GBN / Adam Chapman: "'Say what you want about Morrissey...he was right about Islamic terrorism in the UK' - Brendan O'Neill" (September 25, 2024)

'Say what you want about Morrissey...he was right about Islamic terrorism in the UK' - Brendan O'Neill

Excerpt:

The Spiked Political Editor tells GB News that Morrissey summed this up perfectly during a gig at the Palladium in London a few years back.
The former lead singer of The Smiths was introducing his new song at the time, ‘Bonfire of Teenagers’, which is about the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017.
Mr O'Neill, who was in the crowd that night, alleged Morrisey looked out at the audience and asked: "How come you know the name Myra Hindley but many of you won’t know the name of the man who bombed the Manchester Arena?"

It's such a good question. We all know Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. But if you went out on the streets and asked a hundred people to name Salman Abedi [the Manchester arena bomber] I bet they wouldn't be able to," the Spiked Political Editor said.
It's a striking observation given the asymmetry of the crimes and when they occurred: Abedi killed 22 people at the Ariana Grande concert in 2017 - and Brady and Hindley murdered five children more than 50 years ago.


Use this link to avoid nag screen:

https://archive.is/PffGg

Or give them traffic here:

'Say what you want about Morrissey...he was right about Islamic terrorism in the UK' - Brendan O'Neill

Morrissey's comment about the Manchester Arena bomber rings just as true today, Spiked Political Editor tells GB News

www.gbnews.com

Exit stage...
Regards,
FWD.

---

Related item:

• Spectator article by Brendan O'Neill: "Morrissey is the rock'n'roll rebel we need" - October 10, 2022

 

[James2001]

i watch gb news every morning,its a news channel for normal people with no hidden agenda.

As long as your views are to the right.

 

[gordyboy9]

As long as your views are to the right.

its conservative leaning.

 

[Les Tameside]

No 'side' has a monopoly on lies. No 'side' has a monopoly on truth. Those who wield power, those who seek power, from either 'side' of the political spectrum, have a tendency to twist lies and truth for their own ends. If you haven't learned that from history, you need to go back to school.

When you see a well-heeled Oxbridge product wagging a finger at scaffolders, fishermen, cleaners, shop staff, and even the unemployed, telling them to bow down further—due to their ‘white privilege’—it’s perhaps time to pause and reflect on what’s at stake. And question what’s going on. I’d agree.

 

[gashonthenail]

All true, but if your solution to that is believing blatant lies from the far-right, then you never were in school in the first place.

Surely 'blatant lies' are the problem? Not their source. Again, no 'side' has a monopoly on telling 'blatant lies'. Whether it's blaming the Jews, or blaming the Kulaks, or the 'capitalist running dogs', such lies all lead to the same result - mountains of dead. Or is it only lies told by the 'far right' that worry you? Is that what they taught you in school?

 

[Lionsy]

GBNews, famous for paying MPs to do "news" shows to push their agenda and having zero (0, none) viewers at one point

Definitely a place you want being on your side

 

[Surface]

GBNews, famous for paying MPs to do "news" shows to push their agenda and having zero (0, none) viewers at one point

Definitely a place you want being on your side

That can't be right, Gordy boy watches every morning.

 

[fastpulseboy]

I remember Mohammad Atta from the 9/11. However one good reason not to give out names or at least to not highlight them is because of the possible copycat effect. School shooter names are usually downplayed in reporting, because there is usually not much information or insight from knowing the names.

As everybody with a normal brain now knows that 9/11 was an inside job... you still believe that in a burnt down building a passport of Mohammad Atta was found? You can't be serious...

 

[TheSmiths_1985]

i watch gb news every morning,its a news channel for normal people with no hidden agenda.

GordyBoy News?

 

[gashonthenail]

GBNews, famous for paying MPs to do "news" shows to push their agenda and having zero (0, none) viewers at one point

Definitely a place you want being on your side

If the mainstream media are 'on your side', that really would be when it is time to worry. You know, the people who have been telling us for the past 2 years that Joe Biden was fit to run again for president...

 

[gordyboy9]

GordyBoy News?

never thought of that.

 

[KRD]

That's disingenuous as hell by O'Neill and especially Morrissey, who is well aware why Brady & Hindley's names have been remembered for decades; not least, the sea change and the ending of societal 'innocence' in the public awareness i.e. that children were often not safe in our society, even from certain women, resulting from the exposure of the crimes. There are multiple reasons why those names are still notorious, and Morrissey knows this very well. Aside from this, he's never been so 'bravely' outspoken about the nationwide and shameful regularity of violence inflicted on women and even children that decorate our newspaper headlines every single day...often inflicted at the hands of white, British men.

And one of the reasons why non-white perpetrators, and their names, are so rarely publicised is because of the inevitable knock-on effect: assaults and abuse on non-white people perpetrated by big-mouthed assailants inspired and licensed by the likes of big-mouthed Morrissey, Farage and his fellow unthinking grifters, and more. Never mind the self-indulgent cares over his 'cancelled' career - it is other and frequently completely innocent people who often pay the price for such selective and incendiary 'truth-telling'.

In any case, the names of the villains are rarely publicised because of the potential threat to public order; and, again, Morrissey knows this.

One reason people may remember the name Hindley is that it is mentioned nine times by Morrissey in Suffer Little Children.

 

[sparacus]

I fully understand why more people know the names of the moors murderers than the Manchester Arena bomber. Serial killers hold an enduring fascination for people: their motivations, actions, twisted psychology, psychopathy etc are intriguing. I have heard of John Christie but couldn’t name any of those who flew the planes into the twin towers.
However where Morrissey has a point is his anger and exasperation that the song ‘Bonfire Of Teenagers’ is being deemed ‘offensive’ or non-PC in some way. There is nothing offensive whatsoever in the song lyrics. It expresses anger at the attack, at the death of a teenage girl and at the ‘morons’ singing ‘Don’t look back in Anger’ when any normal person would feel anger about the murder of children. What on Earth is offensive about that? The song does not in any way attack the Muslim community in general, which would be offensive.

 

[DaveJCarr]

I fully understand why more people know the names of the moors murderers than the Manchester Arena bomber. Serial killers hold an enduring fascination for people: their motivations, actions, twisted psychology, psychopathy etc are intriguing. I have heard of John Christie but couldn’t name any of those who flew the planes into the twin towers.
However where Morrissey has a point is his anger and exasperation that the song ‘Bonfire Of Teenagers’ is being deemed ‘offensive’ or non-PC in some way. There is nothing offensive whatsoever in the song lyrics. It expresses anger at the attack, at the death of a teenage girl and at the ‘morons’ singing ‘Don’t look back in Anger’ when any normal person would feel anger about the murder of children. What on Earth is offensive about that? The song does not in any way attack the Muslim community in general, which would be offensive.

It's the "morons" part that people find dismissive - that and the confusing "Go easy on the Killer" - who is already dead - and his brother who is in prison for life. Just because people spontaneously burst into a memorial song doesn't mean that they aren't also angry, that security and other policy improvements couldn't be made. To proclaim all of those who sang "morons" is the offensive part

And as a point of songwriting contrast, if the song is truly about the rage at the loss of victim's lives, Morrissey could have named or described them in a bit more detail - as he did in "Suffer Little Children'. As it stands, it sounds little more than a spewing, mournful durge , the target of which is a little off.

If the song's anger is radicalization/immigration policy, there again is a missed opportunity for specificity– One that would've gotten a fair bit of criticism, but at least the clarity, in what I think it is he is actually mad at – or at least the underlying reason – will be out in the open.

I fully understand Morrissey thanks the song speaks for itself, that it tributes the victims that there is nothing offensive about calling the "morons" moronic- and I understand that lots of folks agree with him about that.

What I find mystifying is the idea that people automatically assume that those folks who are offended, or disliked the song, do so because of political correctness, as opposed to taking the song seriously, and analyzing its merits. Morrissey can speak to his intentions better than anyone else, but I don't have to take his word for it that he landed those intentions well artistically, aesthetically or in any other way.

I don't doubt his sincerity – I still think that is a muddled song that is completely off base

Other people can find it just as worthwhile "anthem"" as those people who decided to mourn and come together through frat boy Britpop.I'm perfectly fine with that

This is, after all art. Requiring only one authentic reaction to it and then claiming the people don't get it are only blocked because of their predilection towards groupthink is a deeply and richly ironic

 

[sparacus]

It's the "morons" part that people find dismissive - that and the confusing "Go easy on the Killer" - who is already dead - and his brother who is in prison for life. Just because people spontaneously burst into a memorial song doesn't mean that they aren't also angry, that security and other policy improvements couldn't be made. To proclaim all of those who sang "morons" is the offensive part

And as a point of songwriting contrast, if the song is truly about the rage at the loss of victim's lives, Morrissey could have named or described them in a bit more detail - as he did in "Suffer Little Children'. As it stands, it sounds little more than a spewing, mournful durge , the target of which is a little off.

If the song's anger is radicalization/immigration policy, there again is a missed opportunity for specificity– One that would've gotten a fair bit of criticism, but at least the clarity, in what I think it is he is actually mad at – or at least the underlying reason – will be out in the open.

I fully understand Morrissey thanks the song speaks for itself, that it tributes the victims that there is nothing offensive about calling the "morons" moronic- and I understand that lots of folks agree with him about that.

What I find mystifying is the idea that people automatically assume that those folks who are offended, or disliked the song, do so because of political correctness, as opposed to taking the song seriously, and analyzing its merits. Morrissey can speak to his intentions better than anyone else, but I don't have to take his word for it that he landed those intentions well artistically, aesthetically or in any other way.

I don't doubt his sincerity – I still think that is a muddled song that is completely off base

Other people can find it just as worthwhile "anthem"" as those people who decided to mourn and come together through frat boy Britpop.I'm perfectly fine with that

This is, after all art. Requiring only one authentic reaction to it and then claiming the people don't get it are only blocked because of their predilection towards groupthink is a deeply and richly ironic

I agree that the song could have been better and more specific. By ‘go easy on the killer’ I don’t think that Morrissey is referring to an individual but rather to the wider killer ie extremist Islamist radicalisation of young people. In this sense the line makes sense and is criticism by irony of a failure to tackle radicalisation.
Regarding the singing of ‘Don’t Look Back In Anger’, Morrissey rightly identifies it an an inappropriate choice of song for the circumstances. Just as it was completely inappropriate for Paul McCartney to sing ‘Let It Be’ at the Live Aid concert when the purpose of the event was rather to ‘Do Something About It’ as regards Ethiopia. Morrissey’s point is that the general masses don’t always think about song lyrics. They sing along to rubbish by Oasis unthinkingly . Oasis lyrics are not exactly deep. He is also saying that people are afraid to express anger at the bombing out of fear of being accused of prejudice and that led them into singing an inappropriate song.

 

[DaveJCarr]

I agree that the song could have been better and more specific. By ‘go easy on the killer’ I don’t think that Morrissey is referring to an individual but rather to the wider killer ie extremist Islamist radicalisation of young people. In this sense the line makes sense and is criticism by irony of a failure to tackle radicalisation.
Regarding the singing of ‘Don’t Look Back In Anger’, Morrissey rightly identifies it an an inappropriate choice of song for the circumstances. Just as it was completely inappropriate for Paul McCartney to sing ‘Let It Be’ at the Live Aid concert when the purpose of the event was rather to ‘Do Something About It’ as regards Ethiopia. Morrissey’s point is that the general masses don’t always think about song lyrics. They sing along to rubbish by Oasis unthinkingly . Oasis lyrics are not exactly deep. He is also saying that people are afraid to express anger at the bombing out of fear of being accused of prejudice and that led them into singing an inappropriate song.

That's a fine analysis of some of the potential lyrical intention. I don't think "Don't Look Back in Anger" was an altogether conscious one, rather a spontaneous emotive one sang by some and not all of those assembled. I do not think Moz would have had this reaction if they sang "Ask" or "There is a Light That Never Goes Out- both of which would have been equally "inappropriate" to use your parlance. I don't know if anyone in the crowd was thinking about the lyrics - they may have been thinking of not wanting Muslim folks to face a new rash of violence in the Uk as a result of some extremists' actions - as certainly happened in the USA after 9-11. Ther's a lot of lumping that goes on in reactionary times.

The singers could also have been singing along just as catharsis. The fact is, I don't know their motivations, neither do you and neither does Morrissey- and yet he calls them "morons"

(Plenty of folks' eye-rolled and went on podcasts and social media after this to express the very same consternation Bonfire pressed after the sing along. So I don't really buy that folks were cowed into acceptance of the singers

Morrissey can think the song inappropriate, and those folks' morons. That doesn't mean he's right on either count, or that Bonfire adequately and artfully expresses what he thinks it does. You said that there's nothing offensive about Bonfire - and I just wanted to give an explanation of why some people find it lacking and dismissive. I'm not looking to convert you to that way of thinking.

 

[Stephen Hofmann]

You cannot be serious. You can’t say stuff like this and at the same time champion the far-right.

It's amazing that some people can't see it.

 

[Anonymous of Manc]

GB News, really? Is that how low it’s sunk?

This really is right wing, knuckle dragging, barrel scraping, as sad as it gets reportage.

I wouldn’t piss on Brendan O’Neill if he was on fire. He’s an embarrassment to the Irish Diaspora. Sadly of late, so is Morrissey. And that pains me today, but it’s true.

 

[Luxo]

i watch gb news every morning,its a news channel for normal people with no hidden agenda.

If you think that it has no hidden agenda then you're living proof that propaganda works really well.

 

[Luxo]

and why does it always take so long for prople to come forward,we are seeing that this week with al fayed,we are up to 200 women who were sexually assaulted by the old f...,surely one of the 200 could have come forward,and before someone says he was too powerful no one is above the law no matter how much money they have.

If you think that nobody is above the law this only serves to highlight that you do not understand how the real world works. Many, many rich people are above the law simply because they have lots of money. Money buys power. Power buys influence.

 

[Luxo]

It’s just so ridiculous. Why can’t they see that? How do you become so delusional that you think YouTubers and alternative publications with very clear agendas are keepers of the truth? It must be hell to live your life thinking that society is constantly out to get you.

Because propaganda, paid for by the very, very wealthy, works a treat.