Kamran Ahmed, who has not eaten for over two months, told Declassified on Sunday that his body was “twitching” uncontrollably and he fears heart failure.
Ahmed was arrested in November 2024 and his trial is not expected to start until June 2026. Prosecution guidelines say prisoners should normally not be held on remand for more than six months.
Ahmed is among a number of Palestine Action suspects on remand beyond that time limit.
“If I pass out while I have this twitching, I can’t move. I’d probably just end up staying frozen on my bed,” unable to press the alarm button in his cell. Ahmed, who spoke to Declassified by phone from Pentonville prison, described having chest pains and being on the brink of fainting.
He is protesting at being denied bail following his arrest for an alleged break-in by Palestine Action at an Elbit System factory in 2024. Elbit is Israel’s largest arms firm and provides 85% of the drones used by Israel’s army in Gaza.
It would be tragic if the protestors died. However ministers aren’t able to negotiate with prisoners doing hunger strikes because it might encourages others to do the same. For better or worse, the current justice system relies on everyone being treated the same way, regardless of their motivations.
In this case the strikers have outlived Bobby Sands by several weeks so it seems like doctors might be intervening by providing some form of sustenance via IV drip.
Right?
You can’t set a precedent for just not eating (or in one of these PA cases, intermittent fasting, as they are eating every other day) as a means to get what you want. Even someone with 3 braincells should be able to work out why that would be bad.
Force feeding is generally viewed as being an affront to someone’s rights, and the government would get called monsters for doing that.
Letting people off the hook if they refuse to eat is obviously not something that can even be entertained.
Letting them do what they want with their own bodies can lead to harm, although that is ultimately their own choice.
There’s no nice answer here.
They aren’t prisoners they are hostages. The UK has no legal grounds to keep them kidnapped.
They obviously do, though.
Pretty sure breaking into and vandalising an RAF base is against the law. They can’t have been kidnapped if they are being held in custody awaiting trial.
current justice system relies on everyone being treated the same way
against the law
being held in custody awaiting trial.
Can only be held for 182 days, and we are way past that so the government is breaking the law here.
The delays in trials being held apply to more than just the Palestine Action protestors. They are just not getting special treatment.
Anyway that’s my 2p - seems like we’ll have to agree to disagree. Have a nice evening!
No trial = bail. You know you have no argument.
They were going to be awarded bail, but they said in court they wouldn’t follow the terms of it.
Should courts just let people go free when people gloat that they won’t obey the terms of the bail?
One of the charges carries a life sentence so they’re in the most serious band of charges, and one of their co-defendants was given day release to attend a wedding. He absconded and remains a fugitive. So there’s no way any of them were getting out after that. These are all consequences of their own choices.
Can you tell me what statement is made here? https://youtu.be/BQ7zdnZSxoQ?t=36
are you going on hunger strike too?
are you going on hunger strike too?
I’ll always be struck by how Lammy said his conscious would be guided by his church and fellow practitioners when it came to commenting on the assisted dying bill on Question Time. I thought… what an odious fuck. Rather than saying he’s against it for whatever reason he said he’s neither for nor against but would ultimately decide what a congregation of his local church decides. What a fucking cop out! He doesn’t want to commit to saying anything public because it might anger voters yet also admits he’s never going to vote for it either and would rather listen to a minority group of his church members than his actual constituency. In the end he abstained by the looks of it but not without first making the case against it from his religious beliefs.
Why is this relevant? Well probably because he has the same thought process here. He isn’t going to do anything because he doesn’t want the hassle. But ultimately his church also doesn’t give two shits whether the hunger strikers die or not because they’re the wrong colour.
