This weekend there has been a rush of coverage over the British punk/rap duo Bob Vylan concerning their performance at the Glastonbury Festival. As covered here previously the group was leading the crowd to join in with chants of severe intolerance. Provoking the audience with pleas to say ”From the river to the sea” is bad enough, but then they broke out with “Death to the IDF” chanting, a direct call for violence against Israeli soldiers.
Fury as Glastonbury crowd chants 'Death to the IDF!' and 'Free Palestine!' in scenes aired live on the BBC https://t.co/VbqOrBcKSM
— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) June 28, 2025
As a result of the furor, the group is on the receiving end of the FO aspect of FA, as they have been dropped by their talent agency and had their United States visas revoked over their outward support of terrorism, resulting in the cancellation of their upcoming North American tour.
Now, as a free speech proponent, I am vacillating a bit on this result and hesitant to go after what is spoken on stage, but there was arguably a clear call for violence. And as we have seen from many in this country, leaning on accusations of “violent rhetoric,” something frequently shown as interpretational, is something that has been used to justify silencing certain voices. But this is Britain we are dealing with, and their cause is even more strident.
The BBC has come under fire in the ensuing days from the concert, as the festival performances had been broadcast live in that country. As a result the broadcaster has come out with statements of regret for not taking precautions (such as running the festival on a delay) or taking action to have suspended the broadcast.
In a statement issued on Monday, the BBC said: "The team were dealing with a live situation but with hindsight we should have pulled the stream during the performance. We regret this did not happen." It comes after the broadcast regulator Ofcom said the BBC "clearly has questions to answer" over its coverage, and the government questioned why the comments were aired live. The organisers of Glastonbury have previously said they were "appalled" by the comments, which "crossed a line".
So the question now becomes one that is obvious to ask: When will the group Bob Vylan and the BBC be charged and arrested for violating tolerance laws? Again, this is not a push to silence; it is based on the application in that nation of the laws regarding expression and aggressive messaging. In recent years British authorities have ramped up arrests on citizens over posts they have made on social media that violate the nebulous standards set in place; people have been picked up for sending messages that not only rise to the level of hate crimes, but also if they are deemed to deliver “annoyance,” “inconvenience” or “anxiety” to others. It is pretty easy to see that calling for the death of a group exceeds these standards.
Then there is the case of Lucy Connolly. She was the wife of a politician who posted her disgust with a news item regarding violence committed by some British immigrants, and she put up a post saying she wanted to see the hotels used to house immigrants burned down. This netted her a prison sentence of more than two and a half years, for a social media post, while many cases of violence and other crimes are seeing criminals handed sentences far lower in time. But this is where the band and the broadcaster should be coming under fire.
Connolly was charged under the Public Order Act 1986, under the section pertaining to “Acts intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.” It would certainly seem that Bob Vylan is clearly in violation of this, as described in Section 20 of the Act, regarding Public Performance of Play. But here is where the BBC should also come under some form of penalty, as Section 22 concerns the network putting this performance on the public airwaves.
If a programme involving threatening, abusive or insulting visual images or sounds is included in a programme service, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) 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.
There are mitigating details that the BBC might be able to excuse if they can claim not to have been aware that the offensive material would have been displayed. But the BBC did place a viewer warning ahead of the performance, which should indicate an awareness of content arriving that could require discretion.
What seems in dispute is how a nation can be spending its time policing citizens and the posting of comments on social media while looking askance when far more egregious comments are made. More than that, this concerns a group with a far larger platform, urging violence from a crowd numbering tens of thousands while broadcast to millions more.
Then you have government legislation being violated by a government media outlet. The infractions are far greater than what is leading to arrests and landing citizens in jail. If this group and this broadcaster are not held accountable, you have even bigger issues in that nation.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie.
Help us continue exposing their grift by reading news you can trust. Join RedState’s VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member