BBC Regrets Not Stopping Glastonbury Livestream Of Bob Vylan
London:
Britain's BBC said it regretted not stopping the livestream of punk-rap duo Bob Vylan's set at Glastonbury after the performance included chants against the Israeli military, drawing condemnation from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
The BBC has come under fire for allowing the performance to be shown live on Saturday as a Bob Vylan member led the crowd in chanting "death, death to the IDF," a reference to the Israel Defense Forces, following chants of "free, free Palestine."
The BBC, which broadcasts the festival in southwest England, issued a warning on screen while the set was being streamed online, but said on Monday it should have gone further.
The comments were "utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves," the national broadcaster said in a statement.
"The team were dealing with a live situation but with hindsight we should have pulled the stream during the performance," the BBC added. "We regret this did not happen."
The BBC said it would look at its guidance around live events so that in future its teams were clear on what is acceptable content to be shown.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Starmer faces down revolt over welfare reform after first year in office
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer marks a year in office this week, fighting a rebellion from his own party over welfare reform and reckoning with a sluggish economy and rock-bottom approval ratings. It's a long way from the landslide election victory he won on July 4, 2024, when Starmer's center-left Labour Party took 412 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons to end 14 years of Conservative government. In the last 12 months Starmer has navigated the rapids of a turbulent world, winning praise for rallying international support for Ukraine and persuading US President Donald Trump to sign a trade deal easing tariffs on UK goods. But at home his agenda has run onto the rocks as he struggles to convince British voters and his own party that his government is delivering the change that it promised. Inflation remains stubbornly high and economic growth low, frustrating efforts to ease the cost of living. Starmer's personal approval ratings are approaching those of Conservative Prime Minister Liz Truss, who lasted just 49 days in office in 2022 after her tax-cutting budget roiled the economy. John Curtice, a political scientist at the University of Strathclyde, said Starmer has had the worst start for any newly elected prime minister. Rebellion over welfare reform On Tuesday, Starmer faces a vote in Parliament on welfare spending after watering down planned cuts to disability benefits that caused consternation from Labour lawmakers. Many balked at plans to raise the threshold for the payments by requiring a more severe physical or mental disability, a move the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank estimated would cut the income of 3.2 million people by 2030. After more than 120 Labour lawmakers said they would vote against the bill, the government offered concessions, including a guarantee that no one currently getting benefits will be affected by the change. It pledged to consult with disability groups about the changes, and do more to help sick and disabled people find jobs. Some rebels said they would back the bill after the concessions, but others maintained their opposition. The welfare U-turn is the third time in a few weeks that the government has reversed course on a policy under pressure. In May, it dropped a plan to end winter home heating subsidies for millions of retirees. Last week, Starmer announced a national inquiry into organised child sexual abuse, something he was pressured to do by opposition politicians and Elon Musk. It's a failure of leadership for a prime minister with such a big majority to not be able to get their agenda through, said Rob Ford, professor of politics at the University of Manchester. I can't think of many examples of a prime minister in postwar politics suffering such a big setback when presiding over such a strong position in the Commons. It also makes it harder for the government to find money to invest in public services without raising taxes. The government estimated the welfare reforms would save 5 billion pounds ($7 billion) a year from a welfare bill that has ballooned since the COVID-19 pandemic. After the concessions, it's only likely to save about half that amount. Starmer acknowledges errors The government argues that it has achieved much in its first year: It has raised the minimum wage, strengthened workers' rights, launched new social housing projects and pumped money into the state-funded health system. But it has also raised taxes for employers and farmers, as well as squeezing benefits, blaming previous Conservative governments for the need to make tough choices. That downbeat argument has done little to make Starmer popular. In recent days Starmer has acknowledged mistakes. He told the Sunday Times that he was heavily focused on what was happening with NATO and the Middle East while the welfare rebellion was brewing at home. I'd have liked to get to a better position with colleagues sooner than we did that's for sure, he said. UK politics is in flux Starmer's struggles are all the more ignominious because the opposition Conservative Party had its worst-ever election result in 2024, reduced to only 121 lawmakers. But British politics is in unpredictable flux. A big chunk of Conservative support and some of Labour's shifted in this year's local elections to Reform UK, a hard-right party led by veteran political pressure-cooker Nigel Farage. Reform has just five legislators in the House of Commons but regularly comes out on top in opinion polls, ahead of Labour and pushing the right-of-center Conservatives into third place. If the shift continues it could end a century of dominance by the two big parties. Starmer's key asset at the moment is time. He does not have to call an election until 2029. There's still plenty of time to turn things around, Ford said. But he said the Labour lawmakers' rebellion will make things harder going forward, because it's not like this is the end of difficult decisions that he's going to have to make in government. Barring some magical unexpected economic boom there's going to be a hell of a lot more fights to come, he said. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Harvard 'violated' civil-rights law on Jewish students' safety: Trump admin
The Trump administration has found Harvard University in violation of federal civil-rights law for "failing to protect" Jewish and Israeli students, escalating a battle that could cost the university its federal funding. In a letter sent to Harvard President Alan Garber and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, federal attorneys said the university had acted with 'deliberate indifference' to concerns raised by Jewish and Israeli students who reported feeling unsafe on campus. The letter warned that failure to implement 'adequate changes immediately' would result in the loss of all federal financial support and affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government. 'Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges,' it stated, 'and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.' Harvard denies govt findings While the Ivy League university has not publicly commented on the latest development, a spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that the university had taken substantive steps to combat antisemitism and foster civil discourse. 'Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government's findings,' the spokesperson said. The university, they added, had strengthened policies, enforced disciplinary measures, and promoted respectful dialogue. The letter also detailed reports of assaults, harassment and antisemitic imagery on campus, such as a dollar sign inside a Star of David and a defaced Israeli flag featuring a swastika. It also accused Harvard of failing to take action over a two-year period. Donald Trump vs Ivy League universities In May, the Trump administration issued a similar notice of violation to Columbia University following an investigation into the alleged harassment of Jewish students. Columbia, like Harvard, is now in negotiations with the federal government over its funding and governance. The accusation follows earlier moves by the administration, including freezing $2.3 billion in research funding and demanding federal oversight of admissions, hiring, and campus speech. Harvard rejected those demands and sued, citing violations of free speech and due process. Talks between White House and Harvard stalled Despite the escalating tensions, Trump signalled earlier this month that progress might be possible, posting on social media that Harvard had acted 'extremely appropriately' during negotiations and appeared committed to 'doing what is right'. However, the latest reports indicate that for now, talks between the White House and Harvard have stalled.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
39 minutes ago
- First Post
Why a nuclear-armed Iran doesn't spell doom for Israel or the West
The West claims that Iran's nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to Israel and possibly the United States. However, if and when Tehran develops a nuclear weapon, this may not be the case. The reason? Nuclear deterrence read more There is a strong likelihood that Iran's nuclear programme is on course. Representational Image - Reuters Benjamin Zala, Monash University As the ceasefire between Israel and Iran seems to be holding for now, it is important to reflect on whether this whole episode was worth the risks. Wider escalation was (and remains) possible, and we do not know whether Iran will seek a nuclear weapon with renewed vigour in the future. So, could we live with a nuclear-armed Iran, if it does indeed continue to pursue a bomb? Why does the West worry The conventional wisdom, at least in the Western world, is that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose an existential threat to Israel, and possibly the United States as well. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were aimed at rolling back 'the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described an Iranian bomb as 'an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to the United States, and to the entire world'. The same mantra has been repeated by leaders in Europe, at the G7 meeting, and in Australia. Iran, of course, did not yet possess a nuclear weapon when the strikes occurred, as the UN nuclear watchdog attested. The strikes were aimed at preventing Iran from being able to do so in the future – a prospect seen by Israel and the US as simply ' unthinkable'. But if Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – would this pose an existential threat to Israel or the US? The answer is no. And for a very simple reason: nuclear deterrence works. How does nuclear deterrence work? If Iran had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, it would be different. But it does not. Israel has maintained a robust nuclear arsenal for more than half a century. Every authoritative assessment of global nuclear weapons stockpiles includes Israel's roughly 90 nuclear warheads. The Israeli government officially neither confirms nor denies the existence of its nuclear arsenal. But thanks to leaks from inside the Israeli nuclear program – as well as the best assessments from around the world – we can be quite sure they exist. It also explains why Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty – it can't without giving up this stockpile. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US, of course, has been nuclear-armed since 1945 and openly maintains an inventory of thousands of nuclear warheads. These provide a deterrent against nuclear attacks on the United States. Washington also provides extended nuclear deterrence guarantees to over 30 states, including members of Nato, Japan, South Korea and Australia. It does not need to provide this for Israel, given the Israeli arsenal. But if there was ever any doubt about Israel's stockpile, it certainly could. After 80 years of living with nuclear weapons, we know the deterrent effect of assured nuclear retaliation is very powerful. It deterred both the Soviets and Americans from using nuclear weapons against each other through multiple Cold War crises. It has deterred both India and Pakistan from using them in multiple standoffs, including quite recently. It has deterred both North Korea and the US from striking each other. Similarly, Iran would no doubt be deterred from using a nuclear weapon by a certain Israeli or American response. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – this would not pose an existential threat to Israel or the US because of nuclear deterrence. File image/Reuters Iranian leaders have called for the destruction of Israel, and the chants of 'death to Israel' and 'death to America' are a common occurrence at rallies held by supporters of the regime. But beneath the fiery rhetoric lies a truism: no Iranian leader would destroy Israel with a nuclear weapon if it came at the expense of the destruction of Iran. In the history of the nation-state, not a single one has ever knowingly committed suicide. Not for any reason – ideological, religious, political or any other. All nations value survival over everything else because this allows for the achievement of other goals, such as power and prosperity. Further, Iran is ruled by a brutally authoritarian, theocratic regime. And for authoritarian regimes, staying in power is the number one priority. There is no staying in power the day after a nuclear exchange. A risky business This does not mean an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a welcome development. Far from it. Every new nuclear-armed state provides another opportunity for miscalculation or accident. It adds extra stress to an already fragile non-proliferation regime. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In addition, nuclear deterrence is not just and can be considered ethically questionable. It may not even be sustainable over the longer term. There is no doubt the existence of over 12,000 nuclear weapons globally poses a potentially existential risk to all of humanity. But the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a unique risk to Israel or the United States simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If we can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and for that matter, a nuclear-armed Israel, we can live, however reluctantly, with a nuclear-armed Iran. Regardless of whether the current proposed ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, the military operation initiated by Israel and bolstered by the United States was extremely dangerous and unnecessary, based on both countries' justification. The regime in Tehran is brutal, authoritarian, openly antisemitic and worthy of our disdain. But there is no evidence it is suicidal. The claim an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel or the United States and justifies unilateral, preventive military attacks makes no sense. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is time to stop repeating it. Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
