[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.