Did Gary Neville Have A Point?

 

On the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, on Yom Kippur, Jihad al-Shamie—a Syrian immigrant turned British citizen in his teens—allegedly launched a heinous terrorist attack against the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester. His actions—directly and indirectly—would claim the lives of two congregants (Adrian Daulby 53, and Melvin Cravitz 66) and seriously injured others. As is to be expected, this attack was met with the usual bland statements of solidarity, condolence, and condemnation, and the necessary calls to action. All this follows the same typical Je suis Charlie Hebdo pattern, and all totally useless.

However, one particular statement did not conform and invited swift criticism. It was a cri de coeur, posted as a LinkedIn video, by Gary Neville—a former Manchester United footballer, a current media pundit, and, perhaps, a future British Labour politician in the making. In his video giving his thoughts on the attack, Neville had this to say about Slow Horses the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation attack:

When I was driving to Salford City last night, going down Littleton Road, I seen probably 50 or 60 Union Jack flags. And on the way back I went down the parallel road, Bury New Road, which has got the Jewish community right at its heart and they’re out on the streets, defiant, not hiding or in fear.

     I just kept thinking as I was driving home last night that we’re all being turned on each other. And the division that’s being created is absolutely disgusting. Mainly created by angry, middle-aged white men, who know exactly what they’re doing.

Later on in the video, he continued:

I have been building in this city for 15 to 20 years, and nobody has put a flag up. So why do you need to put one up now? Quite clearly it’s sending a message to everybody that there’s something you do not like. The Union Jack flag’s being used in a negative fashion is not right.

Finally, he stated:

We need to check ourselves . . . because we are being pulled right and left. Brexit has had a devastating impact on this country and the messaging is getting dangerous, extremely dangerous—all these idiots that are out there spreading hate speech or abuse in any form. We must stop promoting them.

Unsurprisingly, this video explaining his thoughts, which managed to draw a link between a terrorist attack and “angry, middle-aged white men,” and between the Union Jack and Brexit, was roundly condemned. Putting aside the partisan and tone-deaf nature of Neville’s comments, one has to ask: Did Gary Neville have a point?

The central thrust of Neville’s screed is that speech which takes pride in one’s cultural identity and national narrative is a threat to public safety. How so? Some migrants, their children, and recently naturalized citizens will feel threatened by such expressive speech and conduct. In other words, speech begets violence, or, to put it more strongly: speech by natives invites violence by non-natives. The natural corollary of this is that abandoning the symbols of national pride and identity will deprive would-be terrorists and other criminals of a key motive for launching future attacks against the natives.

Indeed, Neville’s conception of how the world works goes further; he posits a clear nexus between a specific criminal/terrorist attack and common expressions of national pride, some of which had underpinned the Brexit referendum vote and operation Raise the Colours—Raise the Union Jack. One cannot help but wonder, were the forces, institutions, and people so offended and opposed to traditional expressions of national pride consulted by Neville on this matter, and was this their proffered solution? Or, are these merely the anticipated terms of cultural surrender—suggested by Neville—authored personally by him as the only means to usher in the future multicultural utopia by pacific means. In short, for Neville and his supporters, peace—at home—is worth any price, including giving up some (of your, and not his) expressive free speech rights.

Whatever the evidence supporting Neville’s beliefs is, assuming it exists at all, such evidence does not make a case that any moral and courageous people should countenance. The politics of diminishing national pride, oikophobia, and removing symbols of national identity from public spaces has been tried and tested before, not just here but world-wide, and always to no avail. To quote Churchill, “[a] love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.” At a time when the British nation is, at best, unsettled, it is only natural that its people turn to their traditions and sense of identity for reassurance and inspiration.

Nevertheless, there are many in positions of power and influence who share Mr Neville’s beliefs. This is the same thinking which sees national borders as unnecessary barriers, and who regard integration as, at best, only slightly preferable to separate-but-equal multicultural spaces with communities living in de facto cultural, linguistic, and, in the not-so-distant future, legal ghettos. Indeed, for Neville and those who share his world view, it is those who bitterly cling to their identity and who oppose the unstoppable march of demographic change, who are the source of current unrest. That is the reason, in the mind of Gary Neville, that the intransigent natives are to be blamed for the wrongs of Jihad al-Shamie.

Personal self-abnegation, as well as societal-wide cultural surrender, is not a long-term strategy. It is not even a short-term one. A thoughtful man once said that “you cannot eat a flag.” And that is true, but it is just as true that you cannot overcome all violence and hatred with submission. It is now merely a question of remembering that second truth before it is too late.

* Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, Government Relations Consultant, former Political Advisor within the Irish Parliament

** Seth Barrett Tillman, a U.S. citizen, and Associate Professor, Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology, Ireland / Scoil an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad

----------------

Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd, & Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Did Gary Neville Have A Point?,’ New Reform Club (Dec. 11, 2025, 15:27 PM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2025/12/did-gary-neville-have-point.html>;