Bob Vylan Chants

[Blisterpack]

11 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

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?

I think he may be charged. Societal context may affect sentencing though, agree with you on that. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

11 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

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.

Yeah, I am definitely not going round in the same circles again over this. It's just stupid.

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, lazyred said:

I asked for evidence of intent not what you think is happening behind closed doors. The war crimes are enough to condemn Isreal. Using words like genocide and holocaust against Israel is a deliberate attempt to undermine the case for Israel existing as a country. 

Do you honestly think by the time this ends there will be anything left of Gaza? There barely is now. The Gazan people are basically gone as a group. What else do you call that?

 

(And please tell me the answer isn't some hair-splitting argument about how Gazans are not distinct from West Bank Palastinians)

[xxialac]

5 minutes ago, Tinofsild said:

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…

Super interesting set of perspectives, thank you. A couple of thoughts.

 

1. Anyone watching iplayer really has no practical means to seize the words chanted and attack an army in a far-flung land.

2. It's not the context that people in the cultural realm use the words, is it. One might forgive them for missing out on this nuance. And the nuance is critically undermined by Netanyahu using the same words!!

3. I don't like the idea of violence as only effective language either, completely agree.

 

I didn't understand the story about the lady with the potential black eye? (it is late...)

[Crazyfool01]

Some interesting thoughts here 

 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Mand3 said:

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.

This is correct in terms of how the law works. Honestly I think the prosecutions for stuff people posted on social media during the riots were entirely inappropriate and that law needs reforming.

But as it stands at the moment the law judges based on the potential for actually causing violence your words have. If Vylan had encouraged people at the festival to go burn down the Eavis farmhouse, he'd likely be prosecuted. But no one was leaving Glasto to sign up to join Hamas (I mean, you literally can't. You can't get into Gaza right now.)

I find that a fairly unsatisfying distinction but it's how the law works in the UK right now.

[SheffJeff]

12 minutes ago, Tinofsild said:

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! 🙂

 

Out of interest do you think it's a trait of the IDF to use violence or just your partner?

[xxialac]

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

This is correct in terms of how the law works. Honestly I think the prosecutions for stuff people posted on social media during the riots were entirely inappropriate and that law needs reforming.

But as it stands at the moment the law judges based on the potential for actually causing violence your words have. If Vylan had encouraged people at the festival to go burn down the Eavis farmhouse, he'd likely be prosecuted. But no one was leaving Glasto to sign up to join Hamas (I mean, you literally can't. You can't get into Gaza right now.)

I find that a fairly unsatisfying distinction but it's how the law works in the UK right now.

That distinction I find super satisfying! 

 

It's crime to be an accomplice to a crime that can happen, it's not a crime to be an accomplice to a purely theoretical one.

[DeanoL]

17 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

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.

 

Oh they want to. Israel isn't allowing them in. Point went over your head a bit there in a desire to get angry I suspect.

[Blisterpack]

1 minute ago, SheffJeff said:

 

Out of interest do you think it's a trait of the IDF to use violence or just your partner?

Bit unfair and you know it. That was a welcome perspective on this saga. 

[xxialac]

2 minutes ago, SheffJeff said:

 

Out of interest do you think it's a trait of the IDF to use violence or just your partner?

Oh, the penny has dropped now 🙂

 

Whilst maybe meant in jest, it's actually a perfect metaphor.

 

Inciting violence against the IDF is somehow more worthy of criticism than the actual violence committed by the IDF.

[DeanoL]

1 hour 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? 

People did attempt to go set fire to a hotel housing immigrants though. Which was the big problem for her. She might have intended it as hyperbole, but then someone did it. Did they get the idea from her post? Probably not. Maybe though. Currently the law doesn't require any link to be established, which I honestly don't like. She's serving more time than most of people who actually tried to do it, which doesn't seem helpful (albeit because it's harder to find and prosecute them).

 

One needs to be really careful what they post on social media in times of political unrest in this country. Not a situation I'm happy with, and I can see how these laws will end up being used to stitch up protestors in the future ("well you organise the protest that became a riot so you are responsible for the riot")  but I can't see how they can be used to stitch up Vylan.

[SouthbanKen]

41 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

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

I’d go a step further and suggest that this is exactly what they wanted. They are now more well known than they could have hoped to be, as are kneecap since their recent exposure. There is a high chance this is exactly what they hoped for. Notoriety sells. 

[Tinofsild]

20 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Super interesting set of perspectives, thank you. A couple of thoughts.

 

1. Anyone watching iplayer really has no practical means to seize the words chanted and attack an army in a far-flung land.

2. It's not the context that people in the cultural realm use the words, is it. One might forgive them for missing out on this nuance. And the nuance is critically undermined by Netanyahu using the same words!!

3. I don't like the idea of violence as only effective language either, completely agree.

 

I didn't understand the story about the lady with the potential black eye? (it is late...)

Ah just a joke really. Only she might not have been too happy about it. 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Tinofsild said:

Ah just a joke really. Only she might not have been too happy about it. 

If you did that on purpose you're a comedy genius 😄

[Tinofsild]

14 minutes ago, SheffJeff said:

 

Out of interest do you think it's a trait of the IDF to use violence or just your partner?

Haha - I walked into that one didn’t I? Was meant completely in jest as an example of how the words could create a flashpoint. I’m reasonably confident she’d have either bitten her lip or just said something.

[xxialac]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

One needs to be really careful what they post on social media in times of political unrest in this country. Not a situation I'm happy with, and I can see how these laws will end up being used to stitch up protestors in the future ("well you organise the protest that became a riot so you are responsible for the riot")  but I can't see how they can be used to stitch up Vylan.

I can't prove it but we have all lived through times of political unrest and remember the long sentences people got.

 

I'm quite keen not to live in a country on the brink of chaos so if the sentences act as a deterrent I'm all for it.

 

 

[xxialac]

Just now, Tinofsild said:

Haha - I walked into that one didn’t I? Was meant completely in jest as an example of how the words could create a flashpoint. I’m reasonably confident she’d have either bitten her lip or just said something.

She wanted to bite her lip? I bet they train IDF people to do that - disgusting!

[Tinofsild]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

She wanted to bite her lip? I bet they train IDF people to do that - disgusting!

Haha ! A well known combat technique! 

[Blisterpack]

20 minutes ago, Tinofsild said:

Haha ! A well known combat technique! 

Don’t!! Maxine Peake will be tweeting this in the morning!!

[gizmoman]

41 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

People did attempt to go set fire to a hotel housing immigrants though. Which was the big problem for her. She might have intended it as hyperbole, but then someone did it. Did they get the idea from her post? Probably not. Maybe though. Currently the law doesn't require any link to be established, which I honestly don't like. She's serving more time than most of people who actually tried to do it, which doesn't seem helpful (albeit because it's harder to find and prosecute them).

 

One needs to be really careful what they post on social media in times of political unrest in this country. Not a situation I'm happy with, and I can see how these laws will end up being used to stitch up protestors in the future ("well you organise the protest that became a riot so you are responsible for the riot")  but I can't see how they can be used to stitch up Vylan.

Not just at those times, the recent prosecutions and cancellations have had a chilling effect on peoples ability to criticise and comment on any controversial subject. Rioters and arsonists should get severe sentences, I'm not convinced people posting on social media are deserving of the same, (unless there is a proven link to the violence). BTW I'm not defending what Lucy C said, it was horrendous and she was guilty, pleaded guilty and is now paying the price.

 

Don't think there's any prospect of a conviction of BV, but they could try to prosecute just to stifle other voices. It's clear the political class and the media are quite happy to have any distraction from the real issue.

[xxialac]

3 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Don't think there's any prospect of a conviction of BV, but they could try to prosecute just to stifle other voices. It's clear the political class and the media are quite happy to have any distraction from the real issue.

Again, Vylan can't be prosecuted based on a desire to stifle other voices.

 

He can only be prosecuted based on what the law says today which is well codified. They can change the law in future but they have to apply the law we have today.

[gizmoman]

5 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Again, Vylan can't be prosecuted based on a desire to stifle other voices.

 

He can only be prosecuted based on what the law says today which is well codified. They can change the law in future but they have to apply the law we have today.

The law used is "inciting racial hatred" it's sufficiently vague to be used in this case if you can define the IDF as a different ethnic/religious group. Not difficult when they are one of the sides in what is seen as a religious war. 

 

There's more than enough in here to suggest "kill the IDF" could be incitement to racial hatred.  

 

Public order act 1986 Pt3

 

(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

 

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

 

 

[philipsteak]

5 hours ago, Tinofsild said:

Haha - I walked into that one didn’t I? Was meant completely in jest as an example of how the words could create a flashpoint. I’m reasonably confident she’d have either bitten her lip or just said something.

 

Based on the ones I've known over the years I can't imagine any Israeli biting their lip!

Not a criticism by the way.

[BobMahelp]

10 hours ago, SheffJeff said:

 

WW2 was fought between the allies and the axis... when you said 'we' I assumed you meant the allies and not England. Yes Germany lost more civilians than England but I'm not sure what that's got to do with Bob Vylan or the current genocide. FYI In WW2 Jewish and Muslim Palestinians fought side by side together against the axis.

“Jewish and Muslim Palestinians” what on earth are you talking about?