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

[longdog]

Roger Hayes; British Constitution Group

Let us not forget that Hayes is also a bankrupt whose discharge has been postponed indefinitely, that he has been jailed for refusing to pay his council tax, that he was jointly responsible for getting Liz OTF Watson jailed for contempt (her rank stupidity didn't help) and that his activities as a 'McKenzie Friend' have been uniformly disastrous and costly for his clients... And then there's the whole 'Lawful Bank' scam about which the less said the better.

[Pox]

Well put Bungle, this thread was going off topic.

Do we know all the names and charges of those appearing in court on 6th?

Also, do we know what charge TC is facing on 18th?

(no need for any comment that may affect the trials)

TC is charged with assaulting a police officer, same as Monika Godos.
They both entered no plea last time they were in court.

If the Notts Post have got it right Martin Atkin, Mark Hawkins, Mark Gaining, Henry Kellie , Elizabeth Shier and James Bradley are charged with affray.
The Notts Post article dated 3 September doesn't mention Elizabeth Shier though so I wonder if she pleaded guilty at the first hearing?
Also,this later article suggests that Craig Crawford will be joining them in the dock,accused of conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

It's a bit difficult to decipher exactly who is being charged with what, I'm afraid.

[Bungle]

The hearing for the 6th November should only be a short hearing as it is listed as being for Pleas and Case Managment with the full trial commencing on 4th January 2016.

[wanglepin]

The hearing for the 6th November should only be a short hearing as it is listed as being for Pleas and Case Managment with the full trial commencing on 4th January 2016.

I guessed some time ago . Although I was also told it was to be a three day event.. I am wavering now as to whether I should make the effort or wait until Jan 4.Its a long way to go for a few minutes.
I am interested as to what King of Goofsville Haining will plea. He is stupid enough to plead not guilty. He will end up doing time if he takes that avenue, whereas he could walk away with a fine and or community service, should he plead not guilty.

I can only hope he is as stupid and thick enough as I believe him to be and he goes fully blown freeman goofer and pleads not guilty. He has another chance to show his sycophants ' how it's done', as he was "too tired" to bother last time.
It would be nice to get some firm conformation , but I think you are correct Bungle.

[Bungle]

The hearing for the 6th November should only be a short hearing as it is listed as being for Pleas and Case Managment with the full trial commencing on 4th January 2016.

I guessed some time ago . Although I was also told it was to be a three day event.. I am wavering now as to whether I should make the effort or wait until Jan 4.Its a long way to go for a few minutes.

Just for you I triple checked with the court and they confirmed that this week is just for Pleas and Case Management with the trial date set for 4th Janaury.

[letissier14]

The court also placed a public order against Tom Crawford banning him for taking any further legal proceedings in the High Court until 2016. Hopefully this information can help others to avoid using the freeman route when faced with repossession proceedings.

Should read 2017

[Joinder]

Well , there we have it.....after questioning some things on here a member uses my profile to demonstrate how to use the "ignore" feature, effectively stifling my views.
And then the moderator removes a post and informs me he will do the same if I continue.
Seems as if comments are fine as long as the party line is adhered to.
What a childish and immature way to treat a member and if anyone suggests it was "off topic", then maybe all the pub related stuff and comments about peoples appearances should be treated as off topic....but no.
Pathetic

[Footloose52]

From an outside point of view the problem is not expressing opinions about a subject but IS about flaming other members.

Oh, shut the door behind you as you go if that is what you decide to do.

[Burnaby49]

Well , there we have it.....after questioning some things on here a member uses my profile to demonstrate how to use the "ignore" feature, effectively stifling my views.
And then the moderator removes a post and informs me he will do the same if I continue.
Seems as if comments are fine as long as the party line is adhered to.
What a childish and immature way to treat a member and if anyone suggests it was "off topic", then maybe all the pub related stuff and comments about peoples appearances should be treated as off topic....but no.
Pathetic

A post was deleted? Check back. About 25 or 30 posts are gone, many, but by no means all, were yours. You are not a "member", you are a poster and as such you have to ahere to the few posting rules we have. One is rigidly enforced. No flame wars. To be blunt you started it and largely continued it and appeared to want to continue after the mass deleting. Your posts were not delteted because the discussion had gone off-topic but because you wouldn't stop a banned activity. If you are unhappy about that, too bad.

[NYGman]

Well , there we have it.....after questioning some things on here a member uses my profile to demonstrate how to use the "ignore" feature, effectively stifling my views.
And then the moderator removes a post and informs me he will do the same if I continue.
Seems as if comments are fine as long as the party line is adhered to.
What a childish and immature way to treat a member and if anyone suggests it was "off topic", then maybe all the pub related stuff and comments about peoples appearances should be treated as off topic....but no.
Pathetic

time to move on, I think is the point here. The back and forth by Joinder, and others was already off topic, and descending in to the abyss. Best to cut off the head of the beast, and delete some posts, than let it take over this thread.

We got you point Joinder, YIAM was provoking Tom in to a Reaction, and he knew Tom would be watching his posts, and posted the pub picture to lure Tom out. YIAMs position is that he went to see a house, and then stopped to get lunch, after which he was accosted. I think the video's speak for themselves. Tom looks like the Stalker to me, and Yiam is trying to retreat, and having his way blocked by TC.

The one point Joinder is making is that Yiam knew his presence there would rile TC up, and his posts were done to accomplish this goal. What Joinder is missing, is that Yiam was on public property (Public house none the less), enjoying a nice pie, at his expense (Supporting the local economy) and viewed a house currently for sale. None of this should have resulted in TC's actions. So what if Yiam posted a pub shot, and TC felt it a taunt. That is TC's mind working overtime again. He is making a Mountain out of a Mole Hill, yet again.

At the end of the day YIAM's actions are of no relevance, as the disproportionate response shows, Tom seems to be stalking his perceived foe. Tom is so inherently attached to the concept that it is his house, he is now actively seeking to intercept those who view it. Tom was in the wrong here though, no amount of instigating (If indeed you believe that is what Yiam did) should result in the level of response we see on the tapes. If Tom is feeling stalked he can go to the police. So Joinder, get off the high horse. Even if you don't think Yiam should have posted a photo from the pub, and even if you believe posting it, incited TC, TC should not have taken the bait, TC should not have gone on the offensive, TC should act like a grown man and take responsibility for his actions, and not seek to attach blame to an innocent third party, and then verbally berate someone who he believes has wronged him.

As Yiam points out, the home and the pub are two places that should be TC free by court order, there was no expectation to see him anywhere close to those locations.

[Pox]

Well , there we have it.....after questioning some things on here a member uses my profile to demonstrate how to use the "ignore" feature, effectively stifling my views.

I haven't pressed the ignore button which is why I was able to read the above.

I have no idea if anybody else has but respect that the button was pointed out for those that wish to use it.

As far as I am concerned I welcome the views of others,even if I disagree with what they are saying - and sometimes continue to disagree after I have read their views and they probably disagree with me - that's life , and is all the more interesting for it.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Going back to Yiam's 'close encounter of the freeman kind' I have a couple of questions for him.

I was just wondering how far away from the pub you were when Tom stopped you?

Also, how did he get in front of you - Did he overtake you?

I'm sure I've read all the posts but can't remember really understanding how Tom Turpin stopped the Monster Truck.

On a slightly separate note, could Quatloos form it's own mobile Grand Jury operating from the back of Yiam's DAF? It could tour the country over-turning Freeman tosh from coast to coast

[Burnaby49]

Well , there we have it.....after questioning some things on here a member uses my profile to demonstrate how to use the "ignore" feature, effectively stifling my views.

I haven't pressed the ignore button which is why I was able to read the above.

I have no idea if anybody else has but respect that the button was pointed out for those that wish to use it.

As far as I am concerned I welcome the views of others,even if I disagree with what they are saying - and sometimes continue to disagree after I have read their views and they probably disagree with me - that's life , and is all the more interesting for it.

I found that button very useful back in the days when Quatloos allowed flame wars. It turned into anarchy with vitriolic flame wars seemingly the main purpose of the site. One poster in particular seemed to participate for no other reason. He'd post half demented offensive rants against anyone who disagreed with him about anything. I got tired of him and used the "Ignore Foes" option to get him out of my life.

It ended badly. There was a purge in 2012 and all of the discussions with flame wars were deleted. Some posters, such as the one I just referred to, were banned and all of their posts deleted. We now have a strict No Flame War policy. There are ample opportunities elsewhere on the internet for those who want to indulge in such activities.

[noblepa]

I can only hope he is as stupid and thick enough as I believe him to be and he goes fully blown freeman goofer and pleads not guilty. He has another chance to show his sycophants ' how it's done', as he was "too tired" to bother last time.
It would be nice to get some firm conformation , but I think you are correct Bungle.

Full-blown freeman would be refusing to enter any plea, as doing so would recognize the legitimate authority of the court, something no self-respecting freeman would ever do.

[Joinder]

From an outside point of view the problem is not expressing opinions about a subject but IS about flaming other members.

Oh, shut the door behind you as you go if that is what you decide to do.

Well I did express an opinion but of course if you don't like it you call it "flaming".
Shame dissent is frowned upon, I was even accused of having an " agenda" and being a member of another group
Now which site does that remind you of ?...

[Bones]

I can only hope he is as stupid and thick enough as I believe him to be and he goes fully blown freeman goofer and pleads not guilty. He has another chance to show his sycophants ' how it's done', as he was "too tired" to bother last time.
It would be nice to get some firm conformation , but I think you are correct Bungle.

Full-blown freeman would be refusing to enter any plea, as doing so would recognize the legitimate authority of the court, something no self-respecting freeman would ever do.

Luckily Ceylon and go, will after about 1 second drop all of the freeman woo, give their names and bottle it

[Pox]

I can only hope he is as stupid and thick enough as I believe him to be and he goes fully blown freeman goofer and pleads not guilty. He has another chance to show his sycophants ' how it's done', as he was "too tired" to bother last time.
It would be nice to get some firm conformation , but I think you are correct Bungle.

Full-blown freeman would be refusing to enter any plea, as doing so would recognize the legitimate authority of the court, something no self-respecting freeman would ever do.

I think previously some, including young Crawford and Monika said something along the lines of 'no case to answer' and the bench said ' will take that as a not guilty then'.

[NYGman]

Joinder, we all know you are a Paid Shill from TPTB, planted to to create confusion and misdirection, so that TPTB may steal Tom's little Bungalow as part of its cunning plan to steal private housing, one Bungalow every 3 years, for the foreseeable future.

Seriously thought, I don't think your doubts about the situation are unfounded. However, I have looked at the videos, both, Facebook postings, and other "evidence" provided by both parties, and have concluded Yiam was stalked by TC, who knew he was going to be in the area, checking out the old house. Did Yiam goad them on by posting the pub, maybe, but at the end of the day, irrelevant. Tom has put his plight out in the public, and has put 3 Ferne Close on the map, literally, for any of us debunkers of the FMOTL/Tax Protester movement to check out. His house has become a symbol of the Free Money movement, and a must visit for any of us in Nottingham. So at teh end of the day, Yiam actions are not relevant here, Tom's are. Especially as said house is publicly listed for sale, the pub is a Public House, and both locations Tom is prohibited from going to. So who is the aggressor here? Tom may not like the result of his actions, but like a car crash, 3 Ferne Close has become something that we now can't help ourselves from checking out. If I were still living in the UK, and in the area, I would check it out too!

[Joinder]

Well , there we have it.....after questioning some things on here a member uses my profile to demonstrate how to use the "ignore" feature, effectively stifling my views.
And then the moderator removes a post and informs me he will do the same if I continue.
Seems as if comments are fine as long as the party line is adhered to.
What a childish and immature way to treat a member and if anyone suggests it was "off topic", then maybe all the pub related stuff and comments about peoples appearances should be treated as off topic....but no.
Pathetic

A post was deleted? Check back. About 25 or 30 posts are gone, many, but by no means all, were yours. You are not a "member", you are a poster and as such you have to ahere to the few posting rules we have. One is rigidly enforced. No flame wars. To be blunt you started it and largely continued it and appeared to want to continue after the mass deleting. Your posts were not delteted because the discussion had gone off-topic but because you wouldn't stop a banned activity. If you are unhappy about that, too bad.

Yes, I realise there was a mass purge of " banned activity"..can't have outsiders seeing that there is a poster who is not happy with some of the stuff on here can we ? .
There was nothing I posted that couldn't have remained on public view, this nanny attitude does you no favours or this site.
And I'm not unhappy about it at all, exposing hypocrisy makes me very happy.

[Joinder]

Joinder, we all know you are a Paid Shill from TPTB, planted to to create confusion and misdirection, so that TPTB may steal Tom's little Bungalow as part of its cunning plan to steal private housing, one Bungalow every 3 years, for the foreseeable future.

Seriously thought, I don't think your doubts about the situation are unfounded. However, I have looked at the videos, both, Facebook postings, and other "evidence" provided by both parties, and have concluded Yiam was stalked by TC, who knew he was going to be in the area, checking out the old house. Did Yiam goad them on by posting the pub, maybe, but at the end of the day, irrelevant. Tom has put his plight out in the public, and has put 3 Ferne Close on the map, literally, for any of us debunkers of the FMOTL/Tax Protester movement to check out. His house has become a symbol of the Free Money movement, and a must visit for any of us in Nottingham. So at teh end of the day, Yiam actions are not relevant here, Tom's are. Especially as said house is publicly listed for sale, the pub is a Public House, and both locations Tom is prohibited from going to. So who is the aggressor here? Tom may not like the result of his actions, but like a car crash, 3 Ferne Close has become something that we now can't help ourselves from checking out. If I were still living in the UK, and in the area, I would check it out too!

I tend to agree with you, but for heavens sake let's have a debate about it like adults instead of being reprimanded and having dozens of posts removed.