UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[fat frank]

if you use a tor, then you should be ok, shouldn't you

[Bones]

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.

You are right, I just feel left out

[Bones]

Nottingham Anonymous / Pirates must be a little disappointed with the outcome of their demonstration. It has been 2 days now and there has been no news coverage. I saw in the video there was someone that looked like he was taking pictures for a paper and people were posing for him, thinking they would get their picture in the papers. It would be funny, if he was a reporter but an under cover police officer recording who attended

[IDIOT]

Nottingham Anonymous / Pirates must be a little disappointed with the outcome of their demonstration. It has been 2 days now and there has been no news coverage. I saw in the video there was someone that looked like he was taking pictures for a paper and people were posing for him, thinking they would get their picture in the papers. It would be funny, if he was a reporter but an under cover police officer recording who attended

No requirement for police to send an undercover guy in. They are already well known to police to the point police offered them the opportunity to work with them on the op on the grounds of a peaceful and safe demonstration via one of their FaceBook pages. All they have to do to find out who the regular attendees are is click their friends list on FaceBook. Police that were there kept their distance. Why? Because they didn't need to get up close and personal to them as they are already known individuals.

[BlueBurmese]

• 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?

I suspect that he couldn't afford the additional payments to maintain an endowment policy or convert the mortgage to a repayment one. The judgement states that there were six capitalisations of arrears for the main mortgage account. There were also other arrears situations in 2005 and 2006 where a warrant of possession was issued. We don't know of other missed or late payments but suspect there were many. Ultimately, Tom couldn't afford to keep up the interest payments, let alone start paying down the capital. On the sub-account where he'd borrowed £5k, arrears were capitalised three times, all within the first seven years of the mortgage term. If this was how he managed a "priority debt", then it's unlikely that any other household bill was paid on time. He'll probably be on gas and electricity prepayment meters...

I do wonder what the underlying reason for the poor payment history is. It would engender a fair bit of sympathy if this was a guy who had worked hard over many years (self-employed carpet fitter right?) for low wages, trying to hold things together as best as he could. Unfortunately, he loses a lot for not being honest about the mortgage situation and deliberately omitting key facts.

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.

I'm getting the impression that since knowing full well that there was nothing in place to pay off the capital in 1999, Tom has been kicking the can down the road. He's now out of road. Perhaps he thought his work situation was improve or something would turn up?

[midjit-gems]

Latest from Amanda far from there being arrears they actually paid a month extra

[IDIOT]

[/quote]

I'm getting the impression that since knowing full well that there was nothing in place to pay off the capital in 1999, Tom has been kicking the can down the road. He's now out of road. Perhaps he thought his work situation was improve or something would turn up?[/quote]

You only have to take a look at who turned up to help him to see why he's got his back against the wall right now.

[Bones]

Latest from Amanda far from there being arrears they actually paid a month extra

Didn't they finally stop making any payments in September 2013 ?

If they have not made any payments for going on 18 months, how can they have paid a month extra ?

45. In September 2013 the Crawfords stopped making payments to Bradford & Bingley. This was while the possession order on his home was suspended on condition that he made the current monthly payments. That decision was taken, according to Mr Crawford, because by then they had reached the end of the twenty-five year mortgage term and felt that they had no continuing liability to make any further payments.

48. Thus in September 2013 the Crawfords were still obliged to make monthly payments even though twenty-five years had expired. The decision to cease making those payments was disastrous. It immediately put the Crawfords in breach of the terms of the suspension of the possession order. It immediately gave Bradford & Bingley the right to enforce the possession order.

[Bones]

Looks like the natives might be starting to wake up. After all this time, one has asked where they can read the judgement

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 60#p388294

Ceylon, you better get ready on that delete button

[IDIOT]

That forum is falling to pieces. Surely admin can't keep up with having to delete all the negative posts?

[Hercule Parrot]

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 think that's pretty certain. It will be carefully planned, and carried out fast.

[IDIOT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPVy74LPa_4

Other than this guy saying Tom has paid Guy Taylor to help him he's spot on in his video. Is there any evidence of payments between TC and GT? If so TC has pissed his money up the wall when it should have gone towards paying the bills.

Evidence of TC paying GT and the GOOF'ers please?

[Tom Carter]

[Tom Carter]

[Hercule Parrot]

Let me summarise things for you ALL. TOM LIED FROM THE START!!
The judgment UNDER COMMON LAW, CLEARLY SHOWS BOTH SIDES AGREED THAT NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE MORTGAGE. The judgement also clearly shows that TOM WAS IN ARREARS. The bank were in the right to evict him. (Read the mortgage section, smilingalltheway)

The reality of this is this:

1. People who went to help Tom on both days should take him to small claims court and get the costs back that they incurred
2. TOM COMMITTD PERJURY. He has said a number of times that the bank have changed the mortgage and then on the judgement he agrees they havn't
3. NOBODY AND I MEAN NOBODY, take the advice of Guy Taylor and Michael of Benessian. Neither has won anything. They have lost every case to with a house. They have loads of there own to piss around with and they will make you homeless.
4. Habeos, is another to avoid, He will take youir money and you will lose.
5. This forum has become exactly what it was supposed to fight against. It now lies and promotes bullshit such as this case and Peter Bank of England Fraud.
6. This case has tarnished the rep of all those who want a fair a just bank system.
7. Those genuine people who have suffered at the hands of banks have been stopped receiving help from the good public who went to help Tom, when all he did was LIE.
8. Good people have left this forum. Mareo, smilingalltheway to name a few. This forum has become a cesspit for bullshit scam artists and nobody does a thing because of the money being made from google ads and membership fees.
9. If that is the way the owners want to play it, then it is there choice, but this forum will end up as part of archive.org.
10. Let's see how this post lasts. TRUTH now gets censored on this forum

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 6&start=60

[Tom Carter]

[Normal Wisdom]

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.

Of course, that's it ... the rugby shirts, the trusting personality, the minimal number of brain cells - it's Tom Nice But Dim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tekXxB6dosQ

[Normal Wisdom]

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.

I pretty much agree with you on this. I think the evidence we have so far points to his wife taking the lead on a lot of the financial issues (not unusual). The endowment policy premium was paid from an account in her name, the B&B records are of discussions with her and the "Customer Needs Statement" completed on 29th January 1999 was signed by her. Even Tom, in one of his first videos, talks of being informed of the situation regarding the "never ending mortgage" by his wife.

The first involvement Tom seems to have had is the famous letter from B&B following the discussion with Mrs C in January 1999. As I postulated upthread, not only does he fail to understand the letter but he jumps to the wrong conclusion, assuming it means exactly the opposite of what it actually says. He's been clinging to that wrong assumption ever since and no matter how many times he's told he is wrong. It points to a rather strange relationship between Mr and Mrs C that they were not "on the same page" when she was dealing with the mortgage and that she was not able to clarify the situation after the letter arrived. It also points to an extremely close minded and pig headed attitude from Tom.

[Normal Wisdom]

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.

Well yes I know that now. If they had been unknown or obscure links I wouldn't have touched it with a bargepole but it was to what looked like two regular YouTube videos; one about Tom's court case that I suspect most of us have looked at and one older one posted by the infamous Charlie Veitch. They didn't seem to be at all unusual.

I have also been told by a trusted friend on another forum to beware of Andy Peacher (and by extension "Peachy" if they are indeed the same person)

I haven't suffered any unusual consequences since. So hopefully I have got away with it and will be wiser in future.

[Normal Wisdom]

Nottingham Anonymous / Pirates must be a little disappointed with the outcome of their demonstration. It has been 2 days now and there has been no news coverage. I saw in the video there was someone that looked like he was taking pictures for a paper and people were posing for him, thinking they would get their picture in the papers. It would be funny, if he was a reporter but an under cover police officer recording who attended

No requirement for police to send an undercover guy in. They are already well known to police to the point police offered them the opportunity to work with them on the op on the grounds of a peaceful and safe demonstration via one of their FaceBook pages. All they have to do to find out who the regular attendees are is click their friends list on FaceBook. Police that were there kept their distance. Why? Because they didn't need to get up close and personal to them as they are already known individuals.

Yes, I believe the Nottingham police are well aware of the details of any FoTLer event planned in their area and the names of the organisers and main participants. They were obviously well prepared to "repel boarders" at Tom's hearing but probably didn't need to cancel all overtime for the Nottingham Post protest.