[bots]

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.

[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.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

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.

a) Corbyn was a politician of many years standing - a holder of Public Office.

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.

b) Corbyn was a close friend of Dahir's family.

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.

c) Corbyn KNEW that Dahir was charged with swindling the life savings of old aged pensioners.

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

d) Corbyn still elected to involve himself on behalf of Dahir.

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



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"

[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.

[Toy Soldier]

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

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.

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 Niccolň 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.

[joeysteele]

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.

[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?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"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 Niccolň Machiavelli as Labour Leader just as long as that leader was opposing Cameron and the Tory Government.

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.

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

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!

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

how the hell do you become informed then?

...This news site...

Obviously...

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

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!

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.

Get ready for work.

[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]

@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?.

[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.

[the truth]

labour have never acknowledged the disaster they made of the economy, until they do they will never ever be trusted again

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by the truth

labour have never acknowledged the disaster they made of the economy, until they do they will never ever be trusted again

The old New Labour are now dead and buried. They turned so far right I think they fell off Beachy Head and good riddance too.

I have to say though, although the old Labour party made a mess of many things, especially the war on Iraq, they weren't responsible for bringing about economic disaster.

Economics are my friend

Edited to say: Corbyn shouldn't be expected to apologise for the old right wing LP.

[Kizzy]

Two words.. Andy Coulson.

[DemolitionRed]

Flippin ek Kizzy, where do you find these gems?!