UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[PeanutGallery]

(I wonder if I have done enough in the last couple of days to at least get my name mentioned in a video)

Maybe by setting all their videos about us in a graveyard was a reference to you Bonesy, after all, all those Grave's would be full of Skeletons which are entirely comprised of Bones.

[wanglepin]

(I wonder if I have done enough in the last couple of days to at least get my name mentioned in a video)

Maybe by setting all their videos about us in a graveyard was a reference to you Bonesy, after all, all those Grave's would be full of Skeletons which are entirely comprised of Bones.

They simply are not that imaginative or creative, PG.

[wanglepin]

Sallienae wrote:Re: The JUDGEMENT EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!

Postby SalliNae » Sat May 23, 2015 10:47 am
Wow. Such negativity...
I know others who have been given paperwork that I could have created on the internet. That document of Tom's, the one that says "court seal", you do realise you can print one online in minutes, fill it out, type in a name and voila......you could technically knock on your neighbours door and go collect their car

Well that cuts both ways then, surely. Guy Taylor got his crap from the internet and passed it off as what “real” court documents look like.
Sycophant Salli has lost it. I cannot see any of those who have posted on that thread surviving long now Syco is on the case. Except the the "negative" mods of course.

[guilty]

(I wonder if I have done enough in the last couple of days to at least get my name mentioned in a video)

Maybe by setting all their videos about us in a graveyard was a reference to you Bonesy, after all, all those Grave's would be full of Skeletons which are entirely comprised of Bones.

Is that video the skeleton argument they are all talking about?

[PeanutGallery]

I note that LeTissier has posted on GOODF that he is leaving the site. I think that is a shame, it is clearly GOODF's loss as he was a voice of reason on that site who tried to contribute in a genuine manner. It was also clear that he only seemed to post in good faith. It is their loss LeTissier and if you feel like sticking around here, you are more than welcome.

I do think the internet could do with a website dedicated to providing common sense and practical advice and help for individuals dealing with debt that enabled people to take charge of their finances and cope with difficult situations. I don't think that is wrong at all. What is wrong is when a website starts promoting lies and conmen who aim to take advantage of those in debt and who do not provide and help but instead further complicate matters and in a very real sense hurt people who are in dire financial situations like Tom Crawford.

Of course Salli is still railing about the reasons why she thinks Tom shouldn't be evicted. She thinks they didn't have an enforceable mortgage contract. I am not sure she knows what a contract is (it's an agreement between two parties and it doesn't need to be written down, if you go into a shop and buy a can of coke, you enter into a contract with the shopkeeper) first the Crawfords did have a mortgage contract. We know this because the bank gave them money and they mostly kept up their agreement to repay it.

It doesn't matter that the amount of interest seems large or that the bank made a profit, like some dirty capitalist from the interest it charged, Tom knew the bank was going to do that when he took out the mortgage. A lot of people took out mortgages in 1986 and before 2000, it's not unheard of or uncommon. The vast majority of those repaid them. Those that didn't risked losing their home and likely did lose their home. Those who repaid them did not lose their home and eventually received clear title to it.

It also doesn't matter how the bank accounted for the money it advanced the Crawford's. The point of fact is it had the money and allowed them to use it for the Crawford's benefit. Tom couldn't have purchased his house without the money from B&B.

But no matter how often this is pointed out, or how clearly this is explained it won't matter to Salli who will prefer to believe in her conspiracy rather than confront reality.

[Bones]

(I wonder if I have done enough in the last couple of days to at least get my name mentioned in a video)

Maybe by setting all their videos about us in a graveyard was a reference to you Bonesy, after all, all those Grave's would be full of Skeletons which are entirely comprised of Bones.

Not good enough, I want to hear ceylon say it

[Normal Wisdom]

(I wonder if I have done enough in the last couple of days to at least get my name mentioned in a video)

Maybe by setting all their videos about us in a graveyard was a reference to you Bonesy, after all, all those Grave's would be full of Skeletons which are entirely comprised of Bones.

Not good enough, I want to hear ceylon say it

How do I attach a picture? I've got a JPEG on my computer that you might like.

[Bones]

A sad day for GOODF.

They had two mods who appeared to be very sensible and rational. Now they are left with Salinae who could not read something straight if her life depended on it and Mark. Whilst Letissier does not attribute any blame to Ceylon, I will and his own video's are evidence of his blame for this mess

This is going to be my last post on the subject of Tom Crawford and on GOODF.

Like most people when I saw Toms first video I took him at face value. If this was a case of fraud, then it would be quite right for us to give Tom our full backing and support - that only seems fair!

However, when the Judgment was published, anyone who can read English could only come to one conclusion, Tom had lost his case. It wasn't written in Chinese, Legalise or Chinese Legalise, like Tom and his team would have us believe.

After reading the full judgment word for word and the going back over all the Videos Tom had published online, it soon became quite clear to me that for whatever reason, we were not given all the facts by Tom.

Along with many others, I was surprised that Tom and his team continued to shout loudly to all that would listen, that they had won, and when a few people actually questioned this, they were soon shot down by team TC as being trolls, shills, working for the banks or media, sewer rats, stupid for not understanding legalise, fuckwits and much much more!

This was aimed at lots of people who had actually gone to both the previous evictions and spent their hard earned money to help Tom and his family, but now because they were questioning the whole thing, they were berated for it.

Why didn't team TC simply come out and say "Look we know it looks like we lost, but if you give us a day or two we will explain to everyone how in fact this was a win" rather then the full head on assault on any doubters!

Now the "JUDGMENT EXPLAINED" video has come out, in my opinion it has just made them out to be a laughing stock. First it was a major win and now according to the latest video it is a miscarriage of justice ..... which is it? it can't be both!

I think people need to stop listening to Toms 3 amigos, Ebert, Taylor and Waugh - go research them, it isn't hard and it wont take you long to find out how successful they have NOT been, and all the court cases they have been involved in and lost. It doesn't make very good reading. - I'm not going to do this for you, educate yourself .... Then go and read up on CPR PROTOCOLS.

Some questions that you should ask?

Did Tom pay all 300 payments towards his mortgage? NO
Did Tom pay the insurance policy for the full term? NO
Did Tom have in place means to pay his mortgage off? NO
Was Tom in arrears? YES - on numerous occasions.

Back to Toms 3 amigos, they remind me of the 3 (not so) wise men in Monty Pythons "LIFE OF BRIAN" when they stumble upon the new messiah (TOM) and lavish him with Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh and then 5 minutes later realising Tom is not the new messiah they take back their gifts and go find a new messiah to praise. Tom is not the messiah - he is a very naughty boy for not paying his mortgage!

Taking legal advice from the 3 amigos is a bit like taking dietary advice from a 35 stone man - you just wouldn't do it!

I honestly feel sorry for Tom, as he is clearly being used and lead up the garden path and if any of you are real friends of Tom, please try and talk some sense in to him before it is too late! If you don't help him and make him realise, then the video of him saying "I thanked the judge and as I walked out, all the court staff stood their opened mouthed" is going to come back and haunt him.

Anyway, I will not be commenting anymore on this case or on GOODF as I feel nothing more can be said or done. It has split GOODF down the middle and one mod has already been kicked out. But hey, lets not let opinions get in the way of facts!

[Bones]

How do I attach a picture? I've got a JPEG on my computer that you might like.

I use this to take screenshots and link to them in my posts

https://app.prntscr.com/en/download.html

[guilty]

How do I attach a picture? I've got a JPEG on my computer that you might like.

Upload it to tinypic.com and then link to it.

[Normal Wisdom]

I note that LeTissier has posted on GOODF that he is leaving the site. I think that is a shame, it is clearly GOODF's loss as he was a voice of reason on that site who tried to contribute in a genuine manner. It was also clear that he only seemed to post in good faith. It is their loss LeTissier and if you feel like sticking around here, you are more than welcome.

I do think the internet could do with a website dedicated to providing common sense and practical advice and help for individuals dealing with debt that enabled people to take charge of their finances and cope with difficult situations. I don't think that is wrong at all. What is wrong is when a website starts promoting lies and conmen who aim to take advantage of those in debt and who do not provide and help but instead further complicate matters and in a very real sense hurt people who are in dire financial situations like Tom Crawford.

Of course Salli is still railing about the reasons why she thinks Tom shouldn't be evicted. She thinks they didn't have an enforceable mortgage contract. I am not sure she knows what a contract is (it's an agreement between two parties and it doesn't need to be written down, if you go into a shop and buy a can of coke, you enter into a contract with the shopkeeper) first the Crawfords did have a mortgage contract. We know this because the bank gave them money and they mostly kept up their agreement to repay it.

It doesn't matter that the amount of interest seems large or that the bank made a profit, like some dirty capitalist from the interest it charged, Tom knew the bank was going to do that when he took out the mortgage. A lot of people took out mortgages in 1986 and before 2000, it's not unheard of or uncommon. The vast majority of those repaid them. Those that didn't risked losing their home and likely did lose their home. Those who repaid them did not lose their home and eventually received clear title to it.

It also doesn't matter how the bank accounted for the money it advanced the Crawford's. The point of fact is it had the money and allowed them to use it for the Crawford's benefit. Tom couldn't have purchased his house without the money from B&B.

But no matter how often this is pointed out, or how clearly this is explained it won't matter to Salli who will prefer to believe in her conspiracy rather than confront reality.

There's plenty of free, reputable advice available online and by other means for all sorts of issues. What there isn't is free, reputable advice that tells you that you can simply walk away from your responsibilities with a few magic words.

https://www.nationaldebtline.org
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en

[Bones]

One idiot made a complaint about the BBC reporting that Tom lost

[Normal Wisdom]

How do I attach a picture? I've got a JPEG on my computer that you might like.

I use this to take screenshots and link to them in my posts

https://app.prntscr.com/en/download.html

Actually, just have a look at my FB page: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009459991772

[Bones]

[PeanutGallery]

You know, if I was Ceylon (and I wouldn't wish that on anyone) and I was reading this thread, I'd be tempted to do a video where I intentionally didn't mention Bones, for the lulz.

I'd allude to things Bone's had posted and even mention posters who quoted him, but I wouldn't directly mention him. Then again I do have a twisted sense of humour.

[Bones]

PG, you are one of the things I need to add to the list of things I like about this site.

You guys, make me laugh so much

[longdog]

One idiot made a complaint about the BBC reporting that Tom lost

Notice it says "with the judge ruling her can't appeal the issue any further"

This is obviously legalese proving that he can appeal... Even though he won anyway and doesn't need to appeal... Or something...

[Bones]

Anyone know if there are any public viewable webcams along the route of the demonstration ?

Would be interesting to see how many people turn up and the police response

[PeanutGallery]

One idiot made a complaint about the BBC reporting that Tom lost

Notice it says "with the judge ruling her can't appeal the issue any further"

This is obviously legalese proving that he can appeal... Even though he won anyway and doesn't need to appeal... Or something...

He can appeal, he just needs to have a certain Op and after it start calling herself Tomasina.

[slowsmile]

Anyone know if there are any public viewable webcams along the route of the demonstration ?

Would be interesting to see how many people turn up and the police response

Won't they all be in the pub at PoE's shindig by now?