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

[ArthurWankspittle]

Listen, you're the one who got caught out by the Crawford's because of your behaviour that day,.....

Apart from this sentence, I am not even bothering to reply to this crap.

[ArthurWankspittle]

That's a big leap of logic to assume I think it's OK for anyone to fiddle taxes, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
And what information do you have that Tom is doing it?

What's it got to do with you?

[Joinder]

That's a big leap of logic to assume I think it's OK for anyone to fiddle taxes, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
And what information do you have that Tom is doing it?

What's it got to do with you?

So no information then ?

[Joinder]

Listen, you're the one who got caught out by the Crawford's because of your behaviour that day,.....

Apart from this sentence, I am not even bothering to reply to this crap.

That's always the best tactic when you've nothing to say

[ArthurWankspittle]

That's a big leap of logic to assume I think it's OK for anyone to fiddle taxes, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
And what information do you have that Tom is doing it?

What's it got to do with you?

So no information then ?

So no answer to my question then?

[Joinder]

From what I can gather, Yiam had business reasons for visiting the property not obsessive stalking reasons.

If I lived nearer to Nottingham and was in the market to purchase a property at an attractive price, I would have viewed the property.

If I was in need of refreshments I would have probably called into the pub as it has been recommended on several occasions by TC and has good reviews on the net.

Because of the amount of interest in the pub, the property and the failed and successful evictions (all created by the Crawfords themselves, don't forget) I probably would have posted to say something on the lines of 'Guess where I am?'

If I had done all of the above, would that make me an obsessed stalker as well?

I think not.

I think your post answers your question, and don't forget Yiam actually flagged up his intentions on a page that he knows that Tom follows.

[NG3]

Gentleman, please, I feel we're losing focus here.

[YiamCross]

So sorry for not obeying the "rules", I actually didn't realise there were any.
Listen, you're the one who got caught out by the Crawford's because of your behaviour that day, I almost heard your jaw crashing to the floor when you realised it was him.
And your attempt at feigning ignorance of Quatloos was embarrassing why didn't you admit it , aren't you proud of your involvement ?

You should check the forum information, it's all there. Plus it's often mentioned by Arthur and other moderators when people don't follow the rules. It's only polite to make some effort to obtain the facts, but then I see that's obviously something you don't feel you need to bother with.

Caught out? What behaviour? Seriously, you need to get a life. Feigning ignorance of Qautloos? The guy couldn't pronounce the word properly, no wonder i had no idea what he was talking about.

Anyway, if you have a problem with me then I'd advise taking it up via PM. I'm not going to get involved in a flame war with anyone, especially someone who has a hidden agenda and appears determined to start trouble.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Gentleman, please, I feel we're losing focus here.

Yes we are. If joinder wishes to be a Crawford apologist then he can continue to do so, but I am left wondering for what purpose.

[wserra]

Gentleman, please, I feel we're losing focus here.

Can't imagine why you'd say that.

Enough, please.

[Hercule Parrot]

The Crawfords obviously follow Quatloos and my FB page avidly or they wouldn't have been able to put 2 and 2 together and work out from my posts there that one of those viewing their property was me. Again, who's stalking who?

I don't have any agenda, I just think you might be a bit obsessed with the Crawford's to the point of visiting their old home and eating in the local pub, and flagging it up knowing that they read your Facebook page.
Why would you even do that ?

Why shouldn't he do that? I don't understand why you think that this area of Nottingham is now a sacred shrine.

If Yiam had posted to EFOTB or TC's Facebook "Haha, I'm going to buy your house" or "I'm in the Elwes, come and face me if you dare" then I would completely agree that this was intentional provocation. But he didn't do those things. Yiam posted to his own Facebook that he was eating at the Elwes, because that's an interesting location for anyone who has followed this story.

PS - Apols, posted this before I'd seen wserra's sensible interjection.

[daveBeeston]

Well this thread escallated quickly over the last few pages didn't it.

In the modern digital age its not uncommon for people to update their social media pages with where thay are and what they are doing,it doesn't mean that there is any malicous intent or taunting going on.

Regarding the whole tax avoidence and the no car insurance theory its not a hard to understand why it could be the case,if Tom is advising people and is being paid in cash for it do you think he will be declaring it to the HMRC(after all he wouldn't be doing it for free would he?).As he has moved home did he inform his insurance if not then its null and void,and being as the businesses he and his son own are still registered at fearn chase its safe to assume he hasn't informed his car insurance.

Of course on my part this is all speculation and i could well be very wrong,but i do believe that Yiam had no malicous intentions when he went to view the property and dropped in at the local,as someone who was also interested in buying the property i would have done the same(and no im not interested in it because of the circumstances i was looking for property in the Arnold/Carlton area for business reasons).

Now can we please keep the thread on topic and not go off on personal attacks of each other after all where all here for the same reason(or at least i hope we are).

[Jeffrey]

In defense of speculation, the only reason we're stuck speculating and trying to figure things out is because of a total lack of transparency on the part of the Crawford's. And for context, let's not forget the Crawford's terrorized their neighborhood based on a lie, incited supporters to assault local police which led to several of them being arrested, and the collusion with the rooftop six to break into a house that was no longer theirs. The interest is not disproportionate.

It's been two(?) years of this saga, we still have unanswered questions about the situation which the Crawfords refuse to answer. Why did Sue stop paying the endowment policy? Why did Tom not accept the conversion to a repayment mortgage? Why did they engage in criminal action to block the enforcement of a court ordered eviction if they had a house ready to move into courtesy of Tom's mother in law?

The question that isn't clear here is whether the Crawford's are as a family unit intentionally deceiving supporters and deliberately engaging in criminal acts. Or whether the Crawford's are the patsies here with Ceylon, Taylor, Ebert pulling the strings to promote themselves in the hopes of gaining future clients.

Either way, this is a case that needs attention because we see every day on GOODF more people being led down a path that will lead them to eviction, bankruptcy and incarceration. All the while, the Guru's like Taylor and Hurst get paid.

[daveBeeston]

Speculation, you said it, not very edifying is it, hounding the guy like this with all sorts of assumptions and theories ?

i dont see how anyone here is actually hounding Tom or any of his family,we are discussing what has become a very public eviction and the circumstances surrounding it.
The circumstances that have proven Tom and his family to be liars of that there can be no denial.

If we where on their social media pages or in actual real life harranging them and throwing insults at them like they do towards us here and towards anyone that dare to disagree with them then yes we would be hounding them but we are not we are participating in a discussion.
I do admit that in my opinion occasionally the discussion may step over the boundry from civilised into micky taking but thats all it is,Tom and his Family(especially Amanda)have made thinly vield calls to arms from those who support them to take action against the "trolls" from here,they regularly make insulting posts on facebook about users here and the video where Tom confronts Yiam shows that it is in fact the Crawfords who are hounding/harrassing people.
I dont visit any of the facebook pages(i have once or twice while researching the case) as i have no interest in doing so as i have very little tollerance for ignorance and stupidity somehting that is found in abundance on those pages.

On your point about assumptions and theories the Crawfords make plenty of both against the users here and yes we/i do make the same against them and the reason being is that they will not engage in a discussion with us despite being offered the chance to do so on many occasions.

[Joinder]

In defense of speculation, the only reason we're stuck speculating and trying to figure things out is because of a total lack of transparency on the part of the Crawford's. And for context, let's not forget the Crawford's terrorized their neighborhood based on a lie, incited supporters to assault local police which led to several of them being arrested, and the collusion with the rooftop six to break into a house that was no longer theirs. The interest is not disproportionate.

It's been two(?) years of this saga, we still have unanswered questions about the situation which the Crawfords refuse to answer. Why did Sue stop paying the endowment policy? Why did Tom not accept the conversion to a repayment mortgage? Why did they engage in criminal action to block the enforcement of a court ordered eviction if they had a house ready to move into courtesy of Tom's mother in law?

The question that isn't clear here is whether the Crawford's are as a family unit intentionally deceiving supporters and deliberately engaging in criminal acts. Or whether the Crawford's are the patsies here with Ceylon, Taylor, Ebert pulling the strings to promote themselves in the hopes of gaining future clients.


Either way, this is a case that needs attention because we see every day on GOODF more people being led down a path that will lead them to eviction, bankruptcy and incarceration. All the while, the Guru's like Taylor and Hurst get paid.

Well, Tom got very publicy evicted.
But why is it anyone else's concern as to why Sue stopped paying this or why Tom stopped paying that ?

[littleFred]

... I am opposed to the personal baiting that occurs over here.

I agree with this point. Exposing scams and lies is fine. Mocking personal characteristics is not (in my book). It turns Quatloos into yet another pointless social networking site that takes pleasure in pointing out perceived or invented flaws in other people. Far from helping people to avoid liars and scammers, this is more likely to drive them into their arms.

[FatGambit]

It's called curiousity since Tom stated more than once the bank changed their mortgage without telling them, then once the Court transcripts became public knowledge, it transpired that nobody changed anything, and the whole issue was caused, mostly, by Sue cancelling the endowment policy, something Tom had neglected to tell everybody in his 'call to arms' videos.

[Hercule Parrot]

Just thought I'd spice things up, its been Dullsville over on here.
Some very highly strung folks around, I must say

For anyone who's not aware, clicking on another poster's name will bring up the option to ignore their comments. We should call it "The Pigpot Button" really, but it works just the same with anyone else...

[Joinder]

Just thought I'd spice things up, its been Dullsville over on here.
Some very highly strung folks around, I must say

For anyone who's not aware, clicking on another poster's name will bring up the option to ignore their comments. We should call it "The Pigpot Button" really, but it works just the same with anyone else...

It's just like GOODF.

[Jeffrey]

Well, Tom got very publicy evicted.
But why is it anyone else's concern as to why Sue stopped paying this or why Tom stopped paying that ?

We just told you why. Depending on what actually happened we can determine whether or not the Crawford's intentionally lied to their supporters, or whether Tom is just confused because his wife has been lying to him about the endowment policy or hell maybe they're just stupid.

If Sue came clean and for example, admitted she stopped paying the endowment policy because of financial difficulty and apologized for this mess, I would have a lot more sympathy for their situation and it would put an end to the situation. We still have the risk of acts of vandalism or violence towards the new home owner, or towards critics. There's a moral obligation on the Crawford's to come clean and tell the mob to put their pitchforks down.