I think that ultimately Tom is responsible for what is happening to him. He's not mentally incompetent and to a certain extent people have to be responsible for their actions both good and bad. It's the simple concept of accountability. I think both of them are trying to use each other, but each side have different goals.
I think Tom went down the GOOFY path simply because he was being told what he wanted to hear and not what he needed to hear. He chose to do that. He decided not to get objective advice but instead to go to people who were quite willing to use him and use his scenario to test out their theories, knowing they had nothing to lose if Tom failed. If their theory doesn't work, they can find another Tom Crawford. If it does work, they can package and sell it.
Tom probably swallowed some of the woo kool-aid and likely ingratiated himself amongst the leaders and promoted his issue to where it became national news. This encouraged the guru's to jump on board the Crawford bandwagon and use his popularity to promote their wares. Is it any surprise that on the day of the Nottingham Post protest, Peter of England had a talk in Nottingham? Peter likely anticipated a larger crowd and thought he could huck his 'bank' to those attending the March for Crawford's Trooth.
But at the same time that Tom thought he was using the Guru's to help save his house and promote his beliefs, they were using him. They used his popularity to espouse their own theories, on the corruption of the banks and their perception of endemic fraud in the financial system, they came up with a hundred reasons as to why they thought he didn't owe the money, they never mentioned the one reason why he did (which was that when he took the money he agreed to make interest payments and then after a period repay the whole amount).
Tom didn't help the situation, he obfuscated the truth and made claims that weren't backed up by the documents in his possession. He and his helpers created a new fantasy, that of the man who paid his mortgage in full and now at the end was about to be repossessed because the bank had lost the documents. It evoked a memory of a case in America, where a woman returned home one day to find her house stripped of her possessions, because a bank had foreclosed on her neighbour and the bailiffs had gone to the
wrong address.
But that wasn't true. Tom knew it wasn't true, Guy knew it wasn't true, Ebert probably wouldn't know the truth if it hit him square in the face with a big stick that said THIS IS THE TRUTH on it and Ceylon didn't care what the truth was so long as he got to make a video and the mob wanted to help this poor old man who seemed a victim out. The mob seemed to be the only people their with the genuine intention of helping Tom. It says a lot that at the second protest Roger Hayes turned up to force himself into the limelight.
Here's the thing, we would have wanted to help too. On another forum, dealing with landlord and tenant law I post advice on how a tenant should deal with eviction and suggest methods by which they can deal with that circumstance in a legal manner that respects their rights and also recognises the rights of the landlord. Had Tom posted on that site he would have received advice on where he stood, the best he could hope for and the options available to him (it likely would have been try to clear the arrears and look to downsize/move into a retirement property, talk with the bank and see if you can come to a voluntary arrangement where they agree not to repossess and you agree to sell, explain that this will result in them getting their money sooner and with less costs than legal action).
Tom likely made the mistake that cost him house before he met any of the GOODF Guru's who have given him bad advice, but until he met them he could have recovered that mistake and corrected his action. He didn't. Ultimately Tom is where he is because he made bad choices, but he wasn't helped by the Guru's.
.