Corbyn - A Suitable Case For Treatment? No 1.
 

Can this Wurzel Gummidge look-alike continue to have any credibility or support from credible people for much longer?

An 'extraordinary' letter written by Jeremy Corbyn to a court, was instrumental in securing bail for a Muslim conman charged with stealing nearly £1million of life savings from elderly British people to allegedly FUND ISIS.

Corbyn's letter urged the court in May of 2015 calling on magistrates to grant bail to 23-year-old Mohamed Dahir who comes from his Islington North constituency, as he had “roots in the area” and was "unlikely to abscond".

The court was told that Dahir was part of a Muslim gang using elderly people’s cash as a “bank of terror” to pay for would-be jihadists to travel from the UK to fight alongside Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

Magistrates granted bail to Dahir and he was able to walk out of court pending the trial.

However, Dahir has now been convicted of posing as a police officer to steal more than £600,000 from elderly people with an average age of 83 as part a £1million phone scam.

"One of the victims of the scam was a 94-year-old man from north west London who handed over his life savings of £130,000 and a 91-year-old man who handed over his £8,000 nest-egg.

The allegations that the money was used to fund terrorism was not heard by the jury and no terrorism charges were brought, although Scotland Yard said in a statement to Express.co.uk: “We uncovered this fraud after a separate terrorist investigation found suspicious payments into a bank account of an individual who is now believed to have travelled to Syria.”

Dahir's barrister Patrick Harte again presented Mr Corbyn's letter to the Old Bailey, applying for bail pending sentencing, saying: “He (Dahir) understands the need to be here. He has been here on every occasion.”

However, this time the letter proved unsuccessful and Dahir remanded in custody when he appeared before Judge Anuja Dhir QC who said there was a risk he may abscond due to his conviction.

Here is the gang:
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/...ang-411259.jpg

And here is Dahir and some of the recepients of the conned British pensioners life savings, and the 'friendliest, most helpful 'Uncle' any terrorist could wish for, old Wurzel himself:

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/...hir-625862.jpg

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...iley-Christmas

Ill advised letter and a totally wrong one in my opinion.

Not worthy however for more character assassination of him at all in my view and yes I would still support him in a general election, I would support any Labour leader against this vile Conservative govt.

I'd rather attack this PM for the care services and funds he is taking off people who are sick and disabled, yet gets way with it and even praised for it by some.

That's proppa gander that is guvna. Proppa gander.

propaganda
prɒpəˈɡandə/
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

So let me get this straight - dredging up every fact about Donald 'Idiot' Trump which shows him in a bad light, is acceptable comment or expose, but doing the very same with Jeremy 'Idiot' Corbyn is 'propaganda'.

Now I KNOW I am back on TIBB. :laugh:

'The allegations that the money was used to fund terrorism was not heard by the jury and no terrorism charges were brought.'

If there was no mention of any terrorist connections then how would Mr Corbyn have been aware of any implication?
He wrote a letter to a judge is all, the guy didn't abscond and was sentenced.

Absolutely right, and welcome back my friend.:wavey:

Thank you Joey :)

So in your opinion then, it was not stupid for a politician such as Corbyn to involve himself in this manner on behalf of someone charged with stealing the life savings of OAP?

OMG:shocked:

More evidence of where Corbyns loyalties lie.

More of the right-wing press trying to vilify a left-wing candidate.. getting dull now.

It's good you're aware of exactly what this is.

St Corbyn can do no wrong.When was the last letter he wrote to a judge to bail a non Arab fraudster out?

It's very dodgy that he does this for suspected funders of terrorism.What about every other fraudster in his constituancy?You know the average one that does'nt know any IS members?

Such a 'sympathetic' guy if your face fits.......Or your ideology......

Quite frankly it is pure speculation that Corbyn has not often written to Courts on behalf of Parishioners seeking his help.
I have found when in Islington that he is a highly respected MP for the constituency and people of 'all' political persuasion feel able to go to him, as they should too.
He has been there for 30+ years now so he clearly does good by most of the voters in the seat.

Also, we do still have a rule of law in the UK that someone is 'innocent' until 'proven, yes proven guilty.
Corbyn would act on what the information he was given, the Court would act on what was likely going before it.

Still,it is another excuse to get at that man for in effect doing his job,representing his constituents.
Corbyn could not demand the Court did anything he could only write on behalf of his constituent with the info he had.
His letter,like any other letter sent to a Court from anyone,would either be considered, or dismissed in light of what was in the files.

Really I despair sometimes at the nit picking against the man.

Perhaps it is unwise to send a letter to court on behalf of someone up on criminal charges, unless you actually know them rather well I can't see how you can possibly vouch for them:shrug:

An MP has to represent his constituent, now from the other angle imagine what would be being said here if it had come out that Corbyn had refused point blank to write a letter,when asked, to a court for one of 'his' constituents.

MPs and indeed Councillors actually write many letters in support or seeking clarification of events for their constituents.
I agree his letter was probably ill advised, the action to write it was far from it, in my view anyway, and I would guess in the scenario above I mentioned, he would be being slammed again left right and centre there too.

At a minimum he needs to tighten up on his procedures, I will leave it at that.

yeah the press made him write it, just as the press made labour bankrupt the country and start illegal wars?

I am so happy that Corbyn is the leader of the labor party. It means that David (the holy one) Cameron has no challenger for the next 20 yrs and that is a good thing.:cheer2::cheer2::cheer2:

Regardless of whether he should or shouldn't have written the letter, he is a vile human who has expressed sympathy for terrorists very publicly, so that says enough about him really..

UPDATE: Corbyn KNEW nice Mr Dahir because he was 'CLOSE' friends' with his family for years.

Explaining the reason for Mr Corbyn's support, Dahir's mother Amina Farah, 40, a housewife, said: "We are family friends (with Corbyn). We always fought for him, for Labour. We have known him for many years. He is a nice man.

"We are a good family. We don't want any problems. I don't know why they arrested my son."

His sister, Maryam Dahir, 20, who is applying to study nursing, added: "My father is a close friend of his. He [Corbyn] was able to vouch for my brother, for us, we are thankful to him. We had to prove my brother was innocent. Clearly if my brother was a criminal, he (Corbyn) would not have participated.

"My dad spoke to Jeremy personally and asked him to help. He is really close friends with my father, they have done a lot of community work together."

Mr Corbyn's spokesman said: "Jeremy Corbyn condemns the actions of his constituent as appalling acts against vulnerable people and wholly unacceptable."
Sources claimed when he wrote the letter he was unaware of the alleged links to terror.
They added: "Jeremy was approached by his constituent prior to the trial, and wrote a letter on his behalf as is standard for a constituency MP.
"This was before the full facts of the case had emerged, and was on the basis that Jeremy was informed the constituent needed to be at home with his children and would not abscond and could not travel abroad."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...Christmas.html

Hes trying too hard to be mr nice guy and really is sitting on the fence a lot , failing to make any decisions and failing to really get involved in real politics.....which lets face it is a very very dirty business delaing with a whole load of evil people and desperate situations. sometimes a leader has to decide which people will die and how many? a leader sometimes doesn't even have the luxury of choosing for no one to die. its he dirtiest business in the world but wil he ever get his hands dirty or forever stand on the sidelines with the far left wing liberals? maybe hes more suited to protesting , campaigning and preaching. But running a country you have to risk everything, including your very soul. I just don't see him as willing to do any of that

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

But with respect - No one is claiming that Corbyn knew of any terror links when he intervened on Dahir's behalf, and I even pointed this out in my original post.

The points that are being missed or ignored here, are, that:

a) Corbyn was a politician of many years standing - a holder of Public Office.
b) Corbyn was a close friend of Dahir's family.
c) Corbyn KNEW that Dahir was charged with swindling the life savings of old aged pensioners.
d) Corbyn still elected to involve himself on behalf of Dahir.

All of which add up to a pretty damning indictment of Corbyn's character and morals in that he used his parliamentary position to intercede on Dahir's behalf because he was 'close friends with the family'.

Is this example of 'Political Nepotism' not alarming at all? Does it not fall squarely in those same areas as 'Cash For Questions'? 'Cash For Influence'? and other examples of 'personal self-serving' by politicians over 'public duty'?

Does it not at least trigger some misgivings in those who - as Northern Monkey so adroitly couches it - "Can find no fault with St Corbyn"?

I find it personally asonishing that certain Labour supporters ARE so blinded by their detestation of Cameron and the Tory party, that they illogically continue to be so ferevently supportive of Corbyn in the face of one revelation after another exposing how dangerous and treacherous an idiot he is, simply because he is the Labour Party Leader.

Peter Mandleson said in an article condemning Corbyn:

"The British prefer opportunity over privilege, and fairness over entitlement"

Corbyn uses his political office to intervene on the part of a family friend - a Muslim - charged with conning OAP's out of their life savings and his supporters are quick to defend their saviour and dismiss this, as: "only "representing his constituents" or "writing a letter, is all" - but had it been David Cameron using his political position to influence a Court's decision in the matter of 'Tristram Ponsonby-Smythe, the son of the 14th Earl of Bummington, an Investment Banker charged with swindling the million pound life savings of pensioners, or Nigel Farage using his non-political celebrity status to intervene in the Judicial Process on behalf of ''Alf Whitevan-Man' charged with 'Racial Intimidation', then what a Hue and Cry there would be from these same misguided Corbyn stalwarts. What a furious flurry of copying and pasting of reportage there would be in order to CONDEMN Cameron and Farage.

And it would NOT be propaganda - Oh No. It would be fair comment.

You won't find me often siding with Corbyn, if ever again, but MP's surgeries are busy places, with lots of assistants delegated to do the work for him. At a summary level, he was putting in a good word for someone, nothing more, nothing less. That's not a crime. He was not the decision maker. Should he be more careful, yes he should, but I bet every single MP has put in a similar recommendation for someone without knowing all the facts.

If a constituent member contacts their local MP directly, depending on parliamentary protocol, that MP will often involve themselves with that constituents problems. One thing an MP can't do is interfere with the decisions of the court, unless there had been some sort of mal administration during the proceedings. In this particular case, its likely that some administrative incompetence had been pointed out to the courts by Corbyn.

Its classified information with its own media spin added and because that media spin involves Corbyn, a very large mountain has been made out of a regularly occurring molehill.

Then you don't fully grasp just how much damage Camerosborne have been doing to some people and families... I think can be the only answer to that.

As for the rest of it, I don't really know / haven't looked into it, but I would say that it sounds like a lot of conclusions are being jumped to based on very flimsy logic.

e.g.

Yes true but as has been pointed out, MPs often (and indeed, are supposed to) get involved in things on behalf of their constituents if they are approached. They are after all, elected by those people AS a representative. People write to their MPs about all sorts of things looking for support. He may have given support a bit TOO freely without enough examination... but that's hardly unique to him, or to MPs.

According to... Dahir's family? And anecdotes in the gutter press? I'm not saying it isn't possible but I'd need a little more evidence than that.

He knew what he was accused of. We operate on a system of "innocent until proven guilty", so that's not really relevant.

Well that's just a statement of fact so I can hardly argue with that... :laugh:



I've said before - I'm not a Corbynite or a Labour voter. They haven't been for decades, and likely won't be again, much better for normal working people in the UK than the Tories are. Slightly better for the worst off, which is something, but not much.

However, I know a smear campaign when I see one and Corbyn is being plastered all over the walls, ceiling and floor. There's a reason for that, a political one, and it's not because he "really really is an actual Muslim terrorist in disguise"... the idea is utterly insane. It's just not true. And the constant stream of hyperbole-jammed news stories really, truly are - genuinely - little more than propaganda.

I doubt the man is a saint. I find many of his ideas to be simplistically idealistic and just not feasible, also. However - he isn't a jihadist in support of ISIS. He just isn't. Come on. If you trust our ever-wonderful Intelligence Services to catch out little groups of suicide bombers planning attacks out of their living room, then you HAVE to trust that they haven't somehow slipped up and allowed a closet terrorist to become the leader of the main opposition party to government. It would be like something out of a DC comic. "Muahahahahaaaa Batman!! I had a Nuke surgically implanted in my belly all along and now that I am in No.10 I will blow a crater in the middle of London!! Muaaaaahahahaheeheeeee"

Corbyn was intimate with the family. He was a close family friend. Corbyn's son was mates with Dahir - they played in Corbyn's house and vice versa. .

A letter from a politician to a Court trying to convince a judge or magistrate to allow bail IS INTERFERING with the decicision of the court - by trying to influence the possible decision of the Court - which is the sole purpose of such a letter.

" In this particular case, its likely that some administrative incompetence had been pointed out to the courts by Corbyn. " -- Have we any evidence which corroborates this grandly authorative statement Red? Or is just a wild statement in yet more unsubstantiated deflection in protection of 'St Corbyn'? There was No 'administrative incompetence' - it was simply a matter of Comrade Corbyn using his political status nepotistically to influence the court into giving this twat bail because he was a family friend.

"Its classified information with its own media spin added and because that media spin involves Corbyn, a very large mountain has been made out of a regularly occurring molehill" -- It is NOT 'Classified Information' at all - Where did this untruth come from?

It was a regular, criminal court case - the theft of OAP's life savings by a gang of conmen.

The jury did NOT hear any of the 'Funds to ISIS' testimony.

I love how you Corbyn supporters hail the incessant stream of revelations which are damaging to him as 'Media Spin' but do not dismiss in such a prejudicial cavalier fashion any reportage which is detrimental to Cameron or Farage, or any other subject which does not fit your own political agenda or ideologies.

I don't know if I'm included here as one of "you Corbyn supporters" but, if I am, I do need to point out that I unilaterally and frequently condemn absolutely everything in mainstream media "reportage" as being a steaming pile of garbage. There's maybe 20% truth in there on any topic but it's anyone's guess which are the true statements in all of the hyperbole and hysterical wailing. I don't watch the mainstream "news", and I don't read "news"papers... I'm simply not interested in their bias, whichever way it swings.

I know only too well the damage caused by certain Conservative Government policy on some people and families T.S - I have condemned the 'Austerity Cuts' and other draconian measures on other threads - but this is totally irrelevant within the context of what I wrote, which I reproduce below:

Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post

"I find it personally asonishing that certain Labour supporters ARE so blinded by their detestation of Cameron and the Tory party, that they illogically continue to be so ferevently supportive of Corbyn"


Which means that I am not defending Cameron - I did not even vote Tory - I am saying that certain people's BLIND FANATICAL SUPPORT for Corbyn DESPITE all the increasingly frequent revelations of just what a subversive idiot he is, is chiefly because of their BLIND HATRED of Cameron and the Tory Government.

In other words;

Certain people would fervently and irrationally support the bastard offspring of Karl Marx and Niccolò Machiavelli as Labour Leader just as long as that leader was opposing Cameron and the Tory Government.

There are far better candidates who should have been Labour Leader -Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, and Liz Kendall - but no one is going to try to hoodwink me that Comrade Corbyn is anything but a subversive idiot who is bad for the UK, bad for politics, and bad for the Labour Party - who will not recover from this terrorist-loving prat should he reign for much longer as leader.

As for 'Flimsy logic' T.S. - this is disingenuous of you, look this matter up, then comment.

This certain Labour supporter definitely will support Corbyn,even though not my choice for leader,any day of the week over this PM we have now and as ToySoldier says because of the damage this PM and his govt have done to families and individuals too.

Just about for me and I admit I don't like the man so give a heavily biased view here, any one would be better for me as PM for another party than Cameron.
Because I have seen the devastation he has allowed to be brought into peoples lives,in my work even helping fight to put it right for them.

This was an ill advised letter,just about all MPs, I agree with the poster who said that. will have sent such letters for some constituents,before having full facts possibly too.
Also no, it would not be that on errors of some judgement that I would hammer David Cameron, just about all through the time that the Coulson chaos was unfurling, I refused to join in the condemnation of Cameron as to his judgement there.
I even said years ago, I admired him for taking the word of a trusted friend.

So this 'certain' Labour supporter,as if now being a 'certain' Labour supporter is the new bad thing on here for some,will be fair and balanced when required to be and will not nit pick and just get at someone at every opportunity.
I do against Cameron but I do not insult the man personally.
I consider him a political liar, I hate all he has done to the most vulnerable in the UK and I hate his policies on the NHS.
I find his procrastination annoying.

However,I understood the trauma he and his wife went throught at the sad loss of his son,I also often point out, I think he will be a good husband, father,friend to those in his circle too.
So maybe it is just possibly the certain supporters of other parties, who need to be more balanced and not just 'get at' 'certain' Labour supporters as was pointed out earlier.

Just because the Conservatives got an overall majority in May, does not mean it became in any way 'wrong' or 'illegal' to be a Labour member or supporter, the way some here relentlessly get at Labour supporters,should,'only in my view' become an embarrassment for them actually,because no way am I embarrassed at all to support a party that will fight tooth and nail for the most vulnerable again in society.

While being extremely happy to not support one that tries to trample such vulnerable people into the ground they walk on.

I did not even know that you were a 'Corbyn supporter' :laugh: (Well not a 'real' one :hehe:)

As for the rest of your post T.S. - how the hell do you become informed then?

No I get all of that Kirk and I agree that there are a lot of people who would support a three-legged fictional donkey brought to life by the magic of green-screen over Cameron / any Tory government... and I'm not saying that blind support of anyone is ever the RIGHT course of action... all I'm saying is that I'm not astonished that there are people who have been so blinded. It's really quite understandable. The fact that Corbyn is SO "different" to the status quo is likely what amplifies this effect, rather than the to the "Tory-lite" opposition (if you can call it that) of the last few decades. It's temporarily blinded people - they'll remember that all politicians are scumbags with agendas soon enough.

But what if I just can't be bothered? :( I have to go to work in 40 minutes and I haven't even had a shower yet. Stop bullying me by telling me to read and become informed!

...This news site...

Obviously...

OK - I am persuaded by the first part of your response, that you are sincere in your belief and what you say. It's also very fair.

The second part (emboldened) just made me LOL. :laugh:

Get ready for work. :laugh:

Corbyn was intimate with the family. He was a close family friend. Corbyn's son was mates with Dahir - they played in Corbyn's house and vice versa.

So he was merely a character witness.

A letter from a politician to a Court trying to convince a judge or magistrate to allow bail IS INTERFERING with the decicision of the court - by trying to influence the possible decision of the Court - which is the sole purpose of such a letter.

There are numerous justifications for granting bail. First and foremost the seriousness of the crime followed by any previous criminal record. The judge will also consider the strength behind the accusation, the ability to pay up should the defendant brake bail and the defendants character. Corbyn provided what he considered a true (to his knowledge) character report of the defendant and did so without prejudice. This is perfectly normal

In this particular case, its likely that some administrative incompetence had been pointed out to the courts by Corbyn. "[/B] -- Have we any evidence which corroborates this grandly authorative statement Red? Or is just a wild statement in yet more unsubstantiated deflection in protection of 'St Corbyn'? There was No 'administrative incompetence' - it was simply a matter of Comrade Corbyn using his political status nepotistically to influence the court into giving this twat bail because he was a family friend.

Its not a wild statement but could be a real possibility. As I've already said, an MP has to follow strict political guidelines which include having no influence on criminal court decisions.

This is speculative journalism and the truth is, neither you nor I have privy to all the information laid before the judge.

It is NOT 'Classified Information' at all - Where did this untruth come from?
It was a regular, criminal court case - the theft of OAP's life savings by a gang of conmen.

Can you find a full run down of all the court proceedings leading up to the initial bail plea? If you can, I'd love you to share them with us, especially the letter Corbyn wrote

The jury did NOT hear any of the 'Funds to ISIS' testimony.

That's normal and although we may not agree with that, its still normal

I love how you Corbyn supporters hail the incessant stream of revelations which are damaging to him as 'Media Spin' but do not dismiss in such a prejudicial cavalier fashion any reportage which is detrimental to Cameron or Farage, or any other subject which does not fit your own political agenda or ideologies.[/QUOTE]

Have you considered that Corbyn believed this guy to be innocent? You say he knew him well, that he was a good friend of his sons. Could it be that Corbyn wrongly believed that such a likeable lad and family friend was very probably innocent? As it turned out he wasn't and Corbyn was wrong; though he wasn't wrong in reporting what he himself had witnessed first hand...re-this guys character.

This happens every single day in Court Kirk. The most heinous of criminals regularly have character witnesses who can't believe this person in the dock could possibly be guilty. We don't make a siht fest about these witnesses for one simple reason; they believed in the defendants innocence until proven guilty...they got it wrong but what they told the court was truth to the best of their knowledge.

Have you considered that Corbyn believed this guy to be innocent? You say he knew him well, that he was a good friend of his sons. Could it be that Corbyn wrongly believed that such a likeable lad and family friend was very probably innocent? As it turned out he wasn't and Corbyn was wrong; though he wasn't wrong in reporting what he himself had witnessed first hand...re-this guys character.

This happens every single day in Court Kirk. The most heinous of criminals regularly have character witnesses who can't believe this person in the dock could possibly be guilty. We don't make a siht fest about these witnesses for one simple reason; they believed in the defendants innocence until proven guilty...they got it wrong but what they told the court was truth to the best of their knowledge.[/QUOTE]

Very well summarised and proficiently too DemRed,great post with balanced, fair and right wording all through.

I was going to attempt this but decided on the route I took in my post.

I hope your right and fair conclusions to this don't just fall on deaf ears.
You really do make some incredible posts I have to add.
You have my respect and attention for sure.

@kirklancaster
I have never been a Conservative but that doesn't mean I don't agree with some Conservative policies. I grew up with a farther passionate about politics and I was hugely influenced (as many children are) to follow my parents beliefs and cement myself firmly in the middle... but politics are like fluid in that they constantly move and often change course. Unlike my parents who are somewhat obsessed with their staunch support of one party and much to their disapproval, I refuse to stagnate. That makes me anything but blind.

For me, the Conservative party are playing a cruel and divisive game on the minions who blindly serve them and although I don't want Corbyn to be our next prime minister, he is the ball and chain that's presently curbing Tory politics. When did we last have a party who could not only stand up to the Tories but stick with their reasoning with such passion?. Corbyn is the man who making the general public ask questions and the man who's raised more interest in British Politics for decades.

That isn't blind fanatical support, its just the right to think differently without fearing condemnation.

I'm not sure why you brought up Marx and Machiavelli, two great philosophers?.

Thank you Joey and the same to you :)

People can poke their pointy sticks at us all they like. So long as we don't take it personally eh!!