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

[Angolvagyok]

Hardly a win

It was obvious looking at the videos on the day of the eviction that they only arrested him to get him out of the way.

They will see it as a win though. Proof of the corruption and criminal activities of the police.

But surely this means the Courts are no longer corrupt and criminal. I'm looking forward to see how they present this.

[Pox]

But surely this means the Courts are no longer corrupt and criminal. I'm looking forward to see how they present this.

It will be presented as cast iron proof that the bank stole their house!

[PeanutGallery]

So now presumably he can go back to Fearn Chase and the Elwes arms as a returning hero. Well done Tom.

[#six]

Surely his next course of action will be to sue for false arrest. Maybe he'll win and be quids in.

Then again...

[AndyPandy]

Well personally, I'm quite glad he was found not guilty.

He doesn't look a well man, he's an ordinary individual that got caught up in something extra ordinary. He made some crazily stupid decisions yes, but was egged on by those who should have known better.

At least he didn't end up with a criminal record to add to his long list of his own making woes, might have just pushed him even further over the edge.

[Hyrion]

Well personally, I'm quite glad he was found not guilty.

He doesn't look a well man, he's an ordinary individual that got caught up in something extra ordinary. He made some crazily stupid decisions yes, but was egged on by those who should have known better.

At least he didn't end up with a criminal record to add to his long list of his own making woes, might have just pushed him even further over the edge.

Did he have someone in the car with him egging him on to drive aggressively towards a police line?

Best case scenario as I see it: he needs some anger management therapy.

[letissier14]

He will probably be spouting out that they only found him not guilty because they knew it was a case of fraud on the eviction.

He will then use this not guilty verdict to tell everyone how he will be taking private prosecutions out against the police etc for false arrest.

His supporters will lap this up and it will just reinforce their belief that he was robbed of his house.

Tom will think he is untouchable now and it will just make him believe even more in the fmotl nonsense.

Can see lots more to come from the Crawfrauds

[SteveUK]

Can see lots more to come from the Crawfrauds

Good- it'll be the only entertaining thing on over the Xmas period.

[Pox]

Surely his next course of action will be to sue for false arrest. Maybe he'll win and be quids in.

Then again...

Out of interest, if you were arrested for an alleged offence, but found not guilty at trial, does that mean that you would automatically qualify for compo or could the police claim 'just cause', for example?

[mufc1959]

I had some sympathy for Tom in relation to the charge against him. He thought he'd won his case, he had no idea he was about to be evicted and it must have come as a massive shock. I think it's understandable to an extent that he reacted with anger and disbelief and that his behaviour might have been aggressive in those circumstances.

[Hyrion]

he had no idea he was about to be evicted and it must have come as a massive shock. I think it's understandable to an extent that he reacted with anger and disbelief and that his behaviour might have been aggressive in those circumstances.

If he had reasonable grounds to think he'd won his case, I'd partially agree. I'd agree with the emotions - I would not agree with the aggressive response.

I had some sympathy for Tom in relation to the charge against him. He thought he'd won his case

Therein lies the difference in our perspectives. You obviously view Tom as having reasonable grounds to believe he'd won his case. I do not.

• 1: The Judge was quite clear and used plain english with regards the repossession proceeding.

• 2: Tom and his proponents made clear enough they understood the bailiffs would be along again with their very clear talk on how they were going to deal with them.

• 3: In his appeal, Tom makes his position crystal clear that he agreed "with the finding of the Judge but not the resulting ruling" (my paraphrase from memory). What finding was that? It was the comment the Judge made with regards some particulars on the amount outstanding - humans using computers as tools, that computers should not rule over us.

• 4: Tom completely and deliberately avoids speaking to the point that he stopped payments even while he knew the principal was outstanding.

Toms anger is not fueled only by his "shock at being evicted". It's been getting fueled for a lot longer and all based on his chosen misconceptions of reality. He makes his position in his first post to goodf quite clear: he knows he owes the outstanding principal and that a deadline is coming up to pay it all off. And, I strongly suspect he also knew that if it wasn't paid, he'd lose the property.

[PeanutGallery]

Surely his next course of action will be to sue for false arrest. Maybe he'll win and be quids in.

Then again...

Out of interest, if you were arrested for an alleged offence, but found not guilty at trial, does that mean that you would automatically qualify for compo or could the police claim 'just cause', for example?

Any claim would likely fall foul of the following reasoning, it is in the public interest to allow the state the ability to arrest and bring to trial any person suspected of having committed a criminal offence. If a compensation burden was imposed it would be contrary to the public interest and the claim would fail as a result of public policy.

The only way you would be entitled to compensation would be, if you had been convicted and jailed for a period of time wrongly, but even this is contentious with their being a need, after having been acquitted to prove your innocence. As such some individuals, such as Barry George (convicted of killing Jill Dando, which was then overturned) has been denied compensation, because he can't prove he didn't do it even though the state can't prove he did, while the Guildford Four whose conviction was reliant on evidence that was later considered to be fabricated, were compensated because their innocence was established.

So Tom could try to apply for compensation, but unless he can point to some wrongdoing by the police he won't get anywhere. The defence the police would likely use is that the decision to arrest was supported by colleagues on the ground.

[PeanutGallery]

• 3: In his appeal, Tom makes his position crystal clear that he agreed "with the finding of the Judge but not the resulting ruling" (my paraphrase from memory). What finding was that? It was the comment the Judge made with regards some particulars on the amount outstanding - humans using computers as tools, that computers should not rule over us.

I actually find that particular quote to be quite funny, simply because back in the olden days, a computer was a person who performed mathematical calculations, so when the learned Judge says they should be slaves and not masters, I do wonder if he thought through the actual ramifications of his obiter.

[Pox]

Surely his next course of action will be to sue for false arrest. Maybe he'll win and be quids in.

Then again...

Out of interest, if you were arrested for an alleged offence, but found not guilty at trial, does that mean that you would automatically qualify for compo or could the police claim 'just cause', for example?

So Tom could try to apply for compensation, but unless he can point to some wrongdoing by the police he won't get anywhere. The defence the police would likely use is that the decision to arrest was supported by colleagues on the ground.

Thanks for that, and sounds logical except for 'was supported by colleagues on the ground'. If the arrested was found to be not guilty, would this mean that the colleagues on the ground were mistaken and would need to 'pay for their mistakes'?

Anyways, TC may try it anyway, just for the hell of it (and to waste even more public money).

[longdog]

So Tom could try to apply for compensation, but unless he can point to some wrongdoing by the police he won't get anywhere. The defence the police would likely use is that the decision to arrest was supported by colleagues on the ground.

This is what counts as I understand it. Unless Tom can show that the arrest and prosecution were malicious, in some way corrupt (that's real corruption of course not the imagined FMOTL version) or patently absurd then he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. You don't get compensation just because you're found not guilty.

[Pox]

Maybe TC should have contacted this lot (currently being advocated by one or two over on GOOFY) -

http://www.stoprepossession.info/index.html

They say that their advice is free. I suspect that the first bit of advice would be 'don't panic, we can help' and this would be free but the rest would not be quite so free!

In their examples, they claim to have made it possible for someone with £38k of arrears, built up over 2 years, to stay in her home.

If only TC had gone down this route

[exiledscouser]

To get 'compo' Tom would have to show that the police acted in bad faith and that there was no lawful basis for the arrest.

If it were routinely the case that each and every not guilty verdict automatically exposed the police to civil and/or criminal action together with the chance of dismissal then no cop would ever exercise their powers of arrest and anarchy would prevail.

The threshold for exercising arrest powers is way lower than the threshold required for a conviction in a criminal court. The CPS who decide such matters and, as I'm sure any serving or former police officers will agree, do not simply roll over and agree with the police but will have thought that that there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

See https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/cod ... ision.html

As it happens, I don't think the police give two shits about the outcome; their actions were all about defusing the situation immediately after eviction. So, nick Tom, remove the rallying figurehead for those hot-heads in the crowd inclined to resort to violence, get some bail conditions imposed to help prevent repetition and its job done, they could all eventually go home or resume.

Others arrested on the day appear to have pleaded or were found guilty (the delightful lady who spits in people's faces for instance) so it's not as if the bench sent out a disapproving message about police conduct that day, generally. More to the point, the best outcome for anyone, particularly those not hardened criminals is avoid being arrested in the first place. The worry and grief it must have caused Tom and his immediate family - was it really worth it and more to the point, did it achieve anything?

They are probably of the same mind as regards the fate of the six useful idiots who stood on the roof of Fearn Chase.

I am however fearful that now he has his arrest badge and his acquital Golden Arrow Tom will now think himself (and those blowing into his ear) some sort of legal genius(es) and today's result will only see him slide further into the sea of woo. Time will tell.

The arrest that day and it's outcome will have had no bearing whatsoever on the eviction process, then, now or at any time in the future.

Any sensible person would have called it a day long ago.

[Pox]

To get 'compo' Tom would have to show that the police acted in bad faith and that there was no lawful basis for the arrest.

If it were routinely the case that each and every not guilty verdict automatically exposed the police to civil and/or criminal action together with the chance of dismissal then no cop would ever exercise their powers of arrest and anarchy would prevail.

The threshold for exercising arrest powers is way lower than the threshold required for a conviction in a criminal court. The CPS who decide such matters and, as I'm sure any serving or former police officers will agree, do not simply roll over and agree with the police but will have thought that that there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

See https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/cod ... ision.html

As it happens, I don't think the police give two shits about the outcome; their actions were all about defusing the situation immediately after eviction. So, nick Tom, remove the rallying figurehead for those hot-heads in the crowd inclined to resort to violence, get some bail conditions imposed to help prevent repetition and its job done, they could all eventually go home or resume.

Thanks for that, makes a lot of sense.

[noblepa]

Out of interest, if you were arrested for an alleged offence, but found not guilty at trial, does that mean that you would automatically qualify for compo or could the police claim 'just cause', for example?

So Tom could try to apply for compensation, but unless he can point to some wrongdoing by the police he won't get anywhere. The defence the police would likely use is that the decision to arrest was supported by colleagues on the ground.

Thanks for that, and sounds logical except for 'was supported by colleagues on the ground'. If the arrested was found to be not guilty, would this mean that the colleagues on the ground were mistaken and would need to 'pay for their mistakes'?

Anyways, TC may try it anyway, just for the hell of it (and to waste even more public money).

IANAL, and the laws may be a little different in the UK, but I think you are describing what, in the US, would be called "False arrest".

A "not guilty" verdict does not equal false arrest. In the US, a false arrest claim can only be sustained if you can show that the police had no "probable cause" to make the arrest. Again, IANAL, but it is my understanding that probable cause is any set of circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed and that the individual so charged may have committed it.

Also, a not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean that the defendant did not do the act for which he/she was charged, although that may have been their line of defense. The verdict may mean that they did in fact, do the deed, but that it did not rise to the level of a crime. Again, this does not mean that the arresting officer lacked probable cause.

I'm sure that the terminology used in the UK is different, but I would be surprised if the basic concepts are not the same.

An example I've heard used to illustrate probable cause: If I walk out of the front door a hardware store at 3:00 in the afternoon, carrying a crowbar, there is likely no probable cause to arrest me. But, if I'm found coming out of the back door of the same hardware store at 3:00 in the morning, carrying that same crowbar and the alarm is sounding, then there may very well be probable cause to arrest me, even if it turns out that the owner gave me a key and permission to enter the store, but forgot to tell me how to deactivate the alarm. In the former case, it would not be reasonable for an officer to arrest me. In the latter, most would agree that it would be reasonable. Therein lies the difference.

[wanglepin]

You are all wrong!!!!1!!!!!! Tom was found not guilty because the judge and the court were frightened that Tom Crawford could have had up to 600 people storm the court and arrest the judge if he was found guilty. It had nothing to do with justice. I think he should be retried in Pakistan or anywhere else in Leicester where we will see honest and true Sharia Law & justice meted out.