How does someone like Keir Starmer receive a knighthood?

[pusspuss9]

I can't help wondering how Keir Starmer ever got to be made a sir? I always thought sirs were people who had done something special?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/28/starmer-use-the-echr-to-prosecute-british-troops/

The Times and BBC also reported it. It was all over the papers and media, news channels a month ago.

Starmer prosecuting British troops and hounding them through the courts over decades. Some troops had committed suicide such was the hounding, harassment and persecution.

Fabricated evidence by Phil Shiner Human Rights lawyer who was struck off as he made-up evidence to lock up and prosecute British troops who has links to Kier Starmer.

Try reading your own linked sources again, but properly this time. As has been explained to you before, and as a rudimentary Google search will confirm, Starmer wasn't the prosecutor. You also haven't explained as yet why British troops should not be required to act lawfully. One would almost think you're not interested in actual facts. Strange.

• 2007 Legal Case: Starmer acted pro bono (free of charge) as a human rights barrister representing groups like Amnesty International and Liberty in a 2007 legal challenge (Al-Skeini case). This case aimed to extend the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to British forces in occupied Iraq, which led to numerous inquiries into the actions of UK soldiers.
• Case Involving Disgraced Solicitor: In this 2007 case, Starmer worked alongside Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers. Shiner was later struck off and convicted of fraud for fabricating evidence in cases against British troops.
• Reopening Investigations: As part of the 2007 case, Starmer was involved in submissions urging a fresh inquiry into Sergeant Richie Catterall, who had previously been cleared of murder twice. Sgt Catterall was later fully exonerated after years of investigation.
• "Witch-hunt" Allegation: Former veterans minister Johnny Mercer and others have described these legal interventions as having initiated a "witch-hunt" against veterans.
• Downing Street Response: Downing Street has denied that Sir Keir represented the Iraqi claimants, stating that as an intervenor, his role was to "assist the court on points of law, not to advocate for either side". They have termed the criticisms a "desperate and deliberate misrepresentation" of his work as a human rights lawyer.

The Telegraph also reported that Starmer wrote a chapter in a 2008 book edited by Shiner that argued for the use of the ECHR in investigating British troops.

What you describe, even if true, wouldn’t have been pro bono. What he famously did do pro bono was assist the environmentalists Helen Steel and David Morris in the McLibel case.

You don't appear to understand: Keir Starmer did not act as the prosecutor in any of the examples you have listed (or at all). You have set out the (factually correct) Downing Street response but you don't seem to understand it. Respectfully, you are just embarrassing yourself now. You are repeating the same thing over and over as if that is somehow meaningful, but you clearly don't understand it. I don't expect the average person to be familiar with all the minutiae of how our legal system works, but you really shouldn't try to argue something when your purported "arguments" only serve to highlight your lack of knowledge and understanding. Are you able to grasp that the extracts you are copying and pasting do not say (much less prove!) what you think they do? I am all up for intelligent debate, but this is like trying to reason with a chatbot!

Use of the term “prosecutor” is technically incorrect, but the substantive allegation - that Starmer was involved in litigation designed to enable the pursuit of members of the armed forces - seems correct.

The purpose of the actions that that poster is talking about is being very disingenuously presented. I've asked that poster to explain why they take such issue with the idea that the armed forces should have to act in accordance with applicable law. The poster has not responded. Instead, they just keep repeating that Starmer has prosecuted, persecuted blah blah. I'm trying to understand why that poster is demonising Starmer for wanting the law to be applied and upheld. Why was it wrong for any of the lawyers involved to want that? Starmer's role was to make submissions on the applicable law. Language matters and the poster in question is incorrectly and disingenuously presenting the whole issue as though Starmer pursued individual servicemen in individual actions and somehow should be held responsible for trauma felt by those who were investigated and held not to have violated the law. That is simply wrong. If the poster wants to argue why members of the armed forces should not be above the law, they should do that clearly - not try to obfuscate by trying to misrepresent Starmer's role. If someone wants to attack or critique Starmer, go for it - but do it on the basis of the actual facts.

This. 100%

Do you not feel any hint of embarrassment admitting that you don't know anything about his career before politics? How on earth can you claim that he has done nothing special and then admit that you actually have no idea what he has or hasn't done?

Are you really as ignorant as your posts would suggest, or is this just a rather clumsy way of trying to express your dislike of the PM?

Barristers act for their clients to the best of their ability within any guidelines that the court lays down.

That’s the deal, that’s the job, that’s what any of us would want of the barrister representing us (or questioning the person or corporation etc who had harmed us or loved ones.)

i don’t know about the case in question but the above is true for any barrister who might have acted instead of Starmer in any of his cases.

I notice Nicewoman never replies to any questions or counter evidence that doesn’t suit her - she just posts something else.

@pusspuss9 bait bot.

Apparently Never Here Keir has now done a U turn on that.

I don't know why they ever thought that handing over 35billion of taxpayers money to a foreign country was a good idea during these hard economic times unless their strategy is to bankrupt Britain.

Rachel Thieves seems to think that taxing everyone to oblivion and handing it over to 'benefit street' is the right way to kick start to economy. and solve the COL crisis. She's already made it much harder for small businesses by employers raising NI - when she could have taxed windfall profits instead.

I quite like the idea of troops being held accountable to comply with the law. Nobody - not soldiers, not police, not anyone - should be protected from being held responsible for their actions. The thought alone is terrifying.

And being investigated and found innocent is just fallout from the law being upheld.

‘I don’t know about his career’ - there’s your answer. Find out about his career. 🙄

Never Here Keir. Rachel Thieves.

My goodness, you are hilarious and original! A rare combination.

She forgot Liebour…

Can I suggest you start a campaign to have him stripped of it, OP? I think that would be an excellent use of your time and brainpower.

The same way undeserving tories and their backers get one. They have made them meaningless.
Look at the young girl johnson put in the house of lords. She gets £300 a day just for turning up. Disgraceful.

Except Starmer was made a KBE because of his work as DPP, not because he was a backer of a political party.

That’s not how Starmer got his knighthood. Is Google not working today or something?

So you’re asking what he did to get knighted whilst also adding that you don’t know about his career. I know I’m about the millionth person to say this, but how did it not occur to you that maybe he did something in his career that merited a knighthood?

I love how this thread has gone. 😂

Not quite as OP hoped. No wonder they haven't come back.

I'm also questioning the criteria for knighthood used in his career - like did he do as he was told is politically correct and would please his masters or was he just best friends with whomever did the nominating...or was he brilliant at his job? If so, those talents are now nowhere on display. evident by his immense unpopularity and disgust at his total inability to answer basic questions put to him in parliament.
Notice I don't need to slag off my many detractors on here, as they have me. Typical leftie bullying tactics.

You may wish to just look up why KS got his knighthood, because you clearly still don't understand how the system works. You don't like him. We get it. But it isn't a popularity contest.

Disagreeing robustly with someone isn't bullying, BTW.