(UK) Elizabeth Watson

[Colin123]

I really don't see any appetite to help her, they might get a few, but not crowds

[Bungle]

Is this women on drugs or something?

All I can say it that whatever she's on......I don't want it !!!!

[vampireLOREN]

Is this women on drugs or something?

I wonder if people will support her like tom?, i doubt it.....

God that annoying woman loves to type!!!
I do so hope the Crawfords and the lovely McGarry's make the trip to Bournemouth, it will be a nice little seaside trip for them. I am banking (pardon the pun) on Haining and Guido Taylor turning up along with Leigh Ravenscroft and old yellow fang Kai the peace keeper. It will be something YouTubewise to look forward to.
Lets be honest its all we are really interested in watching lunatics throw away their homes on mindless drivel for our amusement.

[grixit]

perhaps they can all rent an rv together.

[notorial dissent]

Even for the dementoids that seem to frequent FOTLandia, this one strikes me as being several suits short of a pinochle deck. I really don't see her as an even remotely appealing victim, she seems more strident and shrieky than anything else. Besides the FOTL crowd have short attention spans and limited ability to focus on more than one thing at a time, so I think she badly mistimed her fit of despond.

[Normal Wisdom]

However, this probably explains her sudden, belated appearance on the scene for Tom's case. I bet she saw coverage of the previously failed evictions and thought that the mob might come in useful if her own case went south. Now she's trying to call on her "new friends" for support.

She seems to have lived an interesting life; marketing expert, media specialist, political lobbyist, provider of student accommodation, exporter to the Gulf states specialising in soft furnishings, furniture and natural health / wellness, legal strategist involved in a well known child custody case for which she was (no doubt unfairly) jailed for contempt and now apparently an entirely innocent party in an international fraud conspiracy.

Basic story seems to be that she took out a loan in order to invest in what turned out to be a fraudulent scheme in which all the money invested was lost. The lender (Bank of Scotland) want their loan back and she blames them for not realising that the scheme she was investing in was a scam.

http://becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwalli ... tland.html

[PeanutGallery]

perhaps they can all rent an rv together.

Couldn't they borrow Peters?

[PeanutGallery]

However, this probably explains her sudden, belated appearance on the scene for Tom's case. I bet she saw coverage of the previously failed evictions and thought that the mob might come in useful if her own case went south. Now she's trying to call on her "new friends" for support.

She seems to have lived an interesting life; marketing expert, media specialist, political lobbyist, provider of student accommodation, exporter to the Gulf states specialising in soft furnishings, furniture and natural health / wellness, legal strategist involved in a well known child custody case for which she was (no doubt unfairly) jailed for contempt and now apparently an entirely innocent party in an international fraud conspiracy.

Basic story seems to be that she took out a loan in order to invest in what turned out to be a fraudulent scheme in which all the money invested was lost. The lender (Bank of Scotland) want their loan back and she blames them for not realising that the scheme she was investing in was a scam.

http://becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwalli ... tland.html

That's sort of it, although what I understand is that one of the managers or employees at the Bank, who was involved in facilitating the loan later also invested with the company that scammed her. She took this investment to be an endorsement of the scheme, it was not, it was simply someone else falling for it and also being taken in by a conman.

I would suppose the issue that would turn is whether the bank had a duty of care to advise about the scheme she intended to invest in. I don't see how that would arise, unless the bank had specifically approached her about the scheme, had been actively involved in running it and had then offered her a loan to invest in it. From what I understand the bank only offered her a loan after she approached them with the details of the scheme. Equally this duty of care would be a separate matter to her loan.

Her only recourse would be to try and get a civil judgement against the scammer, who is unlikely to have the means to satisfy it, but that would still leave her with the loan outstanding and the bank still chasing for it to be repaid.

I do think she's been genuinely wronged and as such shouldn't attract as much ire as the Crawfords who set out to not pay their way and have misled the mob about it. However this wrong has sent her down a perilous path where I don't think she is acting in her own best interests. It is unfortunate that she chose to invest in a scam, but her making that investment was largely separate to the loan. The bank was not responsible for what she did with the money it advanced her, and I would say making the bank liable could create a situation whereby banks would be liable for any bad bargain made on funds advanced. That would be unfair to the banks and open to abuse.

[vampireLOREN]

However, this probably explains her sudden, belated appearance on the scene for Tom's case. I bet she saw coverage of the previously failed evictions and thought that the mob might come in useful if her own case went south. Now she's trying to call on her "new friends" for support.

She seems to have lived an interesting life; marketing expert, media specialist, political lobbyist, provider of student accommodation, exporter to the Gulf states specialising in soft furnishings, furniture and natural health / wellness, legal strategist involved in a well known child custody case for which she was (no doubt unfairly) jailed for contempt and now apparently an entirely innocent party in an international fraud conspiracy.

Basic story seems to be that she took out a loan in order to invest in what turned out to be a fraudulent scheme in which all the money invested was lost. The lender (Bank of Scotland) want their loan back and she blames them for not realising that the scheme she was investing in was a scam.

http://becarefulwhatyouwishfornickwalli ... tland.html

I agree with Norm, 160% return? they target greed. Nothing that happened gives that woman the right to type pages of drivel. I commented to her a few times always referring to her as "My Good Woman" that did the trick and made her very angry.

[longdog]

...she seems more strident and shrieky than anything else.

The woman is an utter lunatic. She was jailed for 7 months for contempt and then, with the aid of a real lawyer purged that contempt after 9 days and was released. This is what actually happened according to court records but the story she tells is completely different. According to her TPTB had to release her because her freeman woo was about to blow the lid on the something or other and yadda-yadda-yadda.

Anybody who points out that the court records tell a different story to her is a mason and a paedophile and a government agent.

She's not just a sandwich short of a picnic she's a whole hamper, tartan blanket and a bottle of Pimms short.

[ArthurWankspittle]

She's not just a sandwich short of a picnic she's a whole hamper, tartan blanket and a bottle of Pimms short.

This. The woman has totally lost it and is like Nancy R Owens. No one with an ounce of sense would believe anything she says. She needs healthcare not a mob to help stop an eviction.

[FatGambit]

She isn't the only one.

[YiamCross]

...

I do think she's been genuinely wronged and as such shouldn't attract as much ire as the Crawfords who set out to not pay their way and have misled the mob about it...

Sorry, can't see much difference. She's as genuinely wronged as anyone who buys WeRe cheques or puts money they don't have into an investment scheme that's obviously too good to be true. It's all very well turning around with the benefit of hindsight and saying it's not fair when hindsight doesn't reveal much more than could have been seen from the start. The main difference being an empty bank account and a large loan with no means to pay it back.

She can't be too close to the breadline, though, what with pinging back & forth from Qatar willy nilly.

[PeanutGallery]

Personally I can, she got taken in by a conman. Of course after she got taken in she developed the crazy, but if someone hadn't set out to defraud her she wouldn't have been in that position (of course it's worth pointing out that people, sadly, get defrauded and the majority deal with it without going off the deep end). The difference with Crawford's is that nobody actually set out to defraud them, if anything they set out to defraud other people.

This simply means I have some sympathy for the situation she found herself in, I do accept that her reaction to it has been poor and that she has made an effort to position herself as a guru.

[Hercule Parrot]

...
I do think she's been genuinely wronged and as such shouldn't attract as much ire as the Crawfords who set out to not pay their way and have misled the mob about it...

Sorry, can't see much difference. She's as genuinely wronged as anyone who buys WeRe cheques or puts money they don't have into an investment scheme that's obviously too good to be true.

Not completely fair - EW fell for a sophisticated scam that took many sensible and educated people. I would completely sympathise with her, except that she wants the bank to bail out her losses.

[letissier14]

I have no sympathy for her. It seems to be a common problem with lots of people who have money and get greedy.

I remember years ago when I was working with one of my brothers cleaning windows, we were cleaning the windows of a four storey town house in West London, overlooking the Thames. The house was worth about £500k even back then and the lady who owned it also had a couple of clothes shops, top of the range Merc etc.

One day she was telling us about this investment scheme she had joined where you invested £9k initially, and then paid a monthly fee, and you were guaranteed rewards by recruiting more people. You would get a Rolex at one level, something else at another level and so on, until you got £50k in cash. You could also invest as many times as you wanted.

She tried to get us involved and her sales pitch was something along the lines of "You go to a meeting at one of the top hotels near Heathrow, there are about 300 people attending each time and you get to meet all the other people who have made loads of money from it, and they will explain how easy it is and how quickly you can make your money"

Yeah ok! - obviously, even as poor old window cleaners, we could see through it

She ended up losing over £30k as she invested in it 3 times plus all the monthly fees.

[PeanutGallery]

I have no sympathy for her. It seems to be a common problem with lots of people who have money and get greedy.

I remember years ago when I was working with one of my brothers cleaning windows, we were cleaning the windows of a four storey town house in West London, overlooking the Thames. The house was worth about £500k even back then and the lady who owned it also had a couple of clothes shops, top of the range Merc etc.

One day she was telling us about this investment scheme she had joined where you invested £9k initially, and then paid a monthly fee, and you were guaranteed rewards by recruiting more people. You would get a Rolex at one level, something else at another level and so on, until you got £50k in cash. You could also invest as many times as you wanted.

She tried to get us involved and her sales pitch was something along the lines of "You go to a meeting at one of the top hotels near Heathrow, there are about 300 people attending each time and you get to meet all the other people who have made loads of money from it, and they will explain how easy it is and how quickly you can make your money"

Yeah ok! - obviously, even as poor old window cleaners, we could see through it

She ended up losing over £30k as she invested in it 3 times plus all the monthly fees.

That sounds like a typical pyramid scheme, did you try to explain to her the risk she was taking and how it was unlikely that a person would recover their assets? Or did you just think this was a rich b**** getting her comeuppance. There is a lot of what I feel can only be described as snobbery in regard to their being an attitude towards those with money, that they don't deserve it, which smacks more of jealousy based on what a person has, rather than who a person is.

I know and socialise with people who are worth hundreds of millions and also with those who are long term disabled and living on the dole. I find both groups to contain good people (although I should say that the richest people I do know earned their fortunes themselves and did not inherit it from a rich parent) and I recognise and count both as good friends. I wouldn't begrudge a wealthy person falling for a scam any more than I would a poor person, nor would I view it as being some act of hubris that led to their downfall, I would instead recognise that the wrongful act lies with the person running the scam.

To suggest otherwise, or to take some form of satisfaction strikes me as being little more than blaming the victim for being a victim, when their 'crime' was simply to be in a situation that seemed better than yours. It's akin to saying that a girl deserved to be raped because she is prettier than you.

We also don't know enough about Mary's personal finances to make a sound judgement, I would suggest that they weren't as good as we might first assume, she had to take a loan to invest in this scheme and was reliant on the scheme being a success to meet the repayments. Certainly in hindsight it was a bad wager and one that didn't pay off. I would suggest that while she might have been asset rich, she was likely cash poor.

[longdog]

To suggest otherwise, or to take some form of satisfaction strikes me as being little more than blaming the victim for being a victim, when their 'crime' was simply to be in a situation that seemed better than yours.

I am quite happy to blame the victim when they have become a victim due to their own stupidity and greed. LotfW fell for an obvious get-rich-quick-too-good-to-be-true scam and I would feel no sympathy for her even if she weren't a vile excuse for a human being... Which she is.

It's akin to saying that a girl deserved to be raped because she is prettier than you.

No... It really isn't.

[YiamCross]

To suggest otherwise, or to take some form of satisfaction strikes me as being little more than blaming the victim for being a victim, when their 'crime' was simply to be in a situation that seemed better than yours.

I haven't heard you speak up for poor old Tom Crawford. I may be wrong but I'm sure you've expressed sentiments which could be viewd as taking some form of satisfaction in his downfall. Not sure what seperates him from EW.

It's akin to saying that a girl deserved to be raped because she is prettier than you.


No... It really isn't.

I second that.

Rich or poor, the maxim if it looks too good to be true, then it is, stands. I feel no sympathy at all for anyone who starts whining when their get rich (or richer) schemes unwind but I don't think I've shown anything which is akin to any form of satisfaction from EW's plight. Having read and listened to quite a few of EW's rants I wonder how she ever got money in the first place. I find her behaviour in the child abuse case particularly reprihensible and would expect her to occupy a place in one of the worst circles of hell if such a place were to exist.

None of the above gives me any sense of satisfaction and I find it odd that anyone would defend EW so vigerously.

[PeanutGallery]

To suggest otherwise, or to take some form of satisfaction strikes me as being little more than blaming the victim for being a victim, when their 'crime' was simply to be in a situation that seemed better than yours.

I haven't heard you speak up for poor old Tom Crawford. I may be wrong but I'm sure you've expressed sentiments which could be viewd as taking some form of satisfaction in his downfall. Not sure what seperates him from EW.

It's akin to saying that a girl deserved to be raped because she is prettier than you.


No... It really isn't.

I second that.

Rich or poor, the maxim if it looks too good to be true, then it is, stands. I feel no sympathy at all for anyone who starts whining when their get rich (or richer) schemes unwind but I don't think I've shown anything which is akin to any form of satisfaction from EW's plight. Having read and listened to quite a few of EW's rants I wonder how she ever got money in the first place. I find her behaviour in the child abuse case particularly reprihensible and would expect her to occupy a place in one of the worst circles of hell if such a place were to exist.

None of the above gives me any sense of satisfaction and I find it odd that anyone would defend EW so vigerously.

I'm not defending her actions AFTER she entered the Sovrun scene and started all this Liz of the Family Watson baloney. I'm simply saying that if someone hadn't set out to defraud her she may not have started off down this path. So to a certain extent I have some sympathy for her because she was a victim of a crime, but I don't have sympathy for her in regard to her reaction to the consequences of that crime.

I take the view that nobody deserves to be a victim of a crime, that crime shouldn't happen. At the same time just because a thing shouldn't happen, does not mean it doesn't. Liz was the victim of a con. That shouldn't have happened. Someone set out with the intention of defrauding her. It doesn't matter if the return seemed too good to be true or not, she wasn't the only one hooked on this scam.

She did however make bad choices when she was hooked, she took out a loan that she had no means to repay other than with the success of the investment, I would say that if she hadn't been hooked on the scam then she wouldn't have taken out the loan and wouldn't face her current financial difficulties.

To this extent I think it grossly unfair to blame her for being a victim of a scam, when she wasn't warned about the scam and was in some part encouraged by the reaction of a bank employee who also invested. While it's easy to look on this with the benefit of hindsight and say at the time it seemed far too good to be true, is entirely reliant on the fact that we have hindsight to benefit us.

Does this excuse her reaction and behaviour after the scam failed and how she dealt with the consequences of her choices. Of course it doesn't. I would wager that a lot of other people who were caught up in the same scam didn't drink the kool aid and didn't become freetards. She did, she deserves scorn for that, but she doesn't in my opinion deserve any ire for trying to better herself nor for being a victim of crime.

It's the same way I feel some sympathy towards those who have bought into Peter's scam (although this quickly evaporates when they attack anyone offering advice about what they shouldn't do). I'd also say that Peter's scam, while it seems blindingly obvious to us is a scam, may not seem that way to someone caught up in the mythos these fraudulent guru's have built for themselves. In this way the person writing a WeRe cheque might be both a fraudster and a victim of fraud at the same time.

This is also completely different to Tom's downfall, he or his wife made a choice not to make payments towards the endowment policy. Then when the mortgage term ended he chose not to continue paying while trying to sort out how to redeem it. Tom had the chance to walk away with a small win. But he spurned it and made a number of allegations of fraud when nobody had set out to defraud him. Tom is in the position he is in because of Tom Crawford.