Keir Starmer "not naming my children"

[Misthios]

Respect his stance not to allow pictures of his kids, fair enough, that is the decision he and his wife have made.

But the whole "i'm not publicly naming them" - you'd think as a former lawyer he'd know birth records are public record and anyone can find out in 30 seconds? So not the big secret he thinks it is?

It was said within an interview where presumably he was asked their names. So gave a simple straightforward answer.

on Laura K's show this morning, he was discussing the new family cat, and made the comment about keeping his children's names private.

This wasn't a full directive out of the blue.

it speaks volumes

About what?
What does it speak volumes about?
That he wants to keep his kids as private as he can?
What's wrong with that if so? Sounds sensible to me.

Interesting, Not trying to derail, but I’ve always been convinced such gentlemen’s agreements were in place re the royal family with a hierarchy of who could be written about ( notoriously, Diana, Fergie ) and who couldn’t ( for example Philip and his likely multiple affairs, and the Queen mother was never written about in less than fawning tones ).

As a matter of interest I looked up the story of Cameron forgetting his daughter at the pub and she was named.

https://news.sky.com/story/david-cameron-left-his-daughter-8-in-pub-10478506

I wonder if her peers and family laugh about this now.

You see, he knows what info is important for public!

Re Starmer wanting to keep his kids out of the Public eye, I think it makes a refreshing contrast to current American presidential candidates parading their families in front of the cameras.

So what?

It's not "privileged knowledge" though, it's public record, not some secret squirrel website which you have to be invited to access, or need to pass an exam to use. This sort of information is as readily available as finding out where your nearest MOT station is, or where to book your driving test, or how to apply for a passport.

I don't have "deeper access" to anything.

It was said within an interview where presumably he was asked their names. So gave a simple straightforward answer.
LOL at a politician giving simple straightforward answers.
He should have had a pre-prepared answer, precisely to stop all this speculation in its tracks.

Ok, go for it, OP. You find out the names of the junior Starmers. Maybe that will satisfy you, but most of us on here don't care.

His kids didn't choose this life. There is no reason for the public to know anything about them. It's mad that people think differently.

To save you all the trouble I’ve looked up the Starmer children's names, now please give Euphemia, Zebediah and Balonz the privacy they deserve.

I think MNHQ will zap this thread eventually.

@senua 🙄
He wants to keep his kids out of the spotlight as much as he can.
So what. Good stance to take.
Seeing as some are always taking a tin foil hat stance, makes even more sense.
Good on him.

Good for him. I wish more people were careful about protecting their kids privacy.

Exactly

So what!? Starmer and his mates are going to introduce pro-trans laws. Otherwise know as destroying women's rights. Are you not bothered?

I think it's admirable. He wants to protect his kids rather than use to further his career. It doesn't matter in the slightest what his names are. Why would anyone care?

I don't think it's all that easy? It's not like typing in the names of the parents on a page on gov.uk and up pops the names of their offspring?

I thought this meant he was literally not naming his children.

Like 'they can choose their own name when they decide their gender' kind of thing 🤣🤣

Actually fyi OP mine does require some deeper access that is protected by gpdr for legal reasons.

I don't have "deeper access" to anything.

Thankfully. Members of the public now are gratuitously nosey about stuff that is nothing whatsoever to do with them. No personal brakes whatsoever.

I don't have an issue with this