The chief rabbi has described the BBC’s response to anti-IDF chanting at Glastonbury as “belated and mishandled” – as the punk-rap duo involved, Bob Vylan, said the UK government needed to talk about its “criminal inaction”.
Sir Ephraim Mirvis said “vile Jew-hatred” had been aired at the Somerset music festival and it was a “time of national shame”.
Confidence in the BBC’s “ability to treat antisemitism seriously” has been brought to a “new low”, he said in a post on X, adding that “outright incitement to violence and hatred” appeared to be acceptable if it was couched as “edgy political commentary”.
Ordinary people had not only failed to see incitement “for what it is” but had cheered it, chanted it, and celebrated it, he said. “Toxic Jew-hatred is a threat to our entire society,” he added.
Bob Vylan, posting a new statement on Instagram on Tuesday, said they were “not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people”.
Rather, they were for the “dismantling of a violent military machine” – the Israel Defence Forces.
Bob Vylan chanted “death to the IDF” at Glastonbury. As many as 95% of the IDF are thought to be Jewish.
In their statement, the group said they were a “distraction from the story” and that whatever “sanctions” they received would also be a distraction.
Their US visas have been revoked and United Talent Agency, their US representatives, have dropped them.
Image: Bob Vylan with their MOBO award in London in November 2022. Pic: Reuters
Referring to the war in Gaza, they claimed the UK government does not want them to ask “why they remain silent in the face of this atrocity”, “why they aren’t doing more to stop the killing” and “feed the starving”.
They added: “The more time they talk about Bob Vylan, the less time they spend answering for their criminal inaction.
“We are being targeted for speaking up. We are not the first, we will not be the last, and if you care for the sanctity of human life and freedom of speech, we urge you to speak up, too.”
It has emerged that Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, was at Glastonbury when the duo led chants of “Death to the IDF” which were broadcast live.
The prime minister’s spokesman, asked if the PM had confidence in Mr Davie, said Sir Keir Starmer had “confidence in the BBC”, adding: “The position of the director-general is a matter for the BBC’s board.”
Speaking in the Commons, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said “accountability” was important and it was something she had “impressed upon the BBC leadership”.
She added: “When you have one editorial failure, it’s something that must be gripped. When you have several, it becomes a problem of leadership.”
The cabinet minister said she’d called Mr Davie after Bob Vylan’s set had been broadcast to find out why it had aired, and why the feed had not been cut.
“I expect answers to these questions without delay,” she said.
Meanwhile Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the culture, media and sport committee, has written to Mr Davie in relation to the corporation’s Glastonbury coverage.
The committee has said the letter asks about editorial and decision-making processes and whether consideration was given to broadcasting with a delay. It also asks about staffing levels at the festival and contingency planning.
Image: Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, has claimed there is a ‘problem of leadership’ at the BBC. File pic: PA
Avon and Somerset Police has begun a criminal investigation and is reviewing footage of both Bob Vylan and Kneecap’s performances at Glastonbury.
The force said a senior detective had been appointed – and it had been contacted by people from around the world.
“We… recognise the strength of public feeling,” it said.
During Kneecap’s set, one member suggested starting a “riot” outside his bandmate’s forthcoming court appearance, before clarifying that he meant “support”. Liam Og O hAnnaidh, also known as Mo Chara, is charged with a terror offence.
Image: Moglai Bap and Mo Chara of Kneecap performing at Glastonbury. Pic: Reuters
Bob Vylan had been due to tour the US before their visas were revoked.
US deputy secretary of state Christopher Landau said action had been taken “in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants”.
“Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country,” he added.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
During Bob Vylan’s set, the duo performed in front of a screen that showed several messages, including one that claimed Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to “genocide”.
The war in Gaza began after Hamas militants attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 and killed 1,200 people and took about 250 hostage.
Israel’s offensive in Gaza has led to the deaths of more than 56,500 people, according to the Hamas-run health ministry, which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants.
Media watchdog Ofcom has said the BBC “clearly has questions to answer” over the live stream from Glastonbury.
A BBC spokesperson said: “The director-general was informed of the incident after the performance and at that point he was clear it should not feature in any other Glastonbury coverage.”
The broadcaster respects freedom of expression but “stands firmly against incitement to violence”, they said.
They added: “The antisemitic sentiments expressed by Bob Vylan were utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves…
“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.”
Senate bill targets crypto’s regulatory paradox: Security vs. commodity
Since its inception, the US cryptocurrency industry has faced a regulatory challenge: determining when a digital asset qualifies as a security and when it qualifies as a commodity.
This uncertainty has hindered institutional adoption, fueled legal disputes and made it difficult for crypto companies to interpret complex rules. But a draft bill from the Senate Agriculture Committee, led by Chair John Boozman and Senator Cory Booker, proposes changes that may address this.
The bill is part of a broader effort to establish a unified framework for digital asset markets. The bipartisan discussion draft outlines how the US could classify crypto assets and assign oversight responsibilities. It marks a significant step toward settling the long-running debate over whether crypto assets are commodities or securities.
Crypto projects in the US have long been unsure whether they need to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Trading platforms have struggled to determine what tokens require securities licenses. Institutional investors have held back because compliance expectations are unclear. And regular crypto traders have faced a fragmented market with inconsistent protections.
The proposal aims to establish a clear federal distinction between digital commodities and digital securities.
Did you know? In 2019, when Facebook announced its Libra project (later renamed Diem), global regulators reacted quickly. G7 ministers, central banks and the US Congress raised concerns that a private company could create a global currency. The backlash became a turning point for stablecoin regulation worldwide. The project was eventually shut down in January 2022.
What is a digital commodity?
The draft bill introduces a major new concept: the digital commodity. Under this plan, coins such as Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) would be classified as digital commodities.
A digital commodity is essentially an interchangeable token. You can fully own it and transfer it directly to someone else without an intermediary. It is recorded on a public, cryptographically secured blockchain. Under the bill, these digital commodities would fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rather than the SEC.
Here’s how the concept of a digital commodity could change the scenario:
Clear rules for big investors: If certain coins are officially labeled digital commodities, banks, funds and trustees could hold them without risking federal violations.
Less uncertainty: Companies would no longer have to worry about the SEC unexpectedly declaring their token a security.
Two different markets: Digital commodities deemed “safe” would likely see higher trading volume, more derivatives activity and increased institutional participation. Tokens that do not qualify would remain under SEC oversight.
Did you know? Long before crypto went mainstream, the US classified Bitcoin as “property” for tax purposes in 2014. This means every crypto trade could trigger a capital gains event. Ironically, it became one of the earliest forms of crypto regulation worldwide, predating major adoption.
Categorization of coins and a shift in regulatory power
The bill clarifies what qualifies as a commodity, but it does not fully define what qualifies as a security. The classification of decentralized finance (DeFi) projects, governance tokens and hybrid tokens would be determined later.
If a token does not fit the “digital commodity” category, exchanges, issuers and wallet providers can expect it to fall under SEC review.
Broadly, the bill outlines three regulatory lanes:
Clear rules for commodities, including major assets such as Bitcoin and Ether
Stricter, security-style oversight for many utility tokens, governance tokens and tokenized assets
Tough requirements for new token issuances, including disclosures and compliance checks.
A token’s design determines how it will be regulated. Three key factors matter: how decentralized it is, what purpose it serves and how it is sold. These elements decide whether it falls under the more flexible CFTC or the stricter SEC.
A key change in the draft bill is the proposed shift in regulatory power. Historically, the SEC has held primary authority over crypto. But the new proposal significantly expands the CFTC’s role, giving it oversight of:
The direct trading market for digital commodities
Registration and supervision of exchanges, brokers and custodians that handle these assets
New rulemaking authority — in some cases shared with the SEC
The ability to collect fees to fund its expanded digital asset oversight duties.
This marks a major shift away from the SEC’s reliance on enforcement actions. The new framework favors a structured, predictable regulatory system, meaning the crypto industry could face fewer surprise legal actions and benefit from clearer, more consistent rules.
SEC vs. CFTC: Regulatory comparison table
Stricter operational standards for crypto firms
Beyond classification, the draft bill sets operational and risk-management requirements intended to address vulnerabilities in the cryptocurrency sector.
Segregating funds and avoiding conflicts of interest: Crypto exchanges would be barred from combining trading, custody, brokerage and market-making functions within a single entity. Instead, they would need to separate these roles, similar to the structure used in traditional finance.
Listing only assets not “readily susceptible to manipulation”: Exchanges would be allowed to list only digital commodities that meet specific integrity standards. This could significantly reduce the number of unreliable tokens on US platforms.
Strengthening consumer protections: The draft proposes:
Safeguarding customer assets
Clear and complete disclosures
Transparent audit records
Mandatory reporting and compliance obligations.
If enacted, these measures would help reduce fraud, sudden project failures and exchange insolvencies.
Did you know? The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, passed in 2023, became the world’s first major crypto rulebook. It sparked a surge in crypto businesses moving to Europe in search of regulatory clarity.
What the draft means for different crypto stakeholders
The proposed bill to clarify crypto regulation represents a pivotal moment. From established exchanges and institutional investors to retail traders and federal agencies, the framework would affect every major stakeholder in the digital asset ecosystem.
For token issuers
Projects would need to assess whether their tokens qualify as digital commodities. The more decentralized a network is and the fewer intermediaries it relies on, the stronger the case for commodity status.
Tokens that do not meet the criteria would remain under SEC oversight and face potentially stricter requirements.
For exchanges and brokers
Firms would need to:
Although these changes could raise costs, they are expected to improve institutional confidence and support a more mature market structure.
For institutional investors
Institutional investors stand to benefit the most.
Large asset managers have long cited the lack of clear federal rules as the biggest obstacle to adding crypto to portfolios. With defined classifications and federal oversight, fiduciaries may be more willing to pursue large-scale adoption.
For retail users
Retail users could see fewer fraudulent schemes, higher operational standards and greater trust in regulated assets. However, the range of unconventional tokens available for trading may shrink.
Many Labour MPs have been left shellshocked after the chaotic political self-sabotage of the past week.
Bafflement, anger, disappointment, and sheer frustration are all on relatively open display at the circular firing squad which seems to have surrounded the prime minister.
The botched effort to flush out backroom plotters and force Wes Streeting to declare his loyalty ahead of the budget has instead led even previously loyal Starmerites to predict the PM could be forced out of office before the local elections in May.
“We have so many councillors coming up for election across the country,” one says, “and at the moment it looks like they’re going to be wiped out. That’s our base – we just can’t afford to lose them. I like Keir [Starmer] but there’s only a limited window left to turn things around. There’s a real question of urgency.”
Another criticised a “boys club” at No 10 who they claimed have “undermined” the prime minister and “forgotten they’re meant to be serving the British people.”
There’s clearly widespread muttering about what to do next – and even a degree of enviousness at the lack of a regicidal 1922 committee mechanism, as enjoyed by the Tories.
“Leadership speculation is destabilising,” one said. “But there’s really no obvious strategy. Andy Burnham isn’t even an MP. You’d need a stalking horse candidate and we don’t have one. There’s no 1922. It’s very messy.”
More on Labour
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:54
Starmer’s faithfuls are ‘losing faith’
Others are gunning for the chancellor after months of careful pitch-rolling for manifesto-breaching tax rises in the budget were ripped up overnight.
“Her career is toast,” one told me. “Rachel has just lost all credibility. She screwed up on the manifesto. She screwed up on the last two fiscal events, costing the party huge amounts of support and leaving the economy stagnating.
“Having now walked everyone up the mountain of tax rises and made us vote to support them on the opposition day debate two days ago, she’s now worried her job is at risk and has bottled it.
“Talk to any major business or investor and they are holding off investing in the UK until it is clear what the UK’s tax policy is going to be, putting us in a situation where the chancellor is going to have to go through this all over again in six months – which just means no real economic growth for another six months.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
After less than 18 months in office, the government is stuck in a political morass largely of its own making.
Treasury sources have belatedly argued that the chancellor’s pre-budget change of heart on income tax is down to better-than-expected economic forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
That should be a cause of celebration. The question is whether she and the PM are now too damaged to make that case to the country – and rescue their benighted prospects.
We’re told that Shabana Mahmood, the still new home secretary, is “a woman in a hurry”.
She’s been in the job for 73 days – and is now announcing “the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in modern times” – effectively since the Second World War.
Her language is not just tough – it’s radical. Not what you’d have expected to hear from a Labour home secretary even just a few months ago.
“Illegal migration”, she believes, “is tearing our country apart. The crisis at our borders is out of control”.
Her team argues that those never-ending images of people crossing the Channel in small boats have led to a complete loss of faith in the government’s ability to take any action at all – let alone deliver on its promises.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:29
‘Illegal migration is creating division across our country’.
The political reality is that successive failures of Tory and Labour ministers have fuelled the inexorable rise of Reform.
But speaking to Sir Trevor Phillips on Sky News, Ms Mahmood firmly hit back at suggestions today’s announcements are pandering to a racist narrative from the far right.
“It’s not right-wing talking points or fake news or misinformation that is suggesting that we’ve got a problem,” she said.
“I know, because I have now seen this system inside out. It is a broken system. We have a genuine problem to fix. People are angry about something that is real.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:09
Trevor’s takeaway
“It is my job, therefore, to think of a proper solution to this very real problem, to do so in line with my values as a Labour politician, but also as a British citizen, and to have solutions that work so that I can unite a divided country.”
There are many striking elements to this.
While she’s not been in the job for all that long, her government has been in power for 16 months. Her own press release highlights that over the past full calendar year asylum claims here have gone up by 18% – compared with a drop of 13% elsewhere in the EU.
The UK, she argues, has become a “golden ticket” for asylum seekers due to “far more generous terms” than other countries in Europe.
While she politely insists that her predecessor’s policies – the one in one out deal with France, closer partnership with law enforcement across Europe – are beginning to take effect, the message is clear. No one in office before Shabana has had the stomach to grasp the nettle.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:42
Inside Europe’s people smuggling industry
The Home Office is determined to present their boss as the new hard woman of British politics.
In a bleak warning to those in her party who will be deeply uncomfortable with this unflinching approach, we’re told she believes this is “the last chance for decent, moderate politics”.
“If these moderate forces fail, something darker will follow…. if you don’t like this, you won’t like what follows me.”
That’s a clear reference to the anti-asylum policies of Reform and the Conservatives, who are pledging to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and deport all illegal arrivals.
Both parties have responded by effectively claiming they don’t trust Labour to deliver on this, given they believe the government has lost control of our borders and overseen a surge in asylum claims.
That much Ms Mahmood herself has already acknowledged.
It’s unusual to hear a Conservative shadow minister like Chris Philp responding to a government announcement by claiming they will support the “sensible steps” the Home Office is making.
Unsurprisingly, he went on to belittle her ideas as “very small steps” combined with “gimmicks” – but the main thrust of his critique was that Labour lacks the authority to push these kinds of measures through parliament, given the likely opposition from their own left wingers.
It’s a fair point – but the lack of fundamental disagreement highlights the threat these plans pose to her opponents.
If the government looks like it might actually succeed in bringing down the numbers – and of course that’s a colossal if – Ms Mahmood will effectively have outflanked and neutralised much of the threat from both the Tories and Reform.
That’s why she’s so keen to mention her Danish inspiration – a centre-left government which managed to see off the threat from right-wing parties through its tough approach to migration, without having to leave the ECHR.
The Home Office is planning further announcements on new safe and legal routes.
But refugee charities have described the new measures as harsh, claiming they will scapegoat genuine refugees, fail to integrate them into society, and fail to function as a deterrent either.
There will surely be an almighty internal row among Labour MPs about the principle of ripping up the post-war settlement for refugees.
For a government floundering after the political chaos of the last few weeks and months, Ms Mahmood is a voice of certainty and confidence.
At a moment of such intense backroom debate over the party’s future direction, it’s hard to avoid seeing her performance this weekend as a starting pitch for the leadership.