Kneecap - New Footage *Read OP for Mod Warning*

michael-henry-mcivor

Seen Jonny Marr on X welcoming Kneecap playing at Glastonbury- and welcoming all artists who stand with the Palestinian people-

Seathrun66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550738#Comment_123550738

As before read the Outgoings section.

In terms of legal connections in the MoJ his prior position in the DPP office is highly relevant. More so his position as PM as his attempt to silence Kneecap continues to backfire. Alongside the GLAN/Al Haq case it could be a bad Summer for Starmer in attempting to steer focus away for his administration's support of genocide.

Seathrun66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123550738#Comment_123550738

Still an opportunity to grab resale tickets for Fairview. An opportunity for a mini-victory lap the day after Westminster Magistrates and the Met police get overwhelmed by the sheer number of Kneecap supporters.

Sample the atmosphere and grasp why these lads ain't going away.

#RightSideOfHistory

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2025/0616/1518258-everything-you-need-to-know-about-kneecap-at-fairview/

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551066#Comment_123551066

The section is three pages long. I have read it. It doesn't say what you are claiming whatsoever.

Thinking Starmer illegally put pressure on the Met and the CPS to charge Kneecap to "silence" them is pretty delusional. While I don't doubt it happens behind closed doors at times, they are simply not worth it. It takes a weird degree of main character syndrome to think the PM would give a flying shite about some middling NI music group. And, again, whether or not the UK govt are "supporting genocide" is completely immaterial to the charges that they are facing.

Seathrun66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551121#Comment_123551121

I suggest you re-read. It ain't difficult. Legal Aid granted if insufficient access to funds owing to spending/outgoings, savings below a certain threshold and earnings for the previous 12 months iff disposable annual income is less than £37,500. Also appealable if not granted. You don't seem to grasp that hypothetically he could qualify based on what wages he was paid by the band and what taxation or expenses ensued. And once again the same two points will be repeated:

1. He probably has enough cash in savings and earned enough in the year up to April 2025 to be over the threshold.
2. It doesn't matter. He ain't paying for lawyers. There's a queue to represent him pro bono and he cherry-picked.

So, four days after the Coachella global headlines the UK government had no role in attempting to silence a band that had pointed out the hypocrisy of their arms dealing and aid for genocide? The very best of luck selling that argument to anyone with a decent level of IQ. The double whammy of this case and the Glan Gaza one going against them will be pretty interesting, particularly given the UK public's consistent opposition to the Israeli murder.

Only one winner on Wednesday. And then watch the Fairview coverage on Thursday. It's going to be a helluva week, and Summer, for the lads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd9gdMj7bUk&ab_channel=TheLilBlackbird

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551235#Comment_123551235

You brought up legal aid in the first place. You brought up this nonsense about insufficient access to cash being a factor when it isn't. Also only, allowable expenses are counted so this nonsense about him buying vehicles that you brought up is completely irrelevant. Maybe you should re-read a lot of things.

And now you are just pivoting to a completely different explanation - I'm aware he may have been paid less personally though I consider it quite unlikely. I'm aware he is most likely getting pro bono representation.

Seathrun66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123551303#Comment_123551303

Nope. I didn't. That's a lie. Another poster question how Mo Chara could get such a legal team. I responded that he could hypothetically get legal aid but that was unnecessary as the lawyers would be working pro bono. These are the most basic of principles of legal representation and I'm unsure why you cannot grasp them.

In summary six of the top lawyers on these island are working for free cos they oppose the government attempts to silence these artists. What part don't you get?