Bob Vylan Chants

[Blisterpack]

10 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

If I understand Bobby like I think I understand him (I’ve seen them multiple times) then I doubt it. 
 

“I said what I said”. 
 

He was spot on with pointing out that artists should use their platform. This whole situation is a lot more serious and far reaching than I fear a lot of people realise. Now is not the time to back down 

But people feeling passionate about things is what got Lucy Connolly three years or whatever. People feel strongly about a lot of things but using language that’s capable of being interpreted as a call to violence has been treated as criminal recently. I don’t want to see anybody jailed for ‘words’ but that’s the world for you. 

[Blisterpack]

10 minutes ago, xxialac said:

By the time she took it down (several hours) it had been viewed over 300000 times. Should have taken it down sooner! She also doubled down in a subsequent tweet.

 

Her sentence for her was in fact the opposite of severe. It was at the very low end of the sentencing guidelines. Now whether the law should be changed is a different matter. 
 

Sentences are always harsher in the context of times of rioting. I don't think any party will ever campaign on a platform to water this down.

You don’t see any similarity at all in the two cases? Literally nothing? 

[fogma]

The issue I had at the time, and since, is Bobby’s comment about not believing in peaceful protest but encouraging violent protest. I’m not sure I’ve seen much discourse around, or justification for, this?

[pryce]

36 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Lucy Connolly wrote "set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.” in the midst of some riots - and later that week arsonists indeed attacked a hotel full of asylum seekers.

 

Perhaps would have added this hugely relevant context to "she asked for a building to be burnt down"...

I was saying how the media would and have been portraying it ...you don't have to talk down to me ..we get it that you think you are better than everyone with your views!! I agree with most of what you are saying ..but I suppose I'm stupid because I didn't say exactly what you wanted me to say 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

23 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

Not in any way defending her but she did also delete her tweet within a short space of time and apologised unreservedly for what she wrote. 
personally I think her sentence was very severe, and I think a prosecution of BV would be inappropriate. An apology for the ambiguity of language might help - is that something they might consider? 

Oh, she deleted the tweet and apologised? That's fine then...

If you choose to believe that is the truth of the person rather than the one who literally incited violence against innocent men women and children in encouraging them to be burnt alive. I don't give two f**ks if she later apologised (after realising the trouble she was in). 

 

If you don't understand the difference between that and the Bob Vylan situation then I'd suggest some very quick research will explain.

She committed a crime and is now facing the consequences. I don't see how Bob Vylan can possibly be charged with a crime and it hold any weight in court based on, you know, the actual law.

[xxialac]

3 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

But people feeling passionate about things is what got Lucy Connolly three years or whatever. People feel strongly about a lot of things but using language that’s capable of being interpreted as a call to violence has been treated as criminal recently. I don’t want to see anybody jailed for ‘words’ but that’s the world for you. 

Fair enough.

 

I’m absolutely not having a go (and apologies for the parallel) but it’s been amazing to watch the free-speech-at-all-costs condemn Vylan’s remarks and call for the shuttering of the BBC.

 

[Blisterpack]

Just now, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Oh, she deleted the tweet and apologised? That's fine then...

If you choose to believe that is the truth of the person rather than the one who literally incited violence against innocent men women and children in encouraging them to be burnt alive. I don't give two f**ks if she later apologised (after realising the trouble she was in). 

 

If you don't understand the difference between that and the Bob Vylan situation then I'd suggest some very quick research will explain.

She committed a crime and is now facing the consequences. I don't see how Bob Vylan can possibly be charged with a crime and it hold any weight in court based on, you know, the actual law.

I’m not a lawyer so I can’t comment on that. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

6 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

But people feeling passionate about things is what got Lucy Connolly three years or whatever. People feel strongly about a lot of things but using language that’s capable of being interpreted as a call to violence has been treated as criminal recently. I don’t want to see anybody jailed for ‘words’ but that’s the world for you. 

"Feeling passionate about things" isn't what got her the sentence, inciting and encouraging horrific violence against innocent people is what got her the sentence.

 

It's such a false equivalence as to be embarrassing, honestly.

[Nobby's Old Boots]

Just now, Blisterpack said:

I’m not a lawyer so I can’t comment on that. 

Um... you most definitely have been commenting on it though havent you.

[xxialac]

4 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

You don’t see any similarity at all in the two cases? Literally nothing? 

At the most superficial level, plenty of similarities!

 

Then look at the detail and her’s is a hate crime against a vulnerable set of individuals (in this country) during a serious riot and where her incitements were carried out.

 

Hmm.

[Blisterpack]

1 minute ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

"Feeling passionate about things" isn't what got her the sentence, inciting and encouraging horrific violence against innocent people is what got her the sentence.

 

It's such a false equivalence as to be embarrassing, honestly.

I disagree. And I’m certainly not embarrassed. 

[Blisterpack]

1 minute ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Um... you most definitely have been commenting on it though havent you.

Not on the technicalities of whether BV broke the law I haven’t. That’s for the CPS to determine and they are lawyers as far as I’m aware. 

[Blisterpack]

Just now, Blisterpack said:

Not on the technicalities of whether BV broke the law I haven’t. That’s for the CPS to determine and they are lawyers as far as I’m aware. 

As I said earlier I am instinctively opposed to people being jailed for what they say or write. 

[Blisterpack]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

At the most superficial level, plenty of similarities!

 

Then look at the detail and her’s is a hate crime against a vulnerable set of individuals (in this country) during a serious riot and where her incitements were carried out.

 

Hmm.

Hmm what?

[xxialac]

Just now, Blisterpack said:

Hmm what?

Hmm I wasnt a fan of your weak strawman (that I couldnt see a single similarity between the two cases).

[Nobby's Old Boots]

8 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

I disagree. And I’m certainly not embarrassed. 

Disagree with what exactly?

[Blisterpack]

6 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Disagree with what exactly?

That it is an entirely false equivalence. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

1 minute ago, Blisterpack said:

That it is an entirely false equivalence. 

On a basic level, do you understand why she was jailed?

[Blisterpack]

1 minute ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

On a basic level, do you understand why she was jailed?

Yes, she incited violence with words. 

[Blisterpack]

13 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Hmm I wasnt a fan of your weak strawman (that I couldnt see a single similarity between the two cases).

You agree with BV and disagree with LC. That’s the biggest difference. You choose to apply a different standard to what inciting violence looks like based on that. I think I am more consistent in defending free speech. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

9 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

Yes, she incited violence with words. 

Are we really doing this?

 

Are you not interested at all in trying to compute any of the context? How the societal and geographical differences made it so that her tweets led to a direct intention to incite violence and death and therefore crossed the threshold of an actual crime punishable by a custodial sentence?

It is so completely different to the Vylan case that making a comparison is a complete waste of time.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Nobby's Old Boots

[Nobby's Old Boots]

7 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

You agree with BV and disagree with LC. That’s the biggest difference. You choose to apply a different standard to what inciting violence looks like based on that. I think I am more consistent in defending free speech. 

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?

[Mand3]

4 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

You agree with BV and disagree with LC. That’s the biggest difference. You choose to apply a different standard to what inciting violence looks like based on that. I think I am more consistent in defending free speech. 

The Glastonbury crowd were not going to go and attack the IDF. 

 

The people rioting did try to burn down hotels.

 

One is protest the other is hyping up rioters.

[xxialac]

5 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

You agree with BV and disagree with LC. That’s the biggest difference. You choose to apply a different standard to what inciting violence looks like based on that. I think I am more consistent in defending free speech. 

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.

 

 

[Blisterpack]

3 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

Are we really doing this?

 

Are you not interested at all in trying to compute any of the context? How the societal and geographical differences made it so that her tweets led to a direct intention to incite violence and death and therefore crossed the threshold of an actual crime punishable by a custodial sentence?

It is so completely different to the Vylan case that making a comparison is a complete waste of time.

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?