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

[Jeffrey]

The non-payment of fee argument is from what I can tell, Guy Taylor's baby.

https://youtu.be/dpAKeCJfZ-Y?t=1h44m55s

This is Guy Taylor on Bastion Radio shortly before the Crawford's latest court fiasco making the exact same non-payment of fees argument that was debunked by Godsmark in his judgement.

https://youtu.be/o3exkOBlAxM?t=29m50s

Psychodrilla highlighted it in his reading of the judgement.

Doazic who appeared on Bastion radio made a video aimed at Mike West and Guy Taylor attempting to explain why the non-payment of fee argument was wrong in August:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hf_Z79WZbs

So honestly Tom has no reason to still be pushing this bullshit about no fee paid. It's a god damn bank, a building where you store money, of course they've got cash to pay court fees.

[NG3]

So honestly Tom has no reason to still be pushing this bullshit about no fee paid. It's a god damn bank, a building where you store money, of course they've got cash to pay court fees.

The trouble is Tom is an obnoxious, dishonest and dishonourable excuse for a man, who didn't pay his mortgage, so has no genuine credible or legitimate argument, as evidenced in several court hearings now, therefore he pushes this bullshit in lieu of having the testicular fortitude to admit the truth.

It's the same reason he partakes in, and encourages, the bullying of individuals for telling the truth, and/or having an opinion.

Tom doesn't want freedom of speech, as that allows people to see him for what he really is, a thoroughly nasty, self obsessed, self important fool, that brings nothing but chaos, dishonesty and unpleasantness to society, in a very antisocial manner.

That's his reason for hanging on to a technicality that he's already been informed by the courts that he's not only wrong about, but that would be irrelevant and immaterial even if it were right.

[Skeleton]

So honestly Tom has no reason to still be pushing this bullshit about no fee paid. It's a god damn bank, a building where you store money, of course they've got cash to pay court fees.

The trouble is Tom is an obnoxious, dishonest and dishonourable excuse for a man, who didn't pay his mortgage, so has no genuine credible or legitimate argument, as evidenced in several court hearings now, therefore he pushes this bullshit in lieu of having the testicular fortitude to admit the truth.

It's the same reason he partakes in, and encourages, the bullying of individuals for telling the truth, and/or having an opinion.

Tom doesn't want freedom of speech, as that allows people to see him for what he really is, a thoroughly nasty, self obsessed, self important fool, that brings nothing but chaos, dishonesty and unpleasantness to society, in a very antisocial manner.

That's his reason for hanging on to a technicality that he's already been informed by the courts that he's not only wrong about, but that would be irrelevant and immaterial even if it were right.

NG well put, I have just looked it up and he has been told twice and in plain English that B&B DID pay a fee. In the second Court case the B&B lawyer AGAIN debunks it clearly and in steps a baby could understand.

Trouble is I think Tom believes everything the likes of Ceylon, Taylor, Ebert etc tell him because it is what he wants to hear, IE someone agreeing with him.

This latest video was back to the "poor us" bollocks of old, but with a call for boots on the ground at the auction. which is what I think the video was actually meant for. Tom as others have said will go to his grave thinking that house was stolen, nothing will change his opinion that it was, and the longer this goes on the more ridiculous his claims will become.

Again though I have zero sympathy for him, he knows he lied and got caught out, but his answer is to continue to lie.


You can't fix stupid I guess.

[fat frank]

the crawfords are some body now, before they where no bodys

[IDIOT]

I suggest everyone on here be careful what they are saying about Tom. He's dangerous and gives us a stark enough warning as such in the video.

You have been warned.

[getoutofdebtfools]

I note that he claims they are now 'homeless'.

What about Ma Crawford's home?

[hanlons razor]

the crawfords are some body now, before they where no bodys

I personally feel it's simple desperation. How many of people in the world when faced with something so so traumatic (which this kind of situation is for anyone on the receiving end) would not reach out to any possible branch. Unfortunately toms grasp ended up on a branch which, in my simple opinion, was laced with poison. How he came to goodf we don't know. But any body who genuinely believes any of the posts or tactics from that site is probably lacking a degree of clear and rational thinking. Which coupled with the traumatic event he went through makes him, and a large amount of goodfs traffic I would imagine, even more susceptible to the reassuring words of certain ring leaders. Words which say what people long to hear, that they're right, that it's criminal what's happening to them and that on goodf they've found a community who will stand shoulder to sholder with them through the whole affair.

Unfortunately when most people slip in to further problems, whether it be tom, countless othet debtors or even a miriad of failed businesses, rather than stopping and taking stock and assessing whether their current path is working (hint if youre still having problems - it's not) they entrench in to what they think they know and what they believe and just raise the walls even higher. And higher. And higher. Until they're crushed under the massive weight when they inevitably come tumbling down and reality breaks through.

The fame afforded to tom probably just made him believe he was right. After all, if so many people supported him surely he had to be right? If it was just one or two.. but hundreds? Certainly helps toms self validation of the lies he'd been fed by those looking to further their own profile. And maybe, quite possibly, it's now so engrailed he genuinely believes it. In which case tom if you're reading this, I'd recommend you read the judgements. In the cold light of day. On your own. And read them again. And again. And imagine if it was someone else's case you were looking at. Would you really see the word win in those judgements? I know you say you don't want to be blackmailed by crowd funding. But maybe consider it. I'm sure if you stood up, held you hand up and said "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I genuinely believed what I said but as time passes I have come to see I may have not seen clearly. I'm sorry to my family, I'm sorry to Bradford and Bingley. I'm sorry to the nottingham post, I'm sorry to nottingham police, and my old neighbours. I was desperate and some people took advantage. Doesn't excuse what I did but if anyone finds themselves in the same place, speak to a lawyer, speak to the bank. Make a deal. Don't fall for the lies of people with agendas to sell. I'm sorry." That whilst it wouldn't get you your house back, you might at least get enough for a deposit and a few months rent. And youd certainky get a touch of dignity back. If I saw genuine contrition I'd definitely consider contributing. Even with everything that's been said and done. I take no pleasure, and I'm sure I'm not the only one here so, in seeing someone lose everything. It genuinely saddens me.

I know I will be in a minority on here in still having a degree of sympathy for tom. Not for his actions (especially the recent ones with yiam) which are abhorrent. But because as a vulnerable person, at his hour of need, unfortunately he reached out to the wrong people and let their claws sink deep in to him. This, could so easily be so many people (myself included in my past). And that is exactly why I hate the lies spread over on goodf. And why I hate everything it stands for. Because whilst the hardcore element (your ceylon, Jimmy, peter of england etc) will eventually get what ever karma (or the courts) decides is justice, they are causing serious harm to countless other innocent, vulnerable people who really really need some good guidance and just that little bit of help. People like tom who with just a fee simple steps at the right time could solve all of their problems in a genuine and lasting manner (in toms case by either selling the house before the inevitable order or by having never fallen in to arrears) by admitting their mistakes, holding their hands up an taking responsibility for themselves.

But I suppose (as someone still learning that valuable lesson) that's a lot easier said and done.

[PeanutGallery]

the crawfords are some body now, before they where no bodys

I personally feel it's simple desperation.

I would tend to agree and I think most of us do have some degree of sympathy for the situation Tom found himself in, which on the face of it seems to have been through little fault or action of his own (it was Sue who cancelled the endowment policy and who signed the customer needs assessment in which she was clearly advised that the capital would remain owing at the end of the agreed term). Tom then and again through no fault of his own went looking for a solution, that is a perfectly normal thing to do and you can't lay any blame at his feet for trying to resolve an impending problem.

However I suspect that while looking for this solution Tom was given answers he did not like, these would have been along the lines of sell the bungalow and buy a smaller place in a more remote location, get an equity release to pay the outstanding balance or find some method of raising the capital. It is equally possible that Tom didn't understand what had gone on and that the payments he had been making were only covering the interest and he was unaware that Sue had stopped paying the endowment policy.

Tom then found GOODF and guru's who told him exactly what he wanted to hear, unlike those nasty lawyers and banksters who had been telling Tom what he didn't want to hear, but ultimately needed to hear. They then used him as a test case, someone who they could try their theories out on and who they could easily lead to try out their own arguments. None of the guru's had anything to lose if Tom lost his house, but they stood to gain a lot of publicity on the back of this man. Look at the faces who turned up to frustrate the second eviction, Roger Hayes, Ceylon, Guy Taylor, Ebert practically a who's who of the uk scene were there all jostling for position and leeching off the glory.

All these major players give Tom the same basic message, stick with us and we will save your house, it's a massive fight and what you are doing is noble. That sort of message, which suggests you are acting for a greater good is seductive. It means you might stake a claim in history and go down as a man who changed the world (in fact didn't Ceylon say that the first frustrated eviction was an event that changed the world). This is where Tom starts to get seduced by the Guru's and falls in line with them. From what he can see their methods are working, he's still in his house. He's even got the warrant for possession suspended while he launches an out of time appeal.

Then when the appeal fails and Tom knows it failed when he first read the judgement, that is reality creeping in and shaking his belief in the woo. I think this was the crossroads, Tom could have realised that their was just a man behind the curtain or he could have kept wandering along his yellow brick road. Sadly he went to get advice from the legal equivalent of a flying monkey about the ruling and was sold an overly complicated explanation that had no basis in logic or law or sanity.

This was when Tom believed he had won. Everyone, all his new friends, told him he'd won. The only people who told him the truth was us, we said he would be evicted, we said he lost, we said he should be prepared for eviction. We also said exactly what the banks would do and how they would go about evicting him. We were dismissed as trolls, Ceylon over on GOODF posted that Tom had obviously won because he was still in the house. Then we were proved right.

This caused Tom a great deal of anger. He was angry because he had thoroughly convinced himself he had won, he still does believe he won, which is at odds with his continued attempts to reclaim his house, if he had won he wouldn't have lost the house. Therefore Occam's razor suggests that he lost. But Tom was fed another line by his guru's, they told him that the banks and courts couldn't let him win.

Tom's been led down the garden path. He's been used as a test case and as a means for the guru's to self-aggrandise. Now he's angry and bitter but not at those who led to his downfall, but to those who pointed out that the ship to which he tied himself to the mast is sinking, it's our fault and we are to blame because we didn't ever give Tom the news he wanted to hear we just happened to be right in our predictions of his predicament.

[The Observer]

However I suspect that while looking for this solution Tom was given answers he did not like,...

Which is exactly one good reason why Tom will probably not back down and admit that he is wrong. He would have to give up the viewpoint that got him into this mess in the first place: I do not want to give up my home. That is where Tom went off the tracks, instead of being flexible and taking the most practical course of action given the set of circumstances that he was facing. Home ownership is such an emotional issue for human beings, that you would be surprised to see the lengths that people will go to either buy a home or to keep from losing one.

[IDIOT]

the crawfords are some body now, before they where no bodys

I personally feel it's simple desperation.

I would tend to agree and I think most of us do have some degree of sympathy for the situation Tom found himself in, which on the face of it seems to have been through little fault or action of his own (it was Sue who cancelled the endowment policy and who signed the customer needs assessment in which she was clearly advised that the capital would remain owing at the end of the agreed term). Tom then and again through no fault of his own went looking for a solution, that is a perfectly normal thing to do and you can't lay any blame at his feet for trying to resolve an impending problem.

However I suspect that while looking for this solution Tom was given answers he did not like, these would have been along the lines of sell the bungalow and buy a smaller place in a more remote location, get an equity release to pay the outstanding balance or find some method of raising the capital. It is equally possible that Tom didn't understand what had gone on and that the payments he had been making were only covering the interest and he was unaware that Sue had stopped paying the endowment policy.

Tom then found GOODF and guru's who told him exactly what he wanted to hear, unlike those nasty lawyers and banksters who had been telling Tom what he didn't want to hear, but ultimately needed to hear. They then used him as a test case, someone who they could try their theories out on and who they could easily lead to try out their own arguments. None of the guru's had anything to lose if Tom lost his house, but they stood to gain a lot of publicity on the back of this man. Look at the faces who turned up to frustrate the second eviction, Roger Hayes, Ceylon, Guy Taylor, Ebert practically a who's who of the uk scene were there all jostling for position and leeching off the glory.

All these major players give Tom the same basic message, stick with us and we will save your house, it's a massive fight and what you are doing is noble. That sort of message, which suggests you are acting for a greater good is seductive. It means you might stake a claim in history and go down as a man who changed the world (in fact didn't Ceylon say that the first frustrated eviction was an event that changed the world). This is where Tom starts to get seduced by the Guru's and falls in line with them. From what he can see their methods are working, he's still in his house. He's even got the warrant for possession suspended while he launches an out of time appeal.

Then when the appeal fails and Tom knows it failed when he first read the judgement, that is reality creeping in and shaking his belief in the woo. I think this was the crossroads, Tom could have realised that their was just a man behind the curtain or he could have kept wandering along his yellow brick road. Sadly he went to get advice from the legal equivalent of a flying monkey about the ruling and was sold an overly complicated explanation that had no basis in logic or law or sanity.

This was when Tom believed he had won. Everyone, all his new friends, told him he'd won. The only people who told him the truth was us, we said he would be evicted, we said he lost, we said he should be prepared for eviction. We also said exactly what the banks would do and how they would go about evicting him. We were dismissed as trolls, Ceylon over on GOODF posted that Tom had obviously won because he was still in the house. Then we were proved right.

This caused Tom a great deal of anger. He was angry because he had thoroughly convinced himself he had won, he still does believe he won, which is at odds with his continued attempts to reclaim his house, if he had won he wouldn't have lost the house. Therefore Occam's razor suggests that he lost. But Tom was fed another line by his guru's, they told him that the banks and courts couldn't let him win.

Tom's been led down the garden path. He's been used as a test case and as a means for the guru's to self-aggrandise. Now he's angry and bitter but not at those who led to his downfall, but to those who pointed out that the ship to which he tied himself to the mast is sinking, it's our fault and we are to blame because we didn't ever give Tom the news he wanted to hear we just happened to be right in our predictions of his predicament.

If there's one post on here that TC should be reading and digesting it's yours Peanut. Very well said.

[AndyPandy]

People make choices in life, back in 2008, my business failed and I had to move to an interest only mortgage and still cannot move back to capital repayment. The mortgage ends in 2 years, so I'm currently having work done on the place with a view to putting on the market in the Spring, my choice and no one's fault, just circumstances.

I could extend the mortgage for another 20 years, I choose not to, I'm selling, my choice.

Tom had choices, he knew he had to sell (suspect he didn't consider extending) he chose badly!

[IDIOT]

Tom had choices, he knew he had to sell (suspect he didn't consider extending) he chose badly!

No, no, no silly! Tom's house was stolen under the asset grabbing policy of the government don't you know.

You know, that tiny insignificant little bungalow in that quiet street in Nottingham was targeted for stealing. Get with the programme man!

[daveBeeston]

People make choices in life, back in 2008, my business failed and I had to move to an interest only mortgage and still cannot move back to capital repayment. The mortgage ends in 2 years, so I'm currently having work done on the place with a view to putting on the market in the Spring, my choice and no one's fault, just circumstances.

I could extend the mortgage for another 20 years, I choose not to, I'm selling, my choice.

Tom had choices, he knew he had to sell (suspect he didn't consider extending) he chose badly!

And thats the difference between Tom/Clan Crawford and almost everyone else,you find yourself in a difficult situation and you weigh up the different options then choose the most appropriate one.

When i was younger and moved into my first place i had financial issues that lead to the landlord seeking repossession due to me falling 2 months behind with my rent,it was my fault as i did'nt want to claim housing benefit as i thought i would find employment quickly after loosing my previous job,i did'nt.
I could have blamed eveyone for this but it was my fault and no one elses and even though i was only 18 i fully understood who i needed to speak to and what i needed to do to sort myself including arranging with teh letting agent to repay the arrears.

Tom and the family have conciously made the decision to go a different route and blame the banks/building society,the courts,the bailiffs and anyone who has a differing opinion for their situation.
The thing that really baffles me is that they keep up the whole we paid in full,there where no arrears,they changed the terms and there was no fee paid despite Tom stating that the Judgement that debunked all his claims was excellent.

[fat frank]

tom Crawford and the kids, are vile disgusting people, all they had to raise was £43k, and they couldn't or wouldn't do it,

you raised 3 great kids there Tom and Sue Well done, I bet you are so proud,

you knew it was a scam and you lied from the start

you deserve everything you get, and like you tell people watch out

[longdog]

Tom may have deleted the bulk of his first post on GYEF but Google remembers it...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... i5HBCs8q9g

Anyone help? if so here's our story, We moved to Nottingham 1988, 24 and a half years ago, and we bought a small house where we brought up 3 Kids, but now we are fighting to keep our house.
Bradford and Bingley messed up our mortgage, they changed it from an endowment without our instructions into an interest only in 1999, and now claim they lost our papers, now we've come to nearly the end of our mortgage and still owe all the money it cost in the first place, we have been chasing them for years to sort it, the six-month time period to contact the Ombudsman is also up as we didn't know there was a time limit. it has now come to a head, I caught cancer two years ago, we got behind with our mortgage as I was unable to work, so as a good customer they took us to court, but fortunately our family raised the money, but the Judge still kept a ruling that if we missed a payment B&B could repossess. Our question to you is can we send them a promissory note to clear our debts as we have only four months left in our house, will never rise that much money, if you have any ideas what we might be able to do, any help will be appreciated.
Thanks a lot Tom.

Screengrab for posterity... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4n6gv ... sp=sharing

[Bill Lumbergh]

Re Tom's whining about the draft order... I don't know how things are done in the UK but here in Canuckistan whenever a party brings an application to a court there will typically be a draft order attached. This is to save everyone time, so that once the court makes its ruling, the judge can just go ahead and sign the order. Is this not the case in Ingerlund?

Also, why does every freetard think that they are experts in reading body language? Every time one of these clowns talks about being in court it's "the judge was embarrassed" or "the judge was clearly nervous, red-faced, and eventually ran out of the courtroom" or "the judge and prosecutor kept looking at each other nervously."

[Burnaby49]

You bastards have been giving misinformation to the general public and are trying to blacken Tom's name. No point in denying it I got that intel from the most reliable source currently available. Tom said so right in his new video and who has more credibility than Tom? Well, ok, apart from Amanda . . . . .

But Tom, after all his battles and losses, still retains the most potent symbol of his rebellion against an evil system. The oppressive powers of the state have been unable to get posession of his hat!

Methinks someone's watched the Onesie video one time too many.

You're right. I watched it once.

[NYGman]

I want to know when Tom will realize IT IS NOT HIS HOUSE anymore. Even if he was right, and the Bank stole it from him (He isn't right, but let's pretend) they have subsequently sold it to a new Party, unrelated to any of this. Therefore, even if the court ruled against bank (Again, this will never happen) Tom can only get back cash. Now, he can use that cash to make an offer on, and even buy his old house. However, the current owner will not have any obligation to give/sell it to Tom.

So Tom needs to drop the attacks on the house. It is no longer his, and will never be his again, unless he buys it at auction. If Tom thinks he has a case, he should buy the house at auction, and sue the bank for the cost, as damages to whatever action he is claiming to have occurred.

[PeanutGallery]

However I suspect that while looking for this solution Tom was given answers he did not like,...

Which is exactly one good reason why Tom will probably not back down and admit that he is wrong. He would have to give up the viewpoint that got him into this mess in the first place: I do not want to give up my home. That is where Tom went off the tracks, instead of being flexible and taking the most practical course of action given the set of circumstances that he was facing. Home ownership is such an emotional issue for human beings, that you would be surprised to see the lengths that people will go to either buy a home or to keep from losing one.

Not only that but he's become emotionally involved in an imagined battle against the establishment. He's likely alienated any friends or colleagues or family members who gave him realistic advice or proffered solutions that would have led to a less than ideal outcome. No doubt his other family members have seen this and they've followed Tom to out of sense of duty and blind obedience, he is their Dad and so he has to be right, I can recall it was a hard truth for me to learn of my own fathers fallibility, but in learning it I feel that I have helped him.

Tom has also demonised us, we are referred to as being inhuman, dark forces, hated and considered antagonistic vile people by his supporters and Tom believes this to be true. He's gradually been programmed to believe this and his emotional involvement is such that if he were to admit our truth, that he's been led to destruction by those pseudo-legal lemmings who wanted to see if the fall from the cliff would be lethal without risking their own necks, it would remove one of the key hopes he no doubt clings to, that good always wins through in the end. Not only that but he would also lose the only friends he has left. He's no doubt watched his supporters and those he considered to be his supporters break ranks, some have in his mind even 'defected' over to here. We've accepted them, welcomed them and listened to their opinions, which has in turn made some of them into valued contributors, others have just lurked without posting (which is a shame, we genuinely would welcome new perspectives). To Tom that makes them the most hated of enemies.

I think Tom is past the point where he can realistically be expected to return. To do so would take away the only support network that remains in his world. He'd lose the only friends he has left, he'd be risking his family support and he'd have to accept that he managed to make what was a bad situation (which was not so terrible he could not recover) into a much worse one (from which the recovery will be arduous and draining). To accept that could easily be enough to send any one into a depression from which they could not recover.

[NG3]

To accept that could easily be enough to send any one into a depression from which they could not recover.

I explained a couple of threads ago how this sort of thing is recognised as bad for a persons mental health.

I think one or two people took the comment as some form of insult, but it wasn't and I took no pleasure from it.

The truth is that if you try and suppress reality, instead choosing to focus on one single thing, and repeat that lie to yourself over and over again then you're damaging your brain by not using it in the correct manner.

This isn't a forum to discuss mental health issues, but if anyone does have an interest then contact your local mental health service and ask them about what I've just said and they'll confirm it. It's not a theory, it's an established fact and I'm not repeating it to attack Tom, but to highlight the potential damage, so that people might avoid it.

We only need to compare the before and after videos to see what Tom is doing to himself. There is marked deterioration, and if he doesn't seek help it's not just his home and reputation that he'll end up losing.