Calls for Kneecap to be axed from TRNSMT 2025 over 'kill your local MP' comments
Calls are being made for Irish rappers Kneecap to be axed from TRNSMT 2025.
It comes after videos emerged on Friday of the group urging fans to 'kill your local MP'.
Clips from a London gig in 2023 have also resurfaced, showing one of the trio claiming: 'The only good Tory is a dead Tory.'
It follows the murders of Tory MSP Sir David Amess and Labour's Jo Cox.
(Image: Photo credit: Brian Lawless/PA Wire) The trio are set to perform at the Glasgow Green festival on Friday, July 11.
However, Stephen Kerr, Central Scotland Tory MSP says the group should banned from the upcoming summer event, as reported in The Scottish Sun.
Kerr added: 'Glorifying the murder of elected representatives is not 'edgy' or 'rebellious'.
'It is criminal incitement to violence. Sir David Amess and Jo Cox were murdered for doing their jobs.
'No civilised society can tolerate this kind of poison.
"Yet unbelievably, the organisers in Glasgow still intend to give these extremists a global platform. They should immediately reconsider.'
Similarly, MSP Annie Wells, said: 'Tensions already run high over the nature and many of their lyrics and political messaging.
'The last thing we need is an incident kicking off in response to their views.'
TRNSMT organisers DF Concerts and Police Scotland were contacted for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Picked the Worst Possible Time to Hold a Military Parade
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME's politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. It's sometimes easy to go numb living here in Washington. On most days, the Vice President's motorcade rumbles under many of our office windows, traveling from the Naval Observatory to the White House in the morning and back shortly after his workday ends. It's not uncommon to spot a trio of white-topped helicopters zipping over the Potomac while crowds are having dinner down at The Wharf; one is transporting a head of state while the other two are decoys. And was that the Irish Taoiseach hanging out at Little Gay Pub and Kiki on St. Patrick's Day weekend? Yes, that nation's then-leader was visiting from Dublin and making the rounds on the LGBTQ circuit after his official day ended. But the scene in my neighborhood the last two nights stood as a stark reminder that this weekend is shaping up to be surreal, even by D.C. standards. It's been hard to miss the military tanks rolling by on flatbed trucks around Eckington, Bloomingdale, and Shaw, heading past the city's convention center to get in position for a pricey parade on Saturday ordered by President Donald Trump. And if that spectacle were not shocking enough on its own, these giant weapons of war have been rumbling through residential streets in the U.S. capital at the same time as U.S. troops are deployed in the nation's second-largest city to help advance deeply unpopular immigration raids that have sparked protests across the nation. The jarring splitscreen reality is one that is arriving at perhaps the most tone-deaf moment so far of Trump's second term. Ostensibly, the parade is marking the quarter-century birthday for the U.S. Army. (It also just happens to be Trump's 79th birthday, which is a very convenient coincidence that has even some of the President's apologists rolling their eyes at the cover story.) On the West Coast, as many as 2,000 National Guardsmen have been ordered up for active duty in Los Angeles, in direct violation of protocols that defer to each state's Governor, who is nominally the commander in chief of their reserve military. Trump also sent 700 Marines to Los Angeles to add to the uniformed legions that, to this point, have inflamed tensions, not quelled them. And there are whiffs that Los Angeles is merely a test case to see just how compliant Americans will be to see the world's greatest fighting force turn against the very people who pick up its tab. As Trump told reporters on Tuesday, those choosing to object publicly may come to regret it: 'For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force.' So as Trump stands in Washington this Saturday as M1A2 tanks, Stryker armored vehicles, and M109s tear up some of D.C. iconic boulevards, an actual live military operation stands to be unfolding on the streets of Los Angeles—and maybe other cities as well, given Trump's orders are not limited to that one locality. D.C.'s airspace will be shut down for hours to make way for flying fortresses to buzz overhead. And a trick parachute troop plans to airdrop to the viewing platform to deliver Trump an American flag that is destined to land in his future presidential library. It's one thing to watch a military display for show; it's another to watch live ammo be fired into the air to put down domestic demonstrations. The disconnect between Trump's stagings of brute force is striking and more than a little worrisome for those who have long thought civilian control of the military would have stopped such a craven choice. Trump has long fetishized the military hardware he controls. During his first term, he sought to flash this power after seeing a similar demonstration on a visit to France for Bastile Day; his military brass convinced him it was a bad idea and not worth the price. Given his long-standing obsession with autocratic regimes, it's little surprise that he is plunging ahead with a flex that feels more like something we'd see in Moscow or Pyongyang. The public is far from covering Trump's flank here. Trump's standing in polls sank underwater in March and hasn't recovered since, according to Nate Silver's modeling. A Quinnipiac poll out Wednesday puts Trump's approval rating at a measly 38%. He's even drawing a decided deficit on immigration and deportations—previously thought to be his best issues. Going back through post-World War II polling indices, Trump is faring worse than any President since 1953, save for how he was doing during his first term, according to analyst G. Elliott Morris. So as D.C. streets are clogged with war tools staging for Saturday's pricey pageant—6,600 soldiers, 50 aircraft, and 150 military vehicles at a price of $45 million—it's worth reminding ourselves that this is a show that seems to have little purpose beyond boosting Trump's ego. But as his legions of supporters like to say, forget your feelings. The American public is not behind this show, let alone the policies that the White House is hoping it distracts from. The splitscreen between Washington and L.A. is disturbing, the implications dire. It's easy to forget that the nation and the world watch what happens in Washington far closer than the folks who live it day to day, and the war footing being adopted in a city fast approaching warzone timbre is not one that inspires confidence in America as the world's peacemakers. In fact, Trump's birthday blowout could be seen as a reboot of the entire post-Cold War ethos America has strived to convey for the last three decades—all over a parade coinciding with a domestic military crackdown.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Reeves's choices will make Britain poorer
The French statesman Pierre Mendes-France once said that to govern is to choose, and it was a maxim repeated often by the Chancellor in her spending statement to the Commons today. 'I have made my choices. In place of chaos, I choose stability. In place of decline, I choose investment. In place of retreat, I choose national renewal. These are my choices. These are this Government's choices. These are the British people's choices.' This might have sounded like a nice rhetorical flourish – an ironic echo of Mrs Thatcher quoting Francis of Assisi in 1979 – but what does it tell us about the Government's priorities? It is to continue spending money we do not earn and do not have because Labour is unwilling to take the difficult decisions necessary to reform the areas that cost the most to sustain, namely welfare and the NHS. The Treasury ostensibly spent months conducting what is called a zero-based spending review, testing budgets against whether they meet the Government's objectives and priorities. But who decides what they should be? An increase in defence spending has been forced on Labour and will be paid for from raiding the overseas aid budget. In a rare moment of candour the Chancellor admitted the 2.6 per cent of GDP would include spending on intelligence, not just the military. But Nato has asked for core spending of 3.5 per cent plus an additional 1.5 per cent for associated budgets. Labour will be nowhere near the requirement. That is their choice. Another priority is to allocate an extra £30 billion to 'our NHS' on top of the £22 billion already handed over when Labour took office last year. But where are the commensurate reforms that will ensure this is not wasted as so much money has been before? Wes Streeting has yet to unveil his masterplan for the NHS so we don't know; but history tells us to expect little in the way of change. Indeed, a renewed commitment to the nationalised ethos of the NHS, first set out in 1948, was cheered by MPs. That has ensured another decade of decline. Surely, with debt so high, the whole point of examining eye-watering levels of government spending is to try to bring it down, not tinker at the edges of departmental budgets while the overall amount balloons. But that is what we are seeing. The only savings she announced involved the closure of some public buildings, cutting back office costs and other 'efficiencies'. How often have we heard this before? Ms Reeves, who claims to have inherited a broken economy, has within the space of 12 months apparently so transformed its fortunes that she is able to splurge. She still believes that growth will provide the revenues even though her policies are inimical to economic expansion. Figures this week show the number of people in jobs has slumped at the fastest rate since 2014 directly as a result of the Chancellor's increase in employer National Insurance which took effect in the spring. How has that helped boost the economy? Ms Reeves made much of giving the go-ahead to extra investment in national infrastructure, such as roads, regional airports and local transport, which is undoubtedly needed, even though day to day spending will fall. All her hopes for growth rest on kick-starting major projects, including a swathe of social housebuilding schemes underpinned by a £39 billion investment over 10 years and reforms to planning laws to limit the scope for objections. But the industry says a serious shortage of skilled workers makes such promises impossible to fulfil. Moreover, will 'affordable housing' be filled by illegal immigrants ejected from hotels? The biggest issue is how to rein in spending on programmes that are spiralling out of control. Reforms of personal independence payments (PIPs) are in the pipeline but will they really go ahead? Labour Left-winger Richard Burgon said during Prime Minister's Questions that party backbenchers will not support the £5 billion cuts in a vote expected later this month. Scores of Labour MPs have signalled opposition and while Sir Keir Starmer stuck to his guns, this week's U-turn on the winter fuel allowance shows how he can buckle under pressure. The biggest problem facing the country is unsustainable debt, now around 100 per cent of GDP and record levels of taxation. Just paying the interest costs more than the defence budget and yet borrowing continues to grow. Nothing the Chancellor announced will reduce debt and everyone knows that she will have to raise taxes in the autumn or risk a market backlash. She keeps saying this is all being done to help 'working people' but they seem not to include the people who pay most tax, many of whom are already leaving the country. Net emigration among higher earners has reached its highest level since the financial crash. Like Labour chancellors of yore, she is spending money she does not have and will need to take more from wealth creators to fund it. Another French statesman, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, once said: 'The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.' The Chancellor has made her choice – not to pluck the goose that lays the golden egg, but to kill it. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Daily T: ‘Spending like a drunken sailor'– Rachel Reeves's splurge-a-thon
Rachel Reeves has unveiled her first major spending review, pledging tens of billions in additional funding for public services, including £29 billion a year for the NHS, a £4.5 billion boost for schools, and a rise in defence spending to 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027. But the Chancellor stopped short of explaining how the Government would fund these ambitious commitments, fuelling Tory warnings of looming tax rises. Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, accused her of having 'completely lost control', calling it a 'spend now, tax later' plan that kicked tough choices down the road. So how will the Government balance the books? And what will the spending review mean for you? Camilla is outside Parliament with Reform's Richard Tice, who says Reeves is 'cratering the economy' and is obsessed with his party. Plus, Tory Andrew Griffith explains why his party has disowned Liz Truss's economics and Labour MP Chris Curtis says the spending review will help his party 'stand up to the forces of people like Nigel Farage'. Watch episodes of the Daily T here. You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
