The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Kneecap in trouble again

Comments

  1. I saw them on a YouTube video of one of their concerts blatantly shouting their support for Hamas and Hezbollah and calling for people to kill Tory MPs. Then I read their “apology” in which they denied ever doing so and claimed they’re all about love and peace. Makes them total arseholes, if you ask me. Which is a shame, cos the film was good fun.

  3. It’s a Pop group making a name for themselves by being deliberately edgy. Tale as old as time, really.

    Probably for the best too, as I don’t think the music alone is likely to carry them far.

  4. Talking about people in trouble with the law, I’ve just been reading about the case of Lucy Connolly in the UK. What the feck is going on there? 31 months in prison for a Tweet? Appeal refused? Starmer saying he doesn’t know the details of that particular case? All sounds completely bonkers to me. Especially given the leniency real criminals are often treated with. Her Tweet said “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government & politicians with them:” Certainly a very horrible, nasty thing to write, but where’s the crime? “Incitement to violence” apparently. I would have thought “for all I care” makes it just a true statement. I can think of a fair few people whose death wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. Someone could kill them for all I care, I’ve got other things on my mind. From what I’ve read about the case this morning, it seems very bizarre.
    If she got 31 months, what will Kneecap get for saying “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.” on video, I wonder?

    • One difference could be that at the time of her tweeting that, a group of thugs tried to set fire to hotels with human beings (the bastards) in it. It really could have been dozens of dead people.

      Kneecap are just playing at being edgy.

      • Not quite true, I’m afraid. I’m not defending this tweet at all, as it was a horrible thing to say. The tweet was on a Monday, the day of the murders. It was up for less than four hours before being deleted. The serious rioting, and settling fire to that hotel, occurred the following weekend.

        • I stand corrected on timings. In reality, her tweet was right at the beginning of the trouble and seems to have been accepted as being in no doubt contributing to the widespread disorder in the following few days Deleting the mesaage didn’t stop it being shared 310,000 times and being reposted 940 times. She was also not helped by the evidence of her both laughing it off to friends and how she planned to deny she had written it.

          I hadn’t intended reading the judgement this morning but it’s not pretty reading.

          • Thanks for that. I wasn’t having a go, but I didn’t think it contributed to all the rioting and trouble the following weekend. I may be wrong, but I’m sure the rioting would have happened anyway. As for people like Lucy Connolly, I couldn’t care less if she gets 31 months,or 31 years. Anyone who spouts stuff like this deserves to be punished. What gets me is the inconsistency. Why wasn’t councillor Ricky Jones banged up straight away for 31 months, when he was caught on camera at a rally advocating for the rioters throats to be cut. He is still a free man on bail. His trial keeps getting pushed back further. As for the judge in this case, I read that as part of an appeals panel, two paedophiles had their sentences reduced considerably, as their original sentences were deemed too harsh. Paedophiles for God’s sake! What a very strange world we live in!

        • Not so. I recall there were street riots on the following night “ fuelled” by the rumour that the perpetrator was an immigrant. There was a hanging party forming on social media on the day of the atrocity, Connolly’s tweet was inflammatory at an already impassioned time.

          • As said above, I would have thought saying “for all I care” would be within the limits of the law, that not caring about something wouldn’t be deemed illegal. I’ve definitely seen far more inflammatory comments on Twitter. But I guess the context of riots at the time did make a big difference. Nonetheless, I’m surprised her appeal was denied. And surprised Starmer said he didn’t know about the case.

              • I was just watching an analysis of that judgement by this barrister chappie (below). He talks about “the system vs reality” – how the right decision was reached in accordance with the legal system and its sentencing guidelines but was in conflict with the reality in which her sentence understandably seems disproportionate to the majority of people.

                She does indeed sound like a rotter, but regardless of the fairness or unfairness aspect, it does seem to me a rather unnecessary use of already overcrowded prison space and services.

                • The legal system is exactly that – a systemic approach. Just because the public doesn’t agree with what the outcomes are, the outcomes don’t change – the system has to change before the sentences can change.

                  She’s the wife of a Tory councillor – you’d think she would understand how the system works. And I strongly suspect she won’t do it again. Which doesn’t suggest it’s the most broken of systems.

                  I’d also question on what basis he is quoting that the majority of people are unhappy with the sentence. I’m fine with it.

                  • He agrees with your first point, explaining the “boring” legalities of the judgement.

                    The basis on which he contends that the majority of people are unhappy with the sentence is, he explicitly makes clear, his own view. I must say, it’s also the impression I get from looking at general online opinion.

                    • General online opinion is driven by people reacting to what upsets them. People that think the courts have got it about right rarely feel the need to challenge it on the internet. Loudest isn’t the most representative. Yet.

                  • I think that when the discussion reaches the “well it may be the law, but the people I’m seeing online don’t like it” phase it’s just another conversation entirely.

                    This probably becomes a political discussion (i.e. this is grist to the mill for the Reform Party, who can make up whatever lies they want around the issue, as evidenced below), rather than any kind of consideration of the correctness of the verdict.

                    It’s not the role of the courts to gauge what people think online and respond accordingly, it’s their job to apply the law as it stands, and that’s what they’ve done.

                • I wouldn’t read the comments under it unless you want your faith in human nature diminishing.

                  I’m not sure I would trust that barrister to tell me the right time.

                  • Did you watch the video? He seems like a sensible chap to me. Doesn’t say anything remotely controversial, just explains the legalities and why the court was right in its decision, but puts forward his contention that it’s a decision rather at odds with the reality of public opinion in his personal view. Not sure why you wouldn’t trust him.

                    • I struggled to get past the bit where he stated that the “vast majority of public opinion” felt the sentnence was harsh.

                      I know Barristers have to argue with the evidence to hand to defend their clients, but I’d prefer more balance than that.

                      It’s genuinely interesting area of discussion around sentencing rules and, I don’t doubt they can be improved. But anyone who states that the vast majority of people think something without backing it up with a fact would be better off in a Wetherspoons.

                      I tried a bit more – within 30 seconds he said “I think the vast majority of people think this sentence is ridiculous”. Can’t stand this type of crap.

                    • Barristers have legal expertise, not expertise in gauging public opinion.

                      Assuming he is both a barrister, and half decent at his job, this guy is apparently saying that from a legal perspective the verdict has been arrived at correctly. That’s the extent of the value in his analysis.

                      If he’s adding his thoughts as to public opinion on this topic, then I’m afraid he’s just some bloke on the Internet telling you what the public think with no actual grounding to do so and no actual insight (unless he’s also a pollster by night).

                    • Leedsboy, do you have any evidence that the vast majority of people don’t think the sentence was harsh? (Genuine question – I can only go by what I’m seeing online.)

                    • @gary In answer to your evidence question. I have none at all. Which is why I only said I was fine with it.

                      If we taking an absence of evidence as proof that the opposite exists, we are somewhat fucked.

                    • When I inadvertently started this discussion, having come across the case this morning, my first impression was that 31 months seemed bizarrely harsh. Mainly, as I said, because of her use of the phrase “for all I care”, but also because I’ve seen so much worse written online (and crimes committed elsewhere) with less harsh repercussions. I then found the barrister guy’s video very informative in explaining why the court’s decision was right from a legal point of view and, like him, I have the impression that many other people also find the sentence surprisingly harsh.

                      I’m wondering if I were to write on The AW “someone could assassinate Netanyahu/Trump/Putin for all I care” could I be imprisoned? (I wouldn’t write that, but in all honesty, I couldn’t care less if it did happen.)

                      As said above, I guess the context of riots at the time did make a big difference. Nonetheless, I’m surprised her appeal was denied.

                    • @gary – Replying to you comment below:

                      I don’t think the “I don’t care” is particulalrly relevant. The tone of the post is inciteful and will create/increase hate and violence. Particulalrly at that time. It’s like having a crafty gasper whilst filling up you car with petrol. You didn’t mean to blow up the petrol station but you certainly helped it.

                      The case is about responsibility for consequences. Both in the tweet but also in the consequences of pleading guilty for what is considered a serious offence.

                    • Yep, I’ve read somewhere that if she had pleaded not guilty she most likely wouldn’t have received a prison sentence. I’m now wondering whether her lawyer has lost potential clients due to the case.

                    • No. Here’s what the Judge said:

                      “14. The starting point after a trial is therefore one of 3 years imprisonment.
                      15. There is a further significant aggravating factor namely, the timing of the publication when there was obviously a particularly sensitive social climate. It would be difficult to think of a more sensitive such time than during the evening of the 29th July of this year.
                      16. All of those factors would require a significant increase in the sentence beyond the starting point.
                      …
                      24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment.
                      25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent.”

                    • I’ve never heard of him and have no interest in him. But the Lucy Connolly case, which I only came across this morning, is interesting.

                    • @Yorkio – This has been my impression too. He’s certainly no stranger to extending the oxygen of his publicity (774K subscribers) to some folk I consider to be pretty unpleasant, dodgy types. I think he sees himself as the ‘reasonable voice of Reform’, and waffles on about legal niceties (which he does know a lot about) in order to throw some reflected credibility upon their nastinesses. I stumbled across his channel some time ago, subscribed for a while and then decided I’d heard enough and promptly unsubscribed.

                    • FWIW…

                      I’d never heard of this bloke and I semi regularly engage barristers, so had a very quick look.

                      Degree from the Open University (no knock, but generally not the precursor to a great career in law, which is still very old fashioned about such things), appears to have qualified in 2018 and immediately founded his own practice, which is definitely a red flag. Practice seems to advertise itself as doing a bit of everything – also a red flag.

                      I don’t actually think the “black belt” bit of his nomenclature is referring to his legal skills. It appears to be referring to his love of martial arts (and posting topless selfies to the internet).

                      I only lasted through a couple of his actual videos. Predictable right wing pick me culture wars fodder in a silly wig.

                      The legal sector is currently full of “legal influencers” who extensively tout the success of their own firms/practices on social media, usually while pushing some other agenda. Virtually none of them are actually running successful businesses.

                      None of which means his legal analysis here is wrong, but he certainly doesn’t come across as a serious individual whose insights you’d go looking for, and I don’t really see much value in listening to him – clearly a chancer.

    • There was a detailed thread on Twitter, though typically I can’t find it now, on why the sentence was correct according to sentencing guidelines including aggravating and mitigating factors. Whether you agree those guidelines are correct in comparison to offences causing actual death or injury is another matter. Having pleaded guilty, again she may have been poorly advised to do so, Connolly’s lawyers could have done the sums and told her what to expect in advance of the sentence.

      • Yes, I heard a senior beak interviewed about this on R4. The maximum sentence is seven years, so two and a half is about a third of maximum, which is about standard for good behaviour.

      • There seems to be a recurring societal confusion as to what Twitter actually is and represents. To some, Tweets are treated as if they’re passing internal thoughts, rather than actual broadcasts to the outside world.

        A quarter of a century ago I sat in law school lectures on the offence of incitement, as it was then under the old Public Order Act. Not a single person in the room at the time would have had much trouble recognising that a written statement, read by over 300,000 people, in which the author called for mass deportations and the torching of buildings containing an identifiable class of human being would have met the necessary requirements for prosecution. They’d have had even less trouble with that analysis if informed that a few days later people had actually followed through with the suggestion.

        Social media has muddied the waters for some. It’s only words, just a point of view – aren’t we all entitled to a point of view? It was deleted before it hit the half million views mark, etc.

        We’ve created a society in which everyone is given their own printing press and encouraged to air their thoughts immediately and without proper consideration. That quarter century ago you’d have had minutes, hours, days, maybe weeks to mull it over while publishing your hate speech. Now, it’s seconds, and seconds aren’t long enough for the human brain – or at least some human brains, clearly.

        A confusion appears to have crept in that free speech is, was, or has ever been absolute, when that’s never been the case. We’ve always needed laws to prevent idiots shouting “fire” in the proverbial crowded theatre, and indeed to stop them inducing other idiots to start the fire in the first place. What would the country look like if we simply accepted that there’s a god-given right to freely encourage political violence to a wide audience? America, that’s what.

        I’m not involved in criminal law – thankfully, my career went in an entirely different direction – but the sentence looks entirely fair to me. As to Starmer’s involvement, he’s said he supports the judgement but – and again, this is a detail people seem to frequently miss – it’s not really for him to interfere. Which is also as it should be.

    • In other banged-up arsehole news, T*mmy R*b*ns*n, currently residing at Chaz’s pleasure, is having his sentence reduced by four months, but is due in court in a couple of weeks on a different charge.

      I hope he gets an extra four months for being a serial twunt.

  5. I saw a band from Bahrain in November 2023 chant “From the river to the sea” in the back of a pub in Cambridge. But nobody has heard of them, so it isn’t front page of the red tops.

  6. Edgy is SO passé. Swastikas etc and bands with tasteless names are a regular bit of rock n roll imagery, and this is little different. Malcolm McLaren initially tried selling the New York Dolls with a communist soviet image. Politicised “rebellion into money” (a moment of insight, Joe?) was tired during Red Wedge times. When I see pictures of Sid Vicious gurning with his swastikas, heroin chic, and the rest of it, I think that’s when the Sex Pistols died. Not much different to tricolour balaclavas and linking identity to radical slogans sing that still leads to idiot hotheads “killing in the name” (moment of insight, RATM?). Lazy provocative signalling in pop music may sell the product to kids who haven’t seen it before, but we have.

  7. Calling for MPs to be murdered is indefensible, utterly moronic and incredibly dangerous given the ultra raw febrility of social media. Thinking particularly of Jo Cox and David Amess. And yes, shouting out praise for Hezbollah is idiotic. They have explicitly apologised for both those statements.

    But I do admire the way they’re not going to simper and shut up when a ton of media approbation weighs in. It is extraordinary how much coverage their actions have received. I guess it is easier for the right wing press in particular, to focus on their crass, inflammatory statements instead of understanding exactly why these young fellers are so furious and horrified at what’s happening in Gaza.

    • They haven’t explicitly apologised for both statements.

      They’ve denied making one and claimed that the other is being taken out of context and blown out of proportion. They’ve offered a “sorry for your feelings” type apology to the Amess and Cox families, which I guess is something, and then complained that the media are out to get them. Standard stuff, really.

      I did chuckle at their: “We condemn all attacks on civilians, always. It is never okay. We know this more than anyone, given our nation’s history.” OK, Kneecap.

      • Well, I read their apology too – seemed pretty unambiguous, if brief. I would hope they have been in touch privately with the families. Brendan Cox accepted their apology and warned the consequences of making such statements.

        “To the Amess and Cox families, we send our heartfelt apologies, we never intended to cause you hurt…”

        And fair enough, I was wrong – there wasn’t an explicit apology for the Hamas / Hezbollah rannygazoo, but yes, they are claiming taken out of context:

        “Let us be unequivocal: we do not, and have never, supported Hamas or Hezbollah. We condemn all attacks on civilians, always.”

        As I said above, calling for the death of MPs is disgraceful, dangerous and utterly moronic, as is shouting support for Hamas and Hezbollah. However, that said, I do agree broadly with their statement:

        “14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us. This is a carnival of distraction. We are not the story, genocide is.”

        I think it depends on whether you think they are silly, cynical provocateurs making incendiary comments just to provoke and draw attention – or they are genuinely articulating a heartfelt and legitimate viewpoint, which clearly is shared by many of their fans and supporters worldwide.

        • I agree wholeheartedly with their condemnation of the genocide taking place in Gaza and their criticism of foreign governments who aid or accept it. I still think they’re twats though. What they said is on video, they can’t just deny saying it. If anything, I think it’s vitally important that people who are outraged by the genocide also make it clear that they distance themselves from the terrorist tactics of Hamas and Hezbollah.

  8. @leedsboy
    I’ve just been watching this video by Charlie Kirk talking about his visit to the UK.
    You said in the discussion above, with regard to the barrister’s video, “I wouldn’t read the comments under it unless you want your faith in human nature diminishing.” I must admit I didn’t particularly find that. Most of the comments seemed to be just about the Connolly case, saying that her sentence was harsh or wrong and I kind of agree. I didn’t find the majority of comments particularly troublesome. Whereas this morning I watched this video by Charlie Kirk on how “the UK has fallen” in which he uses the Connolly case as an example. (I think he spent one day in the UK, as a guest of GB News.) I’ve watched a few of his videos in the past. He comes across as articulate, very conservative and very right wing. (Personally, I strongly disagree with pretty much everything I’ve heard him say and find him pretty obnoxious.) The comments under this video I do indeed find extremely depressing. Full-on Daily Mail level hateful bile, one after the other. A long stream of comments that really do make one lose faith in humanity. It’s got me thinking that Lucy Connolly’s sentence has given ammunition to these kind of people, fuelled their anger and, in their eyes, legitimised their divisive hatred. I’m now thinking that, regardless of any other debatable rights or wrongs in the Connolly sentencing, in this one particular high-profile case leniency (on compassionate grounds, towards the mother of a small child) would have been the better option. Of course court rulings shouldn’t be influenced by any desire to appease extremists, but in this one case it seems to me that imprisoning Connolly for 31 months has played very much into Reform’s hands.

    I’m a tad reluctant to post such a contentious video on the grumpy old AW, but that would be confirming that Kirk has some justification in his main theme that some things are simply not allowed.

    • @gary I will admit I’m not going to click on that link. The internet has given people with pretty unpleasant views a channel to make money – quite a lot of money it seems. If I click on it, he makes some money. I’d rather he didn’t.

      On the point that the Connolly case has given people ammunition, that raises two points for me.

      Firstly, the law needs to be applied consistently and not based on the prevailing whim of the general population. If the law needs changing, it should be done in a calm, considered way that thinks about the breadth of impacts, not just the impact on one fairly unpleasant individual.

      Secondly, people willfully misunderstand how the law works. Sentencing is a different aspect of the process from guilt. Guilt is fairly binary – and there is normally a clear threshold – mostly in the statute but some developed in the interpretation. Well written law requires less interpretation. Sentencing is where mitigation comes in so individual circumstances are added, as would behaviour before, during and after the crime. The sentence, I think, reflects the timing and, in particular, Connolly’s behaviour after the tweet. All of this gets ignored in the narrative of a quick bit of emotive free speech gets tragic mother 31 months inside. It is way more nuanced than that.

      • All completely fair enough. Perhaps a bit stupidly, I’ve never even considered the fact that my clicks equal cash. When it comes to politics, I tend to click far more frequently on videos and articles that are likely to oppose my views rather than ones that will support them. I might reconsider doing that!
        I still fear though that this one particular sentence has driven a lot of people towards Reform. Still, a long way until the next election. Anything could happen.

        • The outcomes are not always good for society and that’s why the law should develop. I used to read the Telegraph because it often gave me the opposing view. It never occurred to me then that buying it was funding a view.

          I now subscribe to the New York Times (the cookery app is the absolute best thing) and read the BBC news in the main. I avoid Facebook and Twitter because of how quickly it turns into hate. I prefer facts to opinions any way.

          Reform growing popular is a depressing consequence of where we are right now.

  9. BTW, on the subject of Kneecap I was surprised yesterday to come across a video of Elton John of all people, gushing about what an “absolutely brilliant” band they are. I assume it was before the recent controversy and wonder if he still praises them so enthusiastically.

Leave a Reply