The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[letissier14]

She has such a short memory as her page was posting up peoples private addresses which were removed from Facebook after a complaint.

[daveBeeston]

Latest from Amanda
my mother being turned into a child murderer and being compared with Mira Hindley and rose west. My childs image beinf stolen and my father being turned into a paedophile peoples address being published. people being incited to actively destroy peoples livelihoods and thats just the tip of the iceberg .

If those sort of comments have been made then she is right they are unacceptable but she should also bear in mind that one of the people her father has aligned himself with does the exact same thing of accusing people of being paedophiles without any proof whatsoever. So if anyone who is associated with the comments/pages is guilty of trolling then by her own standards so is she and her family.

Regarding addresses im sure you wanted peoples names and addresses of those who disagreed with you and your family so you could publish them and take legal action,double standards much!

[#six]

If the accusations that Amanda states of the types of posts being made are true then I do believe that the law is there to protect them. However, I have not seen any of the posts that she speaks of so at this moment I can only comment upon what I have seen.

I have seen posts which accuse the Crawfords of lying and I have seen posts that say they are happy the Crawfords have lost their house. Neither of these IMO are covered by the trolling laws. In order to be prosecuted for trolling, communications need to be "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false". It is highly probable that the Crawfords find these posts offensive but they are far from grossly offensive. A case in point was one regarding a Mr Mitchell Chapman. He made a tweet regarding the death of two Newcastle fans on the MH17 flight - "Such a tragedy that there was [sic] only 2 Newcastle fans on the plane and not 100. RIP fellas". Although initially charged, he was not prosecuted as the CPS were of the view that whilst the post was "deeply upsetting to the families", it was "simply offensive" rather than "grossly offensive".

Regarding calling the Crawfords liars, I do not believe this would be covered either. It is on public record, Court case, Facebook, youtube etc that their story has changed and as such comments such as those cannot be see as false statements.

So it may be possible that some posts on the ETFOTB page would be covered by current laws and if that is the case then I would be happy for those people to be prosecuted but, if I suspect to be the case, the posts are similar to those found on Quatloos then no one need fear a visit from the boys in blue at any time soon.

[letissier14]

There has been some posts (mainly pictures) on EFOTB(NOT) facebook page, which I agree are very near the knuckle and are in my opinion are in very bad taste.

There have been no posts or messages posted on the EFOTB page as anyone who disagreed with them has already been banned from there.

There has however, been quite a few posts on EFOTB abusing people who disagree with them, and also threats have been made as well. Amanda & Tom have let these posts remain and think it is acceptable.

Screenshots have been taken and I for one have had threats against me, which have been logged with the police and I have a crime number. I have also had numerous posts removed from EFOTB by Facebook, which were aimed at me and were considered harassment and threatening.

So it is a bit rich that the Crawfrauds are accusing others of trolling when they are happy to allow supporters on their page abuse other people. Not to mention Toms, Amanda's and Craigs verbal abuse at the poor young journalist on the Notts Post who reported the story in the first place and Ceylons video calling the girl a crack whore.

[longdog]

Tom would expect the Police just to look at the evidence he has provided and then will get very angry when they refuse to and they will go back to being corrupt and useless.

If the family Crawford really have gone to the police with a complaint of 'trolling', which isn't an offence anyway, I would expect plod would have a cursory glance at the 'evidence' and either say they were 'looking in to it' which Clan Crawford will exaggerate into a major police investigation involving every force in the country / the CPS / interpol / the FBI or they will tell Clan Crawford no offence has been committed which they will see as conclusive proof of the corruption of every force in the country / the CPS / interpol / the FBI.

I'm not sure which is the most pathetic... The Crawfords running to the cops because people are calling them bare faced liars and lunatics or the fact that they believe anybody would be scared in to silence by their inane drivel.

[daveBeeston]

I welcome the police involvement if any of the comments made fall into the "trolling" categories i truly do as i would think the vast majority of the comments made by the Crawford's and their supporters would fall into the later of those defined parameters.

When someone makes a claim/statement online via video and other methods and then recants that statement in court and you call them a liar that is not trolling(especially when they continue to tell the previously recanted statement as fact).

This whole new development has an air of desperation around it.

And to Amanda your father has been proven to be a liar(by himself and the courts) and you and your brother have constantly insults and berated anyone who dares to ask you questions that you cannot answer or dares not show any loyalty to your families cause if you find any of the comments i have made here, on facebook or via Google+ then feel free to ask for my details to pass on to the police i will be more than happy to cooperate
Or alternatively lets meet up for a face to face chat(you can bring the whole family if you wish) at a place of your choosing and have a civilized discussion over the case you can present the evidence you have that proves the court judgement is wrong and that the eviction was illegal (please bring the warrant) and i will report unbiased on what you prove both here and on facebook aswell as holding my hands up should you provide undeniable proof that i and others are wrong.

[bagman]

WELL, HE HAS PLAYED A BLINDER,
HE IS ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE FOCUS AWAY FROM THE WARRANT, BY TURNING IT AROUND ON THE PEOPLE ASKING TO SEE IT, WHILST EVER HE CAN KEEP THE ATTENTION OF THE WARRANT , HE WILL. THE LONGER HE MANAGES TO DO DO, HE HOPE PEOPLE WILL SIMPLY FORGET ABOUT IT.

[LocalResident]

Tom would expect the Police just to look at the evidence he has provided and then will get very angry when they refuse to and they will go back to being corrupt and useless.

If he actually had reported it and wanted resolution of this crime, actually publicising the fact of the report would be a bad idea as it would allow those responsible to hide/escape.

Thus the publication of the report is either poor execution or a lie intended to scare.

[#six]

There has been some posts (mainly pictures) on EFOTB(NOT) facebook page, which I agree are very near the knuckle and are in my opinion are in very bad taste.

I've just had a look there and I would agree with you... There certainly are some pictures which are in bad taste. I won't mention specifics but I have seen one picture that may be worthy of investigation by the police. However it remains to be seen if it would be regarded as grossly offensive or if it is just offensive. Regardless of its legality though, I personally believe there is no place for images like that when trying to hold the moral high ground.

Lets watch this space

[fat frank]

lets be honest its the crawfords, they are probably all sat there crying, saying why are people picking on us, first the bank, then the courts, then the police, now people on facebook,

they are the type of people who if you bump in to in a club claim you tried to knife them

[Skeleton]

Has anyone seen the posts about Amanda's Mother being compared to Myra Hindley? If they exist that is plainly wrong.

Amanda though thinks it is ok to describe people as

have deep rooted psychological issues

degeneratives

these baffoons

should be permitted to incite hate.

The people doing this are sick

depraved

]lacking any moral compass

That's just from her latest and for her, mild tirade, and after her Father has supposedly informed the Police, it is also why he has not been to the Police, if he had there would be no words from him or her.

In the event he ever does I agree with others what has been posted by Amanda by some of her support would spectacularly backfire on the Crawfords. I get the impression its the groups on FB that is getting to them though, they are obviously reporting posts they believe to be offensive, sadly what they may consider offensive is simply not to anyone else but them, and FB are leaving the posts up. There also not used to people questioning what they are doing and I think Tom expected people to blindly follow what he said without question.

[longdog]

I welcome the police involvement if any of the comments made fall into the "trolling" categories

Trolling is not an offence. Making grossly offensive or obscene comments might be an offence but trolling isn't and telling the truth about a family of liars and fantasists most certainly isn't.

Of course if the Crawfords really believe that people telling the truth about their lies is actionable they can bring a defamation suit... And the best of British luck to 'em.

[YiamCross]

Be afraid, they are coming for you


Tom Crawford‎Eviction the fraud of the bank
6 hrs ·
Hi All
Trolls & a Police Investigation ....
Troll sites have been openl......
We would be grateful for any information relating to this matter (any information if you could in box me will be kept strictly confidential)...As always hope you are well and hope to see you all soon...
Tom

NOTE TO ALL POSTERS - when you post something like this, PLEASE use the quote function, the button with the quote marks in it, that is what it is for, and attribute, that is only courtesy. Please edit and correct this. Thx - MOD

Well what could I do? I had to do the right thing and hand myself in.

Trouble is the police can't do anything because all their constables are under arrest for offences carried out at the eviction in Fearn Chase on 2nd July under an indictment from a grand jury and following an investigation following 4,026 complaints from the peaceful supporters who lawfully attended to prevent the unlawful eviction of an innocent family a victim of a global genocide and banking conspiracy.

Way to go dimwits. If the Crawfords were any more stupid even the slugs in what was once their garden would be laughing at them.

[Forsyth]

It's important to remember that the appetite for prosecuting internet abuse is very high in the UK at the moment, far more so than in anywhere else in Europe or the USA, and people should be aware that their actions may be judged more harshly than they may expect. Indeed, it is entirely possible to get a more severe sentence for hasty words than it is for physical violence.

In this case I would suggest that some people - on both sides - have willingly put themselves into the public eye and they should not expect to receive only praise in return. This does not extend as far as harassment, nor does it justify people on the periphery of events being made subject to the same level of attention as has been invited by those at the centre. The line is not always clear though and, at times, it is somewhat mobile so caution is advised.

[letissier14]

I think the line is pretty clear cut. If you send vile and abusive posts and threats to someone over a period of time then there is a chance you will be prosecuted.

There are strict guidelines and In 2013, then-Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sir Keir Starmer QC issued guidance stating that users who post offensive material online must pass a "high threshold" before they are prosecuted.

Most convicted of trolling fall under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and there has been a steady decline of people being prosecuted since a peak in 2012

[Colin123]

An offering from Noel Kennedy (BTBATB ADMIN) ON ETFOTB


Tom Crawford shared Noel Kennedy's post.
1 hr

Noel Kennedy‎TOM CRAWFORD SUPPORT GROUP HQ
By DAVE JOHN CLAPHAM -
Let’s put this statutory provision into the fallacious context it deserves. If you are under the threat of an unlawful eviction from your home, having had an entirely void possession order issued against it, despite having paid three times the value of the credit you were purportedly extended, since the execution of what you now have every reason to believe was and remains a criminal mortgage, which you executed solely because your conveyancing solicitor advised that you must do so in order to receive a mortgage advance at a later date.
This would automatically give rise to a cause of action for professional negligence upon the loss of your property, should you choose to make such a claim against said solicitor’s professional indemnity insurance policy, once all the elements of the tort of negligence are in place.
The fact that the mortgage fails to comply with the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, in the absence of a contract signed by both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, as well as a mortgage deed that was complete at the moment it was signed, properly witnessed and accurately dated, renders the contract void under section 2; and the deed is void by way of section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925, for failing to comply with section 1(3) of the 1989 Act.
This provides you with a cause of action to attack the order for possession and the judgment which it was founded upon, on the ground that the entire mortgage transaction is a nullity because the mortgagee has failed to comply with its statutory obligations. In such circumstances, any judge who grants a possession order predicated on illegal mortgage documents also becomes liable for professional negligence, the moment he refuses to correct his errors of fact and law.
Furthermore, in the event that county court bailiffs are threatening to use force to enter your property, whilst you are in possession of it, it is you, not the bailiff, who has the inherent right under the long-established principles of Common Law to use reasonable force to defend yourself, your property and any other individuals on the premises at the time you are under the threat of unlawful aggression; and/or to prevent a crime from being committed, such as an aggressive stranger breaking and entering into your house whilst your wife and children are asleep in their beds.
Of course, the amoral, self-serving sophists who dominate the legal professions, as well some on so-called alternative forums, will no doubt smugly argue that the police would claim the authority to assist the bailiffs in the event that you did use reasonable force to defend your family and property, from people you regard as licensed pirates who are dead-set on stealing it from you, on the thoroughly nonsensical ground that in doing so you would allegedly be threatening to cause a breach of the peace, which would actually be caused by the bailiffs at the moment they caused you to believe that you were subject to the threat of their unlawful aggression, or that they were in the process of committing the crime of trespass on your property with violent intent.
Even if you are mistaken and the warrant they are enforcing is in fact a validly executed one, it does not affect your unalienable right to rely upon reasonable force as your defence to an allegation that you breached or were threatening to breach the peace; on the basis that it a legal impossibility for a man who has used reasonable force to be convicted of breaching the peace in so doing. In other words, Parliament, such as it is, has passed an act which purports to grant the right to use force in the pre-meditated prevention of an alleged crime, which the accused is necessarily incapable of committing in the very circumstances caused by such a course of action being taken by the police and the bailiffs.

[NG3]

There are strict guidelines and In 2013, then-Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Sir Keir Starmer QC issued guidance stating that users who post offensive material online must pass a "high threshold" before they are prosecuted.

Most convicted of trolling fall under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and there has been a steady decline of people being prosecuted since a peak in 2012

It's been in the high courts and house of lords which have both remarked on the "grossly offensive" element, which has rolled back on prosecutions, as you remark offensive material online must pass a "high threshold" before they are prosecuted, but also they've tightened up on context, why was it said etc. eg. Responding to dishonest, or defamatory messages would reduce the chances of a prosecution.

I might just call acting inspector Berryman later to discuss exactly what's happening, I'd trust his word more than the Crawford's.

[YiamCross]

An offering from Noel Kennedy (BTBATB ADMIN) ON ETFOTB


Tom Crawford shared Noel Kennedy's post.
1 hr

Noel Kennedy‎TOM CRAWFORD SUPPORT GROUP HQ
By DAVE JOHN CLAPHAM -
Let’s put this statutory provision into the fallacious context it deserves. If you are under the threat of an unlawful eviction from your home,..by such a course of action being taken by the police and the bailiffs.

I considered posting this but decided it would be a waste of electrons. I tried reading it but gave up halfway through as it wandered so deep into the long grass I feared I may not find my way back.

I was disappointed to see it didn't mention the warrant except in passing to state that even if it was valid it wouldn't make any difference. I assume from that throw away line they've been unable to find any fault with the warrant and the unicorn horn is present, pointy and they are spinning on it.

[AndyPandy]

Let's hope they do go to the Police, because as someone has already said it goes both ways. The Police will examine what they themselves have been posting (ie discussions about ongoing Criminal cases that are should be subject to Sub Judice, vicious attacks about the 'corrupt' Courts, personal attacks upon the integrity of Judge Godsmark, threats and defamation of individuals etc. etc. etc.)

Let them crack on with it, because like everything this family do they seem to have the remarkable ability for events to backfire on themselves in a most spectacular fashion.

[Skeleton]

I might just call acting inspector Berryman later to discuss exactly what's happening, I'd trust his word more than the Crawford's.

Be interesting to find out, but i would bet my mortgage (sorry Tom i have one to bet with) he has not been. I only bet on racing certainties though. If he has he has been told nothing they can do hence the double salvo from the Crawfords. This is what happens though when you stifle opinion in your own private bubble, Tom can't find a way to stop the criticism he is not used to, hence this latest Mr Bean style attempt.

Given some of the threats made by people on that page I also don't think Tom is particularly wise to be asking for peoples names and addresses.

I thought Amanda was suing everyone that was the plan threat a while back wasn't it?