UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Hyrion]

Bloody annoying isn't it.

Sadly too true. And there's lots of philosophical discussion that could surround that which would be better shared over a glass of 40 year old port sitting near a nice fireplace with a light wintry snowfall occurring outside large plate glass windows.

[littleFred]

No UK column news story reporting the victory

Not so. UK Column News 14th May 2015 at 11m 30s:

Mr Tom Crawford this morning had the case dismissed. This means that Tom Crawford has won his case against repossession of his house. This is as a result of not only hard work in the courts by Tom Crawford and Guy Taylor and many others but [...] many members of the public who went on the streets to support him.

This may have been made before the newspaper published the judge's conclusions, so was repeating Tom and Ceylon's misinterpretations. But Gerrish goes much further. Tom thought he could appeal, but Gerrish claims that Tom "has won his case against repossession". This is a fantasy of Gerrish's. It is a deliberate (in my view) attempt to mislead. Gerrish says "Tom won" so when the bailiffs come knocking, Gerrish can say "the bailiffs etc are disobeying the courts".


I do think the judge's wording fell short of the clarity we might expect:

The Order that I make is that permission to appeal out of time is granted but permission to appeal is refused.

That sentence summarises the previous paragraphs of the conclusion. The judge isn't fussed about the application to appeal being out of time. If that was the only objection, he would grant permission. But he has found that there is no "real prospect of success on appeal" (para 102), nor is there "some other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard" (para 103), so he is refusing permission to appeal on those grounds.

[PeanutGallery]

I think it's a combination of psychological phenomena, combined with teh stoopid, that creates the perfect storm of Gooferism.

Tom wants his mortgage to be paid up, I believe he genuinely thinks he has paid it and that he doesn't understand what the endowment was, so he looks for evidence that supports that. However not only does he look for evidence to support his argument, he ignores any evidence that stands in opposition. This is confirmation or myside bias.

Tom's family are equally invested in this so they do the same thing. They want to believe and because they want this belief they start to believe it.

Tom then looks for 'experts' who will support his side of the story, he doesn't care about what their qualifications are or what their track record is, he finds people who agree with his opinion. He then exclusively relies on these guru's for information relating to his case. He also invents a reason to explain away any parts of anything that doesn't fit the truth he wants, he call's it legalese. It's not, the Judge has written his decision in as plain a version of the language as possible. Judges do that so people can more readily understand the law, it's why they stopped giving verdicts in Latin.

The Goofs also become emotionally involved in the complaint, they also want Tom to succeed so they look for any evidence, any needles in haystacks that support the position they want to find. They buy into it. This helps reinforce the second step.

Because their belief is being challenged by those who haven't invested into it, they then develop a conspiracy theory. Anyone not buying into the belief or giving a different interpretation of events, or even questioning any aspect of the belief, is considered an enemy. Why do they have enemies, because of the powers that be or dark forces or forces of evil or banksters or whatever other names they use. This results in attacks on anyone who seems to step outside of the herd mentality that has transfixed them being attacked, which in turn reinforces their view that they are being constantly assailed by something bigger than they are and that they are fighting the good fight. This reinforces the confirmation bias because why would they keep being attacked if they weren't onto something, if they weren't close to pulling open the curtain.

Therefore I don't think this is a psychiatric disorder, it's not although people with psychiatric disorders may be more susceptible to this type of thinking, however many of them would be considered sane. It is instead a psychological condition or rather a combination thereof. It's also very hard to debunk or debate because only agents of the powers that be would ask awkward questions.

[Bones]

Dumb & Dumber (you can decide which is which) have made a youtube video appears Ceylon thinks it was a win for Tom too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgbLrKYyPx4#t=106

[Hercule Parrot]

by SalliNae » Fri May 15, 2015 12:56 am
Most people who take the video of Tom and Guy at face value are absolutely delighted at the result. If you prefer to believe the mainstream media and doubt the reporting of Guy and Tom or their abilities to comprehend the judgment then that is entirely up to you.

That's the perfect, delusional auto-da-fé in action -

Never mind what the judge said. Never mind what the journalists heard him say. Never mind what the bank says. Never mind the written judgement which you have seen with your own eyes. If you are to be a member of GOOFy, you must believe that Tom won a great victory. If you do not believe this with your heart and soul, you are our enemy. Choose your side, heretic.

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

[Bones]

Dumb & Dumber (you can decide which is which) have made a youtube video appears Ceylon thinks it was a win for Tom too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgbLrKYyPx4#t=106

Coming thick and fast today another from Dumb and Dumber this one is with Tom in it too

This needs to be kept for pure comedy value, those two idiots put on a show and confirm just how stupid they both are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZLqWZrD-gE

[wanglepin]

by SalliNae » Fri May 15, 2015 12:56 am
Most people who take the video of Tom and Guy at face value are absolutely delighted at the result. If you prefer to believe the mainstream media and doubt the reporting of Guy and Tom or their abilities to comprehend the judgment then that is entirely up to you.

That's the perfect, delusional auto-da-fé in action -

Indeed and her ignorant evasive answer to that simple question "Does this mean Tom gets to keep his lovely home now?" was to reply

SalliNae wrote:
Why on earth would you ask a question like that? Tom and Guy have. I repeat. If they are happy, so am I.

[tm169]

Anyone got hold of the full judgment yet? 30 pages must have some interesting nuggets in.

Was considering email counsel but her email address has been removed from her chambers page.

Anyone fancy emailing the judge?

Hhjudge.godsmarkqc [at] judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
Follows the format the courts usually use.

[wanglepin]

Dumb & Dumber

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZLqWZrD-gE

This to me is panick by king goofer Mark Haining Ceylon,attempting to recover some cred after such a massive failure. He is attempting to some how justify his and goofers version of events to make their version of what "really happened" and what the judgment "really means" sound all true and correct.He is trying his damndest to convince himself, his audience and most of all Tom that they understand this judgement better than anyone else on this planet. He is failing miserably. And Tom doesn't look at all too convinced does he.
Fkn animals

[PeanutGallery]

But that doesn't provide any clear answer. Why doesn't she say "Yes it means he gets to keep his house." if she actually believed he would. She doesn't, well I think she doesn't know but can't admit she doesn't know because that's not what the party wants. She wants to believe, and that's not quite the same as believing it's more insecure and a lot less confident. It's likely one of the reasons why they are a paranoid lot who decry anyone who steps a tad outside of the party line.

It's amazing when you think how enslaved the free folk have made themselves.

If you want a copy of the Judgement you could always try emailing the barristers clerks or contacting the Chambers reception who might be able to direct you to where you should be able to find one.

[littleFred]

NOTTINGHAM POST LIES AGAIN & THE TRUTH at 10m 0s:

Ceylon: When you first read it [the ruling], what did you think?

Tom: I took it as, oh dear, I've lost. But then Mr Ebert, who's that fine gentleman down in London [...] he started laughing. He went through sixty points with me, and he said, this is absolutely a hands-down win. It is totally the best win he has seen for a long, long time.

So Mr Ebert, who is so deluded that he thinks blatently lying about a previous conviction to a judge in court is a good idea, has convinced Tom through some convoluted non-logic that this loss is really a win.

[littleFred]

Anyone got hold of the full judgment yet? 30 pages must have some interesting nuggets in.

I haven't seen it. The Nottingham Post published the conclusion at Tom Crawford court case: Read the judge's conclusions

If the rest is as damning to Tom's case, I wouldn't expect Tom or any supporter to publish it.

[NYGman]

And Mr. Ebert also had some great voctories back in the day, when he won the right to be bankrupt, to be a vexatious litigant, won the right to evict him from his home, and to never go near his former property again. With such a string of success in court, it is clear Mr. Ebert knows success when he sees it.

[slowsmile]

And Mr. Ebert also had some great voctories back in the day, when he won the right to be bankrupt, to be a vexatious litigant, won the right to evict him from his home, and to never go near his former property again. With such a string of success in court, it is clear Mr. Ebert knows success when he sees it.

Probably is the best result Ebert has seen in years - there is one paragraph that could possibly be construed favouring Crawford - one more than Ebert will have seen in all the judgements against him.

[wanglepin]

No UK column news story reporting the victory

Not so. UK Column News 14th May 2015 at 11m 30s:

Mr Tom Crawford this morning had the case dismissed. This means that Tom Crawford has won his case against repossession of his house. This is as a result of not only hard work in the courts by Tom Crawford and Guy Taylor and many others but [...] many members of the public who went on the streets to support him.

.

I cannot wait to hear Gerrish's lies to cover up the blatant lies in that video. But we'll have to wait untill Guy Taylor has put his script together.

[wanglepin]

NOTTINGHAM POST LIES AGAIN & THE TRUTH at 10m 0s:

Ceylon: When you first read it [the ruling], what did you think?

Tom: I took it as, oh dear, I've lost. But then Mr Ebert, who's that fine gentleman down in London [...] he started laughing. He went through sixty points with me, and he said, this is absolutely a hands-down win. It is totally the best win he has seen for a long, long time.

I honestly am stuck for words.I don't know if I should cry or laugh my head clean off. I know -

[Normal Wisdom]

A comment in one of the YT pages seems to sum up the sovs chosen interpretation of the judgement.

The judge granted Tom permission to appeal out of time - so Tom's case had some merit.
B&B quoted an incorrect arrears figure and blamed it on a computer - so they have lied to the court and committed fraud.
B&B didn't turn up at court on 14th May - because they were afraid of being charged with perjury or contempt of court and imprisoned.

It's simply pointless arguing with them. It's like some kind of mass hypnosis.

[NYGman]

I really wonder what they will day when he finally losses his house? Although a good guess would be that they blame the corrupt courts who issued a warrent without trial, that is not signed because no one wants to admit liability. The crooked baliffs who have been paid off by the thieving banks will enforce the fraudulent warrent, and the police will stand by and watch the law being broken without intervening. Will happen within a month.

Anyone care to place a wager?

[rumpelstilzchen]

B&B didn't turn up at court on 14th May - because they were afraid of being charged with perjury or contempt of court and imprisoned.

Does it not enter their tiny minds that if you are going to be charged with perjury you do not get a choice about turning up in court?


I was looking at some of the idiot's comments on PoE's Facebook page. Thom Hollands wrote:

Its a definite win.

The words used are purposefully chosen to mislead people into thinking they lost and everyone else should bow down too.

So there you have it. The judge allows you to win your case but he carefully chooses his words to make you think you actually lost............
It frightens me to think these people are walking amongst us.

[wanglepin]

It has just occurred to me. If Tom's house is not worth enough to cover the debt, what else will they take to balance the amount owed?