UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[guilty]

Ceylon and psycho Salli don't want anyone to comment upon 2 of the most 'interesting' GOOFer promoted issues in the UK at the moment.
They are, however, happy to have threads promoting holocaust denial and anti-vaccination.

[PeanutGallery]

Ceylon and SallieNae have lost the plot.

(a) Preventing newbies from posting also prevents old-timers from posting.

(b) We were all newbies, once, on every topic we have encountered. Newbies learn by asking. What is wrong with that? In a cult, questions are forbidden. Newbies are expected to learn the dogma as established by the old-timers. But Ceylon keeps changing the dogma. Thus, old-timers are also forbidden from asking questions.

I take the view that everyone is a newbie, we all don't know everything and we certainly can't be expected to know everything. At times any of us (whether we have a thousand posts or a handful) can be mistaken as to the nature of fact and we should be willing to accept that and to learn when exposed to information we were previously unaware of.

Over here it's not about who is posting the information but whether that information is verifiable and if a source can be cited. I think it also helps to keep us that little bit more polite and cuts down on the need or desire to call each other idiots or make vile slurs about a certain mod drinking molsons.

[vampireLOREN]

Ceylon and SallieNae have lost the plot.

(a) Preventing newbies from posting also prevents old-timers from posting.

(b) We were all newbies, once, on every topic we have encountered. Newbies learn by asking. What is wrong with that? In a cult, questions are forbidden. Newbies are expected to learn the dogma as established by the old-timers. But Ceylon keeps changing the dogma. Thus, old-timers are also forbidden from asking questions.

I take the view that everyone is a newbie, we all don't know everything and we certainly can't be expected to know everything. At times any of us (whether we have a thousand posts or a handful) can be mistaken as to the nature of fact and we should be willing to accept that and to learn when exposed to information we were previously unaware of.

Over here it's not about who is posting the information but whether that information is verifiable and if a source can be cited. I think it also helps to keep us that little bit more polite and cuts down on the need or desire to call each other idiots or make vile slurs about a certain mod drinking molsons.

All this talk about Molsons is making me want to buy a bottle and it had better be good for if its not I will not be happy

[rumpelstilzchen]

I find it hilarious that Tom Crawford himself has been locked out from posting on GOOFs about his own predicament.
Comedy gold.
Can we have some more examples of stupidity in the future please, Ceylon? You appear to be a past master at it.

[JonnyL]

I see our friend the 'Fresh Prince of BE' has organised a little get together...


Ady Sutcliffe
1 hr · Edited
Just to let you all know, we're having a 12 month anniversary get together on 25th July, this is in effect a reunion of like minded people who turned out on 23rd July 2014 in the scorching heat and stood together on Fearn Chase Carlton in support of the wonderful Crawford family and also a celebration of 12 months since the creation of the Response network smile emoticon
Please share far and wide - Everyone welcome, new friends and old smile emoticon
‪#‎OpTomCrawford‬ ‪#‎ResponseUK‬
https://www.facebook.com/events/1434508260189822/

[longdog]

I find it hilarious that Tom Crawford himself has been locked out from posting on GOOFs about his own predicament.
Comedy gold.
Can we have some more examples of stupidity in the future please, Ceylon? You appear to be a past master at it.

That might be what they are most afraid of.

A "I've just been kicked out into the gutter so maybe I didn't win after all" post would be a major blow to the goofy powers that be.

[LordEd]

Salinae feels asking the question "Why are the were bank and Tom's Case forums locked?" is an attempt to "disrupt, spread disinformation", when clearly all this member wanted to do was "learn the truth"
...
No doubt the user that dare asked a question, has been secretly banned already

Ceylon and SallieNae have lost the plot.

He just changed to a different movie. Reminds me of this for some reason...https://youtu.be/xnxvKJAv5Ik @2:20

[Bones]

Salinae feels asking the question "Why are the were bank and Tom's Case forums locked?" is an attempt to "disrupt, spread disinformation", when clearly all this member wanted to do was "learn the truth"
...
No doubt the user that dare asked a question, has been secretly banned already

Ceylon and SallieNae have lost the plot.

He just changed to a different movie. Reminds me of this for some reason...https://youtu.be/xnxvKJAv5Ik @2:20

We so need a like button for posts

[LordEd]

Somehow thought you might appreciate that one.

The GOODF sheep must not question the shepherds. Only approved thinking is allowed among the GOODF or they may be led astray. Once one peers into the door of the failure slaughterhouse, they must not be allowed to return and report or the flock could scatter.

[daveBeeston]

Surely they should be shouting about those threads from the rooftops due to their massive success with keeping a roof over Tom's head and by allowing debt to be paid off without cash, I mean if I had that level of success I would want everyone to know.
They should also be welcoming newbies with open arms(so they can reach the wallets in the back pockets) as without them the movement will die as will the cash flow from the newbie.

I expect Tom's eviction to happen in the next couple of weeks and I hope the bailiffs film it to stop any ridiculous allegations of assault, intimidation or other wrong doing.

[wanglepin]

Interesting post from professional fence sitter over on goof. Another platinum starred idiot too frightened to speak his mind about a member of Tom Crawford's legal team :

Re: an expert under scrutiny [ A video by Bradley Knight law and Sandra on Ebert]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQeivlJ5qfI
Postby handle » Sat May 30, 2015 8:05 pm

I have met bradley knight and mr E.
Bradley knows what he is doing and has active experience. I have spoken about mr E before. I deal in the property matters he is talking about and mr E has a different perspective on legal matters. Mr E is on the vexatious litigants list but is a very charismatic character. He can be very persuasive and intelligent sounding. I wont say any more about mr E but Bradley can do my cases any day......
handle
Platinum Member

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WovVzTF98E
I wondered if handle had mentioned his knowledge of and meeting with his "charismatic" friend Mr Ebert in any of the Crawford threads. No, not a whisper.

[Normal Wisdom]

Interesting post from professional fence sitter over on goof. Another platinum starred idiot too frightened to speak his mind about a member of Tom Crawford's legal team :

Re: an expert under scrutiny [ A video by Bradley Knight law and Sandra on Ebert]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQeivlJ5qfI
Postby handle » Sat May 30, 2015 8:05 pm

I have met bradley knight and mr E.
Bradley knows what he is doing and has active experience. I have spoken about mr E before. I deal in the property matters he is talking about and mr E has a different perspective on legal matters. Mr E is on the vexatious litigants list but is a very charismatic character. He can be very persuasive and intelligent sounding. I wont say any more about mr E but Bradley can do my cases any day......
handle
Platinum Member

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... WovVzTF98E
I wondered if handle had mentioned his knowledge of and meeting with his "charismatic" friend Mr Ebert in any of the Crawford threads. No, not a whisper.

Is this like the judgement where you have to read between the lines?

[daveBeeston]

The infuluence Tom has over his followers is quite frightning i've been trying to have a discussion on the nottinghampost website with one of his followers called JoeBones and the level of delusion is frankly disturbing.Below is a quote of Joes latest post.

"Now that I have heard and seen Tom's evidence (in the link I posted below) I am convinced of the truth of what he says. On the other hand, some may ignore it, and continue to kiss the rear ends of the crooked Bankers who got us into this mess. Now not a single major bank that has not admitted being involved in criminal activity."

The video he mentions is the one posted on the 4th MAy 2015 called The people V the psychopaths (Dark forces) and despite me providing a link to the full judgement and which he has apparently read he still insists Tom is right adn when asked why he agrees with Tom's blatent lies Joe simply chooses to ignore the question and instead accuse me of kissing the banks rear end.It would seem Joes conversion to the GOOF'y,Freeman, Anti-Establihment philosophy is complete and the realm of common sense and resposibility for ones own actions has lost another soul...

When will it stop....

[littleFred]

I am constantly saddened (but never surprised) by the lack of evidence in GOOFy assertions.

"I have paid off my mortgage", Tom says.

But how? He has shown B&B statements on video, of him paying interest only. If we pay interest for long enough, the total interest paid will eventually exceed the loan. But it hasn't paid off the loan.

According to the judgement, the Crawfords agreed that the assurance policy had been cashed in.

No-one has suggested the Crawfords repaid the loan by any other method. We can't escape the conclusion: the loan is still outstanding.

So Tom is either deluded or lying.

When I first saw Tom's videos, he told a plausible story about the bank swindling him. But that story isn't true.

[Normal Wisdom]

The infuluence Tom has over his followers is quite frightning i've been trying to have a discussion on the nottinghampost website with one of his followers called JoeBones and the level of delusion is frankly disturbing.Below is a quote of Joes latest post.

"Now that I have heard and seen Tom's evidence (in the link I posted below) I am convinced of the truth of what he says. On the other hand, some may ignore it, and continue to kiss the rear ends of the crooked Bankers who got us into this mess. Now not a single major bank that has not admitted being involved in criminal activity."

The video he mentions is the one posted on the 4th MAy 2015 called The people V the psychopaths (Dark forces) and despite me providing a link to the full judgement and which he has apparently read he still insists Tom is right adn when asked why he agrees with Tom's blatent lies Joe simply chooses to ignore the question and instead accuse me of kissing the banks rear end.It would seem Joes conversion to the GOOF'y,Freeman, Anti-Establihment philosophy is complete and the realm of common sense and resposibility for ones own actions has lost another soul...

When will it stop....

It won't ever stop, it may wax and wane a bit but the genie is out of the bottle now and there will always be somebody prepared to believe this rubbish because it's easier than dealing with the truth. And of course as with all conspiracy theories, there is some truth on which to hang their crazy ideas. In this case we know that banks have been involved in illegality, fraud and reckless practices for which there has been very few criminal convictions. We are told that the number of evictions is increasing. It is just a hop, step and jump from these undeniable facts to develop a narrative that all evictions are a result of illegality and fraud but the banks. Add to that the internet which seamlessly blurs fact and fiction so that even the most cautious person can be taken in let alone those with a pre-disposition to find someone else to blame for their problems and you have fertile ground for GOODF etc to sow their theories.

[Normal Wisdom]

I am constantly saddened (but never surprised) by the lack of evidence in GOOFy assertions.

"I have paid off my mortgage", Tom says.

But how? He has shown B&B statements on video, of him paying interest only. If we pay interest for long enough, the total interest paid will eventually exceed the loan. But it hasn't paid off the loan.

According to the judgement, the Crawfords agreed that the assurance policy had been cashed in.

No-one has suggested the Crawfords repaid the loan by any other method. We can't escape the conclusion: the loan is still outstanding.

So Tom is either deluded or lying.

When I first saw Tom's videos, he told a plausible story about the bank swindling him. But that story isn't true.

The problem is that you are applying the normal standard of evidence. Although we don't always know the full details and particularly why things happened, since the full judgement was released we have a pretty good grasp of the narrative. However, trying to pin down Tom and his supporters on the facts is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. They have at least two explanations for every aspect of the case and switch seamlessly between them without feeling the need for logic or consistency. Although it's sometimes fun to try, we will never convince Tom or any of his supporters that they are wrong. Ultimately we can only wait for the next move by UKAR and then see what happens. I strongly suspect that even if Tom is evicted, that will not be the end of the matter because as already evidenced by Guy Taylor and Ebert they have nothing else to do but go on with the charade. Neither will Tom.

[exiledscouser]

On PoE's FB there is news of the next meeting which is to be held in a pub.

The name of this establishment?

The Fleece!

I kid you not.

[Normal Wisdom]

Interesting video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFY-9fjc-5s

As we know, the judgement explains that Mrs C contacted B&B by telephone on 22 January 1999 (although Tom apparently denied this in court) and then in person on 29th January 1999 as evidenced by her signature on a B&B document (Tom is apparently silent on this).

In the video Tom says that they first found out about the problem with the endowment mortgage when in 1999 his wife contacted B&B to discuss "taking out some more life insurance".

The judgement explains that the initial Endowment Policy premium was paid by Mrs C up to 25th June 1991 when payment ceased.

The EP is described on the original mortgage offer letter as "Life Assurance" provided by Royal London Insurance

This appears to be clear evidence that neither Tom or his wife associated the "life insurance" directly with repayment of the endowment mortgage. It would explain why Tom thought (and maybe still thinks?) that the monthly interest payments to B&B was all that needed to be paid and that the "life insurance" was a useful but not vital add on.

B&B would not have understood this so when Mrs C spoke to them about "life insurance" (whether that was in 1999 or earlier) they assumed that she was talking about how to pay off the capital sum and
changing to a repayment mortgage.

Of course Tom and Sue weren't thinking anything of the kind so jumped to completely the wrong conclusion when B&B sent them the offer letter in January 1999 somehow assuming that the mortgage had already been changed. Both they and B&B continued talking at cross purposes from then on.

Even when Tom was threatened with the Order of Possession in 2006, Tom assumed that by settling the outstanding interest payments that everything was back on track. It was not until much later that the subject of the endowment policy came up and again Tom jumped to the wrong conclusion that he had paid for it (in the monthly interest payments) and B&B had simply "lost" it.

All in all, I think it is a sad case of extreme ignorance and stubbornness rather than a preconceived effort to deceive anyone.

Of course whether this has been the case since GOODF got involved is another matter.

[guilty]

On PoE's FB there is news of the next meeting which is to be held in a pub.

The name of this establishment?

The Fleece!

I kid you not.

Shame he can't get the date right.

[guilty]

IB&B would not have understood this so when Mrs C spoke to them about "life insurance" (whether that was in 1999 or earlier) they assumed that she was talking about how to pay off the capital sum and
changing to a repayment mortgage.

Of course Tom and Sue weren't thinking anything of the kind so jumped to completely the wrong conclusion when B&B sent them the offer letter in January 1999 somehow assuming that the mortgage had already been changed. Both they and B&B continued talking at cross purposes from then on.

I don't agree that B&B were confused or mistaken about the situation. When B&B were talking about a part repayment part interest mortgage they were referring to the fact that, of the the total mortgage, £41k was interest only and £5k was on repayment. They had no record of any request to change this but, like most big companies, they are not going to get into a big argument about it - easier to apologise and make an offer of restitution. Tom refused it.