Bob Vylan Chants

[Nobby's Old Boots]

3 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

Well that police investigation should take five minutes then. Why are you wasting time on here when you should be saying this to Avon and Somerset police? 

Just keep avoiding the actual point...

[Blisterpack]

1 minute ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

In your incredibly honourable attempt at being more consistent in defending free speech, do you defend the freedom of people to directly encourage the murder of innocent men women and children by burning them alive? Even if that is then acted upon?

No not really, just not happy with prison thing. The IDF is currently being majority served by reservists: students, professionals, men, women, young, not so young, mainly Israeli and almost exclusively Jews. Do you not see anything problematic with what he said in that context? 

[Blisterpack]

3 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Just keep avoiding the actual point...

Which is?

[Nobby's Old Boots]

8 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

No not really, just not happy with prison thing. The IDF is currently being majority served by reservists: students, professionals, men, women, young, not so young, mainly Israeli and almost exclusively Jews. Do you not see anything problematic with what he said in that context? 

A prison sentence is the only appropriate punishment in those cases. It doesn't lessen someone's free speech credentials if they admit that there is a limit if the tweet endangers lives, which it did, and Bob Vylan's chants won't. Which is why I find the comparison unhelpful.

 

I personally find it more problematic that they say they believe in violence and not pacifism. That doesn't help the "by kill the IDF, they mean death to the institution" argument.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Nobby's Old Boots

[gizmoman]

2 minutes ago, xxialac said:

But even free speech has limits.

 

You, I'm sure would agree, that someone should get a harsher sentence if they encouragingly shout 'stab him' to an accomplice who has been holding a knife threateningly. And would you still think Connnolly should get off scot-free if she shouted what she said in the street as those Rotherham protestors were walking around with gasoline?

 

Just free speech surely?

 

Yes, it's true she didn't do that but her inciteful words were viewed by 300,000 people in a time of rioting.

 

 

Exactly, the context is important and the question is was she actually deliberately inciting people as claimed, the full tweet reads,

 

“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f**king hotels full of
the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous
government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick
knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that
makes me racist, so be it.”

 

it was clearly an emotional, angry rant, was there any prospect of the government and politicians being rounded up and burned? It was hyperbole and a particularly ill judged way of venting her frustration, not unlike Bob Vylan's "Kill the IDF",  If her tweet could be regarded as serious enough to justify that sentence I'm sure they could conjure up some charge against Bob Vylan if they wished.

[Spindles]

1 hour ago, Mand3 said:

He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew what was coming.

You can't get away with words, even if you've got a way with words.

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, gizmoman said:

Exactly, the context is important and the question is was she actually deliberately inciting people as claimed, the full tweet reads,

 

“Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f**king hotels full of
the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous
government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick
knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that
makes me racist, so be it.”

 

it was clearly an emotional, angry rant, was there any prospect of the government and politicians being rounded up and burned? It was hyperbole and a particularly ill judged way of venting her frustration, not unlike Bob Vylan's "Kill the IDF",  If her tweet could be regarded as serious enough to justify that sentence I'm sure they could conjure up some charge against Bob Vylan if they wished.

I'll repeat there are sentencing guidelines for this kind of language during a period of rioting.

 

Her sentence was just about as LOW as it could be. So the kinds of points you made did indeed help to reduce her crime but it was still a crime. 

 

Being emotional doesn't get you off the hook completely.

 

And we have an independent judiciary and laws in the country so, no, Vylan cannot be prosecuted on some trumped up charges to suit the political wind. 

[Blisterpack]

4 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

A prison sentence is the only appropriate punishment in those cases. It doesn't lessen someone's free speech credentials if they admit that there is a limit if the tweet endangers lives, which it did, and Bob Vylan's chants won't. Which is why I find the comparison unhelpful.

 

I personally find it more problematic that they say they believe in violence and not pacifism. That doesn't help the "by kill the IDF, they mean death to the institution" argument.

I think your final paragraph supports my view tbh. There is context in the BV call and in my view there is context to who ‘the IDF’ are. Yes it is an institution, but it is also young people who love their country and are probably more traumatised by what is going on than many will acknowledge . And yes I do understand that the people of Gaza are suffering incredibly as well. I just didn’t hear anybody chanting for that to continue. 

[Blisterpack]

7 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I'll repeat there are sentencing guidelines for this kind of language during a period of rioting.

 

Her sentence was just about as LOW as it could be. So the kinds of points you made did indeed help to reduce her crime but it was still a crime. 

 

Being emotional doesn't get you off the hook completely.

 

And we have an independent judiciary and laws in the country so, no, Vylan cannot be prosecuted on some trumped up charges to suit the political wind. 

What would you think if he was charged/convicted? Trumped up or fair enough, that’s where the evidence points? I think the twitter jailing fest last year set a precedent that he will suffer by and I dont feel comfortable with that. 

Edited July 1, 2025 by Blisterpack

[Nobby's Old Boots]

4 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

I think your final paragraph supports my view tbh. There is context in the BV call and in my view there is context to who ‘the IDF’ are. Yes it is an institution, but it is also young people who love their country and are probably more traumatised by what is going on than many will acknowledge . And yes I do understand that the people of Gaza are suffering incredibly as well. I just didn’t hear anybody chanting for that to continue. 

But to be clear just because I personally have a different opinion & think it's massively unhelpful, I dont think they should be arrested, don't believe any charges would stick if they were, and find it disgusting (if not surprising) that this is ahead of the news of the actual atrocities being carried out in Gaza right now.

[gizmoman]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

I'll repeat there are sentencing guidelines for this kind of language during a period of rioting.

 

Her sentence was just about as LOW as it could be. So the kinds of points you made did indeed help to reduce her crime but it was still a crime. 

 

Being emotional doesn't get you off the hook completely.

 

And we have an independent judiciary and laws in the country so, no, Vylan cannot be prosecuted on some trumped up charges to suit the political wind. 

Which are presumably based on someone actively encouraging someone to commit crime, you gave a good example earlier, "shout 'stab him' to an accomplice who has been holding a knife threateningly", I would argue she didn't consciously mean to incite anyone she was simply ranting, clearly the judge thought differently. 

 

"And we have an independent judiciary and laws in the country", I don't have quite as much faith in the system as you!

[Blisterpack]

6 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

But to be clear just because I personally have a different opinion & think it's massively unhelpful, I dont think they should be arrested, don't believe any charges would stick if they were, and find it disgusting (if not surprising) that this is ahead of the news of the actual atrocities being carried out in Gaza right now.

 But that is totally on BV! They chose to shout ‘Death to the IDF’ so it is them who have detracted from what is going on surely? 
on Sunday morning Wes Streeting coupled condemnation of the BV chant with the view that the Israeli Government needed to get its sh*t together. Was he wrong to do that? Should he have supported or condemned BV? Balance has been lost in all this.  

[Nobby's Old Boots]

6 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Which are presumably based on someone actively encouraging someone to commit crime, you gave a good example earlier, "shout 'stab him' to an accomplice who has been holding a knife threateningly", I would argue she didn't consciously mean to incite anyone she was simply ranting, clearly the judge thought differently. 

 

"And we have an independent judiciary and laws in the country", I don't have quite as much faith in the system as you!

That was an example of the limits of support for freedom of speech, not an example of how someone might be prosecuted for it. If the hypothetical knife thing happened that person would be prosecuted for different crimes entirely to what she was jailed for.

 

You simply cannot strip these things of their societal context. The whole point of prosecuting hate speech is to hold people accountable when they have encouraged real life crimes to take place, as she did - in this case attempted murder. That means a large number of things are taken into consideration to establish the likelihood of the actions actually being carried out and whether you agree with the law or not, she broke it and has been punished.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

5 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

 But that is totally on BV! They chose to shout ‘Death to the IDF’ so it is them who have detracted from what is going on surely? 
on Sunday morning Wes Streeting coupled condemnation of the BV chant with the view that the Israeli Government needed to get its sh*t together. Was he wrong to do that? Should he have supported or condemned BV? Balance has been lost in all this.  

I'm not making them out to be blameless. I've already said :

 

"Just all seems massively counter productive to allow yourself to become the story instead of the atrocities being committed literally as we speak about a set by an artist almost completely unknown to the general public."

 

But it's beyond naive to say it's "totally" on them that the story has replaced the actual coverage in Gaza. We all know who is delighted that that is happening and I don't think for a minute that BV expected it to blow up like this even if I do think it's all very very unhelpful to the actual cause.

[Blisterpack]

4 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

I'm not making them out to be blameless. I've already said :

 

"Just all seems massively counter productive to allow yourself to become the story instead of the atrocities being committed literally as we speak about a set by an artist almost completely unknown to the general public."

 

But it's beyond naive to say it's "totally" on them that the story has replaced the actual coverage in Gaza. We all know who is delighted that that is happening and I don't think for a minute that BV expected it to blow up like this even if I do think it's all very very unhelpful to the actual cause.

If they didn’t think it would be news they wouldn’t have said it. 

[Blisterpack]

12 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

 

You simply cannot strip these things of their societal context. 

The law does exactly this though. It is designed to be consistent. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

3 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

If they didn’t think it would be news they wouldn’t have said it. 

You think they knew by saying it they would be mainstream front page news? Haha. Okay.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

1 minute ago, Blisterpack said:

The law does exactly this though. It is designed to be consistent. 

Well the ultimate test of this post will be if BV are given the same sentence as her then won't it?

 

Because I'm saying context matters and am willing to go out on a limb and say they won't get the same sentence but if you believe context will be stripped (and somehow the law changed) and that it's consistent, then the sentence will be the same.

Let's wait and see, eh?

[gizmoman]

12 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

That was an example of the limits of support for freedom of speech, not an example of how someone might be prosecuted for it. If the hypothetical knife thing happened that person would be prosecuted for different crimes entirely to what she was jailed for.

 

You simply cannot strip these things of their societal context. The whole point of prosecuting hate speech is to hold people accountable when they have encouraged real life crimes to take place, as she did - in this case attempted murder. That means a large number of things are taken into consideration to establish the likelihood of the actions actually being carried out and whether you agree with the law or not, she broke it and has been punished.

Which makes a prosecution of Bob Vylan entirely justified then, there is no doubt people are in fact trying to "kill the IDF" on a daily basis, I don't really think they need any encouragement from BV but they certainly got it and I would argue BV was far more serious about it than Lucy C. Whether any action is taken remains to be seen. I doubt it will be but the potential is there.

[TheDayman]

2 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:

Well they’ve shown that haven’t they they have the most expensive precision weaponary and still somehow manage to kill 20k plus children 

Amazing how precise they could be when taking out the Iranian nuclear scientists… 

[DeanoL]

4 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 

Yes, the Palestinian Authority should be really trusted with those facts. After they lied for decades about not using hospitals and schools for their weapons' caches... all the tunnels they didn't have. 

 

I'm not denying that people have died? It's a war, of course people will die in war?

Including the IDF. It's a war, people will fight back and some of them will die. So what's the big deal? 

I just can't understand the mindset of people that are able to go "yeah, well it's a war, people die" when talking about Palestinian civilians dying, but then mortally offended at a freaking band saying they'd like the IDF to die. As if the IDF weren't also a part of that war. Where people die. Of course. It's a war.

[DeanoL]

4 hours ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

 

Yes, the Palestinian Authority should be really trusted with those facts. After they lied for decades about not using hospitals and schools for their weapons' caches... all the tunnels they didn't have. 

 

 

Yip, could really do with some independent journalists over there to verify those figures. Agree with you entirely. 

[xxialac]

24 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

That was an example of the limits of support for freedom of speech, not an example of how someone might be prosecuted for it. If the hypothetical knife thing happened that person would be prosecuted for different crimes entirely to what she was jailed for.

 

You simply cannot strip these things of their societal context. The whole point of prosecuting hate speech is to hold people accountable when they have encouraged real life crimes to take place, as she did - in this case attempted murder. That means a large number of things are taken into consideration to establish the likelihood of the actions actually being carried out and whether you agree with the law or not, she broke it and has been punished.

Thank you for being so capable of following a logical argument. It can be a bit exhausting on here otherwise.

[Tinofsild]

Just wanted to give my perspective here. I went to the festival with my Israeli partner. We don’t support their government at all and want an end to what’s happening over there both for the Palestinians and general stability of the region where her family and friends live. I’ve been to Israel about 5 times now and have seen Palestinian people living peacefully and happily there. In my opinion it’s the extremists and politicians, usually driven by religion, who cause the issues. 

 

I was at Bob Vylan as I had seen a YouTube video of a live act from 2024 but it’s certainly changed a bit since then! No problem with the flags or even ‘free Palestine’ - although I do find that a very non specific phrase which probably carries a different meaning depending who is saying it.

 

A few main issues with what was said: 

1. “Death to the IDF.” Well due to mandatory national service, that will mean pretty much any Israeli citizen at some point in their life. She’s been in the army and her 19 year old nephew is now.  His 2 brothers will be in a few years too.
2. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” This might seem an inoffensive phrase but it’s generally used to advocate the expulsion of all Jews from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea (Israel). This is what a poster a few pages back was alluding to when they said Bob was advocating this.

3. The talk of using violence as it’s the only language some understand. This was part of the act I saw from 2024 so I know it was in the context of talking about experiencing racism. This was also the case on Saturday but this bit of talk came not long after the 2 points above so if I’m being charitable I’d say it was not great timing. 

It’s got him a lot of publicity but it’s a shame their set will now be buried and they might not be asked back as they have good points they usually articulate well. Just not on this occasion in my opinion. 
 

I’m also so glad my partner wasn’t there - not so much for her but for the young lady next to me who was very enthusiastically shouting “Death to the IDF!” She might now be nursing a black eye and nobody wants to see that, especially at a such a love filled place as Glastonbury! 🙂

 

I’m sure we are all good people in here by the way. Hopefully somehow peace is found…

[Nobby's Old Boots]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yip, could really do with some independent journalists over there to verify those figures. Agree with you entirely. 

Yeah, I mean I can't think of any reason at all that journalists wouldn't want to be anywhere near this conflict/the IDF.

 

Jesus H.