Who cares? These days sexuality should be of no interest or concern. Anyway judging by his family, if anything he may be bi-sexual. And whether or not anybody wants to announce their sexual preferences is of no importance to anybody except the media ("great story") and bigots.
No - the reason this question amongst others equally unimportant (who buys his clothes?) is actually VERY important is because a certain DPP, years ago, told Police that anybody making any allegations about anyone "must be believed - even if they are lying".
For that reason if a man (or woman) wishes to claim they were raped or abused by Keir Starmer, either recently or historically, they "must be believed" and the perpetrator must be investigated (Cliff) and possibly arrested (Gambo).
Starmer is aware of this. He was that DPP.

Of course most people don't want to lie, even if they make a million quid (mainly from media) by doing so. But some of us who have experienced the lies of people believe there are a few of those greedy buggers. Of both genders.

I don't think anyone - well the vast majority anyway - care about his sexuality. I think they would care about leading a double life (of any kind) as it will add to the impression he is a slippery, hypocritical bugger not to be trusted. No one seems to like him so they won't need much excuse...

Actually I don't care about any of his personal characteristics and so far he seems to have been a perfectly adequate Prime Minister. Not put a foot wrong despite the media. But I do care deeply about his time as DPP and his desire to please the media - who he thinks of as the public - or, in fact, VOTERS. Tony Blair and Boris Johnson did similar, with varying degrees of success.
But nobody before - EVER - has said "You will be believed even if you are lying". It's the same as saying "You may murder anyone you care to kill".

JK2006 wrote:



But nobody before - EVER - has said "You will be believed even if you are lying". It's the same as saying "You may murder anyone you care to kill".

Yes not only a plainly stupid statement - but it became policy that worked against justice.

Wyot wrote:
I don't think anyone - well the vast majority anyway - care about his sexuality. I think they would care about leading a double life (of any kind) as it will add to the impression he is a slippery, hypocritical bugger not to be trusted. No one seems to like him so they won't need much excuse...

Remember layers lie in court all the time to defend their clients. Even if they know their client is a human piece of shit.

Starmer has probably lost sense of truth and lies now. Like a cheating partner, they forget their lies then they gaslight.

JK2006 wrote:
Actually I don't care about any of his personal characteristics and so far he seems to have been a perfectly adequate Prime Minister. Not put a foot wrong despite the media. But I do care deeply about his time as DPP and his desire to please the media - who he thinks of as the public - or, in fact, VOTERS. Tony Blair and Boris Johnson did similar, with varying degrees of success.
But nobody before - EVER - has said "You will be believed even if you are lying". It's the same as saying "You may murder anyone you care to kill".

I'm interested in this comment, with the "even if you are lying" part. I'm not attempting to catch you out or such like, but could you tell me exactly when and where he made this precise comment please, and possibly provide a source, because it's such a dangerous and moronic thing to say which could even act as encouragement for dishonest accusations.

Based on the kind of comments Starmer has made in the past as DPP about coming forward and always being believed, this would leave him on a very sticky wicket indeed if someone came forward with an accusation against him now as Prime Minister and he would no doubt set himself aside as different to those he spoke about in the past and pile on more personal hypocrisy. After all, this man plays by different rules to others doesn't he, as his special tax status that he had arranged just for him has proven.

Him being gay and living apart from his wife for years is not the issue, although it does make you wonder what that tripe about him not working Fridays for the sake of his Jewish wife was about.

I dont know what the "secret" is. We already knew about the terrorist links, and him being a communist etc etc.
Whatever it is, he would be better telling us himself or clearing off.

JK2006 wrote:
Actually I don't care about any of his personal characteristics and so far he seems to have been a perfectly adequate Prime Minister. Not put a foot wrong despite the media. But I do care deeply about his time as DPP and his desire to please the media - who he thinks of as the public - or, in fact, VOTERS. Tony Blair and Boris Johnson did similar, with varying degrees of success.
But nobody before - EVER - has said "You will be believed even if you are lying". It's the same as saying "You may murder anyone you care to kill".

adequate? Not so sure about that. He is an example of the decline in British political life and how standards have deteriorated so badly.

The Tories are a basket case with now a hint of conservatism about them rather they've become venture capitalists on steroids.

Starmer has totally and blatantly lied to get where he is especially with the shocking manner in which he stabbed Corbyn in the back yet pledged to continue Corbyn's policies which gained him the leadership and then dumped those polices...despite the election numbers clearly showing Labour voters still preferred Corbyn's vision.

And he's shown he can be bought for far less than the Tories.

Boris Johnson looks incredibly clever by comparison with his freebie collection.

But Lord Alli who seems to be the hidden Labour power broker now..he's the man we need to know much more about..the organ grinder as opposed to the monkey in fine suits.

RICH - Starmer's direction to police as DPP was that they must tell complainants YOU WILL BE BELIEVED. My extension of that, as I've said since then, is simply explaining what the simple four words mean. He could have said YOU MAY BE BELIEVED. Or qualified it with "unless you are lying". Since he didn't, and kept it to four words, it clearly and essentially meant EVEN IF YOU ARE LYING.

JK2006 wrote:
RICH - Starmer's direction to police as DPP was that they must tell complainants YOU WILL BE BELIEVED. My extension of that, as I've said since then, is simply explaining what the simple four words mean. He could have said YOU MAY BE BELIEVED. Or qualified it with "unless you are lying". Since he didn't, and kept it to four words, it clearly and essentially meant EVEN IF YOU ARE LYING.

Thankyou for clearing that up JK and I understand this now. I broadly agree there.

I think more and more people are beginning to wonder just what is making Starmer tick exactly. The correct thing to have said whould have been - You will be listened to with compassion and understanding and without judgement.

The trouble with Starmer, something that has been magnified enormously since he became PM such a short time ago, is that he is proving himself to be an enormously judgemental man against many groups in society and situations, where some can do no wrong and are above criticism and others can do no right and are permanently in his firing line. Yet his own judgement and self awareness is now proven to be poor in the extreme.

I recall reading/hearing a piece somewhere, around about the time Starmer became leader of Labour, where Paul Gambaccini was of the opinion that Keir Starmer was unfit to hold any kind of public office.

He's a cunt. We all know that.