UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[JonnyL]

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 ?

Yeah the fresh prince is too entrenched in this whole response movement to question anything, he's had banners made and everything, for him if there's an issue with the banks he'll simply go with the flow and support whatever the course of action is and defend whatever get's said regardless of whether it's true or false, I saw the CA3 page fall to pieces in a matter of hours and I believe Ady was central to that, not Russell. This is him trying to be Mr dependable, you can always count on Ady, my opinions of the man are very clear, he's an absolute royal bellend.

[Normal Wisdom]

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 ?

Well that's an interesting point which had completely passed me by in the general excitement of getting hold of the transcript. It's worth comparing what Tom's daughter, Amanda Pike posted on the "Eviction - the fraud of the bank" FB page and and the instructions printed at the top of the full judgement which was attached to the e-mail sent out by the court. The highlights in the judgment text are mine ...

OKAY.....Dad has received an email from the judge with his decision, Judge Godsmark has clearly stated that we cannot talk about his decision to anyone other then immediate family and legal advisors until all party's are privy to the judgement and anyone found divulging the contents before the hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning will be charged with CONTEMPT OF COURT..... frown emoticon
We anticipate the hearing should last no longer than 5 minutes therefore it is not necessary for folks to attend court. As always we like to be transparent giving you all the information and as soon as the hearing has finished we will let you know.
With this in mind, we cannot answer any questions frown emoticon
We hope you can all understand, I personally think its daft, but there you go! GRRRRRRRR!!! although I need to stress that we will tell you all asap"

This is a judgment to which the Practice Direction supplementing CPR Part 40 applies. It will be handed down on Thursday 14th May 2015 at 9:30 am in Court No 21 of the Nottingham Justice Centre.
The parties are free generally to disclose the result of this judgment.
The full text may be disclosed to parties, their immediate family and legal advisers immediately but may only be circulated to others once the official version has been handed down on Thursday 14th May 2015.
The official version of the judgment will thereafter be available from the County Court Office."

So it's clear that the Crawford's were free to tell everyone the result of the judgement as soon as the e-mail was received. They were just not able to distribute the full judgement until after it was officially handed down.

This is either another example of the Crawford side's inability to understand basic English or further confirmation of their willingness to lie to their own supporters in order to manage the truth.

[JonnyL]

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.

The Pike woman claims to have a list of trolls lolololololol she posted it in the comments of a link showing how 5 trolls a day are getting prosecuted. What this woman fails to understand is relaying the truth isn't trolling, but denying the truth exists is a sign of mental illness.

[daveBeeston]

Those who do troll deserve to be prosecuted(the ones who verbally abuse and threaten people) but so should those making libellous accusations against media professionals and legal professionals.

The lies told by the 3 dumbasses and the Crawfords(and the more I read and listen to I'm not certain who is leading who) are getting more and more ridiculous by the day.

"We won in court except it wasn't a court"
"B&B changed the terms except both parties agree no change was made"

I'm not sure they could tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

[JonnyL]

Those who do troll deserve to be prosecuted(the ones who verbally abuse and threaten people) but so should those making libellous accusations against media professionals and legal professionals.

The lies told by the 3 dumbasses and the Crawfords(and the more I read and listen to I'm not certain who is leading who) are getting more and more ridiculous by the day.

"We won in court except it wasn't a court"
"B&B changed the terms except both parties agree no change was made"

I'm not sure they could tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

Spot on!

[Hyrion]

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.

To add to all the opinion in the post, I also add:

• He needed to have started listening back when the Bank was trying to warn him that his interest-only payments would leave him in a bind.

Sadly - he chose, all those years ago before his current heroes came along, he chose not to learn about what the endowment mortgage meant, what it meant when the payments on it stopped, what it meant when he (or the decreasing value due to on-going service fees triggering it) cashed out.

He's been sticking his head in the sand for a very long time not wanting to face reality. It comes as no surprise to me that he's still unwilling to face the reality of the situation and he found refuge in the likes of Taylor et al.

[vampireLOREN]

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 ?

Well that's an interesting point which had completely passed me by in the general excitement of getting hold of the transcript. It's worth comparing what Tom's daughter, Amanda Pike posted on the "Eviction - the fraud of the bank" FB page and and the instructions printed at the top of the full judgement which was attached to the e-mail sent out by the court. The highlights in the judgment text are mine ...

OKAY.....Dad has received an email from the judge with his decision, Judge Godsmark has clearly stated that we cannot talk about his decision to anyone other then immediate family and legal advisors until all party's are privy to the judgement and anyone found divulging the contents before the hearing scheduled for tomorrow morning will be charged with CONTEMPT OF COURT..... frown emoticon
We anticipate the hearing should last no longer than 5 minutes therefore it is not necessary for folks to attend court. As always we like to be transparent giving you all the information and as soon as the hearing has finished we will let you know.
With this in mind, we cannot answer any questions frown emoticon
We hope you can all understand, I personally think its daft, but there you go! GRRRRRRRR!!! although I need to stress that we will tell you all asap"

This is a judgment to which the Practice Direction supplementing CPR Part 40 applies. It will be handed down on Thursday 14th May 2015 at 9:30 am in Court No 21 of the Nottingham Justice Centre.
The parties are free generally to disclose the result of this judgment.
The full text may be disclosed to parties, their immediate family and legal advisers immediately but may only be circulated to others once the official version has been handed down on Thursday 14th May 2015.
The official version of the judgment will thereafter be available from the County Court Office."

So it's clear that the Crawford's were free to tell everyone the result of the judgement as soon as the e-mail was received. They were just not able to distribute the full judgement until after it was officially handed down.

This is either another example of the Crawford side's inability to understand basic English or further confirmation of their willingness to lie to their own supporters in order to manage the truth.

I missed that!!! one has to give them the benefit here, but .....I do wonder?.

[littleFred]

Sadly - he chose, all those years ago before his current heroes came along, he chose not to learn about what the endowment mortgage meant, what it meant when the payments on it stopped, ...

Yes, although to be picky, he mostly paid his endowment mortgage. It was the endowment assurance policy that they stopped paying.

EDIT: Sorry to be picky, but Tom was confused about this. He seemed to think that paying the endowment mortgage went towards the capital, when actually the capital would be paid from the proceeds of his endowment policy.

[Burnaby49]

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.

The local brewers try flavouring their beers with just about anything. Just went to a new brewpub convenient to my house, very nice place;

http://steamworks.com/brewery

and had a cucumber beer. It was horrible. Reminiscent of, but nowhere near as bad as, a beer I had at the Head of Steam in Liverpool called The Cheeky Monkey. My beer-swilling friend and I have a very strong aversion to throwing beer out. If we buy it we drink it. However even though we'd only ordered a half pint of the Monkey we tossed it. The only other beer we've thrown out was a Smithwicks in Waterford Ireland. Nothing wrong with Smithwicks as a beer but that one had gone bad in the keg. I finished the cucumber beer at Steamworks.

As far as starting my own brewing is concerned my friend and I did that for a quarter of a century, twenty-five years of brewing in my basement. We did it because Canadian beer was crap in the mid 1970's and we tired of the garbage the big breweries disdainfully offered us. Back in those dark days there were no alternatives. They had a legal monopoly on making beer and imports were essentially banned so they had no incentive to make a decent product. However laws changed and craft beer and independent breweries came along and by 2000 the quality of beer had improved so much that we started buying it again. Not Molsons though. Note that I am not just a drinker of "anything but Molsons". I don't touch Labatts or Budweiser either. A lot of people have made that decision and the major brewers are struggling. The two largest breweries in Vancouver shut down in recent years because of the rise of craft beers. A Molsons and a Labatts.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/12/mols ... ling-line/

As you can see from that little list I provided of last Saturday's pub crawl there are now all kinds of small brew pubs here putting out excellent products. The most popular of them, the Brass Neck, run by an expatriate Englishman, was on our itinerary but it was way too packed. So yes, I've tried maple syrup beer. Didn't like it much. I'm not big on flavoured beers. Yeast, hops, water barley, that works for me.

[fat frank]

RE: Trolls

the people being call trolls are the one who are saying we was lied to, we wasn't told there was arrears, the story we was told was a load of BS, we went to stop the bailiffs and now the judgement has come out, they are all stupid, thick, don't understand legalese, and should just shut up,

people have seen through there lies and I feel that it will effect all future repos, as people will just say what a load of BS again

it seems to be a case of you are either with us or you are against us

[Silly Ebert]

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.

B&B won't have to re-issue the request for the eviction because it was suspended by the court not B&B, the court will release the suspension as the warrant would be "to lie in court office " status. The bailiffs have no need to give further notice as the notice for the 23 Jan has been served, as it was on an N54A stating the bailiffs can return anytime 7 days after the 23 jan.

[IDIOT]

Be interesting to see how supporters turn up when the call to arms goes out.

If the enforcement team don't need to give notice this puts them at an advantage and TC at a disadvantage regarding calling for back up. By the time the supporters get there the bungalow could already be secured by the enforcement team.

[JonnyL]

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.

B&B won't have to re-issue the request for the eviction because it was suspended by the court not B&B, the court will release the suspension as the warrant would be "to lie in court office " status. The bailiffs have no need to give further notice as the notice for the 23 Jan has been served, as it was on an N54A stating the bailiffs can return anytime 7 days after the 23 jan.

That is correct Silly E.

[wanglepin]

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.

You may want to add that Tom was the perfect gullible target. Nice but dim.

[PeanutGallery]

Be interesting to see how supporters turn up when the call to arms goes out.

If the enforcement team don't need to give notice this puts them at an advantage and TC at a disadvantage regarding calling for back up. By the time the supporters get there the bungalow could already be secured by the enforcement team.

I don't think there will be a call to arms for the next eviction of Tom Crawford. At least not one that allows for an organised protest. Tom will likely be the last to know that he's being evicted, and in all probability it will be when the Bailiffs have entered his home and are ushering him out.

Tom may be able to get a few of the Nottingham faithful to turn up, presuming he isn't off protesting someone else's eviction or Hampstead or some other Sovrun nonsense. If he is, it will be down to Sue to try and get him back and to get his gang together. But by the time they can put anything together I'd wager the Bailiffs will already be in the house.

[Hyrion]

Tom was confused about this. He seemed to think that paying the endowment mortgage went towards the capital, when actually the capital would be paid from the proceeds of his endowment policy.

You can choose to believe Tom was confused and maybe he was.

My point is that he buried his head in the sand rather than examine the details of his finances. I stand behind that conclusion of opinion.

If he choose - over the years - to examine his finances:

• 1) Why did he not notice the mortgage principal was not decreasing and the endowment amount was not increasing?

• 2) Why did he not speak to the bank about that to gain the understanding he was missing?

• 3) Why did he refuse to work with the bank when the bank alerted him to the reality that there was no way - with the interest only payments he was making - to pay off the mortgage?

Those are just a few of the many hard questions Tom is the only person who can answer. Anyone else deducing what the reasons might be are just guessing.

I'll give him the benefit of doubt that in the begining he didn't understand how the endowment policy worked. But he willingly choose not to figure out his finances and ask some rather important questions he should have asked. That provides some pretty convincing evidence - to me - he deliberately choose to stick his head in the sand.

And I'll believe what the Judge authored in his ruling over any claim Tom makes at this point - or in the event Tom has not said "I have misunderstood what the endowment policy was about", what others have reasoned for him.

[IDIOT]

Tom was confused about this. He seemed to think that paying the endowment mortgage went towards the capital, when actually the capital would be paid from the proceeds of his endowment policy.

You can choose to believe Tom was confused and maybe he was.

My point is that he buried his head in the sand rather than examine the details of his finances. I stand behind that conclusion of opinion.

If he choose - over the years - to examine his finances:

• 1) Why did he not notice the mortgage principal was not decreasing and the endowment amount was not increasing?

• 2) Why did he not speak to the bank about that to gain the understanding he was missing?

• 3) Why did he refuse to work with the bank when the bank alerted him to the reality that there was no way - with the interest only payments he was making - to pay off the mortgage?

Those are just a few of the many hard questions Tom is the only person who can answer. Anyone else deducing what the reasons might be are just guessing.

I'll give him the benefit of doubt that in the begining he didn't understand how the endowment policy worked. But he willingly choose not to figure out his finances and ask some rather important questions he should have asked. That provides some pretty convincing evidence - to me - he deliberately choose to stick his head in the sand.

And I'll believe what the Judge authored in his ruling over any claim Tom makes at this point - or in the event Tom has not said "I have misunderstood what the endowment policy was about", what others have reasoned for him.

Any why oh why didn't they just use the 80 bazillion $ Craig earned on the screen grab on his website, admit they were led up the garden path and disappear quietly back into the slumber of Fearn Chase?

As you've all said he's under the Three Stooges spell to come out of it and far too proud to accept donations to get him out of the trouble he's in.

[Jeffrey]

I think the smoking gun in the ruling is the fact that Tom was alerted by the bank in 1999 about the terms of the endowment mortgage and given the opportunity to switch to a repayment mortgage. For those who are math deficient, that was about 16 years ago, back when we were all on dial up internet and phones didn't have fancy touch screens. Tom was still working age at that point and could have paid off the loan by the time 2015 came around.

He made the conscious decision to take the benefit of being able to live in a house for 25 years for small monthly payments knowing he would be kicked out after 25 years instead of making larger payments every month and then owning the house after 25 years.

[wanglepin]

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!.

Me neither. He has lied to his supporters just as Ebert did.I believe most of those "600 strangers" who turned up in support of the Crawfords had never heard of getoutofdebtfree or the self serving dirty buzzard Mark Haining Ceylon or Guy Taylor. Most were just ordinary Joes who believed they were supporting and old sick man who was being cheated by the bank and wrongly evicted. They didn't have a clue they were being used and abused. I wonder what the Crawfords neighbours of that lovely little close think of them now that have had a chance to digest some of the lies they too have been told?

[Hercule Parrot]

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.

Seems to me that's a good thing. I wouldn't follow a link which was PM'd to me by an unknown person. It might lead to something hostile or illegal, or it might be a honeypot to catch my IP address (if they control the hosting server or messageboard, then they can see the visitor's IP. If only Normal has been given a unique link, then the first visitor must be him). Trace the visitor's IP back to their ISP and then arrange a barrage of accusations (stalking, racist abuse, selling drugs etc) to get their account suspended.

All in all, it's best not to follow such links unless you have a proxy server arrangement.