War crimes, not festival acts, should be dominating the headlines
Predictably, Kneecap's performance enjoyed huge crowds with justifiable denunciation of the rabid right-wing Israeli government and Keir Starmer's continued immoral justification for his government's non-interventionist stance – apart, that is, from the maintenance of supplying arms to Netanyahu to enable the genocide of the Palestinian people.
READ MORE: Met police drop second terror charge against Kneecap
Daily reports of the IDF firing on desperate crowds trying to obtain food and water for themselves and their families are consistently ignored or obfuscated by the majority of the media and politicians in the UK. The systematic murder of civilians does not even warrant token coverage by the 'just and equitable' BBC as soldiers from the IDF use them for target practice.
It is accurate to state that Bob Vylan crossed the line of common decency in their rhetoric to the Glastonbury crowd but it is nonetheless frustrating to realise that this then becomes the story for television and newspapers, and not the acts of barbarity committed by the Netanyahu administration, a gang of heinous war criminals. There are governments in Europe that are prepared to make a righteous and humanitarian stance with regards the international crimes being carried out in Palestine. Spain and Ireland spring readily to mind.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer responds Bob Vylan's Glastonbury Festival chants
Would it be too much to ask that our own First Minister nail his colours to the mast by castigating the UK Government for its ongoing tangible support for the abhorrent Israeli government and the disproportionate overreaction of Starmer's government to the actions of the Palestine Action group and Kneecap? Scotland should be on the right side of history with compassion and humanitarianism at the fore.
And for those who believe young bands like Kneecap have an invidious political influence over their young (and not so young!) followers, please note that one of the headliners at Glastonbury, none other than Rod Stewart, was doing his best to sway his fans as well. The octogenarian, who plainly has a head emptier than the Albion Rovers trophy cabinet, seems to have channelled his inner John Lennon by entreating us all to 'give Farage a chance'. Really Rod, I don't want to talk about it.
Owen Kelly
Stirling
WAR and violence is the failure of leadership. The ultimate display of weakness and hypocrisy. Maybe the intellectually challenged occupant of Downing Street should read the above and inwardly digest it. That way, the rest of us might have a future.
Margaret Forbes
Blanefield
IT is difficult to suppress a very tiny smile when reading the story of convicted fraudster Thomas Robinson, also known as Tam O'Braan (was this alias not a wee hint?), who between 2014 and 2019 tricked high-end retailers and very well-known hotels into buying fake 'Scottish-grown' tea. He has just been jailed for three-and-a-half years. His 'Scottish' tea was in fact purchased from a wholesaler in Oxford and resold with an inflated price tag.
Apparently his scheme received support from the Scottish Government, and I seem to remember him appearing on at least one national TV news programme. Given his deception was to the value of more than £500,000 and ran for five years, a curious person might wonder why it has taken another five years to bring him to justice.
READ MORE: Fraudster jailed for 3 years over Scottish tea scam
Clearly he is a man of some considerable talent, however misguided, who one could imagine selling sand to Arabs and ice to Eskimos. Perhaps when he is released from prison he could find a senior position in the likes of Scottish Enterprise or in the public relations department of CalMac.
On the final day of the Scottish Parliament before its summer holiday break, legislation was passed to allow prisoners to be released having serving only 15% of their sentence. If this were to be applied to Mr O'Braan's 42-month sentence, he could be released some time in January 2026 – only six months from now. He would miss Christmas and New Year at home but I wonder if he would be eligible to stand in the May 2026 Scottish Parliament elections?
Brian Lawson
Paisley
THE description of a Hearts investor as a 'professional gambler, poker player and entrepreneur' in Saturday's edition neatly sums up the state of professional football in this country. Add in the 'apology' to Rangers fans from an erstwhile big wheel at Ibrox and it's plain that the game, once almost the sole preserve and passion of working people, has been infiltrated by money men operating near the edge of legality. Contempt for the rules has percolated down to player level, with blatant cheating now endemic and seemingly accepted as part of the game. Not the sport it used to be.
Jim Butchart
via email
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
PETER TATCHELL: How can 5 words provoke more outrage than Israel's mass killing?
Something is seriously wrong when chanting five words provokes more outrage than Israel's mass killing of civilians in Gaza, including 15,000 children. Bob Vylan led crowds at Glastonbury in chants of 'Death, death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces].' He said he was calling for a 'change in foreign policy.' Such a call is legitimate free speech but the way he expressed it is questionable. Although I am highly critical of Israel's (and Hamas's) war crimes, I would not have used those words. But from a Palestinian perspective, Israel is indiscriminately bombing their homes, shops, hospitals and schools. To them, those words are the equivalent to British people saying 'Death, death to the German airforce', as it bombed our cities during World War Two. If we defend the latter, why is a similar sentiment against the IDF over its war crimes so outrageous? Free speech includes the right to say offensive, and even appalling, things. But it does not include the right to make violent threats. 'Death, death to the IDF' comes very close to inciting the murder of Israeli soldiers, in response to their murder of innocent Palestinians. If it had been a call to kill specific Israeli personnel, the charge of incitement might be answerable in court. But a generic call for death probably would not. Besides, no one at Glastonbury is going to kill an Israeli soldier as a result of Vylan's words. It's protest rhetoric; not intended to be taken literally. On the other hand, if a neo-Nazi band urged 'Death, death to black people' most of us would find that unacceptable. We'd agree it was tantamount to inciting murder and could pose a real threat to the safety of Black Britons from violent far right groups. The BBC had no idea what Vylan was going to say. But to cover itself, it posted on-screen warnings about discriminatory language during his set. It could have switched coverage when the offensive chants were heard, which may have been the best option. But that would have left the BBC open to the charge of censorship. Either way, the real issue is the moral obligation to speak out against war crimes. That's what Vylan did, even if his words were outrageous.
South Wales Argus
12 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Lisa Nandy hits out at BBC leadership over Glastonbury live stream
The Culture Secretary said 'several' editorial failures 'becomes a problem of leadership', during a statement to the Commons on Monday. It came after rapper Bobby Vylan led crowds at the festival's West Holts Stage in chants of 'free, free Palestine' and 'death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)' on Saturday. Ms Nandy said the Government is 'exasperated' with the 'lack of account from the leadership', as MPs from across the chamber called for accountability. Bobby Vylan performing at Glastonbury Festival (Ben Birchall/PA) In a statement on the BBC and Glastonbury, she said 'problems with broadcasts' at the festival 'should have been foreseeable'. Labour MP Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) said: 'How are Jews such as myself, in this country, to be reassured about the editorial processes of the BBC? And who on Earth will be held accountable for this error?' Ms Nandy replied: 'He makes an extremely important point about accountability, and that is something that is not lost on me as the Secretary of State, and something that I've impressed upon the BBC leadership as well. 'When you have one editorial failure, it's something that must be gripped. When you have several, it becomes a problem of leadership.' Conservative former minister John Glen said: 'I think we all in this place understand the fine editorial judgments that the BBC and their staff have to make, but this is of a completely different order, and when people are losing faith in the great institutions of this country, could I urge the Secretary of State, in her follow-up conversations that … the BBC actually identified accountability to individuals?' He added: 'Somebody didn't follow that guidance, and I think the country expects people to be held individually to account for why they fail to do their job properly.' Ms Nandy replied: 'I think people do expect people to be held to account for the way that they do their jobs, be that on the front line or at senior levels. It's a point that I've made to the BBC. 'They will have heard what he said and what (Mr Prinsley) said as well about accountability, and it's a point that I will continue to press.' Jim Allister, TUV MP for North Antrim, described the live stream as 'an appalling pro-terrorist broadcast', adding: 'The BBC deliberately chose not to cut the broadcast, perhaps therefore it's time for Government to consider cutting the licence fee?' Ms Nandy replied: 'He will know that this Government supports the BBC. We believe it is an important institution. 'That is why we are so disappointed that this has happened, why we have been so exasperated with the lack of account from the leadership, not just about this, but about a previous Gaza documentary and a number of other issues as well. 'The BBC is one of the most important institutions in our country, and that is the reason why it is held to the highest of standards.' Conservative MP Dame Caroline Dinenage, who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said: 'I wonder if the Secretary of State could say what explanation the BBC has given for why this live stream wasn't cut? 'Now it can't be for lack of staff on the ground. They took a reported 400 people to Glastonbury at the weekend. What were they all doing?' Ms Nandy replied: 'I think she's right to raise the question of what the number of staff who were present at the Glastonbury Festival, or working on the broadcast, were doing. 'But I do think this also raises very, very serious questions at the highest levels of the BBC about the operational oversight and the way in which editorial standards are understood and reflected in the decisions that are made by individual staff.' Shadow culture secretary Stuart Andrew called for an independent inquiry, claiming the BBC 'has repeatedly failed to call out antisemitic rhetoric, when it emerges under the guise of political commentary, and has faced serious allegations of minimising attacks on Jewish communities'. Ms Nandy replied: 'What I want to see from the BBC, and I know he shares this, is rapid action to make sure this cannot happen again.' She also claimed an Independent MP was 'aligning himself with antisemites'. Ayoub Khan, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, had accused the Government of 'hypocrisy' because it did not make a statement when Israeli football fans 'were chanting 'death to all Arabs'' in November last year. Ms Nandy said she 'could not disagree more', adding: 'I think every member of this House will utterly condemn chants of 'death to all Arabs' – it's disgusting and disgraceful.' She continued: 'The reason I have brought a statement to the House today is because our national broadcaster, which is funded by the licence fee, which is paid by the public in this country, has broadcast something that is deeply, deeply offensive to a community in this country, that has made many, many people feel and may actually have made them unsafe. 'Can I just say to him that as a longstanding supporter of justice for the Palestinians, he does nothing for the Palestinian cause by aligning himself with antisemites.' In a point of order, Mr Khan said: 'At no stage have I said in my question or statement that I was aligning myself to anyone at that Glastonbury event.'
The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Who are the key Labour rebels in the revolt against Starmer's welfare bill?
Keir Starmer's welfare reforms hang by a thread the day before a vote that could define his premiership. The prime minister was almost certainly heading for his first Commons defeat in government before a last-minute deal reached last week between government officials and leading rebels. However, the result remains uncertain, with a series of Labour MPs warning on Monday that they could not back the bill in its current form. Many are angry about the fact that the controversial four-point system to qualify for personal independence payments (Pips) will take effect in November 2026, no matter the outcome of a government review into the system. With ministers still unsure of winning the vote, Labour whips were calling colleagues throughout Monday to gauge support levels. One of the problems for party managers is that opposition is coming from a large and disparate group without one clear leader. But here are six of the Labour figures – inside and outside parliament – whose voices are being listened to particularly closely. MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch As head of the cross-party Treasury select committee, Hillier's parliamentary role is more usually that of impartial inquisitor rather than rabble-rousing rebel. So, her name as the first signatory on last week's wrecking amendment gave the rebellion the momentum it needed to force the government into concessions. It was unsurprising, therefore, that Hillier was one of the small group of MPs who thrashed out a compromise deal last week. Her support for that deal was vital in persuading the government they had done enough to sway other moderates. But her questions in the House of Commons on Monday over the details of the concessions reflected an unease about the details which is shared by many of her colleagues. MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth Along with Hillier, Abrahams, the chair of the work and pensions select committee, helped negotiate the compromise package struck last week. But also like Hillier, her comments in the Commons on Monday suggested she was still unconvinced that they go far enough. 'The [Pip] review should determine both the new process, the new points and the new descriptors,' she said. 'We shouldn't pre-determine it at four points at the moment.' Abrahams is understood to be more hardline in her opposition to the compromise she helped agree than Hillier, and whips will be working hard to talk her round. MP for Sheffield Heeley Having been sacked from the cabinet last November, Haigh has found a new lease of life as unofficial leader of the soft left on the Labour backbenches. Although she has not played the most visible role of the rebels, she has been acting as their unofficial whip, counting MPs' votes and helping to decide the wording of the wrecking amendment. Haigh was thought to have been mollified by the government's concessions last week, but on Monday her allies were criticising the government for the way they had handled the fallout. MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge For the last few weeks, Tidball has remained largely silent on the welfare bill, despite being one of parliament's only visibly physically disabled MPs. Although she had not put her name to the rebel amendment, she played an important role trying to persuade the Treasury to make concessions, culminating in what is reported to have been an angry conversation between her and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. Tidball broke her silence on Sunday, detailing her objections to the bill in a piece for the Guardian. She made an impassioned contribution to Monday's debate in which she argued: 'Having no public consultation of these plans excludes the voice of disabled people.' However, she has not yet said which way she intends to vote and her final decision will be keenly watched by Labour whips. MP for York Central A persistent thorn in Starmer's side, Maskell has emerged as a softly spoken champion of the left of the party. From winter fuel payments, to overseas aid cuts, to compensation for Waspi women, Maskell has often been one of the government's most eloquent left-wing opponents. Party managers expect the MP for York Central to line up against them on Tuesday. If they persuade her not to, they could peel off a large chunk of the remaining rebels. Mayor of Greater Manchester When Keir Starmer is in trouble, Andy Burnham has a knack of making himself prominent. The Greater Manchester mayor does not have a vote in Tuesday's debate, but his intervention over the weekend, telling MPs not to vote for a '50% U-turn', will have been noticed in Downing Street and on the soft left of the party. Burnham's position was echoed on Monday by his London counterpart, Sadiq Khan, pitting the country's two most powerful Labour politicians outside Westminster against the prime minister.
