FatGambit wrote:Or maybe the person who told him to feck off had absolutely nothing to do with us shills, and was just there on totally unrelated matters.
You know, just like the person randomly walking down the road that Tom accursed of being with Yiam and the woman with the pushchair/bike that Sue decided to try and get involved.
Or even, they were just following his dad's mates advice, since nobody has the right to demand your name....
Interesting info on criminal damage, thanks.
What about the threat to " knock him out"??
And anyone can ask you your name, there's no law against it, you just don't have to provide it.
I got a screen shot of craig saying, if he had spoke to his dad like that, tom would of given him "flying lessons from the first floor window" not bad for a non violent man
1 - I'm not sure if I should believe a single thing the crawfords say
2 - even if true they have a habit of leaving out pertinent facts
3 - the crawfords should just accept that a court is a public building and anyone has the 'common law' right to be there
fat frank wrote:I got a screen shot of craig saying, if he had spoke to his dad like that, tom would of given him "flying lessons from the first floor window" not bad for a non violent man
There is no evidence that I am aware of , that he is a violent man.
#six wrote:1 - I'm not sure if I should believe a single thing the crawfords say
2 - even if true they have a habit of leaving out pertinent facts
3 - the crawfords should just accept that a court is a public building and anyone has the 'common law' right to be there
Did they claim that others had no right to be there ?
fat frank wrote:I got a screen shot of craig saying, if he had spoke to his dad like that, tom would of given him "flying lessons from the first floor window" not bad for a non violent man
There is no evidence that I am aware of , that he is a violent man.
that's why he is up on a assault charge, as lots of non violent people have assault charges on them
fat frank wrote:I got a screen shot of craig saying, if he had spoke to his dad like that, tom would of given him "flying lessons from the first floor window" not bad for a non violent man
There is no evidence that I am aware of , that he is a violent man.
that's why he is up on a assault charge, as lots of non violent people have assault charges on them
He has been charged, yes. But I would be surprised if he is a violent man, haven't seen any evidence in all the hours of videos.
Got to be careful what we say, there is a court case pending.
FatGambit wrote:Or maybe the person who told him to feck off had absolutely nothing to do with us shills, and was just there on totally unrelated matters.
This is the most likely position, I think. Craig has confronted a stranger.
The public areas of a crown court will contain a range of people. Some will be defendants for serious criminal matters, or their witnesses and supporters. Some may be complainants or prosecution witnesses. Most of them will be stressed and anxious, because of where they are and what is going to happen to them there.
So if Craig challenged a stranger in a way they perceived as accusing, there's every likelihood that they would tell him to fuck off and offer a punch in the mouth if he didn't stop pestering them.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
Joinder wrote: I would be surprised if he is a violent man, haven't seen any evidence in all the hours of videos.
I agree with this. Craig has been present at several difficult events, especially the day of the eviction. Even when others were behaving aggressively, he appeared to stand back from it and try to be reasonable. He didn't join in with any of the physical stuff, he didn't do any angry finger-stabbing confrontations of police or bailiffs.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
FatGambit wrote:Or maybe the person who told him to feck off had absolutely nothing to do with us shills, and was just there on totally unrelated matters.
This is the most likely position, I think. Craig has confronted a stranger.
The public areas of a crown court will contain a range of people. Some will be defendants for serious criminal matters, or their witnesses and supporters. Some may be complainants or prosecution witnesses. Most of them will be stressed and anxious, because of where they are and what is going to happen to them there.
So if Craig challenged a stranger in a way they perceived as accusing, there's every likelihood that they would tell him to fuck off and offer a punch in the mouth if he didn't stop pestering them.
That might have happened, but seeing as one of our own was there, and they know him, it could be as Craig described.
We'll never know unless those that visited the court from Q tell us I suppose.
I certainly don't take at face value what Craig says, that's not to say that he might be telling the truth though
Joinder wrote:
There is no evidence that I am aware of , that he is a violent man.
that's why he is up on a assault charge, as lots of non violent people have assault charges on them
He has been charged, yes. But I would be surprised if he is a violent man, haven't seen any evidence in all the hours of videos.
Got to be careful what we say, there is a court case pending.
He certainly is an aggressive man judging by the recent encounter caught on video.
fat frank wrote:ok might be a bit of a misunderstanding, craig was saying his dad would throw the bloke threw the window
I think I got a bit confused there too.
Can't imagine Tom lobbing anyone through a window, he even constrained himself to insults when he collared our very own camper van man.
I think Tom incidentally has done more to discredit GOODF and their woo than anyone else, I'm beginning to think he is a double agent
fat frank wrote:ok might be a bit of a misunderstanding, craig was saying his dad would throw the bloke threw the window
I think I got a bit confused there too.
Can't imagine Tom lobbing anyone through a window, he even constrained himself to insults when he collared our very own camper van man.
I think Tom incidentally has done more to discredit GOODF and their woo than anyone else, I'm beginning to think he is a double agent
I think tom can be a violent man, but holds him self back after he realises it on film,
hes doing a cracking job, him and Mark "lose the name, but I don't" Ceylon
I think tom actually knew nothing of any of it, as it seems sue as dealing with it all, and then 6 months before mortgage due, he finds out there is no EP,
the thing is you will never get a straight answer out of any of them, even after the judgement there as time to raise the money, and they never, I would of secured the house and then sued
Joinder wrote:I think Tom incidentally has done more to discredit GOODF and their woo than anyone else,
Mark Haining Ceylon did a very good job of doing that himself, he didn't need a thicko Crawford family for assistance. As for is Tom violent, if we look at his recent outbursts during the eviction and his car charging towards the police line, Craige suggest his dad would give him "flying lessons" I would say at the very least he is prone to violence. But many of us are in distressful circumstances. IF you have to ask what caused these stresses? Why Ceylon, Taylor and Ebert, of course contributed to them, big time.
I wouldn't be quick to judge how Tom is as a normal person, we simply haven't seen enough evidence of his character under normal circumstances to be able to form an opinion on that front. What we have seen is evidence of his character while he has been under significant psychological stresses. While these stresses are largely self-inflicted, Tom's view of them - his perspective, is that he is the victim of a conspiracy and a criminal act brought about by others, I would submit that he is under a greater deal of pressure, albeit from an imaginary source, than he has ever found himself in up till now.
This in my opinion is the real danger of the woo, it turns a man who may well have been for the bulk of his life an ordinary honest citizen (at least I have seen no evidence of any prior criminal behaviour by Tom, nor have we seen any evidence of any past violent behaviour) into a local nuisance certainly and has left him open to a possible criminal conviction because he has what I would consider to be a devotion to what we know is a lie.
Is this devotion honest, I would say that to Tom and his family it likely feels honest. Certainly Craig, Amanda and Nicole all, in my opinion, honestly believe that Tom and Sue were cheated from their house. As I would suspect did a number of their original supporters, before the facts became known. Whether Tom and Sue are being honest with themselves however is a matter of debate, we know that Sue was warned by the bank about the endowment shortfall, she signed a document attesting to this and went to a meeting. We don't know and cannot say if Sue told Tom about this. One would assume that she would have done so, but husbands and wives are not always scrupulously honest with each other. However even if she had told Tom, the question is less what Tom and Sue knew to be true then and what they believe to be true now.
Memory is an ephemeral thing, we alter our memories when we recall them. Sometimes these changes are benign, we might remember a person wearing a different coloured tie or shirt, or the weather being a bit different, or a different person saying a certain thing. But occasionally they can be significant, which is why people learned to write things down. Tom's account is fitting with someone who's recollection of an event is different from the documented history. That may be because Tom and Sue have both subconsciously changed their memories, it might be that they didn't understand what the letter was telling them, might be that they didn't really know what they had agreed, but I do think to some extent at the moment Tom holds a sincere belief that he has been cheated.
I think this allowed Tom to fall further into the woo, because once he had that belief, he went looking for evidence to support it. This led him to fall in with people who kept reinforcing his false memory, which in turn led to him becoming frustrated and angry with anyone who challenges it. Tom's aggression and abuse is not the sign of a man who is a calculating liar nor an especially clever liar, it's a man whose "truths" are wrong as a result both of his being misled and his memory being as fallible as many humans. He is misguided and that is furthering his anger at the system and at those of us who are, in his view, inside of it.
Tom is a man who is now hopelessly confused by reality and this angers him, it turns him into a victim which his ego twists so that he see's himself as a martyr, he wanted to be a roaring mouse but the truth was, he barely raised a squeak. The banking world, the legal world and the real world do not care about Tom Crawford, they likely never really knew he even existed. I don't think Tom can or will undo the damage he has done to himself, because nobody close to him is ever going to challenge his view, those who do are dismissed by his supporters, friends, and family as trolls. They are hauled to the dungeon for telling emperor Tom that he's standing with his pants down.
Tom is going to get angrier and angrier, he's going to cause himself a great deal more stress and something will break inside of him as a result. So while Tom may not have been a violent man and may not even be a violent man, he's pushing himself to becoming one as a result of his imagination and his suckling at the wooing teat.
Bye bye Ceylon 