Winston Marshall
speaker
891 appearances
6 recordings
5 series
first heard Mar 2025
last heard 13 May
Winston Marshall’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 3 in all, peaking in May 2026 with 2.
Appearances
These girls, their families and fathers had basically had enough because the police weren't doing anything. In fact, the police were complicit in it and had been found. So the councils had been complicit in it. And so these, a lot of English men, working class men, were very fed up.
And actually this has flared up before, it flared up in 2023 in Knowsley when a migrant from being kept in a migrant hotel made a pass at a young teenage girl, the video got circulated and the police did nothing. And so then riots broke out because the police did nothing. So this kind of happened again with Southport, there was this brutal, horrible killing.
The whole country was in mourning, and it didn't feel like anything serious was being done, and it blew over. Or even if anything serious was being done, the anger was too much to be contained. It was really like the whole country was completely on edge. For three days, I don't think anyone slept. It was unbelievable. I've never known England to be so tense as that.
There was then arguments about whether or not there should be a national inquiry. I'm not sure what the latest in that, but the government, Keir Starmer, really dragged his feet. One of the reasons why people think he dragged his feet is that whilst he was the chief crown prosecutor, he was involved in...
not necessarily judging individual cases of the grooming gangs, but overseeing... I haven't got the details ahead. I don't want to misportray it. But basically, they thought that he might have... It might look bad on him because of his previous work. And so that's one line of thought there, and there's some evidence to support that. But it doesn't seem like much has been moved.
There's still people, even within the Labour Party, who want a national inquiry because it's actually a lot of Labour constituents that were the victims of this. So anyway, this is all the context for what blew over last year. And we're sort of continuing this free speech where we have... They want to contain hate speech. They want to contain speech that might... This is the tricky bit.
It's all what incites and what technically incites. I know that we haven't got much time, but I'll put it to the why, if I may, quickly, which is that at the end of the war, the Second War, Naturally, of course, after we learned about the Holocaust, everyone rightly said, never again, this cannot happen again. But what happened was a set in motion school of thoughts.
And I think Karl Popper might be the genesis of this. which is the idea of the open society and then the closed society. And what they put in the open society was the idea of freedom, liberalism, and all of these things. And in the closed society, they put, rightly, things like fascism, but they also put in that, and this is directly in Karl Popper's work, all nationalism.
And so there was a weird dichotomy that grew at this point. And then, actually, this is directly relevant to the speech laws we have in Britain. In the 50s, there was, I think he was American, Gordon, it was an American psychologist called Gordon, oh, I forget his surname, Gordon, I lose it, but he had this idea, which might sound familiar, was that He had the speech pyramid.
And at the bottom of the pyramid, he had, it was hate speech or hurty words. And at the top was genocide. So then became this new paradigm where if you didn't deal with hate speech when it got to the bottom, genocide was the consequence. And I think that that philosophy or that idea has been behind a lot of all of the hate speech laws that grew over the coming 60, 70 years.
I think what can be done in Britain is that once a new party is brought in, I don't think it's going to happen under Labour, that you gut out all of these hate speech laws and you go back to the common law rule of free speech. That's what can be done there. What's more bizarre, I think, is that when it comes to these issues, there's almost a denial that it's even happening.
If you are a progressive in Britain, you won't see that there's any injustice about any of the people who got arrested for hate speech because for them, if it's hateful, you shouldn't defend them and it's bad. So it's not seen as a bad thing. Now, I don't think that the conservatives are much better on this because whatever it is that they deem bad, they will have...
many of them will have double standards. I'm even questioning myself for examining what's happening with Mahmoud Khalil, whose politics are directly opposite mine, and trying to think about whether what's going on there with him being detained now in Louisiana, is that his free speech being abandoned? But I'm not entirely sure I've come to the answer, but what I do note is
Almost all conservatives are saying this is not a free speech issue, this is an immigration issue. And almost all progressives are saying this is absolutely fundamentally a First Amendment case. And so it seems to be that there's clearly a bias that both sides have in wanting to clamp down on speech which is not speech that they agree with.
Yeah, I can tell you that.
Yes, they do, but non-citizens are also subject to U.S. code, Title 8, which is a set of rules and laws that applies to them because they are not naturalized citizens. And so the problem with Mahmoud Khalil is that on the one hand, if he was an American citizen, This wouldn't be a conversation. He's done absolutely nothing that is illegal if he was an American citizen.
But because he is not, and he's originally from Gaza City, he's Palestinian, I think he also lived, he might have Syrian nationality as well. He is subject to Title VIII of the U.S. Code and the Immigration and Nationality Act. In it, it says, if you... If you represent an organization that shows support for a designated terrorist organization, you are bound, you don't have any right to stay here.
And what Mahmoud Khalil did as the chief spokesperson, or not, Sorry, he was a spokesperson for and a lead negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which is one of these university groups involved with Gaza Plaza or the encampment in New York City, which I think people will know about. Because of that, he falls almost exactly in line with this code. So the debate seems to be whether...
Yes, he does normally have First Amendment, but does this other law supersede that? I guess there's the question there that will play out in court.
The Mahmoud Khalil story, I mean, he seems to be the new George Floyd. And by that, I mean, he is the new progressive martyr, the new progressive poster boy, although he's now garbed in a kefir. And he... This is a story that's not going away. I think that it's really riled the progressives.
Showing 861–880 of 891 · page 44 of 45
← Previous
Next →