Music trade bodies accuse BBC of ‘arbitrary' changes after Bob Vylan Glastonbury set
There is serious concern among artists and music agencies over a BBC decision that means any musical performances deemed to be high risk will now not be broadcast live or streamed live.
It came after the BBC came under pressure from the government after it did not cut a Glastonbury livestream that showed Bobby Vylan, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, leading chants of 'death, death to the IDF', referring to the Israel Defense Forces.
The performance was never shown on traditional television, but viewers could have seen it via an on-demand livestream on the iPlayer, where it was available for five hours. Tim Davie, the BBC's director general, as well as the chair, Samir Shah, have apologised and disciplinary action is set to follow for some of those directly involved.
However, music industry insiders told the Guardian the corporation has committed a serious overreaction, pointing to the fact that extensive Glastonbury coverage has been running for years without serious incident. Several also cited free speech concerns for artists.
David Martin, head of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), the UK trade body representing music artists, said it was a moment for 'cool heads and an even-handed approach' as he called for a rethink.
'The BBC is absolutely fundamental to the continued success of British music, and particularly vital to supporting our new and emerging artists' development,' he said.
'The FAC wholeheartedly supports the network's remit for public service broadcasting, something which is encapsulated by their Glastonbury coverage. That remit also comes with responsibilities. The BBC is – rightly – held to the highest regulatory, legal and editorial standards. If those standards have been breached, then there should be appropriate guidelines to follow.
'But the idea of preemptively grading artists according to their 'risk' factor feels arbitrary and disproportionate – and a dangerous step towards censorship. That kind of approach could potentially curtail artistic freedom around certain genres, and inadvertently punish those who are simply expressing their views. It's a road I think we should resist going down.
'Live music is incredibly important to the UK. It provides entertainment and cultural capital. But it's also an art form, and our performers should be free to challenge, provoke and take risks.'
Naomi Pohl, general secretary of the Musicians' Union, said the BBC's decision to be more cautious about live music broadcasts 'concerns me a lot'.
'We really don't want to see the BBC broadcasting fewer live events,' she said. 'It's such a shame there has been a bit of this shadow cast over this year's Glastonbury coverage, because it has had fantastic viewing figures. It's been all over iPlayer and people have been tuning in live.
'We need to talk to the BBC about it directly. But I don't want to see any broadcasters now broadcasting fewer live events because they don't want to take the risk. The whole of the music industry will be feeling that, because it's so crucial to us to have the BBC.'
The BBC's decision came after significant political pressure. Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, said the incident - together with other ongoing BBC issues over Gaza coverage - could be 'a problem of leadership'. Davie currently has the support of the BBC board.
There is frustration among some in the BBC that the number of people who actually saw the Bob Vylan broadcast was very small. Others say editorial cuts have aggravated issues around the monitoring of live streams.
A BBC spokesperson said: 'We will continue to bring audiences a range of music performances, both live and on-demand, and we respect artists' freedom of expression. However, Bob Vylan's offensive and deplorable behaviour on one of our Glastonbury live streams was completely unacceptable and we are sorry it appeared on the BBC.
'This is why we have made immediate changes to livestreaming music events, and these alongside our editorial guidelines will shape our plans going forward.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Dorset village being upended by ‘faceless developers'
With its rows of thatched cottages, glorious cricket pitch and trickling brook, it is hard to imagine a more idyllic spot than the tiny village of Littlebredy, Dorset. It sits within the 2,047-acre Bridehead estate, at the heart of which is a Regency manor house with sprawling grounds, and many of the residents of the 32 historic properties have lived here for generations. They have also benefited from access to a picturesque lake and waterfall in the grounds of the manor house, which featured in ITV's hit crime drama Broadchurch. But this contented and close-knit community is now facing an uncertain future, after the £30-million estate was recently sold by its popular owners, Sir Philip Williams and his wife Catherine, to a 'faceless' investment company called Belport Ltd. A source has told The Telegraph that those behind Oxfordshire-based Belport are investors hoping to 'realise value' from their new asset over the next decade. But that 'realisation of value' has already come at a cost for those residents who have lived in Littlebredy under the estate's rolling tenancy agreements: one long-standing resident, cookery writer Christine McFadden, has now been forced out after her tenancy renewal was declined. Others fear significant rent increases or their houses being sold from under them. In early June, gates to the grounds of the manor house were also padlocked, and signs put up warning walkers that the 'permissive access' had been withdrawn and that they were to keep out, denying the residents and others their longstanding right to roam. Belport insists that it 'intends' to restore access to the waterfall once a health and safety check is completed. But sceptical locals and countryside campaigners are fighting back at what they see as a 'land grab'. On Saturday, roughly 70 people undertook a Right To Roam trespass across the land, scaling an old stone wall and walking to the beloved waterfall before having a picnic and reciting poetry. There was also a brief talk about Thomas Hardy, who knew the area well: a key character in his 1895 novel Jude the Obscure was named Sue Bridehead. One of the trespassers, Russell Giles, 65, of Dorchester, said he attended not just because of the beauty of the area, which he has frequented throughout his life, but because of the principle of the matter. 'It feels so heavy-headed and unnecessary, a faceless corporation taking away land that's been used by the public for 65 years,' he says. 'And the idea that they are doing so for health and safety reasons is ludicrous. It's a shallow lake and grassland. There's never been a problem. 'It's a similar story to the wild camping debate on Dartmoor, where a wealthy landowner moved in and tried to stop people from camping, which was their legal right. If we don't fight for our rights, we lose access to nature. And here, people might also lose their homes. It feels like an injustice.' For former resident McFadden, now in her 70s, and who attended the start of the protest, the whole situation is 'very distressing'. 'I lived in Littlebredy for 21 years and absolutely loved it,' she tells us from her new home in downtown Bridport, 10 miles away. 'It is beautiful and we used to roam everywhere, often to the waterfall, and had good links with the owners. But now it is totally different.' McFadden was driven out in April after her tenancy agreement was not renewed: her home has since been acquired as a new office for the estate. 'I was so upset when I got asked to move, but now I'm glad I don't live there,' she adds. 'Everyone is just full of angst and no one knows what's happening. The rumour is the properties will be done up and eventually sold off. But for the people who still live there, it is difficult with that uncertainty. 'There are three generations of one particular family, who all live in separate properties in the village. This is hard for them.' It is not difficult see why residents don't want to leave Littlebredy. Visiting the village, with its tea room, church, blacksmith barn and pretty cottages, is like travelling back in time to a simpler age. There are also ancient woodlands and clover-filled meadows. Until recently, Sir Philip and Lady Catherine Williams were the seventh generation of the Williams family to own the estate, after it was bought by banker and politician Robert Williams in 1797. Philip and Catherine were community minded: they allowed public access to part of their grounds – including the lake and waterfall, which have become hugely popular. But after renting out the house for filming for Broadchurch, they reportedly became frustrated with the influx of fans, whom they would sometimes find wandering across their lawn, and decided to sell up. The entire estate – which comprises the nine-bed manor house, 2,000 acres of rolling countryside, seven farms and the entire village of Littlebredy – spent several years on the market before Belport marched in. But because most of the village's properties are rented out on short tenancies, the residents are at the mercy of the estate's owners. Belport has insisted it has no plans to evict anyone – in other words, remove someone before their tenancy term is up – but the issue is weighing heavily on locals' minds. 'We are just praying they won't evict us,' says one local, who refuses to be named for fear of antagonising the new owners. 'We have lived here for years and raised our children here. There is nowhere else we would want to live. 'But we have no idea who the new owners actually are or their plans. We are completely powerless and just praying we won't have to move.' Indeed, there is scant information about Belport, with company listings only showing the directors as an Alexander John Stratford Davis and Frederick David James. In an unsigned statement, it said: 'Belport's background is in estate management and we have the goal of modernising and improving our assets through ongoing investment. 'Having bought the Bridehead estate, our principal focus is to orchestrate a sequence of upgrade works to each of the estate properties in Littlebredy, which will bring them up to current and anticipated minimum energy and safety standards required of all landlords. 'Contrary to reports, there are no plans to evict anyone.' The statement adds that access to the waterfall and lake, which has been accessible since the 1950s, had been 'temporarily suspended pending a health and safety review of access routes, trees and open water', but that, if any issues that arise can be addressed 'sufficiently [then] we intend to reopen the area to the public'. This however, has not been enough to reassure locals and protest groups. The source told The Telegraph that Belport Ltd are short-to-medium-term investors, and that they would most likely look to realise value from Bridehead in a few years. But it is not clear how this might happen and whether the estate will then be sold on again in its entirety or carved up and properties sold-off individually. Locals are also not reassured over the issue of access – hence the peaceful Right to Roam protest, which took place under warm sunshine. Protestor Hannah Giles, 71, a retired therapist, says: 'This village means a lot to a lot of people. I know people who have scattered ashes of loved ones who are not going to be able to visit them any more.' Tom Wieczorek, 30, a chemist who had made his way to the protest from Bristol, adds: 'Progressively more and more land is getting locked away from us. 'For me and my friends, getting out and being in beautiful nature is one of the things we enjoy in life. This doesn't set a good precedent for future generations and we must challenge it.' Meanwhile, the protest's organiser, Nadia Shaikh, says removing the access is wrong on moral grounds. 'As a right-to-roam campaign group, one of our methods to raise the profile of land access is to trespass,' she says. 'In this instance, we have had many emails from the public saying they can no longer access this beautiful lake and waterfall. 'This is the problem with permissive access. It can be taken away at the whim of a person – typically one man. Of course the new owners have the legal right to take it away, but to do so is, in our view, morally wrong and deeply sad. 'This is why, in a wider context, we are campaigning for a rights-based system to the natural world, similar to Scotland, where people have access to nature regardless of who owns it.' There are also concerns that even if residents of this historic community are given the option to stay in their beloved homes, rent hikes from modernisation may make them unaffordable. This hardly aligns with Labour's housing policies. 'This situation points to a rural housing crisis that threatens to tear communities apart,' says a spokesman for CPRE, the Countryside Charity. 'Speculative development, along with a boom in second-home ownership and short-term lets, has helped push up rural rents and house prices faster than those in other parts of the country, while rural wages remain much lower. 'The Government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, could improve the situation by tackling the stranglehold of big developers, linking 'affordable' housing to local incomes, and setting meaningful targets for social and genuinely affordable homes.' Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrat MP for West Dorset, Edward Morello, says: 'I have spoken to Belport and raised both the concerns of tenants of the estate and residents of West Dorset. 'The uncertainty has caused unnecessary distress to residents of Littlebredy and I have made clear to Belport that they must do better to communicate their long-term plans for the Bridehead Estate. 'It is right that the residents of Littlebredy have confidence that they are not going to be suddenly evicted, and that local people can visit the beautiful waterfall on the estate. I intend to hold them to both commitments.' But, despite the best efforts from campaigners, it seems time may be running out for this unique community. Sitting in her suntrap of a garden, with views over the rolling Dorset hills, another Littlebredy resident (who doesn't want to be named) says change was inevitable. '[Because] the houses are all on short tenancies, residents only need to be given a few months' notice to get out,' she says. 'But many people have worked on the estate, and everyone is anxious because we are a unique community, no one wants to leave and the investors are being so secretive about their actual plans.' 'It is really very sad that the Williams family is gone, because everyone loved them,' she adds. 'Now we are at the mercy of the investors, and we just have to see what happens. It feels like the end of an era.'
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
AngryGinge arrested on suspicion of causing £30k of damage to Formula One car at Silverstone - as YouTuber reveals 15-hour ordeal in custody
YouTube and Soccer Aid star, AngryGinge, was arrested at the British Grand Prix. AngryGinge, real name Morgan Burtwistle, and two fellow streamers were accused of causing £30,000-worth of damage to an F1 car on display at Silverstone on Friday. A Northamptonshire Police spokesperson told TalkSport: 'On Friday, July 4, Northamptonshire Police received a report that a classic car on display at Silverstone Circuit during the British Grand Prix event had sustained several thousands of pounds worth of damage, which was alleged to have been caused by someone accessing the display stand and climbing into the vehicle. 'Officers carried out initial inquiries, and suspects were identified. 'Three men, aged 23, 25 and 27, were arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage to a vehicle and taken into police custody. 'Following a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the incident, all three men were released with no further action.' NYK CHAZZA BREAKS F1 CAR #nykchazza #angryginge #f1 #redbull — Jay Hulme (@JayHulme1316510) July 4, 2025 Pictures on social media showed AngryGinge being led away by the police on Friday at a fan event at the iconic circuit. Chazza and SamHam, also streamers, were the others accused of causing criminal damage to a BWT Racing Point F1 Team car - an accusation they all vehemently deny. A video emerged of 'Chazza' approaching the display car before a snapping sound was heard, with AngryGinge saying: 'I think the suspension on the car has just gone.' The trio were questioned by police at a station 17 miles away and AngryGinge revealed his side of the story on TikTok. 'For sitting in a car, they got us, you don't do that at F1,' he said. 'They locked us up for watching somebody else sitting in a car - they locked SamHam up for watching somebody else sit in a car. 'They locked Chazza up for sitting in a car, criminal damage, they tried to say. 30 grand, they tried to say... 'Security's then come over, a very funny little moment where I've tried to grass Chaz up. Two hours have gone past, you'd have thought I assaulted someone, let me tell you... Chazza has sat in an F1 car. — angryginge (@angryginge13) July 5, 2025 'I offered to show him the video there and then. The words, okay, from the gentleman in the cap, "there's no point, mate. You can show us at the station." 'What the f*** is going on here then? We pull up into custody, he said, "Do you want a solicitor?" 'And I said, "Sarge, I'm all right, thanks". He then replied, "Why don't you want a solicitor?" Done f*** all wrong mate. He added: 'My toilet has got skids in. He's gone, "would you like any food and drink?" - "What've you got, mate?" 'He said, "We've got pot noodles". 'So, anyway, I've managed to fall asleep, then about 10 seconds go by, and a guy in the cell next to me starts banging for no reason. '10 o'clock in the morning, I'm thinking it is, and the door opens, I'm thinking it might be interview time. Officer opens it, "you're free to go, there's no further action." 'I've just spent 15 hours in a concrete block, and I'm now being told, no further action. 'I've not been questioned, interviewed, and that's that. 'All three of us have just been let out at the same time, no further action, done finished.' AngryGinge recently played in Soccer Aid and the huge Manchester United fan won the player of the match at Old Trafford. With the game poised at 4-4 in the latter stages, he went in for a strong slide tackle on Carlos Tevez, who made sure to leave something on him during the collision - a nasty cut on his leg. Angry Ginge shared a photo of the gash on his leg afterwards, writing 'cheers Tevez, t***' on social media, but he was not done there. Taking to Twitch, he bragged about his programme had been signed by other Soccer Aid favourites, before launching into a re-imagination of 'Zombie' by the Cranberries. 'In your head, in your head, Tevez, Tevez, Tevez-ez-ez, I'm in your head, in your head, Tevez, Tevez, Tevez-ez-ez,' the 23-year-old sang.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Music trade bodies accuse BBC of ‘arbitrary' changes after Bob Vylan Glastonbury set
Music industry figures have accused the BBC of making 'arbitrary and disproportionate' changes to its coverage of live music after the fallout from Bob Vylan's Glastonbury festival performance. There is serious concern among artists and music agencies over a BBC decision that means any musical performances deemed to be high risk will not be broadcast live or streamed live. The BBC came under pressure from the government after it did not cut a Glastonbury livestream that showed Bobby Vylan, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, leading chants of 'death, death to the IDF', referring to the Israel Defense Forces. The performance was never shown on terrestrial television, but viewers could have seen it via an on-demand livestream on iPlayer, where it was available for five hours. The BBC's director general, Tim Davie, and chair, Samir Shah, have apologised and disciplinary action is expected for some of those directly involved. However, music industry insiders said the corporation has seriously overreacted, pointing to the fact that extensive Glastonbury coverage has been running for years without serious incident. Several also cited free speech concerns for artists. David Martin, the head of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), the UK trade body representing music artists, called for a rethink and said it was a moment for 'cool heads and an even-handed approach'. 'The BBC is absolutely fundamental to the continued success of British music, and particularly vital to supporting our new and emerging artists' development,' he said. 'The FAC wholeheartedly supports the network's remit for public service broadcasting, something which is encapsulated by their Glastonbury coverage. That remit also comes with responsibilities. The BBC is rightly held to the highest regulatory, legal and editorial standards. If those standards have been breached, then there should be appropriate guidelines to follow. 'But the idea of preemptively grading artists according to their 'risk' factor feels arbitrary and disproportionate – and a dangerous step towards censorship. That kind of approach could potentially curtail artistic freedom around certain genres and inadvertently punish those who are simply expressing their views. It's a road I think we should resist going down. 'Live music is incredibly important to the UK. It provides entertainment and cultural capital. But it's also an art form, and our performers should be free to challenge, provoke and take risks.' Naomi Pohl, the general secretary of the Musicians' Union, said she was very concerned by the BBC's decision to be more cautious about live music broadcasts. 'We really don't want to see the BBC broadcasting fewer live events,' she said. 'It's such a shame there has been this shadow cast over this year's Glastonbury coverage, because it has had fantastic viewing figures. It's been all over iPlayer and people have been tuning in live. 'We need to talk to the BBC about it directly. But I don't want to see any broadcasters now broadcasting fewer live events because they don't want to take the risk. The whole of the music industry will be feeling that, because it's so crucial to us to have the BBC.' The BBC's decision came after significant political pressure. Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, said the incident – together with other BBC issues over Gaza coverage – could be 'a problem of leadership'. Davie currently has the support of the BBC board. There is frustration among some in the BBC that the number of people who actually saw the Bob Vylan broadcast was very small. Others say editorial cuts have aggravated issues around the monitoring of live streams. A BBC spokesperson said: 'We will continue to bring audiences a range of music performances, both live and on-demand, and we respect artists' freedom of expression. However, Bob Vylan's offensive and deplorable behaviour on one of our Glastonbury live streams was completely unacceptable and we are sorry it appeared on the BBC. 'This is why we have made immediate changes to livestreaming music events, and these alongside our editorial guidelines will shape our plans going forward.'
