Anatomy of a Smear Part 2

Smear 2 - Corbyn Allegedly Supports a Terrorist Funding Fraudster

The smear narrative (same culprits as before) in this case is that Corbyn ‘intervened’ to ‘plead the case’ of an ISIL supporting, fraudster Mohamed Dahir living in the UK. A typical example from another of those UK bastions of bigotry - the Daily Telegraph and written in Dec. 2015 i.e after Dahir had been found guilty.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12044641/Jeremy-Corbyn-writes-letter-pleading-for-fraudster-Mohamed-Dahir-to-be-freed-for-Christmas.html

In considering the claims in the article be very, very careful to note the way in which the Daily Telegraph is continually chopping and changing between statements made around the time of Dahir's bail application in May 2015, when he was entitled by UK law to be presumed innocent and those made after he was found guilty in December 2015. The motivation or which should be obvious as supoported via a Q&A analysis of the incident which I will hope will illuminate the distortions of the truth made by the Telegraph and many others ..

• Did, as claimed by the DT, Jeremy Corbyn write a letter 'pleading' for a convicted fraudster Mohamed Dahir, one of his constituents to "to be freed for Christmas"
• NO - Jeremy Corbyn wrote a letter in May 2015 supporting bail for Dahir before his trial and subsequent conviction
• In their own article the Telegraph state it was Dahir’s lawyer 'who again attempted' to use Corbyn’s supporting letter from May 2015 and written when Dahir was presumed innocent, as support for further bail after Dahir had been found guilty - an argument rejected by the Judge.
• Is it in any way reasonable to expect that in May 2015  before the case had come to court that Jeremy Corbyn should somehow be capable of knowing and /or responsible for assessing whether his accused constituent would later be found guilty?
• NO - there is no reasonable basis (* but see footnote) on which to expect him to do so and the presumption of innocence and adherence to due process of law are key tenets of the UK legal system

• Was it actually Jeremy Corbyn's place to ‘intervene’ by writing a  letter on behalf of one of his constituents?
• YES - It is fully in accord with the official government description of an MP duties see below - relevant extracts being  :

“ Your MP will generally do everything he or she can to help constituents “

“ ..can write letters on your behalf to officials”

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/fymp/yaympenglish.pdf

• Was bail granted because of Jeremy Corbyn’s claimed Intervention?
• We don't know  - that was a decision taken by the magistrates involved who would have assessed his bail application in accordance with legal guidelines as below.
• It is important to note that except for certain categories of offence the general right to bail applies i,e bail will be automatically be granted unless an exception applies. An exception being when there is (see below) a Real Risk - as assessed by the court - of the accused absconding or being involved in further crimes or criminal activities prior to their trial.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/OD_000042.doc

• Also note the complete lack of criticism by the Telegraph and the three Tory MP cited of the magistrates actually responsible for approving the bail application 

• In supporting the initial case for bail in May 2015 did Corbyn make any statement about his views on his constituent's innocence or character.  
• NO  - according to the DT article the grounds were that he had "roots in the area" and was 'unlikely /could not abscond ' 

• Did Dahir commit any crimes or abscond before his trial
• NO (Apparently) and there are no claims even by the Telegraph that he did so

• Did Jeremy Corbyn participate in the trial itself or help ‘plead the case’ for Mohamed Dahir
• NO  

• When Dahir was found guilty in December 2015 did Jeremy Corbyn in any way condone his actions
• NO - He rightly and unequivocally condemned them as quoted in the article: "Jeremy Corbyn condemns the actions of his constituent as appalling acts against vulnerable people and wholly unacceptable."

• Were any terrorist related charges eventually brought against Mohamed Dahir and his co-conspirators  
• NOT to my knowledge
  
• So Jeremy Corbyn did absolutely nothing other than fulfil his duties and obligations as an MP representing a constituent and actually has if anything been shown to exercise good judgement  when supporting the bail application given the accused did not abscond or commit further crimes when on bail.  
• YES 

Summary

A  wholly malicious smear against Jeremy Corbyn simply doing his job - directly supported by three Tory MPs.

Just some concluding thoughts. What would the Telegraph Headlines been in May 2015 if Jeremy Corbyn had refused to write on behalf of Dahir? I think something along these lines...

Corbyn‘s pathetic HYPOCRISY EXPOSED as he callously REFUSES to write letter on behalf of constituent  

Only in the collective mind of the BBC is there a world where a Telegraph headline might have reflected the truth and read :

Mr Jeremy Corbyn MP for Islington North diligently performs public duties supporting constituent.

*Note -  Except bigotry and racism - look at the pics of Mohamed Dahir ?