The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[NYGman]

It was a posh quiche too - wild salmon and broccoli. And the trifle had lots of sherry in it.

Mmmmm Sherry filled Trifle, Just watch the serving size if you plan on Driving

[Bones]

This is no doubt the picture that James wants to post - he seems to think that having his costs refunded is some kind of victory.



When in reality it is just a refund

Anyway James, when is Amanda, Craig or Tom going to post that warrant with all its defects for all to see as promised ?

[Bones]

So James, about that debate you wanted - are you going to step up to the plate ? Or just lose your password again

[SteveUK]

How much of toms former abode do you reckon £893 would buy you?

[PeanutGallery]

I just find it interesting that of all the things James had to hand to obscure his address, he picked a crayon.

[Pox]

I just find it interesting that of all the things James had to hand to obscure his address, he picked a crayon.

Nothing wrong with crayons - give the guy a break!

Colouring in books are all the rage (for those with nothing else to do and those who can't express themselves in words - IMO) - even the Notts Post says so-

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Colouring ... story.html

[YiamCross]

I just find it interesting that of all the things James had to hand to obscure his address, he picked a crayon.

As with everything this crowd do, you could not make it up. No need to parody or mock, they do it all for us. Hilarious.

[wanglepin]

he picked a crayon.

[wanglepin]

And you have this;

Appropriate. Two thick slices.

[Dr. Caligari]

So James, about that debate you wanted - are you going to step up to the plate ? Or just lose your password again

Brave Sir Robin, bravely ran away.

[Bungle]

This is no doubt the picture that James wants to post - he seems to think that having his costs refunded is some kind of victory.



When in reality it is just a refund

Anyway James, when is Amanda, Craig or Tom going to post that warrant with all its defects for all to see as promised ?

Day before the trial finished his live in partner (Candice) posted on BTBATB that she had received a visit from a bailiff. Seems that she hasn't paid all her council tax.

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10946&p=220027#p220027

With nearly a grand in his pocket he can now afford to pay the bailiff.

He wouldn't want a bailiff visit now would he?

[JayBrad]

Thanks for posting that you saved me a ball ache, but hey still not bad for sitting on my arse in court for 5 days at tax payers expense pppppphhhhahahaaaa

I think you Squatloozers or QuatSnoozers need to move on there is nothing more to see here apart from you ll making yourselves look like complete tools, you speculated and speculated about the trial sent your little foot soldiers to watch and even stalked the party, made speculation about the amount of supporters, but to be honest i couldn't care if there was only 1 supporter, you see what you lot are missing the point of is the warrant still hasn't been shown in a criminal court when it came to the judge requesting the warrant the originals that the county court judge refused to sign as authentic when requested and as the prosecutor said "he refused to sign them" what does that actually tell you!

In fact don't take my word for it get the transcript and read it, you may then actually get it when you have read the transcript of the criminal case then give me a shout and we will have the debate.

Peace out QuatSnoooooooozers

[Jeffrey]

not bad for sitting on my arse in court for 5 days at tax payers expense pppppphhhhahahaaaa

Refresh my memory Jay, weren't you stuck in jail for a while before the trial while the other 6 were released because of your criminal record? You did not break even.

the warrant still hasn't been shown in a criminal court

I'm gonna repeat my question because I think you didn't read it. Did you do know Amanda and the Crawford's have the warrant and have had it since July?

Or did you spent all those nights in a cold jail cell because the Crawford's lied to you and didn't show you the warrant?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Thanks for posting that you saved me a ball ache, but hey still not bad for sitting on my arse in court for 5 days at tax payers expense pppppphhhhahahaaaa

Great that you like sitting in jail and court so that you can pay bailiffs.

I think you Squatloozers or QuatSnoozers need to move on there is nothing more to see here apart from you ll making yourselves look like complete tools, you speculated and speculated about the trial sent your little foot soldiers to watch and even stalked the party, made speculation about the amount of supporters, but to be honest i couldn't care if there was only 1 supporter, you see what you lot are missing the point of is the warrant still hasn't been shown in a criminal court when it came to the judge requesting the warrant the originals that the county court judge refused to sign as authentic when requested and as the prosecutor said "he refused to sign them" what does that actually tell you!

Supporters - the Crawfords have gone from what 600? to about 30?
As to what "he refused to sign them" actually means I want to know what document(s) and in what context. I find it interesting that the six are jumping up and down going on about the warrant as if this was what the whole case hinged upon but no one (including defence legals) said at the start get the warrant and we can sort this out in a few minutes. No, the case carried on for five days then someone claims it was the warrant caused the whole thing to collapse. You sure no one had the holy gourd instead?
If you are really in the mood for answering questions, then here's a few for you:
Who out of the Crawfords and the rooftop six have had previous run ins with the law? i.e. been arrested or convicted of something.
Is it true that as has been surmised on Quatloos, that Tom and Sue owe UKAR about £100k? Tom mentioned a figure of £98k in one of his court appearances.
Why did you get involved in the first place? You travelled presumably several times between Wigan and Nottingham to support some guy on the internet over a completely fabricated issue.

[PeanutGallery]

In fact don't take my word for it get the transcript and read it, you may then actually get it when you have read the transcript of the criminal case then give me a shout and we will have the debate.

So you don't really want a debate? What you want to do is throw your weight around like a big manly man, which smacks of compensating for inadequacy, and keep going on about a warrant that was pretty much irrelevant to the facts of your trial.

Why was the warrant irrelevant?

Because the criminal case wasn't about the warrant or the eviction or anything related to that. It was about if you lot going on the roof meant their was a conspiracy to commit criminal damage. It was found that their wasn't enough evidence to prove the conspiracy charge and the case was dismissed.

I appreciate that you want to see the warrant, but why didn't you just ask Amanda, or Tom, or Sue, or Craig, or the other one, or Betty to show it to you? They had a copy, Amanda had said as much on Facebook, calling it a unicorn and claiming it to be full of holes. I'd also say that by clambering onto the roof of the property you weren't going to get a chance to look at the warrant, because it doesn't involve you or anyone who clambered up onto that roof.

The warrant involved Tom. He's argued all the points you think are 'winners' in the civil courts and he's done so well he's exhausted their patience to the point where he can't ever argue it again. He lost. Tom was evicted because he didn't repay the capital on his mortgage. Tom and Sue had both been told by the bank that they were heading towards a fall but kept marching on and refused to take any action that might have helped them.

I also note that you are really happy to have gotten nearly a grand for sitting on your arse in remand for a few months and then five days in court on trial and all the big thinky work you had to do to make a defence. So you think you've come out ahead, but really you've been paid a lot less than minimum wage, spent a significant period of your life incarcerated, and not actually achieved any of the goals you set out to achieve.

Tom still doesn't live in Fearne Chase and you still haven't seen the warrant.

But congrats on being found not guilty and on getting nearly a grand. If you all gave your money to Tom he might be able to start paying back some of the money he still owes UKAR after they evicted him. Although considering the amount he is still indebted to UKAR, you might need to get back up onto that roof a few times. Of course I suppose YOU profiting at Tom's expense is all just fine and dandy, if he hadn't been evicted, you wouldn't have that money.

Finally I'd just like to add I think you and your friends have done a lot more to harm Tom and other people facing eviction than the banks ever will. Tom could have gotten himself out of this. He might not have been able to keep Fearn Chase, but he could have kept a good proportion of the equity he had built up in the property. Instead by following the advice of cretins and relying on militant lunatics he was encouraged to piss it all away against the wind. You have done far more to ruin any chance Tom would have had of a deserved retirement than UKAR ever could have.

But at least you have money for crayons now.

[notorial dissent]

OK, I have a question here. AS I understand it, the prosecution collapsed due to, in my opinion poor preparation and getting their ducks in a row, lack of evidence, was the case not dismissed rather than a not guilty verdict given? It doesn't sound like this ever went to the jury, or judge for decision, but was rather dismissed for lack of evidence.

[ArthurWankspittle]

OK, I have a question here. AS I understand it, the prosecution collapsed due to, in my opinion poor preparation and getting their ducks in a row, lack of evidence, was the case not dismissed rather than a not guilty verdict given? It doesn't sound like this ever went to the jury, or judge for decision, but was rather dismissed for lack of evidence.

That is also my understanding. The prosecution put forward various witnesses and statements but, IMHO, got nowhere close to the possibility of proving conspiracy. In simple non-legal translation, it got to a point where the judge said is that it? to the prosecution and then dismissed the case as not even close (to what they were supposed to be proving).

[PeanutGallery]

OK, I have a question here. AS I understand it, the prosecution collapsed due to, in my opinion poor preparation and getting their ducks in a row, lack of evidence, was the case not dismissed rather than a not guilty verdict given? It doesn't sound like this ever went to the jury, or judge for decision, but was rather dismissed for lack of evidence.

That is also my understanding. The prosecution put forward various witnesses and statements but, IMHO, got nowhere close to the possibility of proving conspiracy. In simple non-legal translation, it got to a point where the judge said is that it? to the prosecution and then dismissed the case as not even close (to what they were supposed to be proving).

It would seem I was in error. Jay you weren't found not guilty, so instead let me congratulate you on coming up against an insipid prosecutor. However this doesn't change my opinion that James and the Rooftop gang are the reason Tom wound up being evicted. You told him he didn't need to pay back the mortgage capital and set him off on the road that has led him away from his former home and any retirement savings.

[Forsyth]

It would seem I was in error. Jay you weren't found not guilty, so instead let me congratulate you on coming up against an insipid prosecutor.

I'm not convinced. ITV report the verdict as being "not guilty" and the jury being discharged from returning a verdict. My understanding is the position is now the same as if the jury had returned a not guilty verdict, in that they are considered to have been tried and a positive result (not guilty) has been recorded, rather than an ambiguous result of the charge being allowed to remain on the file or the Scottish "not proven". If the prosecution had withdrawn from the case before the trial started then it would be possible for them to restart things later, but this is no longer the case (according to my inexpert understanding, and assuming no special circumstances permitting double jeopardy).

Jay and the rest are not guilty of the charges that were made. Whether a foreman of a jury stood up and said so or not is immaterial. The trial has not been put on hold, this is the end of the matter.

As far as I can tell, there is currently nothing for us to debate. Jay is innocent of the two charges in respect of the rooftop protest, this has been tested in court and found to be correct and is extremely unlikely to be overturned. The repossession of Tom and Sue's house was lawful, this has also been tested in court and found to be correct.

If anything is overturned in court then it is the repossession that has, perhaps, the slightly greater chance of being challenged. In particular, while the issuing of the repossession order was tested quite extensively in court, the manner in which the repossession was carried out has not been tested in a similar fashion, so if some error exists it may be there. Any challenge would, however, appear to require information that is not currently publicly known as I am not aware of any such gross error. It should be noted that small mistakes that had no material impact on the course of events are unlikely to result in anything being overturned, though they may earn stern words from a judge or ombudsman and perhaps a token amount of compensation. I would repeat, however, that I am not aware of any such circumstance, and if they exist I believe it highly unlikely that they would be significant enough to reverse the possession.

Unless Jay intends providing some new information this thread is at risk of descending into pantomime, which may provide entertainment from those that enjoy such things (I understand this is a purely British phenomenon which may explain much), but is equally unlikely to produce anything constructive. The police going on record to say that they had seen the warrant and that it was signed and sealed correctly and Amanda saying oh no it isn't doesn't advance things any further. This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

[NYGman]

Unless Jay intends providing some new information this thread is at risk of descending into pantomime, which may provide entertainment from those that enjoy such things (I understand this is a purely British phenomenon which may explain much), but is equally unlikely to produce anything constructive. The police going on record to say that they had seen the warrant and that it was signed and sealed correctly and Amanda saying oh no it isn't doesn't advance things any further. This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

Oh no it isn't...


Sorry, couldn't help myself