The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[Pox]

The problem was that the testimony of the prosecution witness's was different to their witness statements

If I recall, some or many of the security team didn't have English as their first language so maybe this had an impact on their ability to provide witness statements?

Statements have been made that the witnesses lied (by Amanda?) but in truth perhaps their words got 'lost in translation'.

[Bones]

Come on James Bradley - you claimed you wanted to debate with us and then you slide away.

We await your return

[ArthurWankspittle]

Perhaps there was no valid warrant after all ?

See previous comments. I'm not going to go over this again or allow it to be raised. This falls into the "proof or silence" that Quatloos uses to save it from repeatedly dealing with the same point.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Just to plays devils advocate here but if their defence relied on the fact that Tom gave them permission to be on the property, then it would be up to the prosecution to disprove that defence, by, for instance, producing the Warrant relating to the repossession, which would establish Tom had been evicted and no longer had legal claim to the property.

No - I've pointed this out several times before. You can not give anyone permission to commit criminal damage to your property. And a copy of the warrant was produced according to what is being now said.

[Joinder]

Just to plays devils advocate here but if their defence relied on the fact that Tom gave them permission to be on the property, then it would be up to the prosecution to disprove that defence, by, for instance, producing the Warrant relating to the repossession, which would establish Tom had been evicted and no longer had legal claim to the property.

No - I've pointed this out several times before. You can not give anyone permission to commit criminal damage to your property. And a copy of the warrant was produced according to what is being now said.

No one is claiming that permission was given to damage property .
Why have you introduced this fiction ?

[Joinder]

Come on James Bradley - you claimed you wanted to debate with us and then you slide away.

We await your return

He may have well returned, moderators are stamping on this thread

[Burnaby49]

Come on James Bradley - you claimed you wanted to debate with us and then you slide away.

We await your return

He may have well returned, moderators are stamping on this thread

We're stamping on you and pigpot. Nobody else is being moderated. Bradley is free to post when he wants and say what he wants.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Just to plays devils advocate here but if their defence relied on the fact that Tom gave them permission to be on the property, then it would be up to the prosecution to disprove that defence, by, for instance, producing the Warrant relating to the repossession, which would establish Tom had been evicted and no longer had legal claim to the property.

No - I've pointed this out several times before. You can not give anyone permission to commit criminal damage to your property. And a copy of the warrant was produced according to what is being now said.

No one is claiming that permission was given to damage property .
Why have you introduced this fiction ?

Right let's finish this. I misread the permission to be on there by Tom as permission to do what you liked on there. Someone did take a hammer with them. So, permission by Tom to go onto the house, that wasn't his, could be shown by the defence. Nowhere do I see that there was any doubt (except in Crawford and supporters minds) that the house didn't belong to the Crawfords at the time of the alleged incident. Plus a copy of the warrant was produced in court.

[ArthurWankspittle]

He may have well returned, moderators are stamping on this thread

Jay Brad hasn't posted since Thursday.

[midjit-gems]

Jay brad appears to be saying he can't post on fb groups at the moment, apparently him and his followers believe the trolls have reported him because they didn't like the outcome of the case. Though I fail to see what he's posted that could have been reported and violating their community standards enough for him to be unable to post.

As for permission for the roof toppers, I didn't think trespass was a criminal offence only the aggravated bit and conspiracy. So surely the warrant wouldn't be an issue? One would be listed in court files so the judge would surely be able to check for one ? Or am I being a bit dim ??

[ArthurWankspittle]

As for permission for the roof toppers, I didn't think trespass was a criminal offence only the aggravated bit and conspiracy.

As you say they weren't charged with trespass but it is now (since 2012) a criminal offence if in a private residential dwelling. The law was changed to help people get their properties back from squatters quickly instead of spending months and thousands going through county court. Other conditions apply too. There are some other places that it is a criminal offence to trespass like royal palaces.

[Bones]

Jay brad appears to be saying he can't post on fb groups at the moment, apparently him and his followers believe the trolls have reported him because they didn't like the outcome of the case. Though I fail to see what he's posted that could have been reported and violating their community standards enough for him to be unable to post.

Not that I would ever accuse someone of James Bradley's high morale standing of not being completely honest, but FB has nothing to do with this forum and there is nothing to prevent him from posting here - facebook ban or no facebook ban

There is also the little matter of the fact that he has two facebook accounts. So even if one was banned, it is more than likely that he could still post using the other

Account 1

https://www.facebook.com/budgetcars2gow ... ts&fref=ts

Which he used an hour ago



Account 2

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id ... ts&fref=ts

So I am afraid James Bradley is unable to use that as an excuse for backing out of the debate that he himself requested

[midjit-gems]

As for permission for the roof toppers, I didn't think trespass was a criminal offence only the aggravated bit and conspiracy.

As you say they weren't charged with trespass but it is now (since 2012) a criminal offence if in a private residential dwelling. The law was changed to help people get their properties back from squatters quickly instead of spending months and thousands going through county court. Other conditions apply too. There are some other places that it is a criminal offence to trespass like royal palaces.

Thank you for clarifying that

As for jay brad or gay brad as I've heard him called due to his adorable pink jacket, he also used to have another account "whale oil beef hooked" I would imagine fb closed it down. Amongst others

But no there is no reason why he can't come back here for his debate unless he's come to his senses and realised he's been used and taken for a mug by the crawfrauds. ....tbc I'm sure

[PeanutGallery]

The whole warrant article strikes me as being incredibly strange and frankly stupid. The belief is that:

1) The warrant isn't right because it doesn't have signatures or a wax seal or what have you and that any warrant produced is a fraudulent document.
2) The courts know the warrant is fraudulent, but don't make one up correctly because if they did that they'd be breaking some obscure law (even though passing a warrant that they know to be fraudulent would also be breaking the law).
3) Judges don't want to be personally liable and that is also why they don't sign their name.
4) None of this "The Warrant" crap answers the pertinent question of "Did Tom pay off his bloody mortgage capital"

Why do I think these arguments are stupid, well first off if you are going to forge something like a warrant then you make sure it doesn't have any obvious deficiencies. Nobody has ever gotten rich forging £40 notes for a very simple reason, they would stand out like a sore thumb. In regard to number two, nobody is going to avoid committing one crime by committing a crime that is just as serious. In the third point, Judges wouldn't be personally liable, in fact if their was an argument that they might be guess what they would do, refuse claims on public policy grounds. A Judge isn't liable for getting a decision wrong in court, largely because just about every day Judges get decisions wrong in court, it's why we have courts of appeal, because we know Judges make mistakes (like just about everyone).

Finally even if a court of appeal found that the warrant was deficient, what would it practically change? It wouldn't give Tom his house back, because the law doesn't work like that. Tom's only argument that would have any prospects of success would have to be based around his having repaid the capital on the mortgage. That is the one thing he didn't do.

Tom's house wasn't stolen by the bank. The bank just stopped Tom from stealing it from them.

[Dr. Caligari]

Come on James Bradley - you claimed you wanted to debate with us and then you slide away.

We await your return

Brave Sir Robin bravely ran away?

[Jeffrey]

I believe this exchange is what probably got the charges dropped. Aggravated trespass means the use of force or intimidation to trespass. If the guards didn't find them threatening then the whole prosecution fails.

[Joinder]

I believe this exchange is what probably got the charges dropped. Aggravated trespass means the use of force or intimidation to trespass. If the guards didn't find them threatening then the whole prosecution fails.

Well, that particular guard was fine, others claimed to have been abused, a dog handler said he had paint sprayed in his face, fact is the CPS offered " no evidence" after 6 days of presenting evidence

[FatGambit]

Paint being sprayed in someone's face? I'm pretty sure that would be fairly easy to prove, just a photo of the victim would do, if I understand correctly, they wouldn't even have had to prove who held the can, so are you seriously telling me they bought a prosecution with no actual evidence?

As for the warrant, I wasn't there so was just guessing, I presume you were there wankspittle?

[Jeffrey]

I'm pretty sure the "no evidence" line is something Crawford supporters made up.

There is obviously evidence of them trespassing and breaking into the home, they're on video doing it and admitting to it. The problem is the prosecutors went for aggravated trespass which requires proving "intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity", which clearly the rooftop 6 did not do. They snuck onto the roof from the back with a ladder, there was no intimidation.

And the other possible issue is that they would have to be obstructing the guards on the property from doing their jobs. Going on the roof of the house didn't really impede the guards.

[Forsyth]

I'm pretty sure the "no evidence" line is something Crawford supporters made up.

While they're not the best source of reliable information, I don't see any reason to doubt this part. I believe it's quite possible to tell the judge that you're offering no evidence (and thereby effectively withdrawing your case), even after presenting a large amount of it to the court. I see it as much the same as an MP 'taking the Chiltern Hundreds', the understanding of the term having moved on from a direct interpretation. In this case "offering no evidence" effectively means, "I acknowledge that all the evidence I have presented so far is either weak, contradictory or has been demolished by the defence, and I would therefore like to screw my papers up into a ball and go back to the office and cry for a bit". But you can't say that when you're wearing a robe and a wig, so they say this instead and pretend the previous week never happened.

There is obviously evidence of them trespassing and breaking into the home, they're on video doing it and admitting to it. The problem is the prosecutors went for aggravated trespass which requires proving "intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity", which clearly the rooftop 6 did not do. They snuck onto the roof from the back with a ladder, there was no intimidation.

Unfortunately, trespass on its own isn't generally a criminal offence and burglary requires evidence of doing more (or having intent to do more) than just entering the house.

And the other possible issue is that they would have to be obstructing the guards on the property from doing their jobs. Going on the roof of the house didn't really impede the guards.

It's even possible to argue that the whole point of having a guard was because of incidents like this :-) I'm not sure how that one would play out, but if anyone knows any case history it'd be interesting to read.

The fundamental problem is that it is difficult to charge someone with simply entering a location without permission, even if they then proceed to act in an obnoxious way. Intent becomes a major part of any offence and this can be very difficult to prove, especially in the current case as the defendants all appear to have genuinely believed that they had permission to be where they were from someone they thought was empowered to give it. If the location is someone's home then there are more options, but with the house being vacant it's very difficult to prove a criminal offence unless you can show a dishonest motivation.