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

[NG3]

Seeing as the other Crawford thread has reached about 95 pages, and we like to lock at about 100, with two open threads on the Crawford's should we consider locking the other one and carrying on from here?

[Jeffrey]

In defense of Arthurs argument.

I think the timeline at least shows heavy and clear involvement in the cancellation of the endowment policy as evidenced by the endowment policy not being paid by Tom or a joint account but rather out of Sue's account. So Sue had money in her own name around 1992, I'm guessing it's unlikely Tom was scrutinizing his wife's finances.

Then again the 1999 point. Tom even though he's unreliable, admits it was his wife that pointed out the cancelled endowment policy. Notice that Sue is in talks with the bank but Tom is unaware of her dialogue with the bank. Now this could be Tom lying and claiming the bank didn't inform them. Or it could be Sue dealing with the bank behind Tom's back to try to fix her earlier fuck-up of cancelling the endowment policy.

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.

My gut feeling is still that Sue is lying to her husband so she won't have to admit she stopped or forgot to pay the policy. Or, since, let's remember this was 1992, she forgot she stopped paying or has been lying for so long that she believes it.

[Hyrion]

In defense of Arthurs argument.

I think the timeline at least shows heavy

Right: so it's an assumption, not a proven fact.

I agree that both your and Arthurs opinion on the role Tom played in the original mortgage discussions are a possibility. I have not said it's not. I've only "stuck to my guns" on the point that the position placed is one of assumption, not proven fact.

An example of what I consider to be proven fact: The Court transcript showing the Crawfords stopped payment and that lead to the repossession order being enforced.

I find it important that facts are clearly distinguished from assumptive conclusions. Especially when those conclusions are written as though they are established facts. You've clearly outlined your opinion when you state:

at least shows heavy

I've got no problem with that, I've outlined my opinion on the point of the probability of the situation and don't feel a need to continue repeating myself on that.

The original point and my response:

Why did Sue do everything until the capital repayment loomed, then Tom took over?

That's a pretty shaky assumption

Arthur did not choose wording that shows it's his opinion - the wording used can easily mislead as to being established fact. Which risks falling into the exact same mistake the OPCA crowd make:

• Presenting something as fact when it is nothing more then opinion - then later treating it as established fact because it keeps getting stated as such

[NYGman]

Sorry to interrupt this debate, but at the end of the day is it even relevant? Both Sue and Tom are on the Mortgage, at least that is what I got from the transcript, despite Tom 's protests that she should not be involved.

I don't see a Tom and s Due, it is the Marital estate, they are Joint tenants in the entirety, or what ever the analogous classification is in the UK. I view it as a Partnership, both are equals with the decisions and actions of one being imputed to both. Therefore what Tom know and did is what Sue knows and did, and what Sue Knows and did is what Tom knows and did. Decisions with respect to the house were made by the Joint tenants in the entirety.

Therefore, even if it was never communicated both Tom and Sue are responsible for Knowing what the other is doing. If they don't they are the ones to blame for this,

[Hyrion]

at the end of the day is it even relevant?

Under the context of the current issues and joint responsibility: Nope!

However, under - as just one example - the potential future context of one spouse turning on another in Court: it could be very important. I can't say about Sue, but the character and actions of Tom mean that I would not be surprised if Tom pointed to a blog and identified a "fact" and presented that as "evidence" of Sue's wrong doing.

That is just one real world example of why it's important to ensure facts stay clearly separated from assumptive conclusions.

[NYGman]

at the end of the day is it even relevant?

Under the context of the current issues and joint responsibility: Nope!

However, under - as just one example - the potential future context of one spouse turning on another in Court: it could be very important. I can't say about Sue, but the character and actions of Tom mean that I would not be surprised if Tom pointed to a blog and identified a "fact" and presented that as "evidence" of Sue's wrong doing.

That is just one real world example of why it's important to ensure facts stay clearly separated from assumptive conclusions.

Fair enough, although I see Sue as the type to blindly follow Tom, and Tom needing Sue's support, therefore, while the scenario is possible, is it probably? I think not, but that's just my opinion.

[Footloose52]

Ah, now we touch on how legal title is usually held on a jointly owned property, it is normally as a joint tenancy.

Tenants in common is used (it was rare in the 80's though) and is becoming more common where partners are concerned and where they wish to identify their element of the property as their 'bit' of it for inheritance/tax planning/ care costs purposes.

[Bones]

Just watched the video - sorry if it has been explained already but how did they know what Yiam looked like ?

The Crawfords are really vile family, they just make me sick

I hope with the crazies around, Yiam is ok and the crawford's accept responsibility god forbid if one of their nutty followers does something stupid.

[Pox]

Just watched the video - sorry if it has been explained already but how did they know what Yiam looked like ?

The Crawfords are really vile family, they just make me sick

I hope with the crazies around, Yiam is ok and the crawford's accept responsibility god forbid if one of their nutty followers does something stupid.

Until we hear from Yiam we won't know how they got the heads up.

Seems to me that TC is behaving like a cornered wild animal at the moment, he is lashing out blindly at all and sundry (including innocent folks passing by).

He seems to have some sort of axe to grind against Bradley Knight and blames him for the transcript of the recent court case being in the public domain ( by the way it was published by someone on GOOFY earlier on today). Why - I have no idea? He asked the judge for a copy so he should be grateful that he saved a few pennies.

A classic defensive action whether he realises it or not and something an animal (human or otherwise) will do when their back is against the wall.

TC has had his few minutes of fame and the previous level of support for him has decreased significantly because many of his previous supporters realise that he didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think that he needs to have a long hard look at himself.

[Pox]

Over on GOOFY -

'aliveandfree' giving his opinion and heading for a ban maybe -

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 0&start=10

See the post at 6.08pm

P.S. I would love to be able to know how to copy just the post from another forum on an iPad instead of having to provide the link?

[#six]

Just watched the video - sorry if it has been explained already but how did they know what Yiam looked like ?

The Crawfords are really vile family, they just make me sick

I hope with the crazies around, Yiam is ok and the crawford's accept responsibility god forbid if one of their nutty followers does something stupid.

Until we hear from Yiam we won't know how they got the heads up.

Seems to me that TC is behaving like a cornered wild animal at the moment, he is lashing out blindly at all and sundry (including innocent folks passing by).

He seems to have some sort of axe to grind against Bradley Knight and blames him for the transcript of the recent court case being in the public domain ( by the way it was published by someone on GOOFY earlier on today). Why - I have no idea? He asked the judge for a copy so he should be grateful that he saved a few pennies.

A classic defensive action whether he realises it or not and something an animal (human or otherwise) will do when their back is against the wall.

TC has had his few minutes of fame and the previous level of support for him has decreased significantly because many of his previous supporters realise that he didn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think that he needs to have a long hard look at himself.

Now removed. I think the GOOFYS don't like the truth

[PeanutGallery]

In regard to how they knew what Yiam looked like, I think they most likely identified him from his vehicle, its certainly distinctive. I would speculate that a former neighbour or member of staff at the Elwes (they used to be very friendly with Tom back when he was allowed to drink there) tipped Tom off. Either way Yiam was made.

As for those in camp Crawford and the truth they don't want it. The one thing the truth movement can't stand is verified proven truths, not when their are so many better made up truths just waiting to be shared out there.

Tom only wants people to know his truth, he's watched his support base erode and even seen a number of defections, people who would have helped him have turned their backs on him and his cause. I also think that he is getting wound up by a belief that we are taking some form of perverse pleasure in his downfall and that we would wish it on everyone. We wouldn't.

What we want is people who need it to be given sensible practical advice and not used as test rats by idiots who have a theory of the week approach to the law. Tom wasn't even able to claim a pyrrhic victory, he never actually one, he just postponed the inevitable.

At the moment Tom is likely to be very highly stressed and I think this is feeding into a sense of paranoia. He likely isn't being helped by having a family chock full of conspiritards, all of whom would benefit from some tinfoil headgear.

[Skeleton]

Just watched the video - sorry if it has been explained already but how did they know what Yiam looked like ?

The Crawfords are really vile family, they just make me sick

I hope with the crazies around, Yiam is ok and the crawford's accept responsibility god forbid if one of their nutty followers does something stupid.

Good luck with that hope Bones, the main two doing the stirring called Amanda and Craig would say nothing other than a possible firm denial they had anything to do with it. Trouble is by their posts on FB if anything god forbid does happen, Craig and Amanda may will be taking responsibility whether they like it or not.

I imagine lots of people have screenshots of both Craig and Amanda stirring things up in a nasty way, removing said posts and claiming they were made in a private group will not save them.

As an aside 2 people have asked Amanda recently for the address of the Troll Site, both request's were firmly denied.

You really are determined Amanda aren't you, to keep the few supporters you do have left as far away from the truth as possible.

[bagman]

I am sorry, but i think my comment will cut against the grain.
I think the Crawfords have come out of this better than him,,,After watching the footage a few times, and putting my impartiality hat on, Yaim must have got out of the uni-mog and approached the car, when he could have drove away (i know that its said, tom came and parked in front of his van)had the opportunity . Then when Tom asked his why he was so interested in his case....He had the perfect opportunity to actually put top on the spot, and ask about the endowment policy being stopped (payments stopped) in 1992. The abuse Yaim was given was bang out of order, and the old chestnut "my mum just died" got its usual airing. But Yiam decided to go there (for what ever reason) and he had the opportunity to finally get Tom on the record regarding the mortgage, but he didn't....I personally have no problems with YIAM, I do wonder why he was there, and how tom knew he was there.

[Burnaby49]

I personally have no problems with YIAM, I do wonder why he was there, and how tom knew he was there.

The Elwes Arms is a pub, as in a public bar/restaurant. Regardless of whatever motives you might impute to Yiam Cross going there for lunch he was as entitled to be there as any other customer. Are you saying it is off limits without the Crawfords' permission? I intend to have a beer there next summer. Should I check with Tom first?

In any case that area is no longer Tom's neighbourhood nor is the Elwes arms his local. So why shouldn't anyone go there without being harassed by the Crawfords?

[longdog]

Then when Tom asked his why he was so interested in his case....He had the perfect opportunity to actually put top on the spot, and ask about the endowment policy being stopped (payments stopped) in 1992.

I might agree with you were it not for the fact that Tom and Mrs Tom wouldn't let him get a word in edgeways.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Please continue all Crawford related comments in this thread, the other will be closed shortly.

[Skeleton]

Then when Tom asked his why he was so interested in his case....He had the perfect opportunity to actually put top on the spot, and ask about the endowment policy being stopped (payments stopped) in 1992.

I might agree with you were it not for the fact that Tom and Mrs Tom wouldn't let him get a word in edgeways.

Yiam did the right thing. The Crawfords were not about to debate anything with him.

[NG3]

Are you saying it is off limits without the Crawfords' permission? I intend to have a beer there next summer. Should I check with Tom first?

I do wonder if the landlords been informed of the new vetting policy?

[timcurgenven1]

I am told Amanda is now posting in EFOTB for people to ignore the trolls again and in particular ignore this site. She really does not want people coming here does she.

She then goes onto inform the group that a member of this site has booked a house viewing with the date, but that does not bother her.

Not bothered you Amanda? Why inform the group then? I can think of a very good one for a start.

Shit stirring at its finest.

Yes Amanda there are 4 of us going to view the house, i have been informed its in a right state and needs a lot of work, quite a mess!

We will be there at 10am would you like us to take photos for you? or do you want to join us