The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[SoLongCeylon]

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

Is this the half hour argument or just the 5 minutes?

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

[daveBeeston]

I see Jay is avoiding having a debate just like he avoids paying bills,im not sure why we expected any different.

Kind of pathetic really,You wanted the debate Jay so act like an adult stop the childish insults and step up to the plate and debate with us like you wanted.

[Bones]

Hello James, good to see you have not lost your password again

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

James, why are you trying to portray this as anything more than what it is here and on Facebook. So that any fan's that you may have out there reading this, this payment was not for 'sitting on my arse in court for 5 days at tax payers expense' was it ?

Here let me help you clarify what this payment actually is and not what you are making it out to be



Why are you intentionally trying to make it out to be something that it isn't. The cheque is not an ex-gratia payment as compensation, it is a refund of the costs you incurred. For the hard of learning, it is a refund of money you yourself (at least you claimed) to have already paid - so not even a profit was made unless any fraudulent claim for costs was made.

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,

Firstly, it is clear that you don't think, for the reasons I will later explain, it is plan for all to see who is the tool here James

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!

James, it is you that has quite frankly missed the point. Ignoring that your pony tailed friend has made a youtube video in which he says that a certified copy of the warrant was presented and that Craig also confirmed this in one of his facebook posts - the entire point is that you have not achieved anything except for providing us with months of entertainment.

Indeed the only point that matters is that Tom has lost his home and thanks in part to your antics he also lost equity in his own that he may have received. So yes, whoopie your costs were refunded but Tom lost his home and £10,000's in equity

You must be so proud

Peace out QuatSnoooooooozers

Thank you for confirming that you had no real intention of a debate - how could you, when Amanda has already posted that they received the warrant in July 2015. Ask yourself this one simple question, Amanda said that they would post the warrant as soon as they could... Why has it not been posted in all of these months ? What do the Crawfrauds have to hide ?

Thank you for your contributions to this thread, you have reinforced my preconceptions of you.

Prove you are not what I think you are and step up to the plate and engage with us in a debate - that is if you dare

[Bones]

I doubt anything worth while will be gained by this but I think we have to say thanks to Mark Colon Haining for at least trying to get a copy of the warrant and additional information

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-756158

From: M Haining

16 January 2016

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

1) Can you please confirm how many possession warrants have been
issued relating to: 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham NG4 1DN

2) Can you please confirm the dates from which each warrant was
valid and when each warrant expired

3) Can you please confirm the date each warrant was issued

4) Are you able to provide copies of each of the warrants - if you
are, please do so

Yours faithfully,

Mr M Haining

[Hercule Parrot]

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).

CPS decision to discontinue partway through trial leads to an acquittal, but there is a subtle difference between "being found not guilty" and "not being found guilty". A jury didn't hear all the evidence and make a positive declaration of innocence.

Nonetheless in practical terms the defendants are entitled to shout "Not Guilty" from the rooftops, because the only options are that or "Guilty".

[wanglepin]

Why is he asking for "copies"? They don't accept copies as real do they?

[Hercule Parrot]

I think you Squatloozers or QuatSnoozers need to move on there is nothing more to see here ...

Y'know, I would really like it if Jay would calm down and talk to us. I think that the Quat Regulars should hold back from mocking him, because it only provokes more of this.

[YiamCross]

If anything is overturned in court then it is the repossession that has, perhaps, the slightly greater chance of being challenged.

Since the matter was appealed by Tom Crawford in front of Judge Godsmark with, as we all know, a clear and unambiguous lack of success which also resulted in Tom Crawford being made subject to an Extended Civil Restraint Order regarding the matter, it would have less 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...

I seem to recall it was, which was the subject of the transcript we obtained a few months back. For the reasons given above I can't see there's much chance of any further action coming to the courts on the matter though I do note that Tom Crawford was particularly concerned to ensure Sue Crawford was not a party to his ECRO so maybe that will how they get it back into the courts.

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).....

I find that a rather pointless and insulting remark in much the same way as someone from the US might if some bigot were to state that all Americans are lard-arsed, pot bellied, empty headed loud mouths. This may be a stereotype promoted by those with something against citizens of the US but I see no place for such comments in this forum and would expect Forsyth to withdraw it and apologise to all us Brits, even those rare creatures who might harbour some secret affection for pantomime.

[PeanutGallery]

I seem to recall it was, which was the subject of the transcript we obtained a few months back. For the reasons given above I can't see there's much chance of any further action coming to the courts on the matter though I do note that Tom Crawford was particularly concerned to ensure Sue Crawford was not a party to his ECRO so maybe that will how they get it back into the courts.

Which would be another waste of the courts and Crawfords time and would likely only achieve Sue getting herself an ECRO. The other problem that would face Tom is even if their was an error in the execution of the warrant, it wouldn't void the entire process. It wouldn't invalidate the claim UKAR have for the property. Now Tom might get a small amount of compensation to represent his 'rights' being violated, but he would not be reinstated to the bungalow.

However I would think that arguing this point would be precarious, Tom is committed to taking legal advice from people who have imagined a whole list of deficiencies and they have dripped this poison into his ear. Even if the warrant did have an actual error or there was some mistake in the execution, it would be hidden by the shouting that computers should not be our masters or it wasn't sealed or the Judge didn't sign it because he or she didn't want to be personally liable (hint, they wouldn't be anyway, Judges make decisions that are wrong in law almost every day, it's why we have appeal courts, a Judge in court isn't liable for his decisions because the courts are and the courts can and do provide a remedy for those mistakes).

Tom's next step should be to try and protect whatever assets he has remaining which while I doubt would amount to much, may be enough to spur a creditor into action and are likely to be at risk. Of course he won't do this, he'll keep listening to Guy Taylor and Ebert and carry on pissing into the wind only to blame those who advised against that course for his trousers being ruined.

[Bungle]

I doubt anything worth while will be gained by this but I think we have to say thanks to Mark Colon Haining for at least trying to get a copy of the warrant and additional information

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-756158

From: M Haining

16 January 2016

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service,

1) Can you please confirm how many possession warrants have been
issued relating to: 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham NG4 1DN

2) Can you please confirm the dates from which each warrant was
valid and when each warrant expired

3) Can you please confirm the date each warrant was issued

4) Are you able to provide copies of each of the warrants - if you
are, please do so

Yours faithfully,

Mr M Haining

Can't wait to see how HMCTS phrase their reply to avoid having to say "What the fxxcks it go to do with you".

[Forsyth]

Y'know, I would really like it if Jay would calm down and talk to us. I think that the Quat Regulars should hold back from mocking him, because it only provokes more of this.

I agree. Part of the problem is that there's little that can be debated productively at the moment, but I would be interested to hear if Jay knows if any further legal challenges are afoot. Obviously, I would not expect him to share any plans for further protests as the element of surprise may be paramount, but court cases require evidence to be disclosed in advance anyway (no ambushing the other side as is popular on television) so they could be open for debate.

I can see a few options that Tom and Sue might try, some a bit less likely than others but none stand out as a good idea:

• A high level legal challenge to the process. I suspect this would be near impossible, but it has been known for people to take matters to the highest court (at the time, the House of Lords), represent themselves and win. In fact, the protagonist in that particular case also took to somewhat unorthodox methods to draw attention to the case. Time limits alone may have already prevented this, let alone the fact that permission to appeal would most likely be refused.
• Finding some new evidence that could also reset the clock on an appeal - such as documents being deliberately concealed or falsified by Bradford and Bingley or UKAR. This is possibly the best hope for overturning things, but, even if such proof exists, obtaining it would be problematic. If the bundle of documents that they obtained had anything relevant I would have expected to have heard of it by now, and I would have assumed that they would have made the appropriate Subject Access Requests long ago as well, but anything is possible.
• A claim for damages in respect of how the eviction was carried out. While I'm not certain how this would proceed, I feel there might be grounds for some sort of argument here. Whether it could be taken beyond trivia or not, I am uncertain.
• A claim against the police for unlawfully assisting in the process. This could be quite interesting, at least for me as I am completely unfamiliar with whether this is possible or not. It is also a common remedy for alternative minded people to suggest, but not one that I can think of any examples where it was actually tried. It would, at least, give something to discuss in place of arresting the judge, which never seems to end well.
• A far out idea would be an action between Tom and Sue themselves. There has been some discussion about who was paying the endowment and how it was terminated, and there could be an argument that an agreement between the two of them was breached, potentially leading to one of the two suing the other. Highly unlikely, I know, unless they separate and I have seen no sign of this nor any evidence to suggest any dishonesty between them.
• Purchasing the house back. Now the value of the house is very depressed it could obviously be bought quite cheaply. If Tom and Sue could gain good title to it then the value would recover quite quickly - far quicker than if anyone else bought it. This might well make it a very good investment. I believe it sold last for £55,000. If Tom and Sue could buy it for that amount today, they could probably sell it on at 50% profit in a year. Funding this may be difficult, of course. This is probably one course of action where secrecy would be advised until completion, though.

To be completely frank, I think most of the above are either impossible or as nearly so as be not worth discussing - unless someone such as Jay is able to indicate if Tom and Sue will be following any of those lines, or perhaps some other direction that I haven't been able to imagine.

But, whether Jay feels comfortable commenting on the above or not, I would not wish to discourage him from participating here. He has been closer to the case than most of us and, even if we disagree with his beliefs, he may still have a better understanding of some aspects of the case than we do.

[jcolvin2]

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).....

I find that a rather pointless and insulting remark in much the same way as someone from the US might if some bigot were to state that all Americans are lard-arsed, pot bellied, empty headed loud mouths. This may be a stereotype promoted by those with something against citizens of the US but I see no place for such comments in this forum and would expect Forsyth to withdraw it and apologise to all us Brits, even those rare creatures who might harbour some secret affection for pantomime.

I assumed Forsyth was British (approximately 90% of his post are on the UK forum) and the comment was self-deprecating humor (another quality that citizens of the UK are reputed to evidence). Insofar as Americans being empty headed loudmouths, in the immortal words of Graucho Marx, "I resemble that remark!"

[Hercule Parrot]

I find that a rather pointless and insulting remark in much the same way as someone from the US might if some bigot were to state that all Americans are lard-arsed, pot bellied, empty headed loud mouths. This may be a stereotype promoted by those with something against citizens of the US but I see no place for such comments in this forum and would expect Forsyth to withdraw it and apologise to all us Brits, even those rare creatures who might harbour some secret affection for pantomime.

Oh No, He Shouldn't.....!

[YiamCross]

I find that a rather pointless and insulting remark in much the same way as someone from the US might if some bigot were to state that all Americans are lard-arsed, pot bellied, empty headed loud mouths. This may be a stereotype promoted by those with something against citizens of the US but I see no place for such comments in this forum and would expect Forsyth to withdraw it and apologise to all us Brits, even those rare creatures who might harbour some secret affection for pantomime.

Oh No, He Shouldn't.....!

Oh fuckit, in for a penny, in for a pound.

HE'S BEHIND YOU !!!1!!!

[Bungle]

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 and judge refused to sign as authentic when requested and as the prosecutor said "he refused to sign them" what does that actually tell you!

I will tell you exactly what the judge meant.

According to you (and there is no proof) the Judge at your recent trial said that in relation to the warrant, NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM WAS PREPARED TO SIGN ANYTHING OR PUT THEIR NAME TO IT.

Now this bit will surprise you Jay. The judge was RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of you have misread what he meant by this comment. What you would LIKE his comment to mean is that the warrant was littered with errors and as a consequence; NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM was prepared to sign it.

Now for the truth. NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM (or anywhere else for that matter) would sign a possession warrant, and the reason why this is so is very simple indeed.

JUDGES DO NOT SIGN POSSESSION WARRANTS.

[Hercule Parrot]

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 and judge refused to sign as authentic when requested and as the prosecutor said "he refused to sign them" what does that actually tell you!

The Judge at your recent trial said that 'no Judge would have signed the warrant of possession' (in connection with the Crawford's property).

All of you have misread his statement to try to mislead everyone into believing that his comment meant that an error must be on the warrant and 'no judge would have signed' it (because of it's errors).

The truth is, the Judge was right. No judge would have signed the possession warrant and the reason why this is so is very simple indeed. JUDGES DO NOT SIGN POSSESSION WARRANTS.

Very well made point - you have skewered the central dishonesty of this allegation.

I doubt that the CPS prosecutor ever said that the county court judge "refused to sign them" in those words. Using prejudicial and emotive wording which advantages the defence is not part of their ordinary duties.

[Bungle]

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 and judge refused to sign as authentic when requested and as the prosecutor said "he refused to sign them" what does that actually tell you!

The Judge at your recent trial said that 'no Judge would have signed the warrant of possession' (in connection with the Crawford's property).

All of you have misread his statement to try to mislead everyone into believing that his comment meant that an error must be on the warrant and 'no judge would have signed' it (because of it's errors).

The truth is, the Judge was right. No judge would have signed the possession warrant and the reason why this is so is very simple indeed. JUDGES DO NOT SIGN POSSESSION WARRANTS.

Very well made point - you have skewered the central dishonesty of this allegation.

I doubt that the CPS prosecutor ever said that the county court judge "refused to sign them" in those words. Using prejudicial and emotive wording which advantages the defence is not part of their ordinary duties.

Seems that while you were typing up your reply, I was editing my post.

I wanted to keep the post as simple as possible in the hope that one of them....two would be even better....could finally understand what the judge meant.

This is the edited post:



According to you (and there is no proof) the Judge at your recent trial said that in relation to the warrant, NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM WAS PREPARED TO SIGN ANYTHING OR PUT THEIR NAME TO IT.

Now this bit will surprise you Jay. The judge was RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of you have misread what he meant by this comment. What you would LIKE his comment to mean, is that the warrant was littered with errors and as a consequence; NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM was prepared to sign it.

Now for the truth. NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM (or anywhere else for that matter) would sign a possession warrant, and the reason is very simple indeed.

JUDGES DO NOT SIGN POSSESSION WARRANTS.

[Bungle]

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 and judge refused to sign as authentic when requested and as the prosecutor said "he refused to sign them" what does that actually tell you!

I will tell you exactly what the judge meant.

According to you (and there is no proof) the Judge at your recent trial said that in relation to the warrant, NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM WAS PREPARED TO SIGN ANYTHING OR PUT THEIR NAME TO IT.

Now this bit will surprise you Jay. The judge was RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of you have misread what he meant by this comment. What you would LIKE his comment to mean is that the warrant was littered with errors and as a consequence; NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM was prepared to sign it.

Now for the truth. NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM (or anywhere else for that matter) would sign a possession warrant, and the reason why this is so is very simple indeed.

JUDGES DO NOT SIGN POSSESSION WARRANTS.

Jay, I have done my best to try to explain the position about the warrant as simply as I can.

At one time, there were huge numbers of Tom Crawford supporters. Many of these were spurred on by the thought that a 'poor cancer sufferer' was being evicted from the home that he and his family had lived in for over 25 years. Over 500 TC supporters even took time out to travel to Nottingham to try to disrupt the eviction. It worked temporarily. The eviction was halted.The press and TV were also on hand.

When it came to the actual eviction itself (a few months later) the number of TC supporters had halved (not increased as Haining would have liked). By this time, it was becoming common knowledge that Tom and his family were firmly into the Freeman on the Land woo woo. His bungalow was repossessed, then sold and is now forever gone.

The full judgment was published and it was clear to that TC had not been honest about his mortgage. More supporters left.

There was a BBQ in the summer for the remaining TC supporters. It is best described as a disaster.

You can count on two hands the number of 'supporters' remaining and these together with their family and friends, attended the party in Nottingham last weekend to celebrate the not guilty verdicts in the 'Rooftop 6 + 1' trial. In total, there were no more than 40 people (and that number included children).

You and the small number of remaining Tom Crawford supporters would dearly like to think that Quatloos consist of a bunch of no good busy bodies who have taken delight is seeing Tom's bungalow be repossessed and sold. You couldn't be further from the truth Jay.

Nobody on here needed a crystal ball. They could see from day one when TC posted on GOODF that he had consulted with the 'white rabbit' that he was doomed for failure. Confirmation came quickly when Ceylon took Tom and his wife 'under his wings' and introduced them to Mr Ebert. Everyone on here tried to reach out to the Crawford family to make them see sense. It does not give me any pleasure to say 'I told you so' and I would think everyone on here would say the same.

[Bungle]

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 and judge refused to sign as authentic when requested and as the prosecutor said "he refused to sign them" what does that actually tell you!

I will tell you exactly what the judge meant.

According to you (and there is no proof) the Judge at your recent trial said that in relation to the warrant, NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM WAS PREPARED TO SIGN ANYTHING OR PUT THEIR NAME TO IT.

Now this bit will surprise you Jay. The judge was RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of you have misread what he meant by this comment. What you would LIKE his comment to mean is that the warrant was littered with errors and as a consequence; NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM was prepared to sign it.

Now for the truth. NO JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM (or anywhere else for that matter) would sign a possession warrant, and the reason why this is so is very simple indeed.

JUDGES DO NOT SIGN POSSESSION WARRANTS.

Jay, I have done my best to try to explain the position about the warrant as simply as I can.

At one time, there were huge numbers of Tom Crawford supporters. Many I suspect were spurred on by the thought that a 'poor cancer sufferer' was being evicted from the home that he and his family had lived in for over 25 years. Over 500 TC supporters even made the effort to travel to Nottingham to try to disrupt the eviction. It worked temporarily. The press and TV were also on hand.

When it came to the actual eviction itself (a few months later) the number of TC supporters had halved (not increased as Haining would have liked). By this time, it was becoming common knowledge that Tom and his family were firmly into the Freeman on the Land woo woo. His bungalow was repossessed, sold and any thought that it may be returned to him...gone.

The full Goldsmark judgment was published and it was clear from reading it that TC had not been honest about his mortgage. More supporters left.

There was a BBQ in the summer for the remaining TC supporters. It was best described as a disaster (and the weather can't be blamed).

You can count on just two hands the number of 'supporters' remaining and these, together with their family and friends, attended the party in Nottingham last weekend to celebrate the not guilty verdicts in the 'Rooftop 6 + 1' trial. In total, there were no more than 40 people (and that number included children).

You and the small number of remaining Tom Crawford supporters would dearly like to think that Quatloos consists of a bunch of no good busy bodies who have taken delight is seeing Tom's bungalow be repossessed and sold. You couldn't be further from the truth Jay.

Nobody on here needed a crystal ball. They could see from day one when TC posted on GOODF that he had consulted with the 'white rabbit' that he was doomed for failure and he was at risk of losing his house. Confirmation came quickly when Ceylon took Tom and his wife 'under his wings' and introduced them to....Mr Ebert and Guy Taylor (amongst others).

Everyone on here tried to reach out to the Crawford family to make them see sense. It does not give me any pleasure to say 'I told you so' and I would think that everyone on here would say the same.

[AndyPandy]

Jay, The real Villains in all of this are the people who have continuely mis led Tom and his family (and continue to do so) about how he should deal:

with Bradford & Bingley,
the Judgement
The possession order ( a mob were NEVER going to stop it )

And now latterly the Warrant- the one that each and everyone of them have had sight of but are now pretending they don't or it has hidden flaws

When it was quite clear to anyone with half a brain he was going to lose that house, Tom could have sold it and walked away with considerable equity instead of losing it and being landed with £100k costs.

If you're looking to put blame for this fiasco where it's clearly due look closely at Tom himself and those surrounding him whispering in his ear, because neither your past antics nor theirs are or have helped him !