This has already been explained multiple times. If Hoyles making decisions based on his own career plans then no, he's not a victim.
I will say if there really was 6 clerks in the meeting with Starmer, and they're all saying Hoyles job wasn't threatened then fair enough!
The inconsistencies in this story do seem odd to me. Why was Hoyle bullsh*tting about a wide debate if the real reason was MP safety? Why didn't he or Starmer mention the 6 clerks in the first place? Why did Hoyle apologise for breaking convention if it was for MPs safety? It does seem like something dodgy has probably gone on behind the scenes. Does anyone really doubt that Starmer can phrase a threat without it being explicit? Enough to give himself wriggle room later?
I'll also say, as I've said earlier on this thread or the other last week, I've no issue with conventions being broke for valid reasons and I do think the MPs safety issue is genuinely felt by MPs. We've had two MPs killed in 10 years, terror events aimed at the leader of the opposition, British soldiers filming themselves using the Labour leaders image for target practice. It's shameful. BUT all of the above violent episodes are associated with far right politics. So a load of parliamentary rhetoric about the danger of environmental and pro-Palestine protestors will probably make the situation even more dangerous by further radicalising the far right.
Proroguing parliament to dodge any debate of the governments actions wasnt a valid reason, and Hoyle feathering his own nest wouldn't be.
For those of you frustrated with me/others for not just taking Starmer's word for it - this is the problem with how he's conducted his leadership. He has lied about policies - and his supporters have celebrated that. He used his first party conference to make the party's leadership rules less democratic. Quite frankly he has little to no credit in the bank as far as expecting people to take him at his word on anything.