To not get the visceral levels of hatred people have for Keir Starmer

[LastChristmasigaveyousomesocks]

I’m not suggesting he’s the greatest prime minister ever. I’m not even suggesting he’s good at all. But some people really, really passionately hate him.

He is a bit insipid and doesn’t have much charisma but overall he seems like a decent enough bloke who perhaps lacks the political skill and acumen he needs. He’s out of his depth basically.

But that’s not a reason to actually despise someone is it?

When did we get to a point where we can’t just disagree without painting the other person as the devil incarnate?

Wikipedia might help explain why MNHQ deleted your post:

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under a judge", means that a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers.

In England and Wales, Ireland,[1] New Zealand,[2][3][4] Australia, South Africa, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Canada,[5] Sri Lanka, and Israel it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

You'll have to wait until April to see if the rumours about Starmer's private life are true or not.

The price of club season tickets, any tickets has insured that football isn't really the domain of, 'working class men' anymore.

Not really. My post was asking a question. Where is the case up to.

Read the link.

‘Prosecutors have stated that, at this stage, the alleged offenses are "unexplained," and no clear motive has been publicly disclosed.

During court proceedings, the judge noted the circumstances were "somewhat opaque," acknowledging that while the acts were coordinated, their underlying purpose or motivation is not yet known.’

Somewhat opaque indeed.

Don’t tell me what to do

Are you being sarcastic? Plenty of coverage in the rw press too:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/29/starmer-firebomb-attacks-arrest-fifth-suspect-arrested/

Fifth man, 19, is arrested over Keir Starmer arson attacks in north London https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15508797/fifth-man-arrested-alleged-arson-keir-starmer.html

Keir Starmer arson attack: Fifth suspect arrested over London fires share.google/9FirT7I7VMK5f4qWm

And will be completely transparent when the trial takes place in April.

Clearly hit a nerve here.

There is a trial in April of three men. Another man is currently under investigation.

I doubt it. It’s more that people still with your views are in the minority.

May I amend your statement slightly

"And will may be completely transparent when the trial takes place in April."

I have less faith in the legal system than you perhaps do.

Not really. It's MN.

The only thing transparent about Starmer is that he tells lies.

Given that the defendants charged so far have pleaded not guilty doubtless they’ll ensure every possible avenue is explored as part of their defence.

They will certainly be exploring avenues. Agreed.

Those with less experience of the judicial system may well believe that.

Don't be daft. If there was reason and conspiracy to cover things up, the trial wouldn't be happening in the first place.

As I said though, the dim of mind will howl "cover up" if a certain narrative about Starmer does not emerge.

Nothing daft about it. Do you think all trials uncover all truths?

So if Labour don't 'use it well', you acknowledge that it is a tool that can be very effective at delivering targeted content i.e. it 'is' used well?

Equally if social media platforms are the only place a certain demographic receives their news from, how is it patronising to to suggest their views are formed on the basis of these polarised views alone?

They do if the defence depends on them. It would be a truly shit legal team if that wasn’t the case.

Where a lot of people post about conspiracy theories they have blindly lapped up.

I do agree with that..algorithms are not particularly helpful in getting a full picture. We do end up consuming what reflects our own bias. Which is fine by me regarding myself as I know by now what I think, having spent most of my life not online. But I'd prefer my children to get a balanced picture so they can form their own views.

Such as?

What do you believe in, do you have faith in anything?