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

[ArthurWankspittle]

"Time's up for you & all your friends, you're all criminals."

Says the guy who, besides himself, has 6 friends and a relative in court next month facing criminal charges. Projecting much Tom?

[bagman]

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?

Not for one moment saying he doesn't have the right to go anywhere,, you seem to think, i am defending the Crawford, far from it, and the Crawfords that are the ones who cant go to the elwes arms, as Tom has a restraining order on, I questioned why YAIMS did not, (as no one has had to opportunity as yet) question TOM as the payments stopping for the endowment part of the Mortgage....Is this becoming a them and us? And only the Crawfords can do wrong? Toms actions in the video where well out of order, but it was YAIM that went to the car, camera rolling.

[Pox]

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?

Not for one moment saying he doesn't have the right to go anywhere,, you seem to think, i am defending the Crawford, far from it, and the Crawfords that are the ones who cant go to the elwes arms, as Tom has a restraining order on, I questioned why YAIMS did not, (as no one has had to opportunity as yet) question TOM as the payments stopping for the endowment part of the Mortgage....Is this becoming a them and us? And only the Crawfords can do wrong? Toms actions in the video where well out of order, but it was YAIM that went to the car, camera rolling.

In the heat of the moment it is difficult to ask such questions and TC didn't appear to be in raconteur mode.

Re getting out of his vehicle:
Yiam says a car pulled in front of him and then reversed - he mentions the pulling up in front of him to TC in the video ( this is a bit that I haven't noticed on TC's version,by the way).
Under such circumstances it is quite reasonable to ask the driver if there is a problem? Yiam did this (using different words).
If I had a video phone, I would have recorded the encounter because I think it would be reasonable to assume that the Mondeo's driving was aggressive.
However, if I had the presence of mind, I would hope that I wouldn't have got out of my vehicle to go to the other driver,purely for personal safety reasons.
There are many who would have said to the driver - wtf do you think that you are doing? Which would have aggravated matters (and maybe was what TC hoped would happen?)

[NG3]

...Is this becoming a them and us? And only the Crawfords can do wrong?

I can't speak for others, but for me personally, no.

I'll always call it as I see it, even if that means I have to occasionally call it in favour of the bad guys.

In this particular case I'm personally of the opinion Tom's behaviour was objectionable, however if Tom had been entirely blameless, and Yiam had sought him out and then just randomly started hurling abuse at him, I'd have defended Tom and asked Yiam where his head was at.

[Losleones]

I questioned why YAIMS did not, (as no one has had to opportunity as yet) question TOM as the payments stopping for the endowment part of the Mortgage....Is this becoming a them and us? And only the Crawfords can do wrong? Toms actions in the video where well out of order, but it was YAIM that went to the car, camera rolling.

Difficult to think straight in the heat of the moment & I'd guess Yiam wishes he'd asked him some awkward questions, but let's be fair, that cretin Crawford never really gave him much chance & as soon as Tom upped the ante (& IMO was asking for an uppercut) Yiam did the correct thing & left the 3 gobshites to it.

Like Arthur stated - "criminals" - kettle pot black springs to mind.

ETA. Tom looks like he's been on a famine & his wife & daughters looked like they've caused it.

[NYGman]

I have to say, I don't think Tom was implying he had followed Yiam from Reading, he said he had been following him, but I think the Reading was Tom trying to show Yiam he knew where he had come from. I think Tom had been following Yiam, but only locally.

As to my sympathy for TC and SC, all gone now, and anyone that acts as he does, in a menacing way, for no reason doesn't deserve my sympathies. TC was in front of Yiam. He admitted to following Yiam on the video. The only way he lands in front, and Yiam gets out, is because he has pulled in front and stopped. This makes TC the aggressor. He may not like people snooping around former Casa Crawford, but there isn't a damn thing he can do about this, as he didn't pay off the mortgage and lost all his rights associated with it.

As to their privacy concerns, they lost the right to privacy, when they made their plight public. The issue here is truth. It is the public's right to question public information. The Crawfords asked for our help based on the facts they presented. As humans, we like to help, especially the Underdog (Which TC played so well). However, if there is true information that is out there, that contradicts the public story, should not that information be distributed, so that the public is informed.

At every turn, the Crawfords have been evasive or economical with the whole truth. They have used partial truths, and out right untruths, to gain sympathy and support. In the same way as the Crawfords made their situation Public, we have the right to challenge them publicly, and call them on the those statements that are not supported by the publicly available facts. The Crawfords are within their rights to rebut those statements with facts, but they must be independently supported. Show us the paperwork that proves your case! If you paid your mortgage, show us the debits to the Endowment fund, show us the payment of the uncovered balance. Show us Interest payments AND Principal. This will shut us up.

However, we know this will never happen, the transcripts and Judgement clearly set out the facts, in easy to read plain English. This case is more than just point 91, that they seem to be stuck harping on, it is about 92 on.

[PeanutGallery]

So, in the first few seconds TC talks about photos being taken in the pub of Yiam and two others - says he has them and he also has the CCTV.
Yet, Mrs Pike said (on ETFOTB) it was Yiam who was taking photos?????????

There is only one way to prove what really happened so Amanda, post the CCTV that your Dad says he has.
As your family says, we need to see ALL the evidence so that we can make an informed judgement.

I think that is blustering from Tom, he wants to come across as being intimidating and he certainly wants people to think he is bigger and more important than he is. Look at what he claims to have, pictures taken of Yiam in a pub, what does that prove exactly? Nothing more than the fact that Yiam was in a pub when someone took his picture.

It's not unusual for people to visit pubs, if it were we wouldn't have pubs. They claim that Yiam has been harassing them, but lets see what he actually did, he went and visited Fearn Chase, had a viewing of a property that was for sale and was of interest to him and then visited a local pub. I would suggest his planned agenda had very little to do with Crawfords. He wasn't visiting their house, he was visiting another persons property, he wasn't visiting their pub, Tom's bail conditions prevent him from drinking in that establishment.

Tom thinks this is stalking and harassment of him, it can't have been, for one Yiam had no intention of meeting the Crawfords, he went to places where he knew they were not going to be. They point to Yiam's and indeed our actions here in discussing the Crawford eviction as a sign of harassment. It is not, we are not going out of our way to contact Tom, we aren't talking about or using any information other than that which Tom has placed in the public domain. Tom can't court celebrity and at the same time demand that he only be talked about by his followers. It doesn't work like that. When you put yourself in the public eye you have to accept that not everyone is going to like you.

[ArthurWankspittle]

....the transcripts and Judgement clearly set out the facts, in easy to read plain English. This case is more than just point 91, that they seem to be stuck harping on, it is about 92 on.

Your description allows us once again to look into the mindset of FMOTL/SovCits. They have watched too many TV court shows (in the wrong countries, probably) and think that their case is deserving of the same attention as Oscar Pistorius or Amanda Knox. They fail to differentiate between criminal and civil procedure, evidence and level of proof. Doesn't Tom's court transcript include the judge telling him that hearsay evidence is admissible? Tom and his ilk think that the opposition is under some obligation to provide a 100% perfect case or they can't win. This matches with the FMOTL/SovCit mentality of the victim, David v Goliath battle that they try to portray. They are thinking of US cases where the Police stop someone then find they have some weed in their car. When it comes to court, the stop is deemed unconstitutional therefore the finding of the weed isn't allowed to be introduced as evidence. Their double mistake in their own cases is that they believe the slightest doubt on the other sides evidence means that the whole case is invalid, and that their own blatant failings (like having a box of grenades instead of weed in the previous example) have to be overlooked because, well what I'm not sure, they are the good guys or something? Or the rules shouldn't apply to them? Well, they certainly are special in my opinion.
To use the Crawford's own logic against them, they can't have a case because no one on their side can decide what date the endowment stopped being paid.

[Daft Ada]

I do have to say that I did originally wish that TC had a bit of evidence that would blow the bank out of the water.

We all love an underdog story and this looked like it could have been an epic one in the making.
Unfortunatley, he got in with the wrong crowd who professed to have all the answers and he didnt check out the advise he was given.
By the time it dawned, he was in such a hole and no one likes to admit publicly that they were wrong.
Easier to stay in the hole and keep digging.

Problem with that is, when information comes to light that shows you were wrong and you didnt admit it, you support disappers like a fart in the wind and the criticism sets in.

[doublelong]

I have watched this case since the first eviction attempt as I took it on face value that what he was alleging with B and B was true. It was only when he started talking about endowments and interest only mortgages as if they were two different things did I start to wonder maybe there was something fishy. I used an endowment to buy my first house and back then I was told it was my responsibility to keep up payments on the policy. If B and B contacted them to inform them they had no way of paying the capital and offering to sort it out then I take my hat off to B and B as many banks during that time would have said “not our problem they were informed of their responsibilities”
Now as for the Crawford’s complaining about the negative attention as people have posted on here they made it public. Even the police don’t do public appeals lightly as they themselves know that any appeal to the public at large can be a double edged sword.
But can anybody tell me where do they get all this information from regarding seals and signatures and the rest of the stuff they shout? Is it something they are just making up or is it something left over from the pre computer age. We had a family evicted out of our close last week as they had only paid the first month’s rent and they were shouting about fake warrants and the like.
By the way great site.

[Hyrion]

...would have aggravated matters (and maybe was what TC hoped would happen?)

I don't think Tom was thinking that far ahead on the matter. I've the strong impression that as people drink more deeply from the OPCA/conspiracy-theory koolaid they become less self-aware.

By that I mean that they are either unwilling or unable to examine their own behavior (either before or after) and think about the basic cause and effect consequences thereof.

In the current situation we see that kind of behavior in play. The Crawfords posted their video for all to see without even apparently attempting to edit out the components that show themselves in a negative light. Let's count the ways:

• 1: They seem upset that the "opponent" is recording the event even while they themselves are recording the exact same event

• 2: Tom accosts a male passerby who is going about his own business on the other side of the street then offers a basic apology when Tom concludes the passerby was merely a passerby - but what would Tom have done if he had not recognized that? The initial verbal assault shouldn't have happened in the first place.

• 3: Tom initiates and continues with the personal attacks all while the "opponent" is being exceedingly polite given the situation

• 4: Sue goes toward another passerby (female if I remember correctly) claiming that the "opponent" is harassing "us". Meanwhile, if the situation is examined by that just-come-along passerby, she'll see Tom harassing another man. If the passerby does not know Tom and Sue are together, she might very well conclude that "Tom is harassing the couple". If the passerby knows Tom and Sue are a couple, then the situation clearly shows it's Tom and Sue harassing someone including aggressively attempting to pull the passerby into the situation.

They - Tom and Sue - posted the clear evidence of their own behavior apparently without any awareness of how their own behavior would reflect on someone reviewing the evidence who is not otherwise aware of anything else going on.

They do show some signs that could be self-awareness: for example removing such evidence of the actual ongoings such as the trial transcript that they had posted. But that always seems to be after the flaws are pointed out to them. Which may not be self-awareness at all but simply reacting because they don't like the responses.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Welcome to Quatloos.

But can anybody tell me where do they get all this information from regarding seals and signatures and the rest of the stuff they shout? Is it something they are just making up or is it something left over from the pre computer age. We had a family evicted out of our close last week as they had only paid the first month’s rent and they were shouting about fake warrants and the like.
By the way great site.

You've got some reading to do. (Or wait for a certain book to come out http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seditionists-Ex ... =jj+macnab) The story goes back to white supremacists in IIRC the early 1970s. From there all sorts of fake theories and interpretations of law are propounded by gurus and true believers. Then the internet comes along and any idiot can find information and "friends" who believe whatever suits them, that looks legal-ish online. Lots of people have made money on the way. In the specific case of the Crawfords, it is suspected that Ebert, Taylor and Haining have all received some payment or benefit in kind, for their "advice" despite it being total bullshit. Lots of people too have lost money and gained criminal convictions. Again, in the specific case of the Crawfords, Tom and Sue currently owe B&B £98,000 plus some court costs.

[Bones]

Yiam, keep up the good work - I salute you sir

[bagman]

Donna Reece

In the heat of the moment it is difficult to ask such questions and TC didn't appear to be in raconteur mode.

Re getting out of his vehicle:
Yiam says a car pulled in front of him and then reversed - he mentions the pulling up in front of him to TC in the video ( this is a bit that I haven't noticed on TC's version,by the way).
Under such circumstances it is quite reasonable to ask the driver if there is a problem? Yiam did this (using different words).
If I had a video phone, I would have recorded the encounter because I think it would be reasonable to assume that the Mondeo's driving was aggressive.
However, if I had the presence of mind, I would hope that I wouldn't have got out of my vehicle to go to the other driver,purely for personal safety reasons.
There are many who would have said to the driver - wtf do you think that you are doing? Which would have aggravated matters (and maybe was what TC hoped would happen?)

Never said i was perfect and Tom is the gift that never stops giving,,,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9zm35J2P0o

[Jeffrey]

To doublelong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny8_i-tBDmY

Based on the information Tom and his advisors have put out, you can figure out where Tom Crawford got the misinformation that cost him his house. Guy Taylor, who heavily influenced Tom's defence is a ex-convict who was indoctrinated into Freeman on the land theories via the internet from Guru's from Canada.

The rough outline is, this shit was invented in the U.S., crossed over into Canada, then crosses over to the UK where Tom stumbles onto GOODF.

[YiamCross]

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.

You're entitled to your opinion but I'm at a loss to know why you haven't got all the answets to these questions and more from my page in Facebook where your active participation is noted and I have explained in some detail.

Not that I need to justify my actions to you or anyone else but I feel your remarks have a slightly snidey tone to them. I also notice that your favourite position is between two parties seeing how much you can stir shit up so I'm going to dilute your insinuations here and now.

Once more for the record I am actively engaged in searching for property to buy. I tried to buy Farne Chase when the bank unloaded it but it was sold off in what I feel was a rather underhand way after the agents dropped it as a result of the abuse storm coming from the Crawfords' "supporters". I would have paid more than £55K for it, as would at least one other person I know of who was interested.

I think £70K is a bit too much for it given it's condition but as it may not achieve the guide price I wanted to have a look at the property to decide how much I'm prepared to go to at the auction.

I was on my way back down from Leeds where I'm looking at property and Nottingham has also featured in my searches before the Crawfords ever came onto the scene. Not out of my way by more than a few miles.

This whole stalking thing is, as anyone with half a brain can see, just another mud slinging exercise by the Crawfords. If I were stalking them then I'd be interested in hearing your ideas as to why I would choose the one pub in Nottinham which should be guaranteed not to have Tom Crawford in it as a result of his bail conditions. Again, only the really stupid could even think a Crawford stalker would hope to find him in the Ewles Arms.

Since the last thing I expected was to encounter Tom Crawford I had neglected to prepare an interview question sheet so I'm sorry I didn't ask the question you thought was most pertinent. You might, if you watch the video a little more closely, notice that any attempt I made to ask questions of Tom Crawford were met with a tirade of shouted abuse so frankly you have no way of knowing what I would have asked him had he been willing to discuss matters in a civilized matter.
Given the ludicrous answers he gave to what I did manage to ask him I think even you should be able to work out from what he's already said in court, on video and in writing what his answer would have been.

Why did I get out of my DAF (not a Unimog, please pay attention and then you will avoid showing how unobservant you are)? Because I often encounter people who are interested in the vehicle and when I saw the camera phone come out of the window I thought it was such a person. When the vehicle failed to move off after some considerable time with the camera remiaining out of the window I thought I'd go and chat to the driver. Which, again, if you watch the video, you will hear me ask very pleasantly if I could help. Only when he started on me did I realise who he was and frankly I was rather taken aback to find that he was so desperate to come and abuse me that he'd dropped everything to come and find me.

So now you know why I was there but I have a creeping suspicion that you will choose to ignore or disbelieve me but frankly I don't give a damn. How Tom knew I was there, well, I posted that on Quatloos and Facebook so I can only imagine that the Crawfords must watch my page and this site constantly 24/7. So now who's obsessed?

Anyway, it should all get very interesting if I do decide to buy Fearne Chase. I'm tempted to buy it just to get up their noses but I'm really not interested in taking a loss just to annoy them. Then again, it might be worth it to leave it there in all it's battered glory for a year or two until the fuss dies down. I'll see how the auction goes. I'm sure my buddies the Crawfords will be there to see me. If they do turn up we'll know for sure who's stalking who because they have absolutely no reason to be there other than to stalk me. Craig sure as hell doesn't have 70 grand to spring for his dad's old house. I doubt he has 70p for a cup of coffee in the local greasy spoon.

Any more questions, Steve?

[Pox]

I am not into cars /vehicles but what is a unimog?

Can't help but think of a cat with one leg.

ETA - just googled it - what a daf(t) name - see what I did there

[Losleones]

Whose Steve?

[Normal Wisdom]

You're entitled to your opinion but I'm at a loss to know why you haven't got all the answets to these questions and more from my page in Facebook where your active participation is noted and I have explained in some detail ...

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I've not seen your FB page so there were some gaps in my understanding. It all makes a lot more sense now - and as others have said, well done for retaining your composure.

[YiamCross]

I am not into cars /vehicles but what is a unimog?

Can't help but think of a cat with one leg.

ETA - just googled it - what a daf(t) name - see what I did there

Mercedes 4x4 light truck, famed for it's off-road abilities, incredible mechanical complexity and horrendous costs if, or should I say when, things go wrong. My DAF is not as able off road as the Unimog and is a bit larger and heavier but it's a damned sight more reliable and, more importantly, easier & cheaper to maintain and repair.