UK - Tom Crawford - Eviction

[JonnyL]

And Tom has a restraining order on him going anywhere near his former home. I think that should be expanded to friends and family too.

[JonnyL]

Of course the new website lists what the Police can/can't get involved in regarding evictions. As you'll see given the fact the Police simply blocked off the road to prevent a breach of the peace non of this drivel applies to this case. Not once have I seen any footage of a policeman on Tom's property.

[mufc1959]

What an amateurish, ill-informed website. Apart from disinformation presented as fact, there's also the heartstring tug of the poorly (now deceased) dog, with the following photos:

[YiamCross]

I see Tom and his son have created a website to help others in similar positions to them

http://www.ukhomeguard.com

How can they offer advice when they have no idea what they are going on about. Shocking.

Very convincing website. Not. I wonder how many will rally to the call? I get the impression that those who've been there, read the book and bought the tee shirt are catching on fast how they've been led up the garden path by Tom and his lies. Anyone dumb enough to fall for this crap website is going to be more of a hindrance than a help.

[Bones]

I am hoping that this peaceful get together, after a few pints will turn into a drunk fueled attempt to retake Castle Crawford.

Shhhh don't tell anyone that is what Craig is secretly trying to organise

[ArthurWankspittle]

I would be curious to know if the cases quoted from 1830, 1834 and 1867 are still law. Ditto, their lack of intelligence shows when they have cut and pasted the last paragraph.

If a bailiff causes a disturbance but does not make a threat, it is unreasonable for the Police to arrest him.

Did a Google search for big bad policemen and bailiffs did we?

[Bones]

Of course the new website lists what the Police can/can't get involved in regarding evictions. As you'll see given the fact the Police simply blocked off the road to prevent a breach of the peace non of this drivel applies to this case. Not once have I seen any footage of a policeman on Tom's property.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/938.html

Foulkes v Merseyside Police [1998] EWCA Civ 938 (9 June 1998)

Looks like whoever came up with that dribble, which looks like Michael's handy work, didn't bother to read the Foulkes case

[vampireLOREN]

I am hoping that this peaceful get together, after a few pints will turn into a drunk fueled attempt to retake Castle Crawford.

Shhhh don't tell anyone that is what Craig is secretly trying to organise

Bones, I hate to be a ponce....but could you possibly ....by some happy chance find a photo of that nice
Mr David Caress EnforcementOfficer/Bailiff Retired.
Young Jon "the para legal ninja" Dow tells everyone and is firmly convinced that the said Caress and I are one and the same.
I wish to use as an avatar photo......and it will have to be a large-ish photo please.
Just to make this post legal......what else does Young Crawford have to offer?....

[ArthurWankspittle]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/938.html

Foulkes v Merseyside Police [1998] EWCA Civ 938 (9 June 1998)

Looks like whoever came up with that dribble, which looks like Michael's handy work, didn't bother to read the Foulkes case

Cliff notes version: Foulkes wasn't a debtor or bailiff, he was one of four members of the same family involved in a dispute.

[PeanutGallery]

The 1834 and 1867 statements are probably still law, I say probably because I don't know if a case has come along in the intervening years and changed the ball park, however we should examine what they actually say which I suspect is somewhat different to the interpretation the Crawfords and assorted GOODF's have placed.

"There must be very good reasons for arresting a debtor on the grounds of preventing a breach of the peace, only a serious and imminent threat justifies arrest"

This is often trooped out. I agree with the opinion cited. The police do need to form the opinion that if they don't act now, their will be a breach of the peace. The problem is that the GOODF's have a different interpretation on what constitutes a breach of the peace to the police and the courts. Breaching the Peace is not simply shouting and ranting and raving or creating a scene. It is a situation in which violence or force have become likely to be used. In all the times where I have seen this law cited, arrests have been made, which were justified as if they were not made then the peace would have been breached.

"A debtor can lawfully use reasonable force in removing a bailiff that has refused to leave, the bailiff resisting is the person guilty of a breach of the peace, Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308 and if police are present, the bailiff is the one they should arrest." This is also claimed to be from Foulkes, I've linked the case here. Having read it a couple of times, I can't see the text quoted in that judgement. Perhaps they have the wrong source, perhaps they haven't fact checked. Either way that statement is not case law from that judgement. Foulkes was about a husband who was locked out by his wife, bailiffs weren't involved in that complaint.

In regard to the 1867 and 1834 pieces of case law, these aren't relevant. The police did not take any direct action to gain entry to Castle Crawford and no workmen were asked to let them in. As far as I understand the only person in residence was "sweaty Sue Crawford" and the dying dog. In fact I would argue that the latter quotes all aren't directly relevant to the Crawfords. The only one that might be, is the one citation that as far as I can tell from checking the source, isn't their.

I've also been unable to check Green v Bartram because all the links I seem to find are wibbler sites full of woo and whatnot.

[Bones]

I am hoping that this peaceful get together, after a few pints will turn into a drunk fueled attempt to retake Castle Crawford.

Shhhh don't tell anyone that is what Craig is secretly trying to organise

Bones, I hate to be a ponce....but could you possibly ....by some happy chance find a photo of that nice
Mr David Caress EnforcementOfficer/Bailiff Retired.
Young Jon "the para legal ninja" Dow tells everyone and is firmly convinced that the said Caress and I are one and the same.
I wish to use as an avatar photo......and it will have to be a large-ish photo please.
Just to make this post legal......what else does Young Crawford have to offer?....

Is this him ?

http://i.imgur.com/3E1k1Ae.jpg



http://i.imgur.com/4LdAhNM.jpg



http://i.imgur.com/RfDVxTM.jpg

[Bones]

I've also been unable to check Green v Bartram because all the links I seem to find are wibbler sites full of woo and whatnot.

Can't find the original text but this case refers to it

Thorpe -v- Dpp [2006] IEHC 319 (17 February 2006)
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2006/H319.html

"In English law, if there is no threat to the person it seems that a threat to property should generally be regarded as insufficient though it may well be that a threat to attack a dwelling house is looked upon with special severity and so is always a breach of the peace if the attack is imminent.

Williams refers to the instance where a person to whom a complaint is made has lawfully entered the house of another, his refusal to leave on the request of the occupier is not a breach of the peace. Such refusal gives cause to ejecting him but not for his arrest (Green v. Bartram [1830] 4 C.M.P.A. 308; Reece v. Taylor [1835] 4 N.E.V. and M.K.B. 469 and Jordan v. Gibbon [1863] 8 L.T. 391). Persons who are quarrelling by words only, without any threat, cannot be arrested without warrant at common law nor is mere disorderliness like swearing sufficient to justify arrest; the arrester must suppose the person to be on the point of committing or actually committing a breach of the peace (Lockley [1864] 4 F&F 155).

[wanglepin]

http://www.ukhomeguard.com
How can they offer advice when they have no idea what they are going on about. Shocking.

They can't but will continue to guide others down this deceptive this dark ally of lies .
But, the chickens have a good home now and so does the Bruce (in the afterlife), where Crawford and clan are, I am not sure anyone knows.

[vampireLOREN]

http://www.ukhomeguard.com
How can they offer advice when they have no idea what they are going on about. Shocking.

They can't but will continue to guide others down this deceptive this dark ally of lies .
But, the chickens have a good home now and so does the Bruce (in the afterlife), where Crawford and clan are, I am not sure anyone knows.

And I for one don't care

[Burnaby49]

I got a screen shot, just don't know how to upload it

Bit convoluted but not hard. First pick a picture you want to post. It must be already uploaded on net somewhere, not a scan of your weekend in Brighton picture. Right click on the picture and you get a list of things you can do, save, copy, email, etc. "Properties" is on the bottom. Click on that. You'll see "address (URL)". Copy the address. As an example I'll use a Sinatra shot from the Guardian. This is the address.

"http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... ra-007.jpg"

Move your mouse cursor to where you want the picture on the posting then click the "Img" box at top. You'll get the two words "Img" "Img" side by side.

Copy the address between the two words but don't leave a space. I'll screw it up as an example;



Done properly you get this;

[vampireLOREN]

I've also been unable to check Green v Bartram because all the links I seem to find are wibbler sites full of woo and whatnot.

Can't find the original text but this case refers to it

Thorpe -v- Dpp [2006] IEHC 319 (17 February 2006)
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2006/H319.html

"In English law, if there is no threat to the person it seems that a threat to property should generally be regarded as insufficient though it may well be that a threat to attack a dwelling house is looked upon with special severity and so is always a breach of the peace if the attack is imminent.

Williams refers to the instance where a person to whom a complaint is made has lawfully entered the house of another, his refusal to leave on the request of the occupier is not a breach of the peace. Such refusal gives cause to ejecting him but not for his arrest (Green v. Bartram [1830] 4 C.M.P.A. 308; Reece v. Taylor [1835] 4 N.E.V. and M.K.B. 469 and Jordan v. Gibbon [1863] 8 L.T. 391). Persons who are quarrelling by words only, without any threat, cannot be arrested without warrant at common law nor is mere disorderliness like swearing sufficient to justify arrest; the arrester must suppose the person to be on the point of committing or actually committing a breach of the peace (Lockley [1864] 4 F&F 155).

Thanx Bones.

[wanglepin]

Looks like whoever came up with that dribble, which looks like Michael's handy work, didn't bother to read the Foulkes case

Would that be the same "Michael who had to be corrected as to what a amicus was and who appointed one?
17. I refused the application for Mr O’Bernicia to act as amicus as this was misconceived. An
amicus is a court appointed lawyer to act independently of the parties, not on behalf of one
of them.

[wanglepin]

Deleted double post.

[Origen]

On the 2nd of July the police violated the Crawford family.. They planned an operation called "operation Hooper" This cost you, the tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds in resources and policing!! This was a civil matter, nothing should've involved the police..

Well we don't know what they issued because your family are withholding the documents, that is if they even bothered to try and get them.

Tom has had a restraining order put on him, meaning he cannot even go near his own house!

It isn't his property anymore and he did clearly threaten to enter that property and remove anyone in the property which could be trespass, burglary and possibly assault.

On the day the police attacked the family, they had an ill animal inside that they threatened to get put down! Sue's mother died very recently and hasn't even been buried!

Proof the police attacked the family, Sue getting removed from the land might not count as she in the photo she is on the land. The threats about the animal is easy as Tom has said they had multiple cameras that were following Sue. Ok it is sad Sue's mum died recently, but how are they supposed to know that? again show some evidence to back up claims.

The police didn't even bother to carry out any assessment on the family before they launched the assault on the house!

From the footage i have seen the police simply blocked access to roads.

Tom, 64. suffered from cancer, beat it but the operation was a failure because it caused damage! Tom has had major surgery MANY times due to negligence.. Not forgetting he has blood clots and needs to take a thinning agent for his blood causing him to be a hemophiliac when he takes the medication!!! They arrested him by force without any regard! In the video you can see they were told... But ignored..

Yeah, having had cancer and also being on medication doesn't make you exempt from being arrested and charged, he could have been arrested numerous times earlier under the public order act.

Paul King below:
This is the Nottingham "COUNTY COURT" Manager... Nothing to do with the high court.. He was there as a high court employee? No...
Impersonating something he's not? Yes!

Well Nottingham County Court area of law covered does include High Court. The same applies for the letter the police handed out

When we tried to get them back, the Police wouldn't tell the family where they were!

Why would they know where they are, it was the bailiffs that removed and are storing stuff.

Tom's van was stolen on the 7th of July... There's an issue here... The van is NOTHING to do with the house anyway.. it's a seperate thing altogether!
Tom tried to report a theft, they railroaded him, Andy Berryman did NOTHING to support Tom in the hunt for his van and the belongings inside.

He probably told him to contact the bailiffs plus with the amount of abuse Tom and his supporters have given the police no one will be surprised if they drag their heels when dealing with him.

Will be at work on Saturday but i can see if anyone i know fancies a visit to the pub though i really do hope they attempt to retake castle Crawford, but i fear only a handful of people will attend.

[Silly Ebert]

Paul King below:
This is the Nottingham "COUNTY COURT" Manager... Nothing to do with the high court.. He was there as a high court employee? No...
Impersonating something he's not? Yes!

Well Nottingham County Court area of law covered does include High Court. The same applies for the letter the police handed out.

This was a County Court eviction , there was no High Court Involvement only a couple of county court bailiffs and the rest a private security company.

When we tried to get them back, the Police wouldn't tell the family where they were!

Why would they know where they are, it was the bailiffs that removed and are storing stuff.

Tom's van was stolen on the 7th of July... There's an issue here... The van is NOTHING to do with the house anyway.. it's a seperate thing altogether!
Tom tried to report a theft, they railroaded him, Andy Berryman did NOTHING to support Tom in the hunt for his van and the belongings inside.

He probably told him to contact the bailiffs plus with the amount of abuse Tom and his supporters have given the police no one will be surprised if they drag their heels when dealing with him.

The van was removed because it was parked on private property illegaly .