[smudgie]

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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by NanaChristmas

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

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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by NanaChristmas

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

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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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

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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

how the hell do you become informed then?

...This news site...

Obviously...

[DemolitionRed]

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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!!

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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!!

Most of the time.
However it gets my back up when 'strongly negatively' generalising as to most or all is done by the plural of such words as 'supporters' of not only Corbyn for instance but then Labour 'supporters',(plural) again being in play,thereby getting at several or more rather than just one.