The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[vampireLOREN]

Hey QuatLoosers

Yes this is me Jay Brad, well you have speculated about me enough so now lets have the debate i sit here awaiting your response

Welcome and enjoy the time you spend here, there are even social events you can join in with! it does help if you are partial to "Real Ale"?.
It might be nice if you could explain your reasons for climbing on to the roof and what you plan for the future.
Good Luck .

[Joinder]

Fair play to jay brad for visiting us.
Welcome aboard, and congratulations on the result.
It wasn't a "technically" as someone posted upthread, it was an ill judged prosecution to start with, if witnesses obviously lied in order to bring a prosecution, its only right that it was halted.
Peace

[Losleones]

Hey QuatLoosers

Yes this is me Jay Brad, well you have speculated about me enough so now lets have the debate i sit here awaiting your response

Tom lost his castle due to entering Freeman woo having stumbled upon Get Into Debt Free Site & like yourself is so far down the rabbit hole there's no way out. Give my regards to the earths inner core Jay ol son.

I'm glad you've joined up to Quatlooser site (yawn) you might get some education from posters far more knowledgable than myself & you'd be best advised to give up this sov/cit bollox......bad for your health & your bank account.

[Bones]

Hello James Bradley, welcome to Quatloos. Sorry I could not reply to you earlier, as I have a "proper job", I could not reply until I got home.

You have said that you would welcome debate but time will tell.

Shall we begin by debating the Godsmark Judgement.

Q. Do you agree with Tom Crawford, Craig Crawford, Amanda Crawford, Mark "Colon" Haining, Guy Taylor and co that Tom won !1!!!! that case as explained to the reporter of the nottingham post by both Tom and Guy ? With Colon going so far as to claim that she must be on crack to think Tom lost (even though the judgement said he lost)

If you do, please explain how you are able to reach such a conclusion after reading the judgement which was dumbed down and written in plain english

If you are serious about debating and you have not just created an account to try and look big and clever to your chum's here are a few other things we can debate - being some of the misinformation posted by the lovely Amanda Crawford

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10688&start=1480#p202274

I look forward to debating these points and others with a fellow intellectual

[JayBrad]

[/quote]

As far as I was aware the only speculation about you going away for a long time was by Mr Gillard, of Trial by Social Media, who I believe made a comment in court about being out before you. As it was he was factually correct, given the length of time you spent on remand.

[/quote]

Yes it was Mark Shillard from Trial by Social Media but also the plank who came from the QuatSnoozers site the one you banned actually said to me in the Clown Court in Nottingham on the way "enjoy your 18 months that your gonna get"

Thats one of your boys guys.....

[JayBrad]

Jay, who (in your opinion) owns the bungalow today?

Well after what the Judge Said i am even more so that the bungelow is Tom Crawfords

[Burnaby49]

JayBrad"As far as I was aware the only speculation about you going away for a long time was by Mr Gillard, of Trial by Social Media, who I believe made a comment in court about being out before you. As it was he was factually correct, given the length of time you spent on remand.

Yes it was Mark Shillard from Trial by Social Media but also the plank who came from the QuatSnoozers site the one you banned actually said to me in the Clown Court in Nottingham on the way "enjoy your 18 months that your gonna get"

Thats one of your boys guys.....

Not banned. Moderated to stop trolling. So some of his posts still make it through from time to time.

[JayBrad]

Hello James Bradley, welcome to Quatloos. Sorry I could not reply to you earlier, as I have a "proper job", I could not reply until I got home.

You have said that you would welcome debate but time will tell.

Shall we begin by debating the Godsmark Judgement.

Q. Do you agree with Tom Crawford, Craig Crawford, Amanda Crawford, Mark "Colon" Haining, Guy Taylor and co that Tom won !1!!!! that case as explained to the reporter of the nottingham post by both Tom and Guy ? With Colon going so far as to claim that she must be on crack to think Tom lost (even though the judgement said he lost)

If you do, please explain how you are able to reach such a conclusion after reading the judgement which was dumbed down and written in plain english

If you are serious about debating and you have not just created an account to try and look big and clever to your chum's here are a few other things we can debate - being some of the misinformation posted by the lovely Amanda Crawford

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10688&start=1480#p202274

I look forward to debating these points and others with a fellow intellectual

IM GLAD YOU HAVE A PROPER JOB BONES NOW LET THE DEBATE BEGIN

[Losleones]

Oh dear - they really don't learn do they

Zoom in on entrepreneur Craig & legend Tom (change of Panama) , ignoring Sue, but is it me or are the pair thinking, WTF, I've lost my home & I'd rather not be here & the other ignoramous thinking I've lost part of my dwindling inheritance.

These idiots are defo gonna double down on stupid & the next episode is going to be hilarious.

ETA. Haining looks rather short next to his fellow criminal.

[Bones]

Hello James Bradley, welcome to Quatloos. Sorry I could not reply to you earlier, as I have a "proper job", I could not reply until I got home.

You have said that you would welcome debate but time will tell.

Shall we begin by debating the Godsmark Judgement.

Q. Do you agree with Tom Crawford, Craig Crawford, Amanda Crawford, Mark "Colon" Haining, Guy Taylor and co that Tom won !1!!!! that case as explained to the reporter of the nottingham post by both Tom and Guy ? With Colon going so far as to claim that she must be on crack to think Tom lost (even though the judgement said he lost)

If you do, please explain how you are able to reach such a conclusion after reading the judgement which was dumbed down and written in plain english

If you are serious about debating and you have not just created an account to try and look big and clever to your chum's here are a few other things we can debate - being some of the misinformation posted by the lovely Amanda Crawford

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10688&start=1480#p202274

I look forward to debating these points and others with a fellow intellectual

IM GLAD YOU HAVE A PROPER JOB BONES NOW LET THE DEBATE BEGIN

No need for caps James, where is your internet forum etiquette. You might not have noticed but I have already started the debate that you requested, just waiting for you to respond

[Hyrion]

... also the plank who came from the QuatSnoozers site the one you banned actually said to me in the Clown Court in Nottingham on the way "enjoy your 18 months that your gonna get"

Thats one of your boys guys.....

Hmm... someone posts here - that's the only requirement to be "one of Quatloos".

Based on that sole requirement, JayBrad is now "one of Quatloos".

[Bones]

James in addition to the other points I have used as a starting point for a debate, perhaps you would like to debate this video made by Craig Crawford, in which the Enforcement Officer attempted to give Tom the warrant

15:11 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEbWVkEsw9o

https://youtu.be/yEbWVkEsw9o?t=15m11s



He tried to give it to Tom there and then, and Tom would not look at it.

What are your thoughts James ? Do you think it would have been sensible for Tom to have at least looked at the documentation at that time ?

[PeanutGallery]

Yes it was Mark Shillard from Trial by Social Media but also the plank who came from the QuatSnoozers site the one you banned actually said to me in the Clown Court in Nottingham on the way "enjoy your 18 months that your gonna get"

Thats one of your boys guys.....

First off I don't think we have any boys here, certainly not Burnaby at any rate. However I don't think you understand that we cannot be responsible for every person who has ever read a post here or has posted here. I am responsible for me and for the things I say, nobody else is. If he said that to you, then he was quite clearly very wrong (the most would have been a fine or an order to do community service) and I would suggest looking to be antagonistic in order to provoke a response, which I would suggest was an attitude he displayed here that led to his being banned from our club.

Also I have to say bravo for coming up with QuatSnoozers, much more imaginative than the other sobriquets we've been given, Twatloosers, Squatloos etc.

[Burnaby49]

Hey QuatLoosers

Yes this is me Jay Brad, well you have speculated about me enough so now lets have the debate i sit here awaiting your response

Welcome and enjoy the time you spend here, there are even social events you can join in with! it does help if you are partial to "Real Ale"?.
It might be nice if you could explain your reasons for climbing on to the roof and what you plan for the future.
Good Luck .

If you don't mind I'll pick whom I pub with. I've got a list and while it is open to addition it won't include new posters I don't have a handle on or the subjects of Quatloos discussions. I'm interested in social, not debate.

[Bones]

I think it is very telling that they were very careful not to step on any of the land previously owned by Tom. Indeed, if they are so sure of themselves, why wasn't the picture taken of them all at the area immediately in front of the front door of the property. Would have made a much better picture no ?

James, when are Tom and Sue moving back in ?

[Burnaby49]

Yes it was Mark Shillard from Trial by Social Media but also the plank who came from the QuatSnoozers site the one you banned actually said to me in the Clown Court in Nottingham on the way "enjoy your 18 months that your gonna get"

Thats one of your boys guys.....

First off I don't think we have any boys here, certainly not Burnaby at any rate.

What are you implying? I'd thrash you for that impudent comment but it's time for my lunch of mush and very soft boiled vegetables. Then a nap after all that exertion.

[Bones]

James maybe you would prefer to debate this video posted by UKColumn and staring Guy Taylor which confirms that another warrant was issued in 2014 ? - disproving the claims made by Craig and Colon that a warrant was only issued in 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6WkCBmljhY





From the Judgement James

In the face of a further warrant, Mr Crawford made an application to stay execution of that warrant which came before me as a matter of urgency on 2nd February 2015. Bradford & Bingley also attended by counsel. Mr Crawford wanted the warrant suspended on a number of grounds. He wanted to challenge the validity of the original possession order, the validity of the mortgage and the basis for enforcement of its terms (which were themselves disputed).

It is very clear that there was more than one warrant, I am sure you will agree

A certified copy of the warrant was also provided during your hearing was it not James ? Buts lets not tell everyone shhhh

[wanglepin]

Well, it was good while it lasted i suppose. Did jayilbird answer anything or debate anything?

[Bones]

Well, it was good while it lasted i suppose. Did jayilbird answer anything or debate anything?

I think he has gone to phone a friend or may be he is considering to either go 50/50 or ask the audience

I doubt he has any real intention of having a debate of the facts or the evidence kindly posted by the Crawfords and their friends

[midjit-gems]

I've been looking forward to this from the moment he joined, now I can't say I'm not a little disappointed with his lack of response. Oh well I'm sure he'll be back soon enough