The Second Battle of Crawford's Castle, a Nottingham Farce...

[rumpelstilzchen]

They have no prospect whatsoever of bringing a defamation claim in E&W courts.

No chance at all but they are probably talking about one of their "common law courts" which they hold in an Asda tea shop.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Or maybe I should ask, how can a normal person read that letter and draw those conclusions?

I suppose, to be fair, most of us don't know how we would react when under that amount of stress. They had just made the biggest cock up possible.

[arayder]

I think in Tom's case it was easier to convince himself that the court documents said what he needed them to say than it is to come to the realization that he had messed up his family's fortunes.

And I don't think Tom started thinking this way when he messed up his mortgage. I think he's being this way for a long, long time.

[ArthurWankspittle]

They have no prospect whatsoever of bringing a defamation claim in E&W courts.
The Defamation Act 2013 has substantially raised the bar for such cases, and provides obvious defences which would be applicable ( "Truth", "Honest Opinion" and "Public Interest"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013

If I have it right, and I can't imagine the Crawfords suing for less than £25000, then this claim would have to go to High Court. So, first problem is finding the money to instruct a solicitor or barrister, then there is the court fee(s). Or maybe they could write it themselves?

[vampireLOREN]

It's difficult, because we are talking about people who don't really deserve much respect. At best they are stupid and greedy, at worst they are also dishonest, abusive and aggressive.

I was thinking about this earlier this evening. I am starting to believe that some of the family have some sort of learning difficulties type of issues. Look at things like the timeline and the most recent court letter. On how many occasions did Tom say B&B had lost the endowment? It wasn't theirs to lose but I'll gloss over that for this discussion. Then there is the court letter which apparently means all or any of the following: they still own the house, the previous court decisions are suspended or nullified, the Police, security firm, B&B etc. are all in the wrong and should be paying the Crawfords compensation. How can you read that letter and draw those conclusions? Or maybe I should ask, how can a normal person read that letter and draw those conclusions?

There does appear to be some issues with their grasping even the written word.

[Bungle]

And I don't think Tom started thinking this way when he messed up his mortgage. I think he's being this way for a long, long time.

You need to read through his very first posts on The GOOFD webshite in 2013 and you will see that in his first post he asks whether he could repay the debt to the bank with a Promissory Cheque. A few posts later in the same thread (can't post a link at mo) he discusses a letter that he had sent to the B&B which had been provided to him by the White Rabbit webshite. I suspect that he had been a closet Sov Cit or FMoTL supporter long before.

I have zero sympathy for he and his family.

[rumpelstilzchen]

There does appear to be some issues with their grasping even the written word.

But when Tom first read Godsmark's judgment his initial reaction was that he had been unsuccessful. He said "We've lost". So he did understand that. But he allowed himself to be persuaded by people who were saying the things that he wanted to hear that his reading of it was wrong. Perhaps he is easily led.

[PeanutGallery]

They have no prospect whatsoever of bringing a defamation claim in E&W courts.
The Defamation Act 2013 has substantially raised the bar for such cases, and provides obvious defences which would be applicable ( "Truth", "Honest Opinion" and "Public Interest"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013

If I have it right, and I can't imagine the Crawfords suing for less than £25000, then this claim would have to go to High Court. So, first problem is finding the money to instruct a solicitor or barrister, then there is the court fee(s). Or maybe they could write it themselves?

You can represent yourself in court at any level. While a person doesn't need a solicitor or a barrister, unless you can mentally divorce yourself of your case, it's really not recommended (you won't be objective in your assessment of prospects or when to settle). As for court fee's if you are on a low income you can qualify for remission.

Obviously though bringing a claim and proving a claim are two very different beasts and bringing a patently vexatious claim would not be looked on favourably by the courts. I would suggest that if anyone is served a letter before action for this claim that they refer the Claimant to the infamous case of Arkell v Pressdram.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I suppose, to be fair, most of us don't know how we would react when under that amount of stress. They had just made the biggest cock up possible.

This is my point about normal people though. What would be the worse possible, most stressful thing in your life, making you think about your choices? A court giving your mortgage lender possession of "your" house? You actually being evicted from "your" house? Getting arrested for assaulting a Police officer? Tom in particular moves in some alternate reality where a different set of laws and rules apply, money works differently (some of the time anyway) and you can only rely on a bunch of epic failures to interpret legal documents. Yet he trusts conventional medicine, the NHS and a trained urology surgeon to fix his prostate cancer.

[ArthurWankspittle]

As for court fee's if you are on a low income you can qualify for remission.

Really? Even for a civil suit like a libel? Anyway Craig isn't on a low income, just ask him.

I would suggest that if anyone is served a letter before action for this claim that they refer the Claimant to the infamous case of Arkell v Pressdram.

I've done that gag already. However, one of the links previously regarding the changes to the law would suggest that a brief response along the line of Arkell v Pressdram might no longer be acceptable.

[YiamCross]

I've noticed quite a few posts on these pages becoming increasingly derogatory, referring to sue as sweaty sue, insulting certain people's intelligence etc.

It's difficult, because we are talking about people who don't really deserve much respect. At best they are stupid and greedy, at worst they are also dishonest, abusive and aggressive. How can we talk about Peter of England without some hint of contempt for his despicable scam, for example.

But I think we have at times mocked for the sake of mockery, and I have been in the vanguard of that. I agree we should notch it back a bit. It is possible to be satirical and witty without being spiteful.

ON the one hand I agree.

On the other, I am reminded of a Derek and Clive sketch about Krik Douglas. Let's not knock Kirk.........

Nah. Let's knock 'im

You c*** Kirk, swanning around just because you were in The Viking...

And it kind of goes from there.

Because when you've spent hours trying to reason with people to help them out of a hole and all you get is abuse, instults and threats in return. When they block those who point out facts and ask reasonable questions then bitch nastily behind what they imagine are closed doors about anyone who is politely asking reasonable questions. When you've offered sympathy and remained calm and reasonable only to discover that they lie and deceive and manipulate at every turn. Then all there is left is to mock them mercilessly and totally and without reserve.

I for one felt Sweaty Sue was a self inflicted sobriquet that fitted her perfectly. I can't help but hear that classic by the late great Buddy Holly whenever I think of her, but it's not Peggy Sue I'm thinking, nor I love. you. Invent your own lyrics, I'd best not risk a ban by posting mine here. Please don't. I'm trying to keep this place SFW.

So yes, there's a level of childishness beyond which there is neither amusement nor satisfaction in the knowledge a viscious barb will stick when it hits home and I'm happy to leave that area to be serviced by Pigpot.

[vampireLOREN]

I've noticed quite a few posts on these pages becoming increasingly derogatory, referring to sue as sweaty sue, insulting certain people's intelligence etc.

It's difficult, because we are talking about people who don't really deserve much respect. At best they are stupid and greedy, at worst they are also dishonest, abusive and aggressive. How can we talk about Peter of England without some hint of contempt for his despicable scam, for example.

But I think we have at times mocked for the sake of mockery, and I have been in the vanguard of that. I agree we should notch it back a bit. It is possible to be satirical and witty without being spiteful.

ON the one hand I agree.

On the other, I am reminded of a Derek and Clive sketch about Krik Douglas. Let's not knock Kirk.........

Nah. Let's knock 'im

You c*** Kirk, swanning around just because you were in The Viking...

And it kind of goes from there.

Because when you've spent hours trying to reason with people to help them out of a hole and all you get is abuse, instults and threats in return. When they block those who point out facts and ask reasonable questions then bitch nastily behind what they imagine are closed doors about anyone who is politely asking reasonable questions. When you've offered sympathy and remained calm and reasonable only to discover that they lie and deceive and manipulate at every turn. Then all there is left is to mock them mercilessly and totally and without reserve.

I for one felt Sweaty Sue was a self inflicted sobriquet that fitted her perfectly. I can't help but hear that classic by the late great Buddy Holly whenever I think of her, but it's not Peggy Sue I'm thinking, nor I love. you. Invent your own lyrics, I'd best not risk a ban by posting mine here.

So yes, there's a level of childishness beyond which there is neither amusement nor satisfaction in the knowledge a viscious barb will stick when it hits home and I'm happy to leave that area to be serviced by Pigpot.

Yiam, I like you! .

[PeanutGallery]

As for court fee's if you are on a low income you can qualify for remission.

Really? Even for a civil suit like a libel? Anyway Craig isn't on a low income, just ask him.

Yes but the criteria is quite complex, this page gives details of the criteria. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/fees.

[arayder]

And I don't think Tom started thinking this way when he messed up his mortgage. I think he's being this way for a long, long time.

. . .You need to read through his very first posts on The GOOFD webshite in 2013 and you will see that in his first post he asks whether he could repay the debt to the bank with a Promissory Cheque. . . .

Yes, I read the posts and he seems to be grasping at straws.

A few posts later in the same thread (can't post a link at mo) he discusses a letter that he had sent to the B&B which had been provided to him by the White Rabbit webshite. I suspect that he had been a closet Sov Cit or FMoTL supporter long before.

I agree. I think at is my point, too. Tom was just looking for someone to tell him he didn't have to pay the mortgage. After he lost his appeal he looked for someone to tell him he'd really won.

The parasitic GOODFers obliged him on both counts.

I think Tom's been kidding himself about this sort of stuff for years. His kids buy the BS, because he's been teaching them the same way his daddy taught him. Tom's way way down the rabbit hole. But Amanda is struggling with the idea that her ole daddy is a dead beat liar who ruined the family finances. That's why she's nuts about suing anybody who tells the truth about him.

[YiamCross]

Well, it's all perfectly clear now. Poor old Tom, he's been right all along and it's just not fair that the courts won't listen. The police will soon change their minds about stopping Tom getting his house back when they see this.



All figures checked and audited by a qualified FOTL accountant and notarised by a grand jury. Tom wouldn't have signed up for the mortgage if this information had been given to him at the start. Surely.

[AndyPandy]

Well, it's a

ll perfectly clear now. Poor old Tom, he's been right all along and it's just not fair that the courts won't listen. The police will soon change their minds about stopping Tom getting his house back when they see this.



All figures checked and audited by a qualified FOTL accountant and notarised by a grand jury. Tom wouldn't have signed up for the mortgage if this information had been given to him at the start. Surely.

Totally irrelevant if he got 'a fair deal' or not it's what he AGREED to !

[wanglepin]

http://postimg.org/image/3jmnuulsz/

It's meaningless if you have to beg.



Sorry for this complete waste of a post but lol,loving the screenshot

That is downright favoritism.I bet you brought an apple for the teacher didn't you Bones?

[YiamCross]

Or maybe I should ask, how can a normal person read that letter and draw those conclusions?

I suppose, to be fair, most of us don't know how we would react when under that amount of stress. They had just made the biggest cock up possible.

I think, to be fair, everyone here (Pigpot excepted, obviously) would have enough sense in their little finger to prevent them from falling for such obvious claptrap. None of this is stress induced misjudgment, it's all down to greed fuelled by willful ignorance and misunderstanding.

There can't be many outside that small circle of special people which includes Ebert, Taylor and Ceylon who would willingly ignore a very clear and obvious judgment to pursue a course of action which destroyed any last hope of walking away with precious personal possessions and what little equity remained after a series of expensive failures in court.

[wanglepin]

East Midlands today

13 minutes in

Neighbours complaining

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... y-28072015

All those neighbours who complained are government agents and shills. And don't even live in Fearn Chase.

[wanglepin]

Just hope they don't get Ebert or Cullinane on the case.....

I do.