I think this conversation has been instructive and apologise to the anonymous person or bot for allowing them to illustrate important features of self-delusion. Today I will be demonstrating to plead with our government to show humanity to the hunger strikes. And this person or both will be blocked.

The charge of assaulting a police officer relates to a different group of people. The person in that case is not on hunger strike. But again, this person illustrates another tactic - conflation with apparently hard evidence.

Notice, the continuing reliance on insults and deflection. The discussion was about people on hunger strike, whom this person (assuming it's not a bot) appeared to imply had been violent and were seeking special treatment. This is all standard fare but instructive to see it in action.

For anyone else who may be reading this, you may notice 1) the use of insult, and 2) deflection from the original facts in question. This happens when a party to a disagreement finds engaging with material facts too aversive to engage with.

No one can surely be in any doubt that these people are being made an example of to deter direct action against the UK's complicity in genocide. It is now a simple dichotomy: Are you for or against the UK government's support for Israel's ongoing slaughter and displacement of Palestinians?

To be clear. None of the hunger strikers are being accused of violence. The reported violence of PA obviously falls far short of anything that would normally be thought of as terrorism. It is reported and not confirmed. And the accused are being denied the usual rights of remand prisoners.

😂

Grateful if you can [email protected] @susanmichie.bsky.social @felixnaughton.bsky.social @uclbrainscience.bsky.social @uclpals.bsky.social @behaviourresuk.bsky.social @hbcproject.bsky.social @nihr-pru-bass.bsky.social @bsphn.bsky.social @robertjwest.bsky.social @socsocmed.bsky.social