UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[PeanutGallery]

On Maple Syrup and Mead

Given that you can get Beers flavoured with honey, presumably the same could be done with Maple Syrup, perhaps our resident drinker of anything but Molson, is aware of a Canadian brew flavoured with Maple Syrup? If not maybe he should suggest it to one of the microbrewery's he attends as a brew that would be traditionally Canadian, unlike of course Molson Canadian.

[Edit to add}

A google told me that an American brewery has already come up with this idea and a recipe is available here http://brooklynbrewery.com/brooklyn-bee ... ple-porter. Burnaby, start your brewing.

[Tom Carter]

Tom Crawford...


Mark Haining...

[littleFred]

...it is okay to agree to disagree. The difference between this and trolls, which tend to be newbies who log on and aim straight for this thread or WeRe, is that they seek division of the members and do not care about Tom but seek to undermine the true goal which is to put an end to the corrupt practices of government, banking, courts and police.

As often happens, I largely agree with SalliNae's post.

But the biggest troll by far is Ceylon. He lied when he said the court had ruled in Tom's favour. And he lies again with his U-turn that "it was not a court" after all. Ceylon knows that it was a real court. Ceylon's lies are damaging to Tom. The lies do not "put an end to the corrupt practices of government, banking, courts and police". You don't do that by lying. If there are corrupt practices you expose them by telling the truth.

It seems to me that Ceylon doesn't care about Tom at all. If he did care, he wouldn't lie about Tom's situation.

[guilty]

http://www.exposetheestablishment.com/v ... -crawford/

[daveBeeston]

The whole thing is just getting worse and worse,the contridictions and failure to answer any questions that relate to the Judgement( i made a couple of posts in the comments of the Judgement explained video had a couple replies accussing me of being in league with those pesky fraudsters and beingpaid by the nasty banksters).

Will the loonacy ever end....

[Hyrion]

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.

Don't underestimate the ability of every human being to choose what they want to believe and blindly ignore the truth that's right in front of them.

[Tom Carter]

I don't normally do forums and generally keep my opinions to myself but I'm breaking with
tradition in this case.

I've been following Tom Crawford's outlandish story since the start, more for the entertainment value than the belief of any real prospect of him winning. (Just pay what you owe is the moral of the story here).

I'm angry that these idiots are not only taking the piss out of all the Tom Crawford supporters, they have also put this gullible old fool in a serious predicament.

That said, I'm also of the opinion that Crawford is just as much to blame, (if not more), as the jokers he seems to be finding solace with at the moment. It seems to me that Crawford and his family have brought this situation upon themselves with their eyes wide open although now it seems their eyes are tightly closed.

Anyone who find themselves in a similar position to Tom Crawford will naturally be feeling at their wits end and in need of some real help going forward. Bullshit and false promises from deluded freeloaders purporting to be common law experts could easily push some over the edge. This needs stopping before we hear of a real tragedy. Josh Langley may be a perfect example of someone who's world appears to have fallen apart and is having difficulty coping. Does this guy and others like him, really need the likes of Guy Taylor, Mark Haining & Ebert dripping their poison into his ear? I don't think so!

These groups of deluded idiots need to grow up, pay their way, get proper jobs and a modicum of an education. They all seem to come from the same mould - Social Misfits!

Guy Taylor and his cronies need kicking into the long grass that's for sure.

The many slanderous allegations made on their website and YouTube channel needs some prosecutions being brought. Now that would be entertainment and teach them a very valuable lesson. To be frank, I've watched many of the videos on Haining's channel, to say they are cringe-worthy would be an understatement.

[PeanutGallery]

I have no issue with people campaigning for social change or protesting that the gulf between rich and poor is ever widening and even hold certain opinions that would likely have had me up for before Senator McCarthy in regard to social justice and the obligations of the state. Does that mean I think we have to tear the whole world down, no. I think we've got it mostly right, and we are moving towards getting it more right in the future. We aren't going to get change by stamping our feet and screaming injustice outside of Parliament, we'll get it by sitting down at the table and talking about things sensibly. The problem with Salli is she talks about 'being the change she wants to see' but I would doubt her ability to change a light bulb much less the myriad wrongs she complains about in society.

I also don't have a problem with people disagreeing, in fact I welcome it, if I am wrong on something I want to know. I learned a long time ago that ego is the greatest hindrance to knowledge. The problem is with Salli's post is she doesn't understand what it means to agree to disagree. She thinks that if you don't blindly support Tom you are trolling. That to support is to tell someone what they want to hear, which often isn't what they need to hear. I disagree, support is being open and honest and giving someone a realistic prospect of their situation. Which would you rather be told, that you have terminal cancer or that you don't, presuming you are in a situation where a Doctor has results confirming you do. What the Doctor tells you won't change your condition, but until you are told you have no means of knowing and you will hope for the all clear.

Guy Taylor and Mr Ebert haven't been honest with Tom. They've told him what he wants to hear and given him the sort of advice he'd pay good money to hear, but they haven't told him what he needed to hear. They've invented a reason as to why the bank can't 'properly' take his house, but likely warned him that it won't stop them, in fact they've probably explained that the Judge had to write the verdict so it looked like the other side had won, because otherwise it would be giving the game away, then they warned him that they'd probably try to enforce this unless he does some more woo that they can provide him. They've filled his head with so much nonsense that I would wager if Tom was asked the sky's colour he'd look to Taylor for an answer before he thought of turning his head to heaven.

Tom needed to hear an explanation of what his endowment mortgage was, what his options were and how he could go about taking them up. He wanted to hear that he could fight it, he needed to hear that he couldn't. People like Salli are pushing Tom down the road to eviction because they want to 'help' but because of their ignorance they only serve to hinder.

Tom being evicted is sad, it's unfortunate. Nobody wants to turf an old man onto the street. I'd wager the Judge didn't want to do it, but at the same time knew it was a thing he had to do. Tom didn't follow the rules and society only exists because it has rules and those rules are designed to protect the rights of everyone in society. The Bank is a part of society, has a right to Tom's house, they will exercise it because they don't have a choice, they don't have a choice because they have shareholders and the bank is supposed to act in the interests of those shareholders which entails the mitigation of losses from mortgages gone bad.

Oh and I wondered why Sue wasn't at the court, but a number had gathered at the house when the verdict was being read. My theory is that someone in the Taylor, Ebert, Haining cabal had warned Tom that the banks might try to steal the house if they all went out before the Judgement was read in court. So it was probably best that Sue stay behind and you get a few lads round to make sure this doesn't happen.

[Bones]

So is no one from Team Crawford claiming that he won in court now ?

Makes those that took part in the demonstration against the Nottingham Post for running a story saying the same thing, look very stupid now.

It begs the question, why when only team crawford had the judgement did they shout every so loudly that he had won, to only spin 360 degrees when the judgement was posted here and start using arguments such as it wasn't a court.

Mark Haining should change his petname from Ceylon to Teflon because as usual no s**t sticks to him.

[Normal Wisdom]

I have had some iffy pm's today from a newbie here usernamepeaches, Peachey telling me to look at some videos. Has anyone else has one?

Someone joined on May 21st as "Peachy", but hasn't posted any comments yet.

"Peachy" that's the one ( I had a few sherbets and it was well past eleven) Sent me links to open. No, I didn't.

I had a similar PM to Wanglepin. I don't know if this is relevant but I am pretty sure the blog to which guilty posted a link upthread is run by someone called Andy Peacher. "Freedom Talk Radio" definitely is.

http://www.exposetheestablishment.com/v ... -crawford/

[Bones]

They've filled his head with so much nonsense that I would wager if Tom was asked the sky's colour he'd look to Taylor for an answer before he thought of turning his head to heaven.

It is funny that you say this. I watched the video of Tom outside the Court after his "victory". When he was asked about the judgement, the very first thing he said was "where's Guy". Guy, Ceylon and the other fruit loops have pulled Tom so far down the rabbit hole, he now has nowhere to go.

In one video tom says that the legal costs for b&b are £30,000.00. Add that on to £45,000.00 odd that he has to pay b&b for the mortgage, he is down at least £75,000.00. Any further cases, will just increase the legal costs and the debt (due to the interest still being applied) more and more.

At auction given the negative publicity surrounding this property, he would be lucky if the sale price repays the debt including legal costs as it stands now. If he keeps listening to Moe, Larry, Curly and king goofer he is in danger of being left with a shortfall to also pay.

In all seriousness and jokes aside, Tom if you are reading this, please come to your senses. Those idiots are not interested in helping you, each has their own agenda to promote themselves. None of them have anything to lose in this matter, whereas you have everything to lose.

Craig and Amanda, this is your family home why risk it by listening to a bunch of idiots who lose virtually every single case any of them have been involved in.

[Bones]

PM to Wanglepin. I don't know if this is relevant but I am pretty sure the blog to which guilty posted a link upthread is run by someone called Andy Peacher. "Freedom Talk Radio" definitely is.

http://www.exposetheestablishment.com/v ... -crawford/

I don't get my own video, I don't even get mentioned in video's and now I don't even get included in these messages.

[PeanutGallery]

Another observation from GOODF is that some of the 'rentamob' are becoming aware to the fact that they are basically a 'rentamob' and are being exploited when asked to turn up at evictions.

Noisyt i met you at eberts. We were duped, but not by members of this site. Not all the info was given to people running this site, and i discovered this later. We were all meant to attend just a meeting. How coincidental it was that at precisely the same time we turn up bailiffs are there.......someone knew and it wasnt the goodf team.[size=85]http://www.getoutofdebtfree.or ... iko[/size]

If I recall Ebert's eviction he was being moved from a flat he was renting from family to another flat also provided by his family. He wasn't being made homeless he was basically moving (admittedly not by choice, but that is a lot better than being kicked out with NOWHERE to go).

Now here's the rub, Ebert was, according to 'handle' prepared to lie to get people to try and stop him from being made to move home. But Ebert's word is to be trusted as honest when he's telling Tom how he won his case? Except Tom didn't win because it wasn't a proper court, because the Judge wasn't in fancy dress, which was likely to make the venue less intimidating to Tom because he wasn't represented.

As for Ebert I am sure that the truth is one thing his tongue has never touched.

[Tom Carter]

[midjit-gems]

Does anyone remember what was said when they announced they had recieved an email from the judge to give his verdict? That all they could say was the time and date of the 5 minute hearing to get it given properly, and should they discuss the judgement or post any part of it before then they would be done for Contempt of court?

has anyone seen this so called email? A lot of people including the amazing Nita benfield were email their disgust at this to the judge. Contempt of court for discussing your own case? Seems weird. And so it should as I have reason to believe that's not what was said at all.

If as I'm lead to believe they were told they could discuss it just not post the actual judgement then it would appear a little odd don't you think? I'm damn sure if I was so sure of a win I'd want everyone there celebrating with me, or a loss everyone there to show their displeasure. one can only assume the police had been prewarned due to their high number presence.

When the judge asked if I had any questions I said no but thanked him for what he had done for us, he could not have done anymore for us, he was left stunned and open mouthed at our reaction, normal people would have needed it explained that it was a win but we had seen it for what it was, he was shocked we had worked it out so quickly.

Yet now their story has changed again????? When will their loyal supporters, the likes of which ady "prince of bellened" Sutcliffe wake up and see he has been duped the most as he wasn't privy to any of the details that have now been exposed. All seems like a huge scam to me

But I'm an idiot thick troll who can't speak legalese so what do I know ?

[mufc1959]

Oh and I wondered why Sue wasn't at the court, but a number had gathered at the house when the verdict was being read. My theory is that someone in the Taylor, Ebert, Haining cabal had warned Tom that the banks might try to steal the house if they all went out before the Judgement was read in court. So it was probably best that Sue stay behind and you get a few lads round to make sure this doesn't happen.

This wouldn't have happened, because B&B would have to follow due process to lawfully evict Tom & family.

IIRC, B&B applies for a warrant, the borrower applies to have it suspended, and the hearing is usually a day or two before the actual eviction date. If the borrower's application succeeds, then the warrant's suspended, usually on terms that the borrower pays the monthly repayment + an amount off the arrears. If the application fails, the eviction goes ahead.

But the eviction dates are set by the court bailiffs - not B&B. Once the judge decided to look into Tom's application in detail (for public interest reasons, I think, not because B&B has actually done anything wrong), B&B lost its place in the queue. So although Tom's application was dismissed, B&B will now have to re-issue the request for an eviction date and await their place in the queue. The bailiffs will hand-deliver a notice to the property advising of the eviction date, and this is also sent by post to both sides.

So it wouldn't ever have been a clandestine eviction while everyone was in court. It just isn't done that way, despite what the Goofers would have people believe.

[Hercule Parrot]

In all seriousness and jokes aside, Tom if you are reading this, please come to your senses. Those idiots are not interested in helping you, each has their own agenda to promote themselves. None of them have anything to lose in this matter, whereas you have everything to lose.

Craig and Amanda, this is your family home why risk it by listening to a bunch of idiots who lose virtually every single case any of them have been involved in.

Any TC supporters who are reading this (we know you do, and you're welcome) please speak to Tom & Sue - beg them to see sense and get some professional help.

[vampireLOREN]

All the above makes sense, and all have written with compassion.
I though think Tom is a devious old rogue...and have no sympathy none! zilch!.

[Tom Carter]

All the above makes sense, and all have written with compassion.
I though think Tom is a devious old rogue...and have no sympathy none! zilch!.

Hear, Hear!

[Bones]

Oh and I wondered why Sue wasn't at the court, but a number had gathered at the house when the verdict was being read. My theory is that someone in the Taylor, Ebert, Haining cabal had warned Tom that the banks might try to steal the house if they all went out before the Judgement was read in court. So it was probably best that Sue stay behind and you get a few lads round to make sure this doesn't happen.

This wouldn't have happened, because B&B would have to follow due process to lawfully evict Tom & family.

IIRC, B&B applies for a warrant, the borrower applies to have it suspended, and the hearing is usually a day or two before the actual eviction date. If the borrower's application succeeds, then the warrant's suspended, usually on terms that the borrower pays the monthly repayment + an amount off the arrears. If the application fails, the eviction goes ahead.

But the eviction dates are set by the court bailiffs - not B&B. Once the judge decided to look into Tom's application in detail (for public interest reasons, I think, not because B&B has actually done anything wrong), B&B lost its place in the queue. So although Tom's application was dismissed, B&B will now have to re-issue the request for an eviction date and await their place in the queue. The bailiffs will hand-deliver a notice to the property advising of the eviction date, and this is also sent by post to both sides.

So it wouldn't ever have been a clandestine eviction while everyone was in court. It just isn't done that way, despite what the Goofers would have people believe.

It might have something to do with what happened to this guy. VampireLoren has mentioned him once or twice. It would look like by the time he got back from court the baliffs were already at his home. The youtube comments suggest not is all it appears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rni_iA1eHpA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U51r-roJqwU

What do you know there is an update from Guy about this one too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynmw91k ... 2366327137

Not listened to it yet but I am guessing something about a seal, a warrant and fraudulent documents