UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[midjit-gems]

Newbie here

Been following for a while loving your work guys. A few points or questions I'd like to raisE if I may be so bold?

Why does sue always look so shifty and never goes to court?
How convenient that tom wears a hat which is now their slogan considering his son does Internet marketing and get rich quick schemes
why has tom only now come up with an excuse about the arrears? However he claims he stopped paying to get them to change the Mortgage back even though it hadn't been changed and it was in 2005 they stopped paying but knew about the lack of cover since 99.
If they have such a win, why did sue say in the video taken at the house on the day the judgement was released did she say they had a lot to do before the house was safe?
If indeed there has been misreporting why have they not been contacted by the courts to put them right?
Is there anyway anyone can contact the court to what it's recorded as!?
Sorry just a few points that bug me

[Hercule Parrot]

Tom's business seems to be providing an expert witness service in the heady world of floor liability for trips and falls. This service includes Tom going to court with you to provide his expertise in what makes for a good safe floor. I'm not really sure of any court cases that have hinged on the evidence of a flooring inspector as an expert witness.

I suppose if you paid for high quality carpet and it started to wear badly, or if you tripped on a poorly installed floor, then you might need to sue for damages. It would be helpful to have an expert witness who could say whether the correct materials had been used, correctly installed etc. There are expert witnesses in every field, and they do play an important role in the administration of justice.

However you don't become an expert witness by merely declaring yourself one (so it's interesting that Tom's dodgy site avoids using that term). You become an expert witness when a professional body accredits you thus, or a court recognises you after consideration of your abilities, or when you are admitted to something like the UK Register of Expert Witnesses (TC is not listed there).

I doubt that Tom would be a credible expert witness, and I suspect that few courts would regard him as such.

[Hercule Parrot]

Newbie here

Been following for a while loving your work guys. A few points or questions I'd like to raisE if I may be so bold?

Hello midge, welcome to Quatloos. If you haven't read the judgement, that's a good starting place. I can't help with your questions, maybe TC will answer them one day when he looks back upon this disaster....

[midjit-gems]

Newbie here

Been following for a while loving your work guys. A few points or questions I'd like to raisE if I may be so bold?

Hello midge, welcome to Quatloos. If you haven't read the judgement, that's a good starting place. I can't help with your questions, maybe TC will answer them one day when he looks back upon this disaster....

Hello!
Oh I have read the judgement, I'm clearly a genius at legalese as I worked it out easily, utterly amazed anyone could see a win. I've been on the end of a few tongue lashings from the lovely Amanda and Co for my feelings on the matter.

Find it very amusing how they are now in awe of the Elizabeth woman considering only days before the judgement they were calling her a fruit and nut bar

Me thinks theyre now clutching at their strawman

[guilty]

Newbie here
Been following for a while loving your work guys. A few points or questions I'd like to raisE if I may ...

We can only deal with the facts that are presented to us. What people look like or what they wear is not really a point of evidence. Why is Tom making his strange claims? Well, we can't really answer that. Each to his own; all we can do is rebut the nonsense with a considered discussion. People say all sorts of things to try and prove their own beliefs. As far as the courts are concerned, it is against their policy, or CPR, to comment upon the way that their judgements are discussed. The court has decided, and the judgement had been published. It is written plainly in English so they most people can understand it. There isn't much more that they can do.

[Jeffrey]

It occurs to me that I should save copies of the TC videos in case they decide to take them down after the eviction.

[Tom Carter]

[Tom Carter]

[wanglepin]

If they have such a win, why did sue say in the video taken at the house on the day the judgement was released did she say they had a lot to do before the house was safe?

Because they lost.

If indeed there has been misreporting why have they not been contacted by the courts to put them right?

Well going by these idiots pattern of behaviour, they probably have.

Is there anyway anyone can contact the court to what it's recorded as!?

No need is there? This decision has been in the public domain sometime now.And there has been a backlash from Mark Haining and his goofers so their reaction and responses should convince you of the outcome.
Tom Crawford County Court Judgement. https://infotomb.com/cixyk.pdf

[JonnyL]

Newbie here
Been following for a while loving your work guys. A few points or questions I'd like to raisE if I may ...

We can only deal with the facts that are presented to us. What people look like or what they wear is not really a point of evidence. Why is Tom making his strange claims? Well, we can't really answer that. Each to his own; all we can do is rebut the nonsense with a considered discussion. People say all sorts of things to try and prove their own beliefs. As far as the courts are concerned, it is against their policy, or CPR, to comment upon the way that their judgements are discussed. The court has decided, and the judgement had been published. It is written plainly in English so they most people can understand it. There isn't much more that they can do.

I do know that the newspapers who printed the damning judgement contacted the court to clarify the judges decision in light of Tom's comments about victory. The courts won't get involved other than for requests for information via their press office. There's no confusion execpt in the minds of Tom and family, and that's there because of the 3 amigos, anyone with even a modest level of interlect can clearly understand he lost big time.

[littleFred]

Welcome to Quatloos!

why has tom only now come up with an excuse about the arrears? However he claims he stopped paying to get them to change the Mortgage back even though it hadn't been changed and it was in 2005 they stopped paying but knew about the lack of cover since 99.

Tom wouldn't have mentioned the 2005-6 arrears, but as these were mentioned in the judgement perhaps he felt the need to justify them.

Tom should have known about the lack of endowment assurance policy when Sue stopped paying the premiums in 1991, and it was surrendered in 1992, with the proceeds paying off £178.75 towards their mortgage.

If they have such a win, why did sue say in the video taken at the house on the day the judgement was released did she say they had a lot to do before the house was safe?

I didn't hear that remark. I'm sure Tom realises his house isn't safe. He attributes this to B&B being criminal and doing what the court says they can't do. But we can all read the judgement and see that B&B are allowed to repossess.

If indeed there has been misreporting why have they not been contacted by the courts to put them right?

The Nottingham Post reported accurately. Even if it hadn't, I wouldn't expect the court to comment. It has more important things to do.

Is there anyway anyone can contact the court to what it's recorded as!?

I would also be interested in seeing the approved judgement. Perhaps it corrects insignificant typos. But we have seen the order, and it is essentially the same as the final paragraph of the judgement.

[letissier14]

The approved Judgment is the same as the one that everyone has already seen.

[littleFred]

Is this the biggest U-turn in GOOFy history? A few days ago, Ceylon proclaimed victory. The court wisely decided that Tom had won. But now, it seems it wasn't a court at all:

one of the many things many have missed is it was not a court

the judge attended in civvies’ the female barrister on seeing this disrobed and took her wig of she clicked straight away it was a private hearing

this was mentioned and in one of the videos it was pointed out but still so many missed it

[JonnyL]

Is this the biggest U-turn in GOOFy history? A few days ago, Ceylon proclaimed victory. The court wisely decided that Tom had won. But now, it seems it wasn't a court at all:

one of the many things many have missed is it was not a court

the judge attended in civvies’ the female barrister on seeing this disrobed and took her wig of she clicked straight away it was a private hearing

this was mentioned and in one of the videos it was pointed out but still so many missed it

It's all getting bat shit crazy now.

[guilty]

Is this the biggest U-turn in GOOFy history? A few days ago, Ceylon proclaimed victory. The court wisely decided that Tom had won. But now, it seems it wasn't a court at all:

one of the many things many have missed is it was not a court

the judge attended in civvies’ the female barrister on seeing this disrobed and took her wig of she clicked straight away it was a private hearing

this was mentioned and in one of the videos it was pointed out but still so many missed it

William Marshal discussed the irrelevance of court dress over on GOOFers. Not surprisingly they didn't want to hear it. It was the spark that sent psycho salli off on a belief that they were treating Tom as a minor.

[Burnaby49]

Is this the biggest U-turn in GOOFy history? A few days ago, Ceylon proclaimed victory. The court wisely decided that Tom had won. But now, it seems it wasn't a court at all:

one of the many things many have missed is it was not a court

the judge attended in civvies’ the female barrister on seeing this disrobed and took her wig of she clicked straight away it was a private hearing

this was mentioned and in one of the videos it was pointed out but still so many missed it

William Marshal discussed the irrelevance of court dress over on GOOFers. Not surprisingly they didn't want to hear it. It was the spark that sent psycho salli off on a belief that they were treating Tom as a minor.

There's nothing new under the sun. Back in late 2013 when I wrote my first court report Bernard Yankson, the plaintiff, brushed off his failure on the basis that the judge wasn't wearing robes;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9597&start=20#p162724

A year and a half later has Bernard still lost.

I'm working on a new topic discussing my opinion of why you Brits have gone nuts over OPCA concepts. I should have it done in a few days.

[Bones]

lol what happened to the claims of victory in the court Ceylon ?

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WL6UUYvb6Y

Big Thanks to you all

Postby tommc » Sat May 16, 2015 8:56 pm
Hi All

Once again a massive Thanks to One and All from myself, Sue and the Family for all your support and the thousands of amazing Congratulations messages sent to us following our Jubilant Win in Court last Thurs. It has become apparent that some of the media have been false reporting the Judgement causing confusion but its my opinion this display's more evidence of not only what we are up against in this Country and the criminality going on, but also testimony to the propaganda machine in motion and should not be Un-Expected considering What Lies Beneath ...

Not to mention the video's Ceylon himself has posted claiming that Tom won in court

Remember this Ceylon - what did you say about Tom winning in Court, what did you say about the reporter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7p3yYxtChw

How many times did Tom and Guy explain to the reporter that tom won in Court ?

How many times Ceylon ??

15 times !! 15 times they explained to the reporter that Tom won in Court and thanks to Mr Eberts ability to translate the judgement it was a hands down victory

You know, you put in big green letters on this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ5dImDVmGI

[Bones]

Let's not forget this video made by Dumb and Dumber

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

I wonder when Ceylon will start removing these video's ?

He has left himself looking like an even bigger idiot than we could have done ourselves

[notorial dissent]

I wonder if maple syrup can be used to make mead.

You could, but would have to be the really good undiluted stuff as mead takes lots of sugar to make it worth the effort. I suspect you;d have to fortify it since the syrup wouldn't have all the nutrients the yeast would need. I'm not sure what the end flavor would be like as the process tends to change the flavor of whatever the constituent was. My suspicion it would be kind of musky, but beyond that?????

Thing is, one of the factors in making traditional honey mead is that honey is antiseptic and so it's harder to start the yeast than with fruit or grain. I suspect that the syrup is not antiseptic so that might make up for the lower sugar content. Of course since i don't drink, this is all theoretical to me. But i am curious.

Actually no. Antique mead was made by leaving the must open to the air for a specific period of time to catch wild yeasts and then covering it to let the reaction start before setting it to ferment, airtight. You can do the same thing today. I wouldn't recommend it, stuff usually comes out tasting like really nasty weak beer. Originally and traditionally you would have used the remains of the last fermentation to start the next one if it was a good yeast, otherwise you through it out or fed it to the hogs. In a large operation the fermentation house would become infused with the yeasts and so would make starting the next generation much easier. Modernly, if you are smart, you start with sterile water, and sterilized honey that you add the yeast and nutrients to to let it do its thing. The things that drive it are the yeast, the amount of sugar in whatever you are fermenting, and the needed nutrients either naturally present or added and equally critically the temperature. So you could do it with maple syrup, just not sure what it would come out tasting like.

You are right though, honey, and sugar are quite effective and active antibiotics, but in pure form only, watered down, they are just good yeast food.

[wanglepin]

How many times Ceylon ??
15 times !! 15 times they explained to the reporter that Tom won in Court and thanks to Mr Eberts ability to translate the judgement it was a hands down victory
You know, you put in big green letters on this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ5dImDVmGI

Ceylon wrote:one of the many things many have missed is it was not a court

the judge attended in civvies’ the female barrister on seeing this disrobed and took her wig of she clicked straight away it was a private hearing

this was mentioned and in one of the videos it was pointed out but still so many missed it