The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[Bungle]

Good to see that they are all taking it so seriously

they think nothing is going to happen to them and are just going through the motions. which, seeing this is England, they are probably correct.

Something tells me that they are not going to walk away. I'm letting you off with the first bit but your second sentence is speculation by a defendant in this case, which we currently have no confirmation of and may prejudice opinions in the court.

[Chaos]

Good to see that they are all taking it so seriously

they think nothing is going to happen to them and are just going through the motions. which, seeing this is England, they are probably correct.

Something tells me that they are not going to walk away. I'm letting you off with the first bit but your second sentence is speculation by a defendant in this case, which we currently have no confirmation of and may prejudice opinions in the court.

I'd like to be wrong but it's hard when you watch proven criminals like simon stepsys, etc get away with the crap they do.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I do so hope the prosecution are watching this or are aware of it.

Since 2007 Judges have been allowed to hear cases in crown court without a jury. Posts like the one in question could be seen as a deliberate attempt to interfere with due legal process. So rather than dismiss the case, it is very possible that these sort of actions could lead to trial without jury.

I think it possible that the defendant(s) in such circumstances would be told off with the threat of contempt of court or removal of bail and the trial proceeding anyway.

[PeanutGallery]

I do so hope the prosecution are watching this or are aware of it.

Since 2007 Judges have been allowed to hear cases in crown court without a jury. Posts like the one in question could be seen as a deliberate attempt to interfere with due legal process. So rather than dismiss the case, it is very possible that these sort of actions could lead to trial without jury.

I think it possible that the defendant(s) in such circumstances would be told off with the threat of contempt of court or removal of bail and the trial proceeding anyway.

I did notice that the post in question had one "like" if, and this is speculation so may fall foul of the Wankspittle, if it was one of the six who liked it, that would indicate an agreement to the idea, which could be quite problematic if it was raised in court.

After all it's one thing to suggest hobbling a trial and quite another if one of the defendants agrees that it is a good idea. Finally it might encourage a third party, one of the Crawford supporters, to attempt to 'educate' the Jury as to property law. This would also be pretty wrong as Juries are only supposed to know the information presented to them in court about the case, they shouldn't try to solve the crime or go digging around for new evidence.

[Daft Ada]

A little part of me has some sympathy for Craig.

All he may have wanted to do was protect his parents "investment" from the outset.
We would all try to protect a family member.

They were suckered by all the FreeTards and ended up so far down a one way street with no possibility of turning around which would make them look like silly buggers.

In their desperation, they turned to peoplw who offered them a ray of hope when there wax none.

Sorry gents, but this is my opinion and mine alone so please dont start a flame war.
MODs:
If a flame war occurs, please feel free to delete this post as I don't want this turning out like other threads

However I will say that ignorance is no reason to break the law

[hucknallred]

No report on Central News today.

[YiamCross]

A little part of me has some sympathy for Craig.

....

At one point I had a lot of sympathy for all of them but having met them in person I can say you really shouldn't waste your sympathy on a single one of them. It's been said by others before, and I can only agree, that Craig and Amanda should have tried to protect their parents from the predators who sucked them into this mess.

The fact is they've thrown their lot on with the whole banking fraud lie and even someone as thick as Craig must surely see it for what it is. All he had to do was read the Godsmark judgment, the lies were shown clearly and a child could understand what really happened. Anyone who chose not to see the truth has no right to expect sympathy when they reap the consequences of pushing a lie.

They have no respect for the courts or the law, they're happy to try and terrorise anyone who disagrees with them. I can attest to just how unpleasant they are in the flesh and it will be interesting to see what happens if the're found guilty.

[Hyrion]

A little part of me has some sympathy for Craig.

All he may have wanted to do was protect his parents "investment" from the outset.
We would all try to protect a family member.

I can agree with: We'll all try and protect a family member

I'll add a however: some of us would only do so within the boundries of ethics, morals and the Law.

If Craig had not behaved as he has over time, I may have had sympathy for him.

In their desperation, they turned to peoplw who offered them a ray of hope when there wax none.

Keep in mind this all started with Tom posting to the OPCA site explicitly stating he had an upcoming debt deadline and asking how he could get out of the debt while keeping his house.

That post alone showed a very clear intent by Tom Crawford to avoid honoring his debt while keeping the benefit he received from the relationship.

As a result, he had hope prior to that deadline and knew what he had to do. They weren't desperate until they willingly chose to first seek out and then wander down the rabbit hole and follow the instructions by the Queen Of Hearts.

Just my humble opinion with how this epic journey started.

That's why I have no sympathy for Tom - he deliberately, consciously, willingly, on his own: chose a path to try and get out of a debt he owed while keeping the benefit.

[Jeffrey]

I recall Craig and Amanda were asked if they had read the Godsmark decision, they both said no. Meanwhile they actively harassed and threatened people who reported on the actual decision and details of the case and promoted misinformation that will lead others to lose their homes.

Zero sympathy for them. My regret is that they didn't commit even larger crimes so they could do some hard time.

[Bungle]

Zero sympathy for them.

And from me too. These are not teenagers, they are adults. Craig knew that when the rooftop six invaded the bungalow it had not only been repossessed......it had been sold. There can no way around it, his parents were no longer the owners.

[letissier14]

A little part of me has some sympathy for Craig.

I've had Tom Crawford having a go at me down the phone trying to intimidate me after GOODF (Mark Haining) gave out my personal information and telephone number to the Crawfords

I've had Craig Crawford abusing me in private messages on Facebook

I've had Amanda abusing me openly on Facebook

I've had someone set up a Facebook page and post pictures of my house and address online - (they could only know where I lived if they had my telephone number to search for me)

I've had numerous people on Facebook threatening me in private messages and abusing me openly, all of which were connected to their Facebook page "Eviction Fraud of The Banks"

Facebook have removed a dozen or so open abusive posts to me from their followers.

I have so many screenshots of their abuse and I even had to report it to the police.

I have no sympathy for Craig or any of the other Crawfords and they deserve all that they get from life.

[FatGambit]

I recall Craig and Amanda were asked if they had read the Godsmark decision, they both said no. Meanwhile they actively harassed and threatened people who reported on the actual decision and details of the case and promoted misinformation that will lead others to lose their homes.

Zero sympathy for them. My regret is that they didn't commit even larger crimes so they could do some hard time.

That's what they call deniability, so like what happened, whenever someone points out the judgement says exactly the opposite of what they are claiming, they say 'well I don't know, I haven't read i, I'm just basing my opinion on what this expert told me' it's a politicians favourite line too.

We have a friend a bit like this who's son is having problems at school, but regardless of what happens, she won't move him to another school, because to do that, should the same thing happen (which it will and has) she would then have to admit the problem is the child, not the school which she has continued to claim for the last 8 years, sorry for going OT but I saw the same with the Crawford family over the judgement, they dare not read it because by doing so, they'd then have to face the prospect that their dad had been lying/genuinely didn't know what he was talking about, and was being led by others, for them it was easier to go along with the whole ruse, than challenge it.

[notorial dissent]

I can't say I see any reason for sympathy for either Craig or Amanda. If their real interest was in helping their parents, they could/should have gotten them competent legal assistance and kept them away from the footl/OPCA whackjobs at all costs. They did neither, and as a result their parents lost their home, Tom was made a very public laughing stock and shown to be an even bigger fool than he probably was to begin with. Craig and Amanda are supposedly, or at least supposed to be, educated intelligent adults, although truth to be told I have seen absolutely no evidence of that in ANY of their actions or behaviors to date. If they were at all really concerned about their parents they should have been able between the two of them to raise the cash necessary to save their parent's home, they didn't do that either. Of course their financial condition may have been such that they wouldn't have been able to do anything, but Craig is "supposedly" an up and coming entrepreneur and Amanda I thought had married fairly well, I could be wrong about both. In any event they both come off as childish pratts.

[midjit-gems]

Craig has stated time and again, he doesn't understand law (yet he's representing himself in a court of law) and he doesn't understand about mortgages. (Yet he's loaded and runs a successful business? ??)

He claims to believe everything his parents tell him and those advisors whom he trusts implicitly as he has no reason to believe they would lie to him

If this is the case then I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt tom is solely to blame for it all, he has put his his children in front of him in the battle line. He has purposely and knowingly put them at risk knowing they will blindly believe anything they are told and defend him accordingly.

I do hope that one day they wake up and realise what daddy dear has done to them and remove themselves from his grip.

[YiamCross]

All I can say is when I met Craig in court he couldn't say or do anything without his daddy there. Nothing happens without the boss, or something like that. And he's 31? Still a little kid who can't move without the say so of his daddy, kinda pathetic but still no sympathy.

[wanglepin]

I've had Tom Crawford having a go at me down the phone trying to intimidate me after GOODF (Mark Haining) gave out my personal information and telephone number to the Crawfords

Why would he do that to you?

[FatGambit]

All I can say is when I met Craig in court he couldn't say or do anything without his daddy there. Nothing happens without the boss, or something like that. And he's 31? Still a little kid who can't move without the say so of his daddy, kinda pathetic but still no sympathy.

I always got the impression from your encounter with Tom that he was very controlling and the entire family were scared to stand up to him (evident by the actions of the one who was trying to restrain him, there was an air of 'I really don't want to be doing this but absolutely must' in their body language), I'm not trying to justify or garner sympathy for his actions, but know from experience it can be extremely difficult to stand up to a controlling parent, especially if you don't know how far they will go to keep you in line, and it's often just easier (and safer) to go with the flow than it is challenge it.

I suspect you'll say 'but it's easy to get out of that enviroment', yes in theory it is, but it's far easier to say than do and it's one of those things that if you haven't been through it, you won't understand, Craig has probably for the better part of his life lived under the control of Tom, it doesn't make him pathetic though and is why a new crime was invented at the new year to cover this sort of stuff, so I have some sympathy for his plight, if not for his actions.

That doesn't excuse all the other stuff that has happened obviously.

[midjit-gems]

I've said for a long time tom was far from the weak old man he was portrayed. It was obvious in the video the day the judgment came out that sue and Amanda we terrified of him. He raised his voice, they cowered away. Sue would not instigate any touching unless he allowed it.

Notice how sue isn't ever allowed near the court?

They express their anger and emotions on fb to defend the family, simply because they can't show any such emotions around daddy.

I can't wait for the rest of the retards in court to realise Craig is dropping them in it to get himself out the deep and smelly. This could end up turning very nasty between them all once they clock on to what's going on

[YiamCross]

... Craig has probably for the better part of his life lived under the control of Tom, it doesn't make him pathetic though and is why a new crime was invented at the new year to cover this sort of stuff, so I have some sympathy for his plight, if not for his actions....

If you were talking about teenagers then I'd say okay but Craig is 31 and he doesn't live at home anymore. He just looks to me like a spineless wimp who never grew a pair. It's like saying that the abused have an excuse for becoming abusers so give them a pass. I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that Craig has had a gun held to his head, he's not acting under any threat or coercion, he's supposed to be a grown man but he acts like a child. Worse, he's shown no inclination to discover the facts for himself or take responsibility for his own actions. He just does what he's told by the manipulators around him and I'm afraid I can't see that as anything but sad and pathetic.

[notorial dissent]

What has been said above about Tom is most likely true, and matches with my impression so far. Also, based on previous comments, I hereby amend my take on Craig, he is an idiot. He may well be intimidated and controlled by Tom, but I don't think that explains the housebreaking escapade or what happened there, that was I think purely all Craig and his pack of morons.