UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[rumpelstilzchen]

Ooh er, missus....no don't....Sally Nay, Nay and thrice times Nay wrote:

It is a truly wonderful outcome and Judge Godsmark, credit where it is due,appears to have reached a fair, albeit obscure from non legalese interpreters point of view, judgment

I have to say I think that is the funniest post I have ever read on any Internet forum anywhere.
You can almost hear the cog wheels turning in Sallie Nae's poor excuse for a brain as he/she reads that judgment over and over again. Each time Sallie Nae reads it Sallie Nae marvels how what appears to be written in plain English, what appears to suggest that Tom was unsuccessful, what looks like doom and gloom could actually mean entirely the opposite. Sallie Nae knows he/she would, as a non-legalese interpreter, normally have been fooled into thinking that Tom had lost his case. But, fortunately those wonderful graduates of the University of YouTube are on hand to put him/her right. Sallie Nae will be forever impressed how legalese interpreters can sift through court documents and identify that "no" means "yes", "yes" means "no", "without merit" means "with merit", "without foundation" means "with foundation", "legally misconceived" means "legally sound" and "no real prospect of success" means "success guaranteed". To Sallie Nae the judgment appears "obscure". Not so to those who can read plain English.

[JonnyL]

First of all thank you for adding me to this forum, I've spent the last few hours reading various bits of it, and all pages of the Crawford saga since the thread began and it's great stuff.


I think your summing up of the legalese methodology of interpretation of these people was brilliant to read. It's like they've got Tariq Aziz writting their press briefings.

[Hercule Parrot]

I think your summing up of the legalese methodology of interpretation of these people was brilliant to read. It's like they've got Tariq Aziz writting their press briefings.

Welcome, Jonny. Personally I think the comparison is more aptly to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (Comical Ali). "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

[PeanutGallery]

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 56#p385656

That's not fair! How come it's just you 4 guys that get a mention? There's more than just you.
I demand recognition!

I have to wonder myself. I'm one of the Fab Four yet my contributions to the Ceylon and Crawford discussion have been minimal. Perhaps my inclusion is just a polite recognition of the participation of the colonies.

I think you're the Ringo of the band. The one who in terms of the contribution made probably shouldn't be there, but was just in the right place at the right time with a drum kit.

[Burnaby49]

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... 56#p385656

That's not fair! How come it's just you 4 guys that get a mention? There's more than just you.
I demand recognition!

I have to wonder myself. I'm one of the Fab Four yet my contributions to the Ceylon and Crawford discussion have been minimal. Perhaps my inclusion is just a polite recognition of the participation of the colonies.

I think you're the Ringo of the band. The one who in terms of the contribution made probably shouldn't be there, but was just in the right place at the right time with a drum kit.

That's Mr. Starr to you!

I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade
He'd let us in, knows where we've been
In his octopus's garden in the shade

I'd ask my friends to come and see
An octopus's garden with me
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade

We would be warm below the storm
In our little hideaway beneath the waves
Resting our head on the sea bed
In an octopus's garden near a cave

We would sing and dance around
Because we know we can't be found
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade

We would shout and swim about
The coral that lies beneath the waves
(Lies beneath the ocean waves)
Oh what joy for every girl and boy
Knowing they're happy and they're safe
(Happy and they're safe)

We would be so happy you and me
No one there to tell us what to do
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden with you
In an octopus's garden with you
In an octopus's garden with you

[PeanutGallery]

Now that we've had ourselves a musical interlude, I think it's time to get back to our regularly scheduled activities. Tom has posted up on GOODF a thank you to his supporters and expressed his disbelief that some people are interpreting the Judge's verdict as plain English, rather than using the GooFs made up version of "legalease".

Tom claims that these people are from the 'dark forces' and that this is the actions of a propaganda machine. He goes on to say that he will be asking for a number of documents, ostensibly the same ones he asked for in his recent court hearing, to be provided again.

The problem is that the post makes no sense if considered from the perspective of someone who has just 'won'. If Tom had won, he wouldn't need to do anything more. The bungalow would be his forever (well eventually passing to his descendants or wife) but he wouldn't need any more documentation from UKAR or Bradford and Bingley because the matter would be over.

Asking for more documents, quite clearly indicates that it is not over and I believe shows that Tom isn't one hundred percent sure what is going on. He's been told to think it's a victory and I can genuinely believe he wants to believe that, but I have an inkling that he has doubts or that one of the Guru's has delivered the good news but couched in such a way that it came with a warning that he might still be evicted because they could play a dirty trick on him.

They won't play a dirty trick. They don't need to play any tricks. The problem is that Tom is so far down his rabbit hole and has gotten so stuck that his instincts now are to dig deeper in. While losing their home is going to be a nightmare for the Crawfords and I do feel sorry for their plight, I actually think the best thing that could happen for Tom is for him to be evicted as soon as is possible. The longer he is allowed to remain in this delusional state the more psychological damage will be done when the curtain finally falls. While if he is giving a short sharp shock he may be able to come back to reality (admittedly based on how long he's been entwined with his own delusion he may well never grasp the real world by the coattails and may see his days out railing against the dark forces that have conspired to bring him down, which would be a shame).

[grixit]

Ok, here's a question. Given that some of the goofers have acknowledged that there is a "slight possibility" that the "corrupt, evil bank" and its lackies will "ignore the law" and "steal" Tom's house in spite of his "win", how many of them have declared themselves willing to shelter him if it comes to pass?

[PeanutGallery]

That would be none. Why should they, he's won!

[grixit]

If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?

Silly-- they're called Netherholes.

[littleFred]

The problem is that the post makes no sense if considered from the perspective of someone who has just 'won'. If Tom had won, he wouldn't need to do anything more.

I think the situation is worse than merely "has he won or lost". I think Tom is being led by the nose into taking legal action against UKAR. Mr Ebert and co have convinced him that B&B were fraudulent, probably from the start, and that the recent result proves this. Tom strongly hinted on the videos that he intends to sue them. In my view, that would be very foolish. How many more court cases will it take to convince Tom that he never paid the principal of his mortgage? Could he ever be convinced?

UKAR's legal costs so far will have been added to the £43k. The longer legal actions drag on, the more Tom will lose: financially, psychologically and the rest.

[wanglepin]

Brian Gerrish of UK Column has somewhat backtracked on his assessment of Tom's case (reported upthread).

We did report on this case, Tom Crawford against Bradford and Bingley, who were trying to repossess his house. There was a little bit of confusion as to what the result of the court case was. We maintain we did report it correctly yesterday. However we do have, hopefully, a clip from a video where you can hear in Tom's own words what exactly took place and what the result from the court hearing was.

They play a video of Tom talking outside his house about his "victory" with no further comment.

The backtracking comes as no surprise to me. I was more interested in how he was going to backtrack.
Gerrish has thrown the ball back to the Crawfords in a poor attempt to distance himself and his rag from what is a train crash caused by Taylor,Ebert and himself. He didn't report it "wrong", he reported it exactly how Taylor and Ebert had reported it to him.
Gerrish is a maggot feeding off the backs of the unfortunate as he did with the poor Downs Syndrome girl Hollie Greig..... for years!
I am waiting for his star guest and specialist commentator on such cases Guy Taylor Q.C. to give his interpretation. I could do with a good giggle.
I

[rumpelstilzchen]

The judge specifically states that due to the public interest he has attempted to set out as simply as he can his analysis of Tom Crawford's legal submissions. It is there in black and white. What does Tom and his team think that means? The bloody opposite? They have to decipher the code?

In my opinion this case has brought to the fore an issue that is far more important than Tom and his plight. It is something that really needs to be addressed. It is the issue of the decline of our education system. Reading many of the comments posted on various internet sites it is apparent there is a large number of adults who do not possess the most basic of reading comprehension skills.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The problem is that the post makes no sense if considered from the perspective of someone who has just 'won'. If Tom had won, he wouldn't need to do anything more.

I think the situation is worse than merely "has he won or lost". I think Tom is being led by the nose into taking legal action against UKAR. Mr Ebert and co have convinced him that B&B were fraudulent, probably from the start, and that the recent result proves this. Tom strongly hinted on the videos that he intends to sue them. In my view, that would be very foolish. How many more court cases will it take to convince Tom that he never paid the principal of his mortgage? Could he ever be convinced?

UKAR's legal costs so far will have been added to the £43k. The longer legal actions drag on, the more Tom will lose: financially, psychologically and the rest.

Well, with Mr Ebert's assistance, considering his track record in matters of litigation, what could possibly go wrong?
Tom is obviously way way down the rabbit hole. This is the typical sov scenario of turning a FPN into jail time. For some strange reason, once in a hole it is imperative they make the hole wider and deeper.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The backtracking comes as no surprise to me. I was more interested in how he was going to backtrack.
Gerrish has thrown the ball back to the Crawfords in a poor attempt to distance himself and his rag from what is a train crash caused by Taylor,Ebert and himself. He didn't report it "wrong", he reported it exactly how Taylor and Ebert had reported it to him.

These people are always claiming the mainstream media brainwash the sheeple with inaccurate reporting and yet we see Gerrish doing exactly the same. He was willing to report a story without checking the facts. But I suppose it is different when he does it.

[guilty]

a large number of adults who do not possess the most basic of reading comprehension skills.

And they would like to demonstrate that fact to the media - with photographs and videos:

After the Nottingham Evening Post article on the outcome of Tom and Sue Crawford's court case, which was a complete misrepresentation of the facts, we intend to put the record straight. People need to know the truth!!
Please join us in Nottingham where we shall be marching peacefully from the Market Square to the Nottingham Evening Post building, armed with the facts, to demonstrate that we will not accept their misleading reports!

No doubt Peter of England will be there handing out leaflets. These are just the sort of gullible idiots he is after.
https://www.facebook.com/events/1579887978945845/

[guilty]

These people are always claiming the mainstream media brainwash the sheeple with inaccurate reporting and yet we see Gerrish doing exactly the same. He was willing to report a story without checking the facts. But I suppose it is different when he does it.

Bit of a disingenuous response too. Instead of pointing towards Tom's 'understanding' of the facts, he could have pointed to the Court judgement.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Bit of a disingenuous response too. Instead of pointing towards Tom's 'understanding' of the facts, he could have pointed to the Court judgement.

He could have, that is if he is an unbiased reporter who is only interested in reporting the truth. Unfortunately he isn't.

[rumpelstilzchen]

And they would like to demonstrate that fact to the media - with photographs and videos:

What these people fail to understand is a judge's decision means whatever the judge says it means and not how they choose to interpret it.

[Bones]

I know this is not a laughing matter but go watch the tom victory clips again.

Let me set the scene, there were hundreds of people at the hearing all shouting and there were concerns of a riot.

The judge knowing that Tom had now received his decision that he had lost, has to now relay that decision again in court.

He must have been thinking that this time there will be a riot with such bad news for Tom.

He tells Tom that he has lost and is waiting for it to kick off but instead Tom thanks him. Imagine the judges face and what he must have been thinking... I would have loved to have seen his face

[PeanutGallery]

I can't help imagine that somewhere in his chambers, Judge Godsmark holds his head in his hands and is questioning his ability to communicate in plain English. He knows he wrote this one extra carefully, he knows he took his time over it because Tom really needed a simple explanation and he was keen that this message should be communicable to the most simple minded member of the mob. He probably didn't count on Ebert's forensic analysis though. Still it goes to show you can never underestimate the level of human stupidity.