Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[fat frank]

what a lot seem to be forget its the whole Crawford clan are thick as shit, super business man craig, even admits he doesn't know what a mortgage is, and he is the brains of the group

[ArthurWankspittle]

One further thought from me. Why did Sue do everything until the capital repayment loomed, then Tom took over? Think about it: Endowment stopped - Sue. Change to repayment discussed with - Sue. Financial Needs statement - Sue. Then several years go by and from Tom's first post on GOODF asking how he gets out of repaying £43,000 in a few months, it's all been Tom.

[Hyrion]

it's all been Tom.

That's a pretty shaky assumption unless you were eavesdropping on the various discussions Tom and Sue were having over the years. Additionally, you contradict yourself.

Endowment stopped - Sue

You just identified Sue as the party who stopped the endowment payments, so you contradict your claim "it's all been Tom"



If Sue hadn't stopped the endowment payments, the amount would have been much larger in the end. Granted, Tom could have had a discussion with Sue at the time and told her to stop those payments - we just don't know.

[Jeffrey]

He's saying that pre GOODF it was all Sue, post GOODF it's been all Tom.

[PeanutGallery]

It may well be that back before Tom got ill, Sue took care of the family finances Tom was likely out working all day. Frankly I don't think either of them are that smart. I think Sue probably cancelled the endowment policy in order to save money, from various statements Tom has made in the past they sometimes found the interest only payments a stretch, Sue may not have realised what the policy was meant to cover when she cancelled it.

I think when she did realise or at least when she was told that their was nothing she could do to keep the house, Tom took over. I imagine he would have been rather annoyed at the situation, he'd been paying them money for a very long period and yet was in the same position he'd always been in, he'd worked hard to earn that money. I think Sue had given up and while this could have given them an opportunity to resolve the issue with the bank, Tom either out of anger or ignorance went in search of someone who would tell him that the situation wasn't hopeless. He found GOODF.

Tom knew what he wanted to hear, which wasn't what he should have been told, he likely was told this by others and rejected it because it wasn't the answer Tom wanted.

Tom then started lapping up the woo he was being given on GOODF. He became an expert in it. I'd also say that when all those people came to frustrate the first attempt to evict him, then he must have felt overly important. He was more famous for that than he would ever have dreamed when he fitted carpets. I don't doubt that Sue would have felt impressed, her husband was so well regarded by these strangers, and his children would also have been taken in by them. They would have seen these people doing their Dad a massive favour and helping to keep a roof over his head.

All of that would have told them that the Woo was worthwhile, after all it had worked, Tom and Sue weren't evicted and Betty was still with them, laying her eggs. This was when Tom made a decision to give back, he'd been done a favour and he wanted to help others. Nothing wrong with that. Except that what had really happened was that Tom hadn't been helped and he wouldn't be helping anyone else.

Even when Tom was worried their was always a bit of woo to tell him what he wanted to hear, which was that it was all going to be all right, he'd get to keep the house and all would be well. After Godsmark, when Tom's faith was shaken, Ebert pointed him back to the woo with a confusing statement about the judgement being legalease.

So Tom kept the faith. He was helped by the others who all crowed about what a victory it was. It certainly seemed that way until that day when Tom was actually evicted. He was given no warning, he couldn't get a mob together and he'd been told he'd won for a couple of weeks with everyone cheering him on.

Now the question is, did Sue keep faith and I think the answer is also yes. However I don't think Sue understands the woo, I think she's smart enough to know it is confusing (and it's confusing to her because she knows it is wrong) but Tom isn't that smart, he isn't confused by it, he simply follows it.

So that, rather long winded passage, is why I think Sue managed the finances and why Tom manages the woo. It is because Sue is slightly smarter than Tom (although that alone is not saying much).

[letissier14]

What I've read and seen of this sorry mess, my opinion is that Tom is a vile controlling bully and everyone in his family does what he says, no questions asked.

I remember speaking to Craig in private and he told me he had no idea how an endowment mortgage works. I explained it to him and his reply was.... "My dad wouldn't lie, so why would I question it"

And as for Amanda, she simply posts whatever her Dad tells her to post, lies and all.

You only have to watch the way Tom spoke to the police and others on the day of the eviction, he was aggressive and rude and no matter what anyone said to him, he simply wouldn't listen.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Without cutting and pasting various comments, my reply is check the timeline viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10691 Up to 2006 or 2012 it is all Sue and arrears being repaid. Only when another series of arrears occurs does Tom step up and into the freeman woo in the following years.

[Hyrion]

Without cutting and pasting various comments

I assume you're at least in part responding to my post regarding a concept of "what goes on in the private discussions of the Crawford home" and your assumptions.

check the timeline

1988 Tom and Sue Crawford buy 3 Fearn Chase
...
1989 The Crawfords borrow a further £5,000 for home improvements

That - to me - looks like both Tom and Sue are involved in the finances. Or are you suggesting that Sue could arrange for both Loans without Tom personally signing them? Perhaps Sue forged Toms signature?

Up to 2006 or 2012 it is all Sue

I think you're mistaken.

January 1999. Sue Crawford signs a Customer Needs Analysis which discusses the lack of capital payment arrangements and changing the mortgage to a repayment type.

I believe it was Tom who put a halt to that. Which means Tom was involved with the finances prior to 2006. Although Sue may have been taking care of the basic handling of the affairs - making the payments - Tom was directly involved in the decisions of what agreements to enter.

Tom step up and into the freeman woo in the following years.

That he very much did with - based on currently publicly available info - apparently the family's full support.

Your timeline seems pretty accurate from what I recall of the events as they have been slowly disclosed to the public. So, key question time:

• How can you claim Tom wasn't involved in the finances prior to 2006 when your own timeline clearly shows Tom had a direct hand in the major decision making of those finances?

Of course, at the moment I am drawing the assumption that it wasn't Sue who turned around and decided to cancel her request to change the interest-only payments into a repayment type. Sue asking for a customer needs analysis shows she was aware the capital wasn't being paid for and was concerned about it - a clear head for at least a small moment in time. As a result, I think it's a reasonable assumption that Tom either ordered or convinced her they shouldn't go that route. That was in '99.

[Hyrion]

it's all been Tom

I can't recall if it was in this thread or the other Crawford thread as I can't quickly find it. But another poster has suggested that Tom may be as much a bully in the home as he is in public (I think it was the other thread with the recent Crawford video where they ironically seem upset their target was recording even while they were themselves).

In which case, while Sue earlier wanted to try and rearrange the finances to get the Capital paid, Tom would have "put his foot down" on the matter.

If that's what you mean by "it's all been Tom" you may be right - but at this time that's still an assumption. In other words, I'll continue to hold the opinion that both Tom and Sue are jointly responsible until such time as additional evidence comes available to the public to put Tom in such a light that Sue has been controlled. At this time, Sue may very well be as much a public bully as Tom is.

[Gregg]

You didn't pay your mortgage you ignorant twit, show us the 300 payments made to the endowment policy. Oh, you say they changed the mortgage? Funny, the one entered into evidence in the case, the one they foreclosed upon, is the one from 1988, the original one that you signed, and the one you made the first few endowment policy payments on before quitting, so there, you didn't pay your mortgage, and this by your own evidence. Any other way to twist or turn of lie about it fails on the evidence, you say otherwise then produce the proof that you paid the endowment for 25 years. As for your mum who assumed room temperature, let it go, that was month's ago, most people who don't suffer from some form of mental illness try to get some final disposition of the body within a few months, or is Sue's mum some moldy old Soviet Dictator who is gonna be put on display in a mausoleum In Nottingham Square some day soon. You lost your house because you've behaved as if the missing chicken was the smart one in the house, you've run up tens of thousands of pounds in various fees and costs whilst demonstrating to the whole nation how incredibly thick one old dishonest carpet layer can be, and now, after doing everything short of dancing naked on the balcony of Buckingham Palace or joining the Kardashian Family and getting a drug habit, you have to nerve to start crying about your privacy being invaded. I'm in the middle of the USA you idiots and I can't seem to quit hearing about "what that retarded twit in Nottingham says is why he shouldn't have to pay for his house today" so you kind of pull the noose too tight with the invaded privacy cries. You are just about stupid enough to make me ashamed to have studied in England, or hell, to speak the English language in those days when you bring up your unfortunate cancer cries (although that part is cheerful, it at least gives me some assurance that you won't be breeding anymore half with children or U-Tube dancing elephants.... Go away, Tom, find a nice bridge and a cardboard box and hope for a mild winter, maybe in the spring you can find someone kind and stupid enough to let you couch surf for a few weeks at a time until you and Sue both let slip from this mortal coil and assume room temperature. Your only possible use to society now is the off chance your saggy cadaver could be used for medical students to practice lobotomies, appendectomies and vasectomies on before being incinerated and the ashes tossed into the Irish Sea.

[guilty]

You didn't pay your mortgage you ignorant twit, ... Your only possible use to society now is the off chance your saggy cadaver could be used for medical students to practice lobotomies, appendectomies and vasectomies on before being incinerated and the ashes tossed into the Irish Sea.

I take it you are not a Crawford supporter, then?

[PeanutGallery]

You didn't pay your mortgage you ignorant twit, ... Your only possible use to society now is the off chance your saggy cadaver could be used for medical students to practice lobotomies, appendectomies and vasectomies on before being incinerated and the ashes tossed into the Irish Sea.

I think someone's already beaten them to the lobotomy.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Then several years go by and from Tom's first post on GOODF asking how he gets out of repaying £43,000 in a few months, it's all been Tom.

Please read what I put in context of the timeline. Tom could have done nothing except sign the mortgage and loan papers when put in front of him. His first involvement otherwise is to say no to changing the mortgage to a repayment one after Sue answered B&B's approach about repaying the capital. We don't know if that was caused by failure to reply to the offer anyway. All I see is Tom struggling to pay the mortgage that Sue had set up (see details 2005/6 and 2012). All that happens in the next few years is that they get into arrears then manage to pay the arrears. Come April 2013, Tom is drinking the Koolaid and Sue is out of the picture. She makes no input to the court hearings and never appears at them AFAIK (except maybe as an observer). She makes no witness statements, which is odd given that if Tom is correct about the endowment, her input would be useful at least. So now it's all Tom with Sue shouting encouragement from the sidelines. Odd or strange at least in my mind.

[PeanutGallery]

Then several years go by and from Tom's first post on GOODF asking how he gets out of repaying £43,000 in a few months, it's all been Tom.

Please read what I put in context of the timeline. Tom could have done nothing except sign the mortgage and loan papers when put in front of him. His first involvement otherwise is to say no to changing the mortgage to a repayment one after Sue answered B&B's approach about repaying the capital. We don't know if that was caused by failure to reply to the offer anyway. All I see is Tom struggling to pay the mortgage that Sue had set up (see details 2005/6 and 2012). All that happens in the next few years is that they get into arrears then manage to pay the arrears. Come April 2013, Tom is drinking the Koolaid and Sue is out of the picture. She makes no input to the court hearings and never appears at them AFAIK (except maybe as an observer). She makes no witness statements, which is odd given that if Tom is correct about the endowment, her input would be useful at least. So now it's all Tom with Sue shouting encouragement from the sidelines. Odd or strange at least in my mind.

I don't think it's that odd, during the period when Sue would have been managing the mortgage Tom would have been the breadwinner. It's certainly not uncommon for the wife in a domestic partnership to manage the family finances, especially when they don't have a vast income.

I think that Sue got them into this hole, she was the one who cancelled the endowment and who recognised and signed a needs statement that informed her that they didn't have a means to repay the capital. She knew, or should have known, they were heading for disaster, but seemed (from what little evidence we have) to have ignored this.

Tom's initial involvement may have been as simple as trying to get them out of the trouble Sue had plunged them into. As I've said before, he didn't want a realistic appraisal of his situation, he wanted to be told very specifically that he could and should be entitled to keep the house. He found that on GOODF. Tom then took over, he got on with the guru's and he came across well. Sue seemed to take a back seat to Tom and doubtless she would have been impressed when Tom arranged the first 'protest' that prevented the first attempt to evict him. Sue saw Tom 'win' on that occasion and since then she's fallen in beside him.

[Gregg]

Sue's silence in official communications might be on purpose precisely because if she answered truthfully many questions, another wing of the house of cards would come tumbling down.

That, and as is par for the course for the whole family, she's just about a vile excuse for a human being. She would have done well leading press gangs for The Royal Navy in the 18th century.

[PeanutGallery]

Sue's silence in official communications might be on purpose precisely because if she answered truthfully many questions, another wing of the house of cards would come tumbling down.

That, and as is par for the course for the whole family, she's just about a vile excuse for a human being. She would have done well leading press gangs for The Royal Navy in the 18th century.

If the navy had had more men like Sue Crawford we wouldn't have lost the colonies to that upstart Washington.

[NG3]

As for your mum

The milking of Sue's mothers bereavement particularly pissed me off because we all lose loved ones and in fact I lost a close family member at a similar time, without feeling the need to broadcast it to the world, or use it as some entitlement card.

I remember on the day of mine I came out with quite a sharp post to someone here (for which I apologise) and I could have told everyone here about it, and tried to milk everyone's sympathy, but it was irrelevant to anything here, so it would have just been crass and manipulative of me.

We'll all experience bereavement, and my deepest condolences and sympathies go out to anyone when it happens to them, but to try and exploit it and use it, months later, to cover up the fact you're a nasty little liar who won't pay his debts? That's disrespectful.

It's Tom and Sue who have disrespected Sue's mother, no one else.

[letissier14]

My mum died of lung cancer 3 years back. My brother who lived with her and was also her carer, had lived at the house for 43 years.

Shortly after my mum passed away, my brother received a letter from the council informing him that he had to move out as the council wanted the house back. Of course my brother appealed, but sadly lost and had to move out.

At no point did my brother ever use my mums cancer as an excuse as to why he should stay there.

That is what I detest most about the Crawfrauds is their constant play on Toms past cancer problem and Sue's mums death.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Peanut - I think you have accurately summarised the situation.

Sue's silence in official communications might be on purpose precisely because if she answered truthfully many questions, another wing of the house of cards would come tumbling down.

That did cross my mind. That or she would practically have to commit perjury at the outset.

[Hyrion]

Please read what I put in context of the timeline.

I did, that's why I'm saying you are contradicting yourself.

I asked a question:

• How can you claim Tom wasn't involved in the finances prior to 2006 when your own timeline clearly shows Tom had a direct hand in the major decision making of those finances?

Thank you for answering:

His first involvement otherwise is to say no to changing the mortgage to a repayment one after Sue answered B&B's approach about repaying the capital.

As your timeline clearly shows, that was in 1999. Clear proof by you that you erred in claiming Tom played no role in the finances prior to 2006.

Tom could have done nothing except sign the mortgage and loan papers when put in front of him.

There's two ways to understand that:

• 1) Tom was forced to sign the mortgage and loan papers when put in front of him.

• 2) Tom trusted Sue to negotiate and arrange the mortgage and only turned up to sign the mortgage and loan papers when put in front of him.

I assume you are not suggesting Tom was forced to sign the papers. So:

True... he "could have done nothing except" - it's possible he may have had no role in the original loan discussions. But... the fact you used the words "could have" shows it's an assumption. Definition of assume, from the Merriam Webster website:

• 1) to think that something is true or probably true without knowing that it is true
  2) to begin (a role, duty, etc.) as a job or responsibility
  3) to take or begin to have (power, control, etc.) in a job or situation

I'm using the word "to assume" in the context of your conclusions as meaning "suppose to be the case without proof".

Do you have proof Tom was not involved in the original loan discussions, that he did nothing except sign the papers when placed in front of him? If not, then you are assuming he didn't play a role in that instance. If you truly disagree with my conclusion that you are assuming Tom's role in the finances, then please provide evidence supporting your conclusions. Otherwise, if you agree that you have drawn assumptions then I really don't know why this part of the discussion appears to be in conflict.

So which is it:

• do you agree that you are drawing assumptions on Tom's role with arranging the original mortgage or do you disagree with that

All I see is Tom struggling to pay the mortgage that Sue had set up (see details 2005/6 and 2012).

It's possible you are absolutely correct and Tom had no role in setting up the mortgage. Please either:

• A: Admit you are drawing an assumption on that detail.

or

• B: Provide evidence clearly showing Tom played no role in the original mortgage discussions.

I'm wrong and stand corrected if you provide evidence clearly showing Tom played no role in the original mortgage discussions. In the 2006-current timeline that you reference there is no evidence detailing Tom as having no role in the original mortgage discussions.

Come April 2013, Tom is drinking the Koolaid

I totally agree with you that Tom took the lead role when it comes to their public representations and he bought in to the OPCA perspective hook-line-n-sinker.

Sue shouting encouragement from the sidelines

Like I said: Tom has full support from his family including Sue. That's also not in dispute. But it's also not evidence that Tom was not involved in the pre-mortgage signing discussions.