Burnaby49 wrote:It's 2:30 in the morning in Vancouver and time for bed but a comment from a moderator before I have to get heavy-handed again. Enough is enough. Quatloos used to have a forum called Flame Wars where we moved discussions when they went off track and started getting personal. We removed the forum and now act directly. We don't censor opinions or positions but when they devolves down to personal squabbling we get to a point where it is time to stop or have the entire series of postings deleted. We've reached that point here. Yiam, you've been questioned by Bagman and you've responded in full. Bagman, you've had your say and, one more post on this, and all of your posts are gone. Don't like it? Then stop squabbling. Yiam just said;
I don't want to carry on with this but I have to say I find Bagman's hypocrisy breathtaking and for so long as he wants to keep his obvious grievances with me public I will do the same.
So fine, both stop.
Sorry, as far as I'm concerned I am done with it now.
#six wrote:Agreed - No addresses. Regardless of them putting themselves in the public arena everyone has a right to some level of privacy and I would draw the line at any way of contacting them (address, place of work, email or phone numbers all included)
Edit to add:
If anyone does want these sort of details then they have every right to attend court themselves.
Who said I wanted to contact anyone? I didn't and I don't. This is a public hearing. If I get there I will get Tom's address. If I don't I would ask that someone who does attend PM me with it. If it gets posted by the Nottingham Post or similar I might not need to bother. Also, a bit late saying we can't know Tom's address when we have already posted Tom's old address, Craig's Jimmy's Haining's etc.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
My memory is not what it was but at some point around about July mention was made of the officer in charge of Operation Whooper who may or may not have been the same person the Crawfords thought was tasked by TPTB with ruining thier lives. He may also have been identified at some point as the local community police officer. Does anyone have a name for this policeman, or any others who might have some interest in the Crawfords?
My experience so far of trying to report the Tom incident to Nottingham Police is leading me to conclude Nottingham is a hotspot for this kind of crazyness because their police force is completely useless.
Pox wrote:For the record, I agree with NG3,Skeleton and PeanutGallery above -
Yiam behaved appropriately faced with the aggression shown to him.
He tried to diffuse the situation which is something negotiators are trained to do.
As I have said previously, if it was me, I would HOPE that I wouldn't have got out of my vehicle just for personal safety reasons.
TC would then have either given up, or turned more aggressive - who knows?
Hindsight eh? Dontcha just love it!
Well done Yiam for keeping your cool
Pox mate once he was sure it was only the Crawfords and not Crawford with any of the nut jobs who seem to think going to prison should be mentioned in dispatches, he did the right thing in getting out and "trying" to talk to him, he was also taking control of the situation. He stays in the car he immediately becomes the defender and is at a severe disadvantage should things turn nasty. Yiam knew what he was doing by getting out, trust me.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
#six wrote:Agreed - No addresses. Regardless of them putting themselves in the public arena everyone has a right to some level of privacy and I would draw the line at any way of contacting them (address, place of work, email or phone numbers all included)
Edit to add:
If anyone does want these sort of details then they have every right to attend court themselves.
Who said I wanted to contact anyone? I didn't and I don't. This is a public hearing. If I get there I will get Tom's address. If I don't I would ask that someone who does attend PM me with it. If it gets posted by the Nottingham Post or similar I might not need to bother. Also, a bit late saying we can't know Tom's address when we have already posted Tom's old address, Craig's Jimmy's Haining's etc.
What your not going to send Tom a Christmas Card? I know your a mod but come on that's a bit mean
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
YiamCross wrote:My memory is not what it was but at some point around about July mention was made of the officer in charge of Operation Whooper who may or may not have been the same person the Crawfords thought was tasked by TPTB with ruining thier lives.
Ch. Supt Holland was the Gold Commander for Operation Whooper.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
#six wrote:Agreed - No addresses. Regardless of them putting themselves in the public arena everyone has a right to some level of privacy and I would draw the line at any way of contacting them (address, place of work, email or phone numbers all included)
Edit to add:
If anyone does want these sort of details then they have every right to attend court themselves.
Who said I wanted to contact anyone? I didn't and I don't. This is a public hearing. If I get there I will get Tom's address. If I don't I would ask that someone who does attend PM me with it. If it gets posted by the Nottingham Post or similar I might not need to bother. Also, a bit late saying we can't know Tom's address when we have already posted Tom's old address, Craig's Jimmy's Haining's etc.
I wasn't suggesting anyone wanted to contact them. I just feel that sharing addresses on a forum isn't right. Just my opinion.
Sometimes when the computer forgets to automatically log me in, I show up as a guest. Usually I only notice it when I go to post, which allows me the time to consider if I really need to say anything.
However I suspect that some of these guests are our dear friends from the other side of the road. In which case I must ask, why not register? If you are that worried about your security or "us" knowing your details then use a throwaway email account. We would love to debate with you in a free and fair fashion, you would get to have your say and we would have ours, absolutely nothing sinister would occur nor would their be any shenanigans.
We welcome dissenting views as they encourage debate and give us the opportunity to see more than one side of an issue. For instance we think we know why Tom was looking for Yiam, which is in part that he doesn't like his 'failure' being public knowledge and he feels that he is being mocked for that 'failure', he and his family don't like the idea that people are laughing at them - which is perfectly understandable nobody likes being the butt of a joke. Tom also would have had a degree of curiosity, no doubt he thinks us to be inhuman reptiles, and who wouldn't want to see one of those. Finally by approaching Yiam, or any other member of Quatloos, he would be taking us away from our comfortable ivory tower of internet anonymity (which is quite lovely, for instance I don't think I would say half the things I say about Burnaby if I thought it likely that we would bump into each other on the street - admittedly that would be unlikely as Burnaby only seems to use streets as a means of staggering from one pub to the next). But we don't know if this is true (about Tom, not Burnaby). We don't know Tom's side of the story and we would love to hear it and debate it. Most of us have a strong affinity for the justice system and that affinity requires that we respect the rights of individuals to have different views or opinions and that they should be allowed to voice those.
But regardless Tom, Ceylon, Guy, come register. We would welcome your opinion and encourage polite debate. You wouldn't be the first people who have had a thread about them on here and who have then gone on to contribute to it. In fact you would be more than welcome. I can promise you that we won't edit your posts (unless they contain excess profanity or unfounded allegations) and that we welcome your different views on things.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
3rd September 2015
B E F O R E:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PHILLIPS
_____________________
Approved Judgment
_____________________
No. of folios in transcript: 8
No. of words in transcript: 579
CRAWFORD
Claimant
-v-
BRADFORD & BINGLEY PLC Defendant
Compril Limited
Telephone: 01642 232324
Facsimile: 01642 244001
Denmark House
169-173 Stockton Street
Middlehaven
Middlesbrough
TS2 1BY
1. Mr Justice Phillips : I have just delivered judgment in relation to a claim by Mr Crawford in
this division, number HQ15X03604, in which I have found an application he has made to be
totally without merit and, indeed, found that the whole proceedings are totally without merit.
2. These proceedings relate to Mr Crawford’s ongoing campaign to restore his ownership of his
former family home. These are not the first proceedings which have been considered to be
totally without merit. In 2014 proceedings he issued to set aside the relevant mortgage were
described as disclosing no reasonable grounds and an abuse of the court’s process, and were
struck out as being totally without merit by District Judge Macmillan, the order being dated
23rd May 2014. Those proceedings were in the County Court at Nottingham.
3. Mr Crawford and his wife issued further proceedings in that court seeking an injunction to stop
the sale of his various goods and chattels which were at the property. His Honour Judge Owen
QC, on 22nd July, ordered that that application was dismissed, describing it as totally without
merit.
4. Given those orders and the orders I have made today, I am entirely satisfied that Mr Crawford
has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit and that,
unless the court otherwise orders, Mr Crawford will continue to make applications and claims
which are totally without merit. I am therefore satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which
to make an extended civil restraint order restraining him from issuing claims or making
applications in the High Court or the County Court, concerning any matter involving or
relating to, or touching upon, or leading to the proceedings in which this order is made, without
first obtaining permission of the judge to be identified in the order.
5. Mr Crawford did complain that the application for this relief issued by the defendant did not
have a seal and/or a statement of truth on it. However, the application has been sealed and a fee
paid and a statement of truth was on the witness statement served in support. I do not see that
Mr Crawford has in anyway been prejudiced by the lack of a sealed copy being served upon
him. He had a copy of the application, he has seen the witness statement and he was served
with a skeleton argument. In any event, I would have been required to consider the imposition
of a civil restraint order of my own motion given the orders I have made today.
6. I am satisfied that Mr Crawford has had ample opportunity to respond. Although he is
appearing in person today he has had the assistance of two experienced McKenzie friends who
have given him extensive prompting and assistance in making submissions and, for those
reasons, I consider it is appropriate for the application to proceed and for the order to be made.
End of judgment
We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by The Honourable Mr Justice Phillips.
6. I am satisfied that Mr Crawford has had ample opportunity to respond. Although he is
appearing in person today he has had the assistance of two experienced McKenzie friends who
have given him extensive prompting and assistance in making submissions and, for those
reasons, I consider it is appropriate for the application to proceed and for the order to be made.
ie The Mckenzie friends are hopeless fools who have helped with this totally without merit application.
You'd think this would bring an end to it, but I'd wager that now Tom is stopped from bringing cases, he'll continue to make applications or even bring cases in Sues name. He also won't take this as being that he lost because he never had a meritorious argument but instead will use it to point to yet more fraud and corruption by the courts.
Tom you lost and before you say justice wasn't done, fundamentally it was.
Burnaby49 wrote:It's 2:30 in the morning in Vancouver and time for bed but a comment from a moderator before I have to get heavy-handed again. Enough is enough. Quatloos used to have a forum called Flame Wars where we moved discussions when they went off track and started getting personal. We removed the forum and now act directly. We don't censor opinions or positions but when they devolves down to personal squabbling we get to a point where it is time to stop or have the entire series of postings deleted. We've reached that point here. Yiam, you've been questioned by Bagman and you've responded in full. Bagman, you've had your say and, one more post on this, and all of your posts are gone. Don't like it? Then stop squabbling. Yiam just said;
I don't want to carry on with this but I have to say I find Bagman's hypocrisy breathtaking and for so long as he wants to keep his obvious grievances with me public I will do the same.
So fine, both stop.
Sorry, as far as I'm concerned I am done with it now.
ArthurWankspittle wrote:Interestingly I have just been around various sub forums and threads and typically there is one guest in them. Except here which has 8.
I have noticed that to on other occasions, It is like that a lot of the time. This forum is being watched from the outside a lot. I wish they would come in and say what they have to say, but i guess they are not used to a diet of reasoned debate, or used to reading a reply that does not toe the party line.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
SoLongCeylon wrote:Old Pa Crawfords Civil Restraining Order ;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
3rd September 2015
B E F O R E:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PHILLIPS
_____________________
Approved Judgment
_____________________
No. of folios in transcript: 8
No. of words in transcript: 579
CRAWFORD
Claimant
-v-
BRADFORD & BINGLEY PLC Defendant
Compril Limited
Telephone: 01642 232324
Facsimile: 01642 244001
Denmark House
169-173 Stockton Street
Middlehaven
Middlesbrough
TS2 1BY
1. Mr Justice Phillips : I have just delivered judgment in relation to a claim by Mr Crawford in
this division, number HQ15X03604, in which I have found an application he has made to be
totally without merit and, indeed, found that the whole proceedings are totally without merit.
2. These proceedings relate to Mr Crawford’s ongoing campaign to restore his ownership of his
former family home. These are not the first proceedings which have been considered to be
totally without merit. In 2014 proceedings he issued to set aside the relevant mortgage were
described as disclosing no reasonable grounds and an abuse of the court’s process, and were
struck out as being totally without merit by District Judge Macmillan, the order being dated
23rd May 2014. Those proceedings were in the County Court at Nottingham.
3. Mr Crawford and his wife issued further proceedings in that court seeking an injunction to stop
the sale of his various goods and chattels which were at the property. His Honour Judge Owen
QC, on 22nd July, ordered that that application was dismissed, describing it as totally without
merit.
4. Given those orders and the orders I have made today, I am entirely satisfied that Mr Crawford
has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit and that,
unless the court otherwise orders, Mr Crawford will continue to make applications and claims
which are totally without merit. I am therefore satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which
to make an extended civil restraint order restraining him from issuing claims or making
applications in the High Court or the County Court, concerning any matter involving or
relating to, or touching upon, or leading to the proceedings in which this order is made, without
first obtaining permission of the judge to be identified in the order.
5. Mr Crawford did complain that the application for this relief issued by the defendant did not
have a seal and/or a statement of truth on it. However, the application has been sealed and a fee
paid and a statement of truth was on the witness statement served in support. I do not see that
Mr Crawford has in anyway been prejudiced by the lack of a sealed copy being served upon
him. He had a copy of the application, he has seen the witness statement and he was served
with a skeleton argument. In any event, I would have been required to consider the imposition
of a civil restraint order of my own motion given the orders I have made today.
6. I am satisfied that Mr Crawford has had ample opportunity to respond. Although he is
appearing in person today he has had the assistance of two experienced McKenzie friends who
have given him extensive prompting and assistance in making submissions and, for those
reasons, I consider it is appropriate for the application to proceed and for the order to be made.
End of judgment
We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by The Honourable Mr Justice Phillips.
Well he was wrong I was not there
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Obvious grounds for an appeal! Tom would have done better if he used a skeleton as a MacKenzie friend instead of the pair of idiots he actually used.
I shall take that as a compliment mate, sadly I would of been no used to Tom, banging his head repeatedly on the desk in front of us as i tried to get him to listen to reason may not have gone down to well with the Judge.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
I get the feeling that Tom is leaving it rather late to reveal the dynamite evidence that Amanda keeps alluding to. I am sure it will make a dramatic finale when his stunning victory over TPTB is immortalised in a big budget film but he is cutting it a bit fine to be plausible.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
