What should happen about the hunger strikers?

[noblegiraffe]

There are a group of people currently on remand in prison awaiting trial for criminal activities taken in support of the (currently) proscribed terrorist group Palestine Action. Some of them have gone on hunger strike and are suffering health impacts and some have been hospitalised.

Their demands appear to be:
to be released on bail
for Palestine Action to be de-proscribed as a terrorist group
for the UK to stop selling arms to Israel

I'm seeing various MPs writing earnest letters to David Lammy as Justice Secretary, saying that he must meet with them urgently to discuss their demands.

And then what?

It should go without saying that I really don't want people to die, and I'm sure that their families must be frantic, but what is actually expected to happen here? The proscription of Palestine Action is being appealed in the courts and I don't think people threatening to kill themselves should impact the democratic process.

Being released on bail? While I agree that it is shocking that they have been held in prison for 2 years while awaiting trial, because the justice system should work faster than that, they are active members of a currently proscribed terrorist organisation. At least one of the hunger strikers took part in the attack on Elbit where a female police officer had her back broken by one of the activists who attacked her with a sledgehammer while she lay on the ground. There's plenty of video footage of this, and I don't think the hunger strikers have condemned it. If they did get bail by threatening to kill themselves, surely everyone would then give it a go?

So what should happen?

To the best of my knowledge, this is much the same policy across the entire prison estate:

https://www.shropscommunityhealth.nhs.uk/content/doclib/12557.pdf

In short it says if you want to die by refusing eat, we will not force you to eat, we will respect your decision to die this way and will provide lots of opportunities for you to change your mind.

We will try to sort grievances but it's your choice (unless deemed not to have capacity). So here's all the attention you'll get, from whom, their responsibilities, how it'll be recorded and let us know if you want your dinner. The end.

Thats my understanding - force feeding mentally capable people is prohibited.

I remember the members of the IRA who went on hunger strikes in the 70s/80s at the maze prison. I think at least one died.

The government cannot be blackmailed into giving in to demands - any demands because where do this stop?

Sultana needs to get to back to Coventry and represent her constituents as that’s what she’s paid for.

If they want to starve themselves to death, let them crack on without interference.

The attack happened august 24. Why are you saying theyve been on remand for 2 years?

Will have been when they meet their scheduled court date. Initial reporting wasn’t clear about this.

Nothing should happen. They committed a violent crime and delays in court dates were the case when they committed it in August this year. They made the decisions that put them where they are now.

Many died, because they didn’t demand ambulances. They took their strike seriously which I actually respect.

Many died, because they didn’t demand ambulances. They took their strike seriously which I actually respect.

If you agree that any other suspected criminal should be released on bail if they go on hunger strike then we should accede to these individuals demands.

if you don’t believe we should give into the demands of hunger striking rapists, drug dealers & street robbers then we should not.

despite what these individuals think they’re not a separate category of criminal.

I agree that I don’t think the government are demonstrating that they haven’t learnt lessons. Not doing something is an option. And I think a good one. There’s nothing to say the government aren’t happy with the status quo. Let the hunger strikers crack on. They have capacity.

I'm not a politician so it's not my place to speculate, just pointing out that it's 50 years later and they find themselves in the same position and still just as clueless. It's worth noting.

You've not actually explained what you think should've been learned and how it means the UK government are clueless now though? There's a big part of your explanation missing.

It's so much easier to say "something should be done" when you aren't in a position to do anything.

I never intended to state my personal opinion on what should have been learned or what should be done because I'm not going to be dragged into a debate about it. I merely pointed out that nothing had been learned, that point stands on its own without me divulging my personal opinion on what should have been learned.

You'd need to have actually made a point for that to be the case. As of yet, we still await anything that's 'worth noting'.

Not really.

What do you think they should do? There are policies for HMPPS to follow which amounts to allowing them to die if they so wish.

There isn't anything else the government is going to do. People can refuse to eat, it's their choice.

That isn't clueless by the Government, it's a substantive policy.

I think the people who really should have learned from the IRA hunger strikers are the hunger strikers.

100%. That it doesn’t get you anywhere and if you die you die. And 99% of people within a year won’t remember you so it’s all a bit pointless. I don’t think the government are clueless, I think the hunger strikers are clueless.

What position is this?

What should they have learned ?

That they are mostly forgotten after a few years. The only Irish hunger striker who died that I remember was Bobby Sands.

That the government don’t capitulate to hunger strikers. That if you don’t want to get caught up in a judicial system with huge backlogs it’s best not to commit a crime. That supporting terrorism isn’t a good look.

If their intention in dying by hunger strike was to be remembered by you, then yes. They failed.

But somehow, I don't remember that was their aim at the time.

It's not all about you.