Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Kneecap


CaledonianGonzo

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Colorblindjames said:

Context my dear bentos, context. 

My point is I find it disgusting in any context.

 

What are your thoughts on them apologising to the families of the murdered MPs? SUrely they should have stood their ground if they did nothing wrong. Quite pathetic to apologise really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Physical_graffiti said:

 

whilst true, you can use that argument to justify censoring absolutely anything. Charles manson interpreted some beatles songs as cause to start a race war for example. I think you've got to assume 99.999999999% people see it as a joke.

Yeah I do totally see your point. The band just have to be okay with if anything happened to an MP they would be partly responsible. eg someone from that gig went home and plotted to kill an MP (I know it didn't happen and is a 0.0000001% of it happening)They would have to be okay taking responsibility on it and the repercussions of that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Physical_graffiti said:

First point - Well then I guess we disagree here. I just think we're in an insane world if we're taking anything said on stage, in song lyrics etc literally. 

So are we not to take any of their activism seriously either then? Because that's very prevalent in their lyrics and when they're on stage...

 

I think this time they've gone too far and the apology was misguided in tone, but I believe they have had a positive impact with their activism overall, so I don't know why you would say anything they say shouldn't be taken seriously - just because the things they said this time were misjudged or inflammatory.

 

That's why it seems like a cop out, because lyrics and stage presence etc are VERY important for political music and to try and dismiss that rather than just realising they have crossed the line this time doesn't ring true for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

My point is I find it disgusting in any context.

 

What are your thoughts on them apologising to the families of the murdered MPs? SUrely they should have stood their ground if they did nothing wrong. Quite pathetic to apologise really

What are your thoughts on 3 working class kids being held to a higher moral standard than a bunch of MPs blowing up children in Gaza? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

My point is I find it disgusting in any context.

 

What are your thoughts on them apologising to the families of the murdered MPs? SUrely they should have stood their ground if they did nothing wrong. Quite pathetic to apologise really

as you have every right to - but whether you personally find them disgusting or pathetic or not is irrelevant to a conversation on whether bands should be allowed to say controversial stuff on stage that is obviously not to be taken literally without the government censoring them from performing at private musical festivals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, as the push for Kneecap rolls on, do we get to "cancel" Israel, too?

I have continuously said that I'm very disappointed with what the lads said, but I find it absolutely baffling that people can't see what's really happening here. 

It's not so long ago that Sinead O'Connor bravely ripped up a photo of the Pope to a US audience in protest of the child abuse that was happening under the church's watch.

People were outraged by what she did, and subsequently, she was threatened and shamed in a consistent and coordinated attack. She lost multiple gigs and record deals. She never recovered.

Her reasoning was right, however. The true depth of what was happening in the church we would only discover years later.

Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This is widely agreed upon by multiple aid agencies, international human rights organisations and courts.

Hamas and Hezbollah didn't appear in a vacuum, just like the IRA didn't. These lads grew up in a world that likely very few, if any, here can truly relate to. I can understand how they have found similarities and shared histories, with the people of Palestine.

What Kneecap did was wrong, in particular the single MP comment, but let's not be gaslit into believing that this was their message.

The true and original message - and the message that triggered all of this controversy before any historical videos were combed through for dirt - was "F**k Israel, Free Palestine".

This is the message that angered people and this is what led Sharon Osbourne and others in the industry to lobby for their shows to be cancelled.

I've no doubt that if the comments re: MP's, Hamas and Hezbollah had never happened, we'd still be here arguing why they should or shouldn't be cancelled.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

So are we not to take any of their activism seriously either then? Because that's very prevalent in their lyrics and when they're on stage...

 

I think this time they've gone too far and the apology was misguided in tone, but I believe they have had a positive impact with their activism overall, so I don't know why you would say anything they say shouldn't be taken seriously - just because the things they said this time were misjudged or inflammatory.

 

That's why it seems like a cop out, because lyrics and stage presence etc are VERY important for political music and to try and dismiss that rather than just realising they have crossed the line this time doesn't ring true for me.

I didn't say we "shouldn't take anything they say seriously". I said, when they say "kill your local MP" on stage, that this is obviously not an actual threat and that shouldn't be taken literally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a classic case, and were all maybe guilty in some respects.

 

You tend to want to defend someone or something you like - Kneecap fans will obviously want to see them perform and back them to the hilt.

 

But saying "Kill Your MP" regardless of context is just a vile stupid thing to say, particularly after the murders that have actually occured here in recent memory.

 

You can stand for whatever, but saying things like that will garner a huge negative response and they'll need to accept that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mand3 said:

That's the link

ok, fair yeah this stuff has resurfaced due to their coachella performance I get you but if you say daft stuff like what they have done they're always at risk of repercussions to that. Festivals that book them have corporate interest and Kneecap are worried about losing out on cash now so have apologised. Bit pathetic imo.

 

5 minutes ago, Physical_graffiti said:

as you have every right to - but whether you personally find them disgusting or pathetic or not is irrelevant to a conversation on whether bands should be allowed to say controversial stuff on stage that is obviously not to be taken literally without the government censoring them from performing at private musical festivals

well the gov can't really do that and I don't think they should be that involved tbh. I dunno why Eden cancelled their booking but I guess it's more to do with sponsors than parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The whole art and free speech argument is bollocks. Obviously there are limits, just depends where those limits are.


No it’s not. It’s very important. Do people really want a sterilised arts scene where all content has to be approved by politicians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Little Andy said:

Did Kneecap actually say 'Up Hamas' at some point? When? Even if some people are arguing they didn't mean it seriously, it seems a crazy thing to say for a band in support of Palestinian rights. If my knowledge is correct, Hamas not only terrorise Israeli citizens, but Palestinians as well (hence the huge recent anti-Hamas protests in Gaza continuing, despite Hamas murdering some of the protesters).

If I've understood all this correctly, this is why I won't be surprised if Glastonbury don't let Kneecap play. I'm not sure how many in this thread attended last year's Left Field 'Israel Palestine: Hope and Solidarity' debate, but I understood the panel to be very for peace for all peaceful Palestinians and Israelis against the atrocities of both the Israeli Government and Hamas.


Why does "Up Hamas" trigger this when their whole act is linked to Irish republicanism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Colorblindjames said:

What are your thoughts on 3 working class kids being held to a higher moral standard than a bunch of MPs blowing up children in Gaza? 

How working class are they? One of them was a teacher. Another ran a music business whilst a student. They are in their 20s and 30's not 18 so they know what they are doing. It looks like manufactured radical chic like the Clash wearing Red Brigade / Red Army Faction t-shirts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

ok, fair yeah this stuff has resurfaced due to their coachella performance I get you but if you say daft stuff like what they have done they're always at risk of repercussions to that. Festivals that book them have corporate interest and Kneecap are worried about losing out on cash now so have apologised. Bit pathetic imo.

Yeah it's a stupid thing to say and they could get in trouble for it. I guess I'm just disappointed that the media aren't talking about the genocide too. 

 

Our Prime Minister said of Israel "she has the right to defend herself". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lazyred said:

How working class are they? One of them was a teacher. Another ran a music business whilst a student. They are in their 20s and 30's not 18 so they know what they are doing. It looks like manufactured radical chic like the Clash wearing Red Brigade / Red Army Faction t-shirts.


I'd suggest you do some research on West Belfast during the Troubles before questioning their background...

Edited by TheDayman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Physical_graffiti said:

I didn't say we "shouldn't take anything they say seriously". I said, when they say "kill your local MP" on stage, that this is obviously not an actual threat and that shouldn't be taken literally. 

You said - "I just think we're in an insane world if we're taking anything said on stage, in song lyrics etc literally. "

 

So I guess I just don't understand this sentiment when their whole act and persona is based around the politics, which are very specifically referenced in their lyrics and on stage actions/words.

So my point is, are we only supposed to take what they say seriously when it suits us, and not when they say "Up Hamas" etc? When they're saying "Free Palestine" as an implication that we should be paying attention to and supporting their struggle, are we supposed to not take that literally? Surely you see the contradiction there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...