that some of the Filton 24 people should die. If it’s really true that the UK will be a better place as a result, then I should obviously override my emotions, but that’s a big ‘if’.
However, this now brings us back to the underlying issue; the killing of 70,000 or more Palestinians by our close ally, in an act of rage which turned into the fulfilment of the plan to colonise someone else’s country (both highly illegal, and in most people’s view, morally repugnant). Starmer thinks it’s right to go on supporting his friends in Israel, and remaining complicit in the genocide, others of us don’t, which is why we regard the Filton 24 as heroes.
If any of them die, I think the history books will say they put the rest of us to shame. How history will record Starmer will have to remain unsaid by me, as I think the LDV has rules about permissible language.
This article has now attracted 59 comments, but it’s no longer really about those who are on hunger strike, because the people in power who will be making life or death decisions won’t be reading this. It’s about who we are as people. Some of the contributors to the thread want those people to die, and they should be asking themselves why that is.
That is a difficult question, and in my opinion, claiming there is a national interest at stake is a way of avoiding having to confront that.
I don’t want them to die, they are grown adults and they can choose to start eating again at any stage.
I don’t agree with their cause. I also don’t agree that they should be treated any different from any other remand prisoners.
It is open to them to make an application for bail.
I also think some of the comments on this forum have been Trumpian and conspiratorial.
As a believer in the rule of law, I think the independence of the judiciary should be respected and that everyone should be equal before that law. Some of the comments on here do not appear to share the same viewpoint.
Which will make it harder to argue against Reform when they make similar arguments in future.
“the independence of the judiciary should be respected” and “everyone should be equal before the law”
Yes, absolutely! But is this always the case in practice?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/12/hunger-strikes-and-court-cases/
Might this case also raise concerncerns about the government’s stated intention of drastically reducing trial by jury as trial by jury is a foundation, if not the foundation, of democracy?
“the independence of the judiciary should be respected” and “everyone should be equal before the law”
Yes, absolutely! But is this always the case in practice?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/12/hunger-strikes-and-court-cases/
P. S.
Might the management and mainstream reporting of this case cause concerns about the government’s stated policy of drastically reducing trial by jury?
Might trial by jury be a, if not the, foundation of democracy?
@Steve Trevethan “Might trial by jury be a, if not the, foundation of democracy?” I suspect that you mean to ask this question in a theoretical sense ie “Is not ‘trial by jury’ an essential building block if you were aiming to create a democratically ruled society?” However there is also an interesting historical parallel. The introduction of trial by jury around two thousand six hundred years ago in ancient Athens is part of Athen’s claim to have founded “democracy”. So here practice runs alongside theory. We can all imagine the scene in Athens when an earlier version of David Lammy dressed in toga jumped up to denounce this radical innovation as replacing the nobles who used to sit as judges with the hundreds of citizens required for an athenian jury would inevitably cause delays to decisions. Today of course we also have to look past the fact that Athens had slaves and women could not sit on juries before taking inspiration from the idea that ancient Athens demonstrated that trial by jury is a fundamental building block of democracy.
“We can all imagine the scene in Athens when an earlier version of David Lammy dressed in toga…”
Sorry to derail the thread, but please. It’s a chiton, not a toga, our hypothetical Athenian David Lammy is a Greek not a Roman.
@ Steve,
“Might trial by jury be a, if not the, foundation of democracy?”
Most Lib Dems would claim the EU countries are democracies, but only Ireland has a system of trial by jury as it’s understood in the UK. Presumably because it was part of the UK at one time.
So the answer has to be ‘no’.
It would be better if we had a system of constant review of both the sentencing and verdicts in serious cases. The current Appeals system isn’t properly understood by the general population and hence by juries. This can lead to the feeling that they can deliver a verdict of guilty if they believe that the defendant is probably guilty rather than guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in the mistaken belief that the Court of Appeal will quickly correct any mistakes made.
Experience shows they probably won’t!
There’s really no other explanation for why juries in hundreds of trails involving post office managers got it so consistently wrong. Even when everyone knows they got it wrong, rectifying the mistakes, as far as it is possible to do that, is taking far longer than it should.
Might these two articles be of interest/relevance?
https://www.google.com/search?q=jry+trial+as+a+foundation+of+democracy&oq=jry+trial+as+a+foundation+of+democracy&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgcIAhAhGJ8FMgcIAxAhGJ8FMgcIBBAhGJ8F0gEKMjY1NTBqMGoxNagCCLACAfEFNrHXnKXmKz0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
P. S. Might the prosecution/persecution of subpost masters demonstrate that the practice of our judicial system falls considerably of practice?
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2025/12/20/hunger-strike-protest-latest/
@ Steve,
“the independence of the judiciary should be respected” and “everyone should be equal before the law”
Yes it’s a nice idea.
However, those of us who are old enough to remember Jeremy Thorpe’s trial may well have had cause to be somewhat sceptical.
Having the right connections with the establishment and the money to secure the services of a top flight lawyer, plus the ability to pay for the services of the right expert witnesses doesn’t do any harm at all.
Might the L. D. Party take up the cause of making our judicial system/set up more independent and equitable?
Unfortunately Steve, the one thing that is certain is that the idea of an independent judiciary dispensing equitable, fair verdicts and sentences is a total fiction. They may be independent of the legislature to a significant extent, but they largely come from very similar backgrounds and values, with 62% from public (non-state) schools, and 75% from Oxbridge. In addition, protecting the image of the justice system (e.g. by the Court of Appeal not overturning verdicts except when there is overwhelming evidence and outcry) is totally ingrained by the time they make it to the top.
While Peter Martin, is correct to mention Jeremy Thorpe, there was also the egregious Justice Bernard Caulfield in the Jeffery Archer case.
Might “an independent judiciary dispensing equitable, fair verdicts and sentences” be a target which, if not hit, would provide a clear purpose and measure to guide and benchmark much needed efforts to make our judicial set up nearer to what it could and should be?
@ David,
The more you look at what goes on in the Justice system the more you have to wonder just what goes on behind the scenes.
In the recent well publicised case of a nurse accused of child murder it should have been obvious to anyone that it will ultimately be decided, not necessarily in the confines of a courtroom, on the basis of expert witness testimony. Unfortunately, the very eminent KC in charge of the defence chose to restrict his list of experts to a single plumber who had been called out to service wash basins in the neonatal unit there.
It is only now that we are seeing the expert testimony presented on both sides , except it isn’t at all in the courtroom. It is given in the public domain. At least, we now know what expert witness testimony could have been called on behalf of the defence – had he chosen to use it.
I’m sure there is a valid legal argument for choosing the line he did. However, he lost badly. The public are far from satisfied that “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” has emerged from the two trials.
If we want this, as I believe most people do, then the operations of the courts have to be more inquisitorial and less adversarial.
@Andy Daer
“Some of the contributors to the thread want those people to die”
This foolish remark does not help your cause (*). There is nothing on this thread that justifies it that I can see.
(*) which for what it is worth I am broadly sympathetic, but not at the cost of the triumph of emotion over the rule of law in the UK. That would not be in the national interest at all.
“the crucial question now is why David Lammy refuses to get the hunger strikers released on bail”
One answer is that it is not in Lammy’s gift – the judiciary is independent. Another is that the decision maker considers that, if the accused are released, there is a significant risk of more (politically motivated) offences (including violence) against people and property from the defendants.
Tristan, letting people out on bail is not a lot to ask, given the backlog in the justice system, but some contributors to this thread say that if the hunger strikers choose not to eat, it will their own fault if they die, not Lammy’s or anyone else’s in the criminal justice system.
Those of us who believe there is an element of political oppression in the government’s treatment of protest about the genocide in Gaza also suspect there is a political element in Lammy’s refusal to intervene. The crimes they’re accused of would not warrant a death sentence or anything approaching it.
I don’t agree that saying some people want to see the hunger strikers die harms my case, and nor do I accept that I was wrong. Not wishing Lammy to intervene is very close to being happy to let them die, which is pretty close to wanting them to die. Saying that might cause offence, but that can be necessary sometimes. This LDV discussion might not change anything in the outside world, but the subject we are debating is literally a matter of life and death for some very brave and honourable young people.
@Andy: David Lammy does not need to intervene in order to save the lives of the protestors. Each of those protestors has the power to save their own life by simply starting to eat. Nothing that David Lammy or anyone else in the Government or the judiciary has done is preventing them from eating.
You may well feel that it is an injustice that the protestors have been held on remand for so long – and I’m inclined to agree. But suffering an injustice does not mean you have to stop eating. If everyone took that attitude, the human race would have died out long ago!
“The crimes they’re accused of would not warrant a death sentence or anything approaching it.”
We haven’t had (in peacetime under civilian law) the death penalty for crimes not occasioning death since the Substitution of Punishment of Death Act 1841; however,
striking a policewoman with a sledgehammer and breaking her back while trying to resist arrest constitutes the crime of grievous bodily harm with intent – the intent part is defined by the element of resisting arrest. The crime would be considered to be aggravated due to the use of the sledgehammer being used as a weapon. The maximum penalty for this offense is life imprisonment.
People have become seriously confused as to what constitutes protest in this country. What we are seeing is not protest, by rather “propaganda by the deed”. Propaganda by the deed is intended to encourage the state to crackdown on the populace in the (naive) belief the the populace will then rise up in revolution. The problem is that though the second part never happens, the state certainly cracks down, and so we lose our traditional liberties.
“The crimes [th defendants are] accused of would not warrant a death sentence”
Andy
The only person talking about a death sentence is you. It’s a classic straw man argument.
The accused have a number of options if they don’t want to die, including:
1 choosing to eat
2 making an application for bail
3 making an application to the court for a declaration that their Human Rights are being violated;
4 making an application for a writ of Habeous Corpus
and to my knowledge they are not doing any of these. Why not? I suspect the answer is their motives are political.
None of this makes means they are not courageous or indeed that they are wrong, but we should see the hunger strike for what it is – a political act.
In those circumstances the state has no duty to accede to the demands if it believes it is wrong to do so – but it does have a duty to deal with the dispute without abusing its power – that is, it must honour the law and the accuseds’ Human Rights. And so far as I can see the Government is doing that, with the possible exception of holding the accused on remand too long without trial.
@ Simon Robinson “Each of those protestors has the power to save their own life by simply starting to eat”.
Would you have applied that view to the suffragette hunger strikers in the days of the Asquith Liberal Government, Simon ? I gather that eight of the hunger strikers have actually been transferred to hospital in the last couple of days – and they are medically past and beyond doing what you suggest.
@ Simon,
“David Lammy does not need to intervene in order to save the lives of the protestors. Each of those protestors has the power to save their own life by simply starting to eat. ”
This very likely was said, over a hundred years ago, as a justification for allowing Suffragettes to die when they were on hunger strike.
It doesn’t make it the right approach now though!
According to the Guardian this morning, the government thinks giving in might set a precedent, with so many people in prison awaiting trial due to the long delays in the criminal justice system.
Given the credible claims in Peter Oborne’s book, Complicit, and from elsewhere, that the British government has been complicit in the killing of thousands of people in Gaza, the lives of a few protestors in this country may seem unimportant to those in power.
As someone has rightly pointed out, the hunger strikers have painted themselves into a corner, and must be finding it difficult to admit defeat. I think that deserves sympathy, and praise for their courageous challenge to our government’s abysmal record on Palestine, but it may also be true that extreme starvation damages brains along with other organs, so we can’t know to what extent their judgement is impaired. Although Lammy and his advisors are also in a difficult position, or think they are, at least they have all their faculties intact, and nor would any of this have happened if the UK had held the crazy regime in Israel to account, instead of helping them.
@ Peter Martin “This very likely was said, over a hundred years ago, as a justification for allowing Suffragettes to die when they were on hunger strike. It doesn’t make it the right approach now though!” BUT The government of the Liberal Party [which contained some liberals] did not allow any suffragette to die on hunger strike in prison. It did this by two means. The first of these was force-feeding in prison. I do not believe this is the correct approach. The second was the “Cat & Mouse” act whereby hunger striking suffragettes were given a temporary release from prison to recover and then returned to prison to complete their sentence. Of course “Cat & Mouse” has a very bad press because the cause of the suffragettes was correct but was perhaps the best solution “liberals” could have come up with whilst defending male suffrage. (Those suffragettes in prison were not in prison because they supported female suffrage but because of the actions they took to support that cause. Here we can draw a distinction between the Labour government which has declared an organisation which destroys property but not life as a “terrorist” organisation and Asquith’s government which did not stoop to such sophistry. Eventually it was the war-time coalition government led by Lloyd George which defused the issue by introducing legislation giving all males over the age of 21 the vote [which had not previously been the case] and giving most women over the age of 30 the vote too.]
It’s always useful to think about other examples. I have fiund thinking about the Suffragettes instructive. Would we all have been so keen on the release of – say – Lucy Connolly or Tommy Robinson had they gone on hunger strike during their recent imprisonment?
@Peter. The analogy with the suffragettes is quite a good one, although possibly not in the way you intended 🙂 Just like PA, the suffragettes had a very good, noble, cause, but the methods they used were atrocious – and actually much worse than what PA have done. These days we tend to regard the suffragettes as heroes and therefore feel instinctively very sympathetic to their various hunger strikes, but we forget that their campaign included arson, planting bombs, sending letter bombs (which did actually seriously burn a number of innocent postal workers). Set against that, the force feeding by the Government was also awful.
Where I’ve been arguing that the Government should change its policy on Israel because it’s the right thing to do, but absolutely not because of the hunger strikes – 113-ish years ago you could apply a very similar logic to women’s suffrage and the hunger strikes of the time).
@ Richard, A word on your interesting comments. Force-Feeding was a brutal and painful process involving tubes, into the stomach which led to serious injuries and illness, with some women needing months to recover.
The so called “Cat and Mouse Act”: was introduced to prevent deaths (which would have embarrassed the Asquith government). The Act : ‘Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act 1913’, released weak strikers to recover, only to re-imprison them later.
There were no directly attributed deaths, but Mary Clarke (1910) died from a burst blood vessel after release, which was commonly linked to force-feeding stress. Lady Constance Lytton (in 1923) died some years after suffering a stroke in prison which was also linked to force-feeding experiences.
Incidentally, the suffragettes burning down Lloyd George’s new house at Walton Heath (also 1913) was a particularly dangerous act of vandalism. Fortunately there were no subsequent casualties (one of the candle timing devices failed).
The Walton Heath house was an interesting example of an expensive gift to a Cabinet Minister (LLG) by the multi-millionaire News of the World proprietor, Sir George Riddell. What did Riddell get in return one wonders ?
@ Simon Robinson Adding to the comment on LLG’s Walton Heath house, Asquith’s house, ‘The Wharf’, at Sutton Courtney was funded via Margot Asquith (wife of a serving Prime Minister) mainly by the American banker J.P. Morgan……. something we might question these days – a tad more expensive than an Arsenal football ticket or a pair of specs.
Might the article below be of interest/relevance?
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/12/23/protest-hmp-bronzefield/
@ Simon,
The usual argument on the left is that no-one has ever achieved democracy by voting for it. Therefore some activities in pursuit of democracy might well be justifiable that in normal circumstances would not.
This argument would apply to the Suffragettes but not to the P.A. activists. But, as you say, their level of protests haven’t been as severe. So it’s a matter of degree.
I’m sure that if, and when, the law on P.A. protests is changed govts will agree with you and won’t acknowledge the influence of the hunger strikers; but, we all know there will have been an influence.
No one, so far, has mentioned the arrest of Greta Thunberg. She was photographed carrying a placard which read “I support Palestine Action Prisoners. I oppose Genocide”
I understand if the placard had been limited to the first four words that she would have been committing an offence under UK law. But supporting prisoners or opposing genocide?
What have we come to?
I do not believe that the PA is a terrorist organisation and the law that says that they are should be repealed.
We live in a democracy and whether that view prevails in the future depends on how people vote.
I am not in favour of changing policy because of being blackmailed by hunger strikers. I believe that policy should be decided by the merits of the case. It is the decision of the hunger strikers not to eat food, the government cannot be responsible for that decision that they made.
I had a quick read though the comments.
There is no need to “force feed” anyone. The hunger strikers make the decision on whether they intend to eat or not.
The Suffragettes did resort to terrorism. In their case it can be justified because they were denied the vote. Democracy is a way of settling disagreements without resorting to violence, but if you don’t have the vote then I can understand why you would resort to terrorism. I would hope there are better ways to act but it depends on the nature of the state that is oppressing you.