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

[#six]

LEGAL NOTICE

Quatloos/members/moderators will remove all photos/videos and links of the person known as Mr. C*u*n* Crawford, Crawfruads, Yiam Cosser and craig crawfords stalker IMMEDIATELY. start here viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10829&start=860

What? This one?

I think thats the one. Did we ever get to the bottom of who was who?

[Hercule Parrot]

I think thats the one. Did we ever get to the bottom of who was who?

There is an apt English colloquialism that someone will feel a burning sensation in their ears if people are talking about them.

[Gregg]

Quatloos/members/moderators will remove all photos/videos and links of the person known as Mr. C*u*n* Crawford, Crawfruads, Yiam Cosser and craig crawfords stalker IMMEDIATELY.

Short answer: no
Long answer: HELL NO

Detailed answer: I will remove any information about you that is not true, point me to it and prove it ain't so, no problem. I will remove any information as ordered by a court order in a court of competent jurisdiction (US District Court for the District of Nevada would be a good place to start). I do not follow orders of courts that convene in the meeting rooms of coffee shops, Waffle House, Huddle House, Denny's, Perkins or Kentucky Fried Chicken. I don't follow orders from courts that mention, out of context, The united States Constitution, Circa 1871 etc.... and I don't follow orders from idiots who think they own the internet because they read it on the internet, which would be YOU.

As always, I am not speaking officially for Quatloos, Quatloosia Publishing LLC, other moderators, administrators, various vassals, miscellaneous minions and people who know people, just me. But I doubt anyone who matters would disagree with me on this one.

Your mileage may vary, claims based on sales data for calendar year ending December 31, 1776. Offer not valid to employees, associates, interns, dark cabal lifetime servants and Virgin Island Gunsmiths. All taxes are the responsibility of the peasants, offer not available in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Belgium or US Marshall Islands.

[wserra]

Moe is on the left, Curly on the right.

Now here, Moe is on the left, Curly in the middle.

[Forsyth]

41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c., in court.

(1)No person shall—

(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or

(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;

Section a) is a very interesting paragraph. The number of commas and the separate references to photographs, portraits and sketches; listing "any person" as well as mentioning judges, witnesses, etc. individually; plus the type of court (criminal or civil) all in one run on sentence makes it very difficult to work out exactly what is meant. In particular, if a photograph does not include any of the specifically listed people (such as a photograph of an empty court room, or of people in the public gallery), is that an offence?

Googling around found the following matter: http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess ... t-10224219 which bears a striking similarity to the current one. It is clear that the judge felt that taking a photograph of someone in the public gallery did break the rules, however the issue was dealt with by way of an apology so it is unclear if this would be upheld if the case went further.

http://suesspiciousminds.com/tag/can-yo ... -in-court/ is even more interesting and it would appear that I am not alone in finding the law unclear.

It should be noted that the fact that the server the images are hosted on is in the US may only provide protection to those outside the UK. It may be possible to hold that a UK person, by causing the images to appear as part of a post, carried out an act of publication from the UK and therefore is included in the actions prohibited by the law - whatever they may turn out to be.

Usual I Am Not a Lawyer disclaimer applies...

[getoutofdebtfools]

LEGAL NOTICE

Quatloos/members/moderators will remove all photos/videos and links of the person known as Mr. C*u*n* Crawford, Crawfruads, Yiam Cosser and craig crawfords stalker IMMEDIATELY. start here viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10829&start=860

What? This one?

I think thats the one. Did we ever get to the bottom of who was who?

Is this the guy that is supposed to live with his mum?

[Hyrion]

of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court

... listing "any person" as well as mentioning judges, witnesses, etc.
... makes it very difficult to work out exactly what is meant

Bolding obviously mine. It's quite clear to me and I think you've missed the keyword "being". It does not say "including". In clear North American English (specifically Western Canada) it means that anyone who is not a Judge of the Court, a Juror, a Witness or a Party to any proceedings of the Court is fair game for photos from the perspective of the limitation.

Now perhaps UK English has a different definition for the word "being". Such as in the phrase "a person being a fireman". In clear English, the phrase obviously refers to people acting in the capacity of a fireman. The same would hold true - one would hope - with any use of the language in Law.

However, the trunk of a car (in North American English) is the boot of the car (in UK English). So perhaps you can identify how you understand the word "being" in the context above that has a different definition then outlined to enlighten those of us unfamiliar with UK English.

such as a photograph of an empty court room

In the context of the quoted section, I'd say clearly no as the section speaks of people and not property such as buildings. That, however, does not mean such would not be covered under a different section or different Law.

of people in the public gallery

According to that section of the Law cited, again no - but again that doesn't mean another Law doesn't prohibit the act.

... bears a striking similarity to the current one. It is clear that the judge felt that taking a photograph of someone in the public gallery did break the rules ...

Unfortunately the article is unclear - that may be due to the Judge being unclear, I really can't say:

Taking any kind of recording or photograph in court proceedings is a serious matter.
...
I didn’t see what happened therefore it wasn’t an immediate contempt of me, although it was a potential contempt of court.

Specifically there's no indication what Law, Rule of Court, etc. was crossed.

You're second link is more interesting. The author appears to be a Sitting Judge. However, within 5 clicks I could not actually verify who the individual was or what their credentials were.

... is a family law barrister, who appeared before me today ...

I'll take it at face value the author is indeed a Judge. The really interesting part is that the Judge appears to understand the word "being" differently from how I understand it. However:

... My conclusion is that the framing of the Act is such that photographing is grouped separately to the prohibition of sketching or portrait making of a person within the Court, and it is photography of any kind and any subject that is prohibited ...

Upon second review, the issue might not be the word "being" after all. It appears that the point of view is that the act of a photograph is separated from the acts of a portrait or sketch. The interpretation being better phrased as:

• 41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c., in court.(1)No person shall—
  (a.1)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph
  (a.2)with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch...

In which case, I revise the opinions I expressed above and I agree that the separation of the clear intent could be much better set to clarify what the drafters of the Legislation actually intended.

It may be possible to hold that a UK person, by causing the images to appear as part of a post, carried out an act of publication from the UK and therefore is included in the actions prohibited by the law - whatever they may turn out to be.

I suspect the person who should be most concerned is the individual who took the photograph

Edited to add:

Awesome point:

He was a photocopier repair man.

He gave evidence before me, unchallenged, as to the nature of a photocopier, and broadly, how it worked. There is a camera within the device, which takes a photograph of the document, which is then duplicated.

We all instantly saw the point

...

Every time the “copy” button is pressed on a photocopying machine within the Court building, an offence is committed.

That alone means my humble opinion is corrected and that the particular Law needs to be revised and clarified. The other concerns the author lists are all equally valid.

[Bones]

https://www.facebook.com/izzieshier.xx/ ... ent_tagged

News report of the hearing

[Colin123]

Hope this works

https://www.facebook.com/colin.potter.7 ... 196471684/

[vampireLOREN]

LEGAL NOTICE

Quatloos/members/moderators will remove all photos/videos and links of the person known as Mr. C*u*n* Crawford, Crawfruads, Yiam Cosser and craig crawfords stalker IMMEDIATELY. start here viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10829&start=860

What? This one?

No that is the artist formally known as Joinder.

[Pox]

https://www.facebook.com/izzieshier.xx/ ... ent_tagged

News report of the hearing

And from the Notts Post -

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawf ... story.html

[Colin123]

Try again

https://www.facebook.com/colin.potter.7 ... 196471684/

They made the news

[Pox]

Can someone please remind me?

Did the rooftop 'event' take place after the repossession but before the first sale?

[Bones]

https://www.facebook.com/izzieshier.xx/ ... ent_tagged

News report of the hearing

And from the Notts Post -

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawf ... story.html

Prosecutors claim there was a conspiracy by Mr Crawford's son, Craig Crawford, and six others to commit criminal damage and aggravated trespass at the then boarded up house between July 1 and July 26 last year, following the eviction.

Craig, 31, of Nottingham, is said by prosecutors to have played an important role in the protest.

He posted social media media videos of himself, allegedly encouraging people to get to the address, because "it's going to be fun" and created a distraction as others climbed into the roof.

The trial of Craig and his co-accused, who deny the allegations, heard that one security guard was sworn at and told, "we will kill you", and "we know where you live", after he left his ID badge behind.

Shattered glass fell on him in the loft, shutters on a window were kicked in and red paint sprayed into his face and body during the incident on July 24, the court heard......

.... This carried on from lunchtime until 9.45pm, when defendants Mark Hawkins, 52, of Bestwood Park, Martin Atkin, 42, of Long Eaton, and James Bradley, 42, of Wigan, left the loft.

The remaining defendants - Mark Haining, 51, of West Bridgford, Elizabeth Shier, 41, of Arnold, and Henry Kellie, 48, of Market Harborough, allegedly came out of the loft area on day two at 4.30pm and were arrested. All defendants deny conspiracy to commit criminal damage and aggravated trespass between July 1 and July 26, 2015.....

"This case is about whether the defendants were part of a plan that included an agreement to gain entry to the property."

I wonder if it is going to be mentioned in Court about the earlier attempt when they tried to retake castle crawford but bottled it because there was too many Police about.

[hucknallred]

Hope this works

https://www.facebook.com/colin.potter.7 ... 196471684/

Had no idea that Central would bother covering this. I'll set up a series link for central news & post up watchable versions of the reports as & when.

[Bones]

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/evictio ... 4032272591

Leicester Crown Court heard the group had discussed plans to protest at the property as they believed the eviction was not fair and legal.

Prosecutor Steven Coupland said one of the defendants, Tom's son Craig Crawford, 31, of Nottingham, called police and told them he was going to the property to ask the security staff to leave.

Mr Coupland added others then gained access to the property by smashing their way in while the security guards were distracted.

One of the guards was sprayed with red paint and the defendants sealed themselves in the roof space.

Craig Crawford is accused along with Martin Atkin, 42, of Long Eaton, Mark Hawkins, 52, of Nottingham, Mark Haining, 51, of Nottingham, Henry Kellie, 48, of Market Harborough, Elizabeth Shier, 41, of Nottingham, and James Bradley, 42, of Wigan, of conspiracy to commit criminal damage between July 1 and July 26 last year.

They all are also alleged to have conspired to commit aggravated trespass between the same dates. All seven deny the charges.

The group climbed onto the roof at around 1pm on July 24 - with three of the protesters leaving at 9.45pm that evening, while three others remained until 4.30pm the following day.

[Bones]

[ArthurWankspittle]

And from the Notts Post -
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawf ... story.html

Prosecutor Steven Coupland said the defendants .....told security guards to "get proper jobs".

[Bones]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Cc_zRyQj0

I wonder if this is a video of Craig doing his distraction act ?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Can someone please remind me?

Did the rooftop 'event' take place after the repossession but before the first sale?

I believe first sale completed 31st July 2015, so the answer would be yes. Therefore at the point the alleged damage was committed the owner of the house was B&B/UKAR. Therefore we have the interesting situation that Tom and Sue Crawford could have a civil case against the defendants for reducing the value of the property.