They literally have a Press Censorship system where they will send something called "D-Notices" to newspapers to shut them up.
Most sugar consumed in Europe is from sugarcane.
Most sugar produced in Europe is from sugarbeets, but that production is still less than the imported sugar from sugarcane (because sugarcane is just vastly more productive).
They didn't extract sugar from sugar beet back in the 14th century. In fact only in 1747 was it discovered that beets had sucrose and sugar beets themselves were only created after that, via selective breeding, so I don't think they had sugar as we know it back then. However as somebody else pointed out, they had honey which has a very high concentration of sugar.
I suspected sugar wasn't extracted from sugar beet in the Middle Ages or earlier but I wasn't sure and prompted by your question I went searching for it and indeed that is the case since sugar beets didn't even exist back then.
You're the one dying on the hill of defending that grand proclamations of how they're going to help Palestine from the very politicians currently shipping weapons to Israel should be taken unquestionably at face value, and hence that they're really taking a step forward.
Had this been done when there was no Holocaust by Starvation in Gaza and those politicians were not under public pressure to do something about it, then yeah, it would have been a positive action for Palestine as whole since it would open the door for eventual improvements there, but right now, by delaying effective action as wished by the public, that tiny positive potential impact in the future is more than offset by the continued deaths that mean there will be no such Future for tens of thousands or even millions in Gaza, and this "action" does nothing to address that.
The greatest impact this has is to reduce pressure on those politicians to address the problem, so de facto this is a step backwards compared to "doing nothing" as it wields the same result to Gazans whilst by reducing the pressure on politicians makes it less likely that they're forces to take an effective action.
The only way to confuse this with a step forward if you completelly ignore the broader context of how most of the people who might derive a tiny benefit from this will be dead or have lost far more than they will gain from said tiny benefit when that benefit delivers anything, and the political managing of public opinion component of this.
People who don't comply with some societal norm or other are always seen as "weird" or just "quirky" by those who do, especially those who make a huge effort to fit in.
This applies to just about everything, including the behaviours of the neurodivergent.
IMHO, what makes it a problem is that the judgmental takes (i.e. "weird" rather than merely "quirky") are accepted and even condoned in present day society which de facto means the bullying linked to negative judgements against people for being unusual is accepted and even condoned.
PS: To pick up on what others said, having the explanation "Autism" does seem to make it less socially acceptable to be judgemental about it.
That's a perfect example of a False Dichotomy - there are literally thousands of options other that merely "nothing" and "non-binding promise full of caveats of no-impact future action".
Quite a lot of those thousands of options actually impact Israel NOW.
Chosing to avoid any of those impactful action options and pushing instead for a "promise of future no impact action, if certain vague conditions are met" is exactly how politicians avoid being accused of "doing nothing" whilst de facto doing nothing: this a very common political strategy to avoid action until it's too late when under pressure from public opinion to act now, so it's actually worse than doing nothing at all (because it has the same practical results as doing nothing at all, whilst reducing pressure to act hence making it less likely that effective actions will ever be taken).
You seem to have fallen for this common political scam hook, line and sinker.
The point of this talkie talkie from the Canadian PM now is exactly to delay effective actions like that until it's too late, by which point he'll pivot to "it's too late to do anything now".
One thing is the Canadian people, a totally different thing are Canadian politicians in this era: this kind of talkie-talkie delaying technique is exactly because the government doesn't want to do what the people want, so they do "promises of near meaningless action in the future" instead to look like they're "doing something" whilst avoiding like the Plague actual effective action (which in this case means immediate Sanctions on Israel).
I'm intimatelly familiar with this kind of shit because I lived in Britain and this delaying technique was frequently used there (though doing it to allow a nation to keep on mass starving children to death is a new low, even for British politicians).
(Unsurprisingly, if you read the articles about it, you'll see that this latest political move was started by the British PM).
They'll pivot to "It's too late now", which is always how political delaying tactics like this one work.
Carney learned his politics working for the Tories (who are basically posh Fascists) in Britain as head of the Bank Of England and this tactic of promising something near meaningless in the future to avoid doing now the actual things required to address the problem that the public opinion demands (such as sanctions on Israel) is very common over there.
This shit is pure hypocrisy, which is why the British Government (who, right now, are arresting people for merelly planning to demonstrate against the Genocide) came up with the idea.
Hundreds of thousands of dead children and counting in exchange for recognizing statehood, maybe, in a month's time and only if Hamas surrenders.
That's not the moral highground you seem to think it is.
It was painfully obvious some years ago when the Anti-Terrorist legislation was passed that it had been designed like that on purpose so that it could be used against mere dissent.
Of course, the really special bit here is that it's being used against those who dissent against the whole "let's help an ethno-Fascist white colonialist state mass murder children by starvation".
Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper are going to go down in History looking far worse than Neville Chamberlain, who at least didn't do his thing mid-Holocaust and wasn't actually supporting the Nazis.
There is nothing uplifting about it.
This is just a delaying technique to avoid sanctioning Israel due to public pressure, meant to let Israel finish executing their "Final Solution for Gaza", by which point they will pivot to saying "it's too late now".
If you read the article you'll see this "initiative" was launched by the UK PM, the very guy who has been getting people arrested for planning to demonstrated against the Genocide, so one should be incredibly suspicious (and, being familiar with British politics, the whole thing reeks of their usual "delay meaningful action by offering vague promises of future meaningless action").
Also all 3 countries still send weapons to Israel, Canada doing in the most hypocritical of ways by having a weapons export regime that says "no" riddled with backdoors so it ends up as "yes" - yet another very common tactic in British politics which one could describe as "the contents is not what it says on the box".
This way of delaying the meaningful action being pushed by public opinion is a very common technique in British politics, and during his years there heading the Bank Of England (a very political position) Mr. Carney is sure to have learned it.
Uplifting news will when there are actual sanctions against Israel in place.
I lived for over a decade in Britain until about 5 years ago and by the time I left I truly believed the UK was the most likely country in Europe to turn Fascist within a decade.
So far, they're well on schedule and there isn't a month without some news about it further confirming how wise my decision to leave after the Brexit vote was.