When it comes to violent rhetoric, the right says what it wants but left is silenced “Now let’s bomb Glastonbury,” reads the headline to a recent Spectator article. Promoting the piece by the writer Rod Liddle, whoever runs the magazine’s social media feed tweeted on Elon Musk’s X platform: “One on Glasto, one on Brighton, and the UK would soon begin its recovery.”
This article appears as part of the Unspun: Scottish Politics newsletter. “Now let’s bomb Glastonbury,” reads the headline to a recent Spectator article. Promoting the piece by the writer Rod Liddle, whoever runs the magazine’s social media feed tweeted on Elon Musk’s X platform: “One on Glasto, one on Brighton, and the UK would soon begin its recovery.”
Liddle, of course, hid behind the notion of ‘banter’. Ah, the bantz. That great get-out-of-jail-free card for professional blow-holes the world over.
After a quick fantasy about dropping a “small yield nuclear weapon” on everyone he hates, from “druggies” to “blue-haired hags”, Liddle cops out, saying he’s “merely hypothesising in a slightly wistful kinda way”.
Now, I’m not here to remove Liddle’s right to be an arse. He can – and regularly does – say whatever he pleases.
What strikes me as curious, though, is how the right wing gets away with blue murder in Britain, while the left is held to completely different, and much more stringent, standards.
When it comes to what could be described as ‘violent political rhetoric’ it’s one rule for the right and quite a different rule for the left.
Read more from Neil Mackay:
