UK - Tom Crawford - Eviction

[JonnyL]

let's face it 99.9% of member's on that group were just being plain nosey... And having a laugh at them.

[Jeffrey]

And .1% were Nottingham police waiting to see when they'll try to retake the house by force.

[PeanutGallery]

No doubt they will justify it to themselves as a means to keep the trolls and shills out. It's a shame because it was nice to witness the stupid, however by making it private they do rather limit the amount of people who can or even will begin to support their cause.

Not only that but I would also estimate that they will start to lose members, as those who accidentally ask an awkward question or in some other way fall foul of the mob and find themselves accused of witchcraft.

Anyway one of the last video's I noticed posted to that group came by way of "The Truth Machine", he's an ex followed/friend of Dominic Lohan (who was better known for being commonly known as Dom, until the mob turned on him), anyway Truth Machine has found himself in the same position as Tom, facing eviction for Mortgage arrears, however unable to conjure up the same level of sympathy that Tom did (perhaps it's the face tattoos that put people off) has taken steps to frustrate the selling of his property, by daubing the repeated phrase "Not for sale" on it in bright blue paint.

The video is reasonably dull, the only real highlight is when the Machine winds up asking how to spell "sale", sadly he is given the correct spelling. The video's here, it's not interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n23s_pG7hTA.

[JonnyL]

And .1% were Nottingham police waiting to see when they'll try to retake the house by force.

[vampireLOREN]

No doubt they will justify it to themselves as a means to keep the trolls and shills out. It's a shame because it was nice to witness the stupid, however by making it private they do rather limit the amount of people who can or even will begin to support their cause.

Not only that but I would also estimate that they will start to lose members, as those who accidentally ask an awkward question or in some other way fall foul of the mob and find themselves accused of witchcraft.

Anyway one of the last video's I noticed posted to that group came by way of "The Truth Machine", he's an ex followed/friend of Dominic Lohan (who was better known for being commonly known as Dom, until the mob turned on him), anyway Truth Machine has found himself in the same position as Tom, facing eviction for Mortgage arrears, however unable to conjure up the same level of sympathy that Tom did (perhaps it's the face tattoos that put people off) has taken steps to frustrate the selling of his property, by daubing the repeated phrase "Not for sale" on it in bright blue paint.

The video is reasonably dull, the only real highlight is when the Machine winds up asking how to spell "sale", sadly he is given the correct spelling. The video's here, it's not interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n23s_pG7hTA.

I think it is the place near Crook in Co Durham, he has been there for weeks . After the eviction the family lived on in the Garden, the pathos of these folk and their continued struggle is madness. £10,000 yep someone is going to buy it.

[IDIOT]

Painter man is seen here.

G4S used his head to open the rear exit on May 1st in Nottingham. See here where he makes claims about false imprisonment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfxCg1_au9A Skip to 10:45.

Guys decorating skills are as bad as whoever did his face, himself maybe?

[Colin123]

So the Crawford house really was stolen

http://roguemale.org/2015/07/07/state-s ... ottingham/

What a load of drivel

Why is it, Mortgages only seem to become "fraud" when it comes to paying them back, not when taken out ?

Also, if this actually happened, Why can't they include references or a true transcript of the case

http://2013rainbowroundtable.ning.com/p ... an-nothing


Both courtesy of Facebook Eviction fraud of the bank

[GH132]

So the Crawford house really was stolen

http://roguemale.org/2015/07/07/state-s ... ottingham/

WOAHHH !! ... the first line of the article is "CRIMINAL EVICTION & DAYLIGHT ROBBERY SANCTIONED BY JUDGE GODSMARK. LAWLESSNESS PREVAILS AS NOTTS POLICE PROVEN UNFIT FOR PURPOSE ."

So Judge Godsmark SANCTIONED IT ! ... hang on hang on hang on ... I thought he ruled in Tom's favour and therefore the taking of Castle Crawford was robbery !

Have I missed Camp Crawford conceding that they read the Judgement wrong ... perhaps I have !

They jump all over the place !

[Normal Wisdom]

I'm involved in a "discussion" about Tom's eviction and specifically the reason that the contents of the house and the van were removed.

I thought that it was normal practice to leave the contents on site and after the eviction to allow the former occupier to re-enter the home to recover them. Anybody got any ideas why this was not done in Tom's case?

Is it correct that the van was pushed onto the road and then removed because it was not taxed and insured?

[GH132]

I thought that it was normal practice to leave the contents on site and after the eviction to allow the former occupier to re-enter the home to recover them. Anybody got any ideas why this was not done in Tom's case?

It is, but can you imagine the scene where Tom agrees to go at 10am on the 28th of whenever to recover his goods. He'd have 200 people behind him screaming all sorts, police would need to be there and it would have similar scenes to the eviction day. The way they did it prevents all of that. Wise move by the Bailiffs etc

[ArthurWankspittle]

I thought that it was normal practice to leave the contents on site and after the eviction to allow the former occupier to re-enter the home to recover them. Anybody got any ideas why this was not done in Tom's case?

Because a load of his supporters might try and repossess the place when he was allowed back to get his stuff out? Like happened at that so called animal sanctuary.

Is it correct that the van was pushed onto the road and then removed because it was not taxed and insured?

I thought the van was driven away. Anyway, same thing, it's an asset of Tom's and the mortgagor needs to keep it safe but with the possibility of selling it to recover costs. Yet again Tom Two-Faced Crawford has a dilemma. Is he the cancer sufferer, blood clot filled, haemophiliac or does he need a van for work?

[Jeffrey]

Let's not forget Tom's supporters uploaded video of themselves stating they would physically attack bailiffs who attempted an eviction:

https://youtu.be/IN1lw7TU1ls?t=1m41s

[Llwellyn]

I'm involved in a "discussion" about Tom's eviction and specifically the reason that the contents of the house and the van were removed.

I thought that it was normal practice to leave the contents on site and after the eviction to allow the former occupier to re-enter the home to recover them. Anybody got any ideas why this was not done in Tom's case?

Is it correct that the van was pushed onto the road and then removed because it was not taxed and insured?

Ok, first off, Tom had more than ample time to remove the goods/items/property within the house.. (Wait, he WON.. didn't he?) The original eviction notice 'took' effect from the judgement, which gave Tom and family time to clear the house. As of the judgement, he was already Evicted.. just, when the B&B could 'take' the property was the time frame allowed. That being said, usually companies are fairly willing to 'work' around conditions.. IF you communicate with them and try and make things as amicable as possible. . Don't think they talked to B&B since THEY WON!!!... Ontop of which with the previous eviction/bailiff efforts being interfered with by the 'masses'.. simpler to Possess and clear, and let them come and get the goods from a 'neutral' location.

Secondly, the VAN.. his vehicle WAS removed from the property (tow truck, lift, whatever.. ) However, since it was on the street, uninsured/taxed/registered etc.. yes, the police would have left it there for up to 24 hours, and then towed/impounded it.

[Normal Wisdom]

I'm involved in a "discussion" about Tom's eviction and specifically the reason that the contents of the house and the van were removed.

I thought that it was normal practice to leave the contents on site and after the eviction to allow the former occupier to re-enter the home to recover them. Anybody got any ideas why this was not done in Tom's case?

Is it correct that the van was pushed onto the road and then removed because it was not taxed and insured?

Thanks to all for the comments / clarifications. You have more or less confirmed my feelings about the situation but I didn't want to jump to conclusions.

[Bungle]

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.

Newbie here so please bear with me while I find my way around this amazing forum.

Young Crawford ought to have first researched the applicable 'case law' before embarrassing himself. He says on that document that :

A bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (i.e. Workmen inside a house or an police officer), access by this means renders everything that follows invalid (Nash v Lucas).

The 'case 'law' is from June 1867 and the introductory to the judgment says the following:

NASH v. LUCAS.
Landlord and Tenant—Distress—Entry ly opening Window.

An entry into a house, for the purpose of distraining, by opening a window which is shut but not fastened, is unlawful.

A broker went with a warrant of distress for rent to the demised premises, the front door of which he found fastened. In the course of the day a man in the employ of the landlord was allowed by the tenant to enter at the front door, in order to
get access to the area for the purpose of removing and repairing a grating over it which was in a dangerous state.

While the repairs were going on the tenant leftthe house, having fastened both the front and area doors, and the man, who hadgot into the area to refix the grating, having refixed it found himself unable to get out. The broker suggested to the man to try the window which opened into the area and was closed. The window was found to be unfastened, and the man pulled the sash down, got into the house, and unfastened the front door from the
inside. On the front door being thus opened, the broker entered and distrained :—

Held, that the transaction must be taken as one, and that, as the entry was by
opening a window, the distress was unlawful.

[Colin123]

Some more tripe for you


DICTATORSHIP IN NOTTINGHAM MORE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!! @ Tom & Sue's Meeting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xssv9t9hFBk

[Gregg]

They are permitted to go back to the house after eviction? WOW, that's different than in the States, it varies here by state, but in the 3 I have personal knowledge of, having bought property at auction, once the date on the eviction documents arrives, you are in the house illegally and if you fail to removed any property before eviction, or during eviction, tough twits, you gave it away. Evictions here are in most states done by county deputy sheriffs, a house gets foreclosed by the bank in court, the judge then orders a public sale by the sheriff on the courthouse steps (yes, they really do that here, a lot) when you buy a house at the sheriff's auction you pay 10% on winning bid, cash, and have 30 days to arrange to pay the balance, during that 30 days, the person getting evicted has the option of paying off the mortgage in full, and if they don't they lose the house, when the buyer pays the full balance to the sheriff, the house and all its contents are his at that moment. If some arrangement is made for the person getting put out its at the grace of the buyer. Also, when you get evicted here, a deputy sheriff puts notice on your front door 28, 14, 7 days and 24 hours before they kick you out, then they show up and,well, start moving your stuff to the curb.
Autos would be different, but if I bought a place or got it in foreclosure, I want it off my property at once, because I don't want any liability associated with it. It could catch fire and the owner sue me for that, it could have 5 kilos of peruvian marching powder in the back and I really don't want anything to do with that when the police find it, phuck it, it rolls, get it over the property line and if that means the middle of the street, well, its not my problem in the street, it is my problem in the drive....see where I'm going? Also, in America we tend to sue each other over damn near anything, so we as a society have started putting a condom on all our activity in a sense....

Still, he's lucky if he gets anything back, and since I'm sure someone is going to want to be paid something before he does, its not certain he will....

[littleFred]

I'm involved in a "discussion" about Tom's eviction and specifically the reason that the contents of the house and the van were removed.

I haven't seen the warrant, but I suppose it is like No 66 which includes:

YOU ARE NOW COMMANDED:

(1) to enter the land detailed in Schedule 1 and cause the claimant/defendant (name) to have possession of it,

(2) to take control of the goods of the claimant/defendant (name) authorised by law and raise therefrom the sums detailed in Schedule 2 [together with fees and charges to which you are entitled], and immediately after execution to pay the claimant[defendant] (name), the said sums and interest.

It would be based on the possession order, something like N136.

I thought that it was normal practice to leave the contents on site and after the eviction to allow the former occupier to re-enter the home to recover them. Anybody got any ideas why this was not done in Tom's case?

Normally, there doesn't seem to be a problem will allowing the defendant back into the house to get personal possessions. But there is no requirement for this. In Tom's case, there were obvious reasons for not allowing it, and for packing up all the stuff and taking it away.

Is it correct that the van was pushed onto the road and then removed because it was not taxed and insured?

I don't know.

[wanglepin]

I thought that it was normal practice to leave the contents on site and after the eviction to allow the former occupier to re-enter the home to recover them. Anybody got any ideas why this was not done in Tom's case?

Yet again Tom Two-Faced Crawford has a dilemma. Is he the cancer sufferer, blood clot filled, haemophiliac or does he need a van for work?

Is he the owner or just the "registered keeper"? The freeman take on this is that you don't own anything that is registered, that being the case,Tom Crawford doesn't own the van.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Some more tripe for you


DICTATORSHIP IN NOTTINGHAM MORE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!! @ Tom & Sue's Meeting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xssv9t9hFBk

Why would King GOOF Ceylon think he is entitled to services provided by the council? The way he is harping on anyone would think he pays council tax. He is your typical freeloader. He wants to receive the services but thinks he should not have to pay for them. What an idiot.