UK - Tom Crawford - Eviction

[YiamCross]

......
How do they dream this rubbish up

Yes I believe that's Tom from 2 years ago.

As I scan through this old thread I find a sad and depressing insight into the mind of a greedy fool. Does he seriously think a lawyer could make a decent job of fitting a carpet? Why did he think he could do a better job with the law than a lawyer?

Clear indication of how unfettered access to morons with attitude inevitably leads to disaster.

[slowsmile]

So in that post he clearly understands he's not yet paid the mortgage in full. The crafty git!!!

Yes - two years ago Crawford clearly understood he needed to repay the capital and had been paying interest only. So he has been leading his supporters up the garden path ever since.

[PeanutGallery]

As I scan through this old thread I find a sad and depressing insight into the mind of a greedy fool. Does he seriously think a lawyer could make a decent job of fitting a carpet? Why did he think he could do a better job with the law than a lawyer?

Clear indication of how unfettered access to morons with attitude inevitably leads to disaster.

This is where I believe the law or the courts should be taking steps to curtail the activity of Tom's advisers by refusing them the rights of audience. As it stands allowing them that right, weakens the arguments advanced and denies Tom any slender chance of justice he might have had. These 'experts' could turn a winnable case into a clear loss, or fail to give realistic prospects and cause a person - already in financial difficulty - to rack up court costs due to their fatuous arguments.

While a person has the right to choose who will represent them, I do think the legal knowledge and skill of a "MacKenzie" friend as well as the arguments they intend to advance should be put to the Judge beforehand and if the Judge determines that they will do more harm than good, they should be denied the opportunity with their "client" being given a full explanation as to why the court will not entertain that advocate along with a strong suggestion that they consider proper representation.

In the event that someone tries to get around this by making arguments different to those advanced, then they should be held in contempt and they should be considered liable for the court costs to date.

[Losleones]

May have been linked upthread but says it all really doesn't it. He knew all along & asked for advise to pay down with a worthless goofy style PN.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... aoivkqkqrU

[Losleones]

Sympathy anyone? Sick individual

[YiamCross]

[
In the event that someone tries to get around this by making arguments different to those advanced, then they should be held in contempt and they should be considered liable for the court costs to date.

According to Wikipedia (which must be true) they can be held liable for misleading advice.

Trouble is when your "legal team" has lost everything they own several times over there's not a lot of point in pursuing an action against them. Unless they have public liability insurance, I mean these are sensible people, aren't they? They are compassionate, caring souls who would do no harm and make reparations in a heartbeat with no need to ask or sue or sue if they did. So of course they'd insure to ensure their "clients" are protected against any error or omission on their part. Wouldn't they?

On the other hand, the premiums would be on a par with those asked of a repeat drunk driver with a history of bad accidents. Something along the lines of "how much have you got?" About double that amount, then.

[Colin123]

Oh no, i have been banned from the eviction page

[PeanutGallery]

While they could be liable for giving bad advice, I don't think that is quite enough protection.

Look at Tom, he was stitched up like a kipper by his advisers, so much so that he STILL thinks he won at court and that the bank has stolen his house. He won't take any action against Ebert or Taylor and in fact has joined them in trying to spread the gospel. Tom doesn't think Guy or Ebert have any responsibility for costing him his home.

I do think that justice requires the courts to ensure that both parties have a fair chance at a fair trial, and that may mean stopping someone from advancing an argument that will harm their case and certainly action should be taken to ensure that Ebert, Taylor, et al can not profit and should not profit from the advice they give or the cases they influence.

They should be stopped, if anything to protect idiots from becoming the next Crawford.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Look at Tom, he was stitched up like a kipper by his advisers, so much so that he STILL thinks he won at court and that the bank has stolen his house. He won't take any action against Ebert or Taylor and in fact has joined them in trying to spread the gospel. Tom doesn't think Guy or Ebert have any responsibility for costing him his home.

Tom volunteered to be stitched up, he started believing in the Freeloader woo-woo some years back. You can question why he took advice from:
Ebert - bankrupt failure and one of the few vexatious litigants in England. Can't recall him winning any cases.
Guy Taylor - fraudster and loser of several properties.
Celyon - general rent-a-mob fuckwit who runs round shouting paedophile at anyone who disagrees with him. Spends his time moderating GOODF and making Freeloader videos in a car with a male friend.
But you can't deny him the right to do so. He now has the result he deserves. Ceylon already appears to have moved on, what with no mention of the Crawford situation in his last video.

[mufc1959]

This is where I believe the law or the courts should be taking steps to curtail the activity of Tom's advisers by refusing them the rights of audience.

Tom's advisers didn't have the right of audience in court - the judge refused Michael O'Bonkers' request to become amicus curiae (because he didn't understand what it meant) and only allowed him to be Tom's McKenzie Friend - where he could sit in court, give Tom advice but not speak on his behalf - so no right of audience. Only Tom spoke on his own behalf in court, albeit parroting what O'Bonkers was telling him to say.

Denying Tom access to a McKenzie Friend in court might have given him grounds to appeal. So I think the judge knew full well what he was doing in allowing O'Bonkers to stay in court as a McKenzie Friend.

[Gregg]

Tom's latest mad snippet.

On a brighter note I called down to the new Mosque in Sneinton this afternoon and have had a really good chat with the Inman there about events regards the stealing of our home and the intolerable situation the neighbours now find themselves in, ....

You mean intolerable like, they don't have a roving mob of unbathed loonies hangingi out on the street shouting slogans? My goodness, they'll have to pay the television tax for entertainment.

[Gregg]

I simply cannot get my brain around Crawford any more. What does he think this priest can do that Ebert, Taylor, Bernicia, Hayes and Haining have failed to do, except maybe offer him a peaceful life in the Middle East.

All part of being a high profile leader of a powerful political group. Forging links with the community, keeping his face in the media. Usual stuff for an aspiring A-lister, a bit more effort and he'll soon claw his way up to Y.

When Yoko shows up I'm done.

[JonnyL]

So Tom spoke to the local Iman to get the noise down in Fearn Chase, this is what turned up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_JmXCNPs6Y

[pigpot]

Look at Tom, he was stitched up like a kipper by his advisers, so much so that he STILL thinks he won at court and that the bank has stolen his house. He won't take any action against Ebert or Taylor and in fact has joined them in trying to spread the gospel. Tom doesn't think Guy or Ebert have any responsibility for costing him his home.

Tom volunteered to be stitched up, he started believing in the Freeloader woo-woo some years back. You can question why he took advice from:
Ebert - bankrupt failure and one of the few vexatious litigants in England. Can't recall him winning any cases.
Guy Taylor - fraudster and loser of several properties.
Celyon - general rent-a-mob fuckwit who runs round shouting paedophile at anyone who disagrees with him. Spends his time moderating GOODF and making Freeloader videos in a car with a male friend.
But you can't deny him the right to do so. He now has the result he deserves. Ceylon already appears to have moved on, what with no mention of the Crawford situation in his last video.

I thought It wasn't okay to be a rent-a-potty-mouth here. "Fuckwit" indeed. Thanks "Arthur" cleverly cloned as "Wankspittle".

Just imagine the swears that people can come up with. "Effing" Pathetic.................. Seriously. Does this site and the "top brass" have any"?

Having swears? How NOT grown UP...........

[longdog]

And again in English?

[Jeffrey]

Isn't it nearly afternoon in the UK? Weren't these guys going to do something today?

[guilty]

So what really happened at Tom Crawford's the other day?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... mUNhRS9aZE
I don't think you are going to find out from this.

The bank lost the endowment policy. That will be the policy that the Crawford's had with Royal Life and which they were responsible for paying to Royal Life. Somehow B&B lost it?

The Crawford's paid their mortgage. No mention of interest payments then? Or the contract Tom had with B&B to pay the interest? What do you think is meant by interest only?

The repossession cost more than the debt owing. Only because Ceylon and his mob forced the police to provide protection and prevent breach of the peace. The police were not acting to assist B&B they were acting to restrain the mob who had advertised on FB their intentions to disrupt the process, as they had on two previous occasions.

We are all brain washed slaves living in a totalitarian state, so I am sure the Quatloos shills and trolls can find other comments to make on this video.

[GH132]

Pigpot is loose again ... Remember don't feed him everybody

Peppin likes to wind people up

[Jeffrey]

Is Cak (or it it Mak), so completely f*cking detached from reality that he honestly thinks the one day eviction cost £500,000?

[hardcopy]

Look at Tom, he was stitched up like a kipper by his advisers, so much so that he STILL thinks he won at court and that the bank has stolen his house. He won't take any action against Ebert or Taylor and in fact has joined them in trying to spread the gospel. Tom doesn't think Guy or Ebert have any responsibility for costing him his home.

Tom volunteered to be stitched up, he started believing in the Freeloader woo-woo some years back. You can question why he took advice from:
Ebert - bankrupt failure and one of the few vexatious litigants in England. Can't recall him winning any cases.
Guy Taylor - fraudster and loser of several properties.
Celyon - general rent-a-mob fuckwit who runs round shouting paedophile at anyone who disagrees with him. Spends his time moderating GOODF and making Freeloader videos in a car with a male friend.
But you can't deny him the right to do so. He now has the result he deserves. Ceylon already appears to have moved on, what with no mention of the Crawford situation in his last video.

I thought It wasn't okay to be a rent-a-potty-mouth here. "Fuckwit" indeed. Thanks "Arthur" cleverly cloned as "Wankspittle".

Just imagine the swears that people can come up with. "Effing" Pathetic.................. Seriously. Does this site and the "top brass" have any"?

Having swears? How NOT grown UP...........

Hey pig pot, you utter cad !...I see you've got the big wooden spoon out today , its always a joy to read your comments . peace