The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[letissier14]

This is going to run and run I'm sure







And their supporters believe all this nonsense

I'm sure someone on here can answer each question in turn

[Normal Wisdom]

Never forget the Craig has always freely admitted that he doesn't understand the law or mortgages so he is simply regurgitating somebody else's nonsense.

[Bungle]

Oh dear - they really don't learn do they

How nice....in years to come this photo will have pride of place in the History of the Family Crawford.

An accurate description:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/motley-crew.html

[Bungle]

This is going to run and run I'm sure







And their supporters believe all this nonsense

I'm sure someone on here can answer each question in turn

None of his question warrant (oops no pun intended) an answer. The boy Crawford is full of shite. The case had nothing at all to do with a warrant. This is what was said on Day one of the trial:


Mr Coupland told the jury of ten women and two men the case was not about the rights and wrongs of the court order and eviction.

"It is not about the conduct of the banks, the Government or the courts," he added.

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

[YiamCross]

Never forget the Craig has always freely admitted that he doesn't understand the law or mortgages so he is simply regurgitating somebody else's nonsense.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Does it mean a total lack of understanding about a subject qualifies anyone to spout errant nonsense? I would have thought the very fact that he understands nothing should be a cue to shut up since getting involved with things he knows nothing about could well have serious consequences. As he likely would have discovered if the CPS had any level of competency at all and the fact he got a lucky break should be good reason to quit while he's ahead. But then if Craig had any brains at all he would have stopped his parents from getting themselves into this mess in the first place.

[YiamCross]

Craig demonstrates his idiocy again and again but this is one of my favourites "The CPS said in front of a room full of people that NO JUDGE would sign the documents to prove their legitimacy!!!1!!!"

This has been pointed out before, a court order is stamped and not signed by a judge in scarlet ink accompanied by a bloody thumb print. I have two orders against the Crawfords, neither of which are signed. I'm pretty sure they're legitimate and since the Crawfords have managed to breach one, which has a penal order attached, I guess it won't be long before we find out just how legitimate they are.

[mac]

http://roguemale.org/2016/01/13/tgbms-c ... rails1683/

[Jeffrey]

NO EVIDENCE

Other than the video of them breaking into the house.

[Pox]

Oh dear - they really don't learn do they

I'm sure it was reported that one of the 6 +1 was pregnant?

What happened?

[Hyrion]

The CPS said in front of a room full of people that NO JUDGE would sign the documents to prove their legitimacy!!!1!!!

[wave of the hand] This is not the evidence you think it is!

[hucknallred]

I see Haining has posted his own version of my Central News vid with GOODF logo. Shame as I was hoping they'd link to mine & get the custom thumbnails embedded. Well here you go, references may be lost on the TC gang.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Oh dear Craig Crawford.

For so long you've remained relatively quiet on the utter BS spouted by your father, sweaty mum and the rest of the losers.

So let's have a look at what you've said today....

-The bank never paid a fee to the court. And no step can be taken by the court in the first place without them paying a fee! So it should never of been put in motion.
-They didn't show a warrant or identity themselves..Which is against the law

Your mum and dad had already seen the warrant and were shown it on the day. There is even video evedience of the lead bailiff trying to show dim Tom but he just spouts off about other stuff.

-My mother was a vulnerable person as her mum jusy died. They shouldn't of gone in.

Doesn't apply to waarants of possession

-The high Court cannot force entry

It wasn't the High Court it was the County Court Bailiffs and both can force entry on a warrant of possession.

-The high Court enforced a county court warrant. This can't happen!?

Again, it wasn't High Court Enforcers is was County Court Bailiffs but yes High Court Enforcers regularly enforce County Court warrants.

-The possession claim for was for land.. But the expired warrant was for property

All warrants of possession are for land. The land that the property is on and the property is usually identified in the order.

-Many of the documents we'd seen from the cps was never signed, Dated, Sealed or even filled out

Sounds like BS.

The only warrant shown was from 2012 and had expired. It was a copy.. That was a fake!!!

The warrant was renewed, twice I believe, after your Dad lied to get the pointless sad soap dodgers there for support.

-The warrant was never produced. Even when a criminal court judge asked for it! Still no proper warrant has been shown

Your Dad said he had it in his video and it was shown on the day too. The criminal judge never asked for it. BS.

-The Godsmark judgement was NOT a reissue of a warrant. It was to lift the stay on the warrant from 2012 which had expired already...

Who said it was? You don't know what you're talking about.

-The apparent high Court bailiff didn't identity himself or produce the warrant.

It was a County Court Bailiff eviction, the matter was never transfered to the High Court bailiffs.

-The coppers pulled my mum off of her land which they cannot do. It's a civil matter they shouldn't of even been there


The police can assist a bailiff in the execution of a warrant (yes Craig, there was one)

-The cps said infront of a room full of people that NO JUDGE would sign the documents to prove their legitimacy!!!

Clearly lies and misrepresentation.

All of this confirms things were so messed up and the eviction was unlawful.

My God you're dim. Is that the best you can come up with?

STILL NO LEGITIMATE WARRANT!!!!!


If you don't get it by now, you never will. Shame you're too much of a loser to have your own house to lose through your apparent stupidity

[ConstableHayWain]

New to the board, Hi!
I have followed the case via fragments of social media since some of the first protests, and I am intrigued by the claims made by GOODF and Craig in this case, that the process of repossession being followed in all these cases has been so short-cut it is fundamentally illegal, broadly for the reasons, copied here a few posts back cut and paste from some social media entry he (Craig ) made. Which whilst for the most part aren't upheld by courts, I don't ever see robustly challenged in a blow for blow way by the Court either. If true there does seem to be some legitimate civil rights issue, If not the rather irritating GOODF tin foil hat brigade may be silenced. either way i would like to see the challenges they make unequivocally tested and rebutted or upheld by law.

Now if the Crawfords or supporters do re-enter the house, having had the aggravated trespass case kicked expensively out , what will the local police and bailiffs do given the court did not uphold their actions the first time, Although the the substative case was found in favour of the finance company for possession of the house, it seems there were nothing illegal was done by the reposition/ occupation of it by the 6, despite the statement on the trespass case against the 6. the occupation by crawfords if not the ownership seems to be on no mans land?

[Hyrion]

The Godsmark judgement was NOT a reissue of a warrant. It was to lift the stay on the warrant from 2012 which had expired already...

What would be the point in lifting a stay on the execution of a warrant that had expired? It would be legally pointless and not worth the Judges time.

The cps said infront of a room full of people that NO JUDGE would sign the documents to prove their legitimacy!!!

Assuming true, so what? If there's no actual requirement for said signature then why would it matter that a Judge would issue the warrant while refusing a not-legally-required-request to sign it?

Secondly: How would the CPS witness know whether or not every Judge that was requested to sign it had refused, was said witness present during every event?

With that in mind, yea, the claim that a cps witness testified (I'm assuming, if not testimony in court then it carries even less weight) that no Judge would sign the warrant is likely BS as it would be hearsay - and therefore likely inadmissible - unless said CPS witness truly was at every event for a requested signature.

All of this confirms things were so messed up and the eviction was unlawful.

Assuming true: that might give you reasonable grounds for a defense against the criminal charges the CPS should have properly brought.

However, even an unlawful Court order is required to be complied with until overturned on appeal.

Just added points to what everyone else is noting - and likely nothing new to what's been said a thousand times before.

[Hyrion]

I don't ever see robustly challenged in a blow for blow way by the Court either.

Please be more specific.

The Crawfords have claimed the Judges haven't answered their claims and yet, everything I've seen in the rulings to date has been quite clear in answering the Crawfords claims.

If you've read the rulings then perhaps you can identify a specific point the Crawfords have made that you feel at least one of the Judges hasn't specifically spoken to. If you haven't read the rulings, then perhaps you can review those first and see if you still hold the same opinion.

If you do hold the same opinion, then please identify a specific point the Crawfords have made that you feel the Judges didn't respond to. No one can answer your question until such time as you identify specifically which point you feel is unanswered.

Now if the Crawfords or supporters do re-enter the house, having had the aggravated trespass case kicked expensively out , what will the local police and bailiffs do given the court did not uphold their actions the first time

That really depends on a number of factors. If the house has been sold and is occupied by a family with a very young child and they (the Crawfords) break in - they may very well be facing even more serious criminal charges then they did before. In such an instance, I certainly hope the CPS agents involved don't muck up the evidence and charges like they did this last go around (my humble opinion on their professionalism).

[YiamCross]

...I don't ever see robustly challenged in a blow for blow way by the Court either.

The Godsmark judment does exactly that. Do a search here or checkout my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/910768235657449/ & the pined post gives a concise list of the Crawford lies and the evidence which shows them up for what they are.

If true there does seem to be some legitimate civil rights issue, If not the rather irritating GOODF tin foil hat brigade may be silenced. either way i would like to see the challenges they make unequivocally tested and rebutted or upheld by law.

It isn't, there aren't, they never will because when they lose in court it's because TPTB are afraid of them, are corrupt, are paedophiles, satanists, masons or just plain don't like them. They have been, see Godsmark and Youtube.

Now if the Crawfords or supporters do re-enter the house, having had the aggravated trespass case kicked expensively out , what will the local police and bailiffs do given the court did not uphold their actions the first time, Although the the substative case was found in favour of the finance company for possession of the house, it seems there were nothing illegal was done by the reposition/ occupation of it by the 6, despite the statement on the trespass case against the 6. the occupation by crawfords if not the ownership seems to be on no mans land?

Good question. My experience of the legal system is not so much that it's corrupt or biased, just incompetent. The CPS do come over as the best ally a criminal could have these days.

[PeanutGallery]

New to the board, Hi!
I have followed the case via fragments of social media since some of the first protests, and I am intrigued by the claims made by GOODF and Craig in this case, that the process of repossession being followed in all these cases has been so short-cut it is fundamentally illegal, broadly for the reasons, copied here a few posts back cut and paste from some social media entry he (Craig ) made. Which whilst for the most part aren't upheld by courts, I don't ever see robustly challenged in a blow for blow way by the Court either. If true there does seem to be some legitimate civil rights issue, If not the rather irritating GOODF tin foil hat brigade may be silenced. either way i would like to see the challenges they make unequivocally tested and rebutted or upheld by law.

Now if the Crawfords or supporters do re-enter the house, having had the aggravated trespass case kicked expensively out , what will the local police and bailiffs do given the court did not uphold their actions the first time, Although the the substative case was found in favour of the finance company for possession of the house, it seems there were nothing illegal was done by the reposition/ occupation of it by the 6, despite the statement on the trespass case against the 6. the occupation by crawfords if not the ownership seems to be on no mans land?

Welcome! Nice to see a new face.

Broadly the claims made by GOODF, Craig and Tom can be summed up as being based on the notion that they did not like having a property they lived in repossessed. The process isn't short cut, in fact in this country the law requires that a number of clear steps be taken before a property can be repossessed, which are designed to give the owner a chance to rectify any arrears or arrange a payment plan.

Generally banks don't like having to repossess properties, it always costs them more to go down that road. The trouble is that a lot of people would sooner blame an imagined conspiracy than accept a simpler truth. Tom was evicted because he didn't repay the capital on his mortgage. This happened because he failed to keep up the payments on his endowment policy. The Crawfords were well appraised of the situation before it happened. They knew a long time before the eviction happened that it was pending. They were not evicted overnight, in fact on the two occasions when Tom was told he would be evicted he used the internet to assemble a mob to frustrate this, he had the time to organise this level of support. On the third occasion the banks, courts and police agreed that due to legitimate public order concerns, they would not give prior notice. Even so they needed a strong presence as again we saw mob behaviour and a third protest.

In regard to the second point, as I understand the former casa Crawford has been sold and resold to a new third party. I do not know what that party intends to do with the property. However I would strongly suggest getting it occupied, if the plan is not to demolish it. Of course this will entail making it habitable. This would give rise to an additional protection, through harassment laws for the occupier. Which could be used to get an order restraining the Crawfords and their supporters from approaching Fearne Chase.

In the interim however, if they do repeat themselves and again make an attempt to occupy the property, they can expect the police to return, themselves to be arrested again and this matter to be repeated. The determination of the court was not that nothing wrong was done by the accused, rather that the CPS was unable to prove a conspiracy based on the evidence they had at that time. Being unable to meet the evidential burden is not the same as being found not guilty, the legal system has a principle that it is better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished.

Finally the case was not about the ownership of the bungalow. It was about a bunch of idiots on a roof where they shouldn't have been. The idiots going free did not restore Tom to the bungalow and will not do so.

[exiledscouser]

I can't see Tom enjoying further legal success because, if memory serves he remains a vexatious litigant. He'd have to overcome that first.

A re occupation would just be a rinse and repeat of the last farrago with inevitable ejections, arrests, bail conditions etc.

The Crawfords seem to have read their court result as carte blanch to do whatever they like. That'll end well.

[Normal Wisdom]

Never forget the Craig has always freely admitted that he doesn't understand the law or mortgages so he is simply regurgitating somebody else's nonsense.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Does it mean a total lack of understanding about a subject qualifies anyone to spout errant nonsense? I would have thought the very fact that he understands nothing should be a cue to shut up since getting involved with things he knows nothing about could well have serious consequences. As he likely would have discovered if the CPS had any level of competency at all and the fact he got a lucky break should be good reason to quit while he's ahead. But then if Craig had any brains at all he would have stopped his parents from getting themselves into this mess in the first place.

I simply mean that Craig admits that he doesn't understand the issues but is still prepared to pronounce on them in great detail. Thus I presume he is simply repeating what other "experts" have told him. Attempting to debate with him would be like arguing with a parrot. To my mind it is also pointless analysing his comments because they are simply a repetition of assertions that have already been discredited on multiple occasions. Clearly the Crawfrauds and their followers are too stupid and too blinded by self interest to ever learn the truth of their situation so they will continue to bang their heads against the wall trying to overturn a situation that is done and dusted. They will never, ever get the house back but it won't stop them p***ing in the wind - probably for the rest of their lives.

[rumpelstilzchen]

it seems there were nothing illegal was done by the reposition/ occupation of it by the 6, despite the statement on the trespass case against the 6.

You are making a fundamental error here. Having a case collapse on a specific charge does not automatically mean a lesser charge would have had the same result.

the occupation by crawfords if not the ownership seems to be on no mans land?

It would only seem that way to someone who does not fully understand the case.

Welcome to the forum BTW.