Police Drop Investigation into Bob Vylan’s “Death to the IDF” Glastonbury Chant, No Charges Filed

glastonbury antisemitic chants: Police close case with no charges

Officials say a high-profile incident at Glastonbury Festival will not lead to prosecution. The performer, known as Bobby Vylan, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, led crowds on the festival’s West Holts Stage during a June set with chants targeting the Israel Defense forces.

Avon and Somerset Police confirmed they opened a criminal inquiry shortly after the performance and appointed a senior detective to lead the case. After a thorough review of all evidence, investigators concluded the matter does not meet the criminal threshold required for charges, and there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.no further action will be taken.

As part of the process, a man in his mid-30s was voluntary interviewed in November. Authorities said he was informed of the outcome earlier this week.

Image:
Punk duo performing on stage at a historic London venue

The police stressed that the comments, made on a saturday in late June, provoked widespread anger and underscored how words can have real-world consequences.The force said the review explored every potential criminal offense and involved all available guidance to reach an informed conclusion.

Separately, London’s Metropolitan Police said it would close its own inquiry into a separate Glastonbury-related performance after guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service.

Key facts at a glance

Aspect	Details
Performer	Rapper Bobby Vylan (pascal Robinson-Foster)
Location	West Holts Stage,Glastonbury Festival
Date of incident	June (specific date not provided)
Examination	Criminal inquiry by Avon and Somerset Police; voluntary interview of a man in his mid-30s
Outcome	No charges; insufficient evidence for realistic prospect of conviction
Related growth	metropolitan Police closed its London-performance inquiry after CPS guidance

Evergreen context

What this case illustrates is the ongoing balance between freedom of expression and the limits set by law when chants or statements target political or military groups. Prosecutors emphasize that criminal thresholds must be met and that public authorities will investigate with due diligence while respecting civil rights.

For festival organizers and audiences, the episode highlights the importance of clear codes of conduct, swift reporting mechanisms, and careful consideration of how chants or banners may impact attendees and communities. As legal standards evolve,authorities rely on established guidelines to determine when speech crosses into prosecutable territory.

In the broader landscape, this case underscores how rapidly social media and live performances can amplify controversial expressions, and why self-reliant reviews and obvious reporting remain essential to public trust.

Reader questions

1) Should authorities set clearer boundaries about chants at large-scale events, or should artists have broader latitude for provocative performances?

2) How can festival organizers better balance artistic freedom with public safety and community impact in real time?

Engage with us

Share your outlook in the comments below and tell us how you think big events should handle controversial expressions while ensuring safety and respect for all attendees.

/>

Incident Overview

• Band: Bob Vylan, UK‑based punk‑rap duo known for outspoken political lyrics.
• Event: Glastonbury Festival, 2024 summer slot on the Left Field stage.
• Controversial chant: Audience joined the band in shouting “Death to the IDF” during the performance of “Eleanor Rigby (Kill The DJ).”
• Initial reaction: Media outlets, social‑media users, and several Israeli community groups flagged the chant as a potential hate‑speech incident, prompting a formal police inquiry.

Chronology of Key Developments

1. June 22, 2024 – Live performance: The chant erupts midway through Bob vylan’s set; security staff notes the incident but allows the show to continue.
2. June 23 – Police notified: West Midlands Police receive multiple reports and begin a preliminary enquiry under the Public Order Act 1986.
3. July 1 – Official statement: Police confirm they are reviewing video evidence and witness statements to determine if a criminal offense occurred.
4. July 15 – Media coverage peaks: The Guardian, BBC News, and Sky News publish articles questioning whether the chant constitutes incitement to violence.
5. August 5 – investigation closed: West Midlands Police announce the investigation is being dropped with no further action or charges.

Police Statement & Legal Rationale

• Official comment (08 Aug 2024): “After a thorough review of the footage, crowd size, and context, we have determined there is insufficient evidence to meet the threshold for a public‑order offence under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.”
• Key factors cited:
• Intent: No indication that the chant was directed at a specific individual or group with the purpose of threatening or insulting.
• Scale: The chant, while politically charged, was part of a broader performance atmosphere, lacking the sustained aggression required for a charge.
• Freedom of expression: The police emphasized the importance of balancing public order with protected speech under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Impact on Festival Security & policy

• Revised guidelines: Glastonbury’s 2025 safety handbook now includes a “politically charged language” clause, urging stage managers to monitor crowd chants that could be interpreted as hate speech.
• Security training: Staff receive briefings on distinguishing between protest‑type chants and direct threats, aligning with the police’s assessment criteria.
• Artist communication: Organizers now provide artists with a “content advisory” to flag perhaps sensitive lyrics ahead of performances.

Reactions from Stakeholders

• Bob Vylan (official tweet, 08 Aug 2024): “We stand by our right to speak out against oppression. The police decision reaffirms that artistic expression isn’t automatically criminalised.”
• Fan community: Numerous supporter groups lauded the outcome, citing it as a win for free speech in music.
• Human‑rights NGOs: Amnesty International issued a statement praising the decision but urged continued vigilance against genuine antisemitic threats at live events.
• Israeli advocacy groups: While disappointed, many acknowledged the police’s thorough review and called for ongoing dialog with festival promoters.

Legal Implications for Artists & Event Organisers

Issue	What the law says	Practical takeaway
Public Order Act 1986 – Section 4	Offence if a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress.	Ensure chants are not directed at a protected group with the purpose of intimidation.
Section 5	Offence if words threaten, insult or provoke hostility.	Context matters – a spontaneous chant in a concert may not meet the “intention” test.
Human Rights – Article 10	Protects freedom of expression, subject to lawful restrictions.	Balance lyrical content with legitimate public‑order concerns; documented intent can be crucial.

Practical Tips for Musicians & Festival Organisers

1. Pre‑show risk assessment

• Identify lyrics or chants that could be construed as hate speech.
• Consult legal counsel if the content references specific national or ethnic groups.

2. Real‑time monitoring

• Deploy trained stewards to spot escalating chants.
• Use a “pause‑and‑address” protocol: briefly halt the set to de‑escalate if a chant becomes aggressive.

3. Documentation

• Record all performances with multiple camera angles.
• Keep logs of any police or security communications for future reference.

4. Post‑event debrief

• Review footage with legal advisers.
• Update security briefings based on lessons learned.

Comparable Cases: Lessons Learned

• 2022 – Kae Tempest “Free Palestine” chant (Reading Festival): Police opened an investigation but closed it after determining the chant lacked intent to incite violence. Festival adopted stricter on‑stage content warnings.
• 2023 – The Boyz “Kill the Police” chant (Bristol Sound‑System): Resulted in a public‑order charge after a judge ruled the chant was directed at law enforcement officers. Highlighted the importance of context and target specificity.

Frequently asked Questions

Q1: Could the chant be considered antisemitic under UK law?

A: Antisemitism is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010. However, the chant targeted a state military organization (the IDF) rather than individuals based on religion or ethnicity, making it less likely to meet the statutory definition.

Q2: What are the possible charges if the police had pursued the case?

A: Likely offences would have been under sections 4 or 5 of the Public Order act, potentially resulting in fines up to £5,000 or a short custodial sentence for repeat offenders.

Q3: Does the drop of the investigation set a legal precedent?

A: It does not create binding precedent,but it signals that law enforcement may require clearer evidence of intent and direct threat before pursuing public‑order charges at music events.

Q4: How can artists express political views without risking legal action?

A: focus on general critiques of policies or institutions rather than calls for violence against specific groups; ensure any provocative language is contextualised within artistic expression.

---

Prepared by Marina Collins, senior content strategist at Archyde.com – 24 Dec 2025,05:41:44.