Tom Crawford is on the roof of Fearn Close !!!

[letissier14]

I see in the interview the reporter asked him about the effect it was having on the neighbours of Fearn Chase and Tom just said they will just have to put up with it, as his justice is more important than a little bit of inconvenience for his ex neighbours.

HE REALLY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT HIS OLD NEIGHBOURS

[littleFred]

Tom wanted to be charged and eventually go to trial for burglary. His defence would be that it is his own property thus not guilty. He would then lay out the evidence to "prove" the house was his.

But various courts have said the house is no longer his. His evidence won't be allowed because that point has already been decided. So that defence won't work. Perhaps the court could be persuaded that Tom had a genuinely held (though mistaken) belief that he owned the house. I don't know if that defence could work.

But even if it does, it wouldn't help Tom. It wouldn't be a ruling that he owns the house, merely a judgement about Tom's state of mind.

[#six]

Tom wanted to be charged and eventually go to trial for burglary. His defence would be that it is his own property thus not guilty. He would then lay out the evidence to "prove" the house was his.

But various courts have said the house is no longer his. His evidence won't be allowed because that point has already been decided. So that defence won't work. Perhaps the court could be persuaded that Tom had a genuinely held (though mistaken) belief that he owned the house. I don't know if that defence could work.

But even if it does, it wouldn't help Tom. It wouldn't be a ruling that he owns the house, merely a judgement about Tom's state of mind.

The high court confirmed that the house was no longer his. And I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but a lesser court CANNOT overturn a decision made in the high court. So I think you are right, the judge would just rule that any 'evidence' the Tom though proved he owned the hose would be in admissible. Further to that however, I doubt he would even be able to rely upon that as a genuinely held belief. It's quite clear to all but a simpleton that losing in the high court means he doesn't own the property.

[Bungle]

I see in the interview the reporter asked him about the effect it was having on the neighbours of Fearn Chase and Tom just said they will just have to put up with it, as his justice is more important than a little bit of inconvenience for his ex neighbours.

HE REALLY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT HIS OLD NEIGHBOURS

Let's be honest though...they couldn't care less about him either.

I didn't see any trays of teas and coffee's or hot bacon butties being handed out. By the time he shinned down the ladder, there was only about half a dozen people left (including Sue, Colon and his missus).

[Skeleton]

It will be Thursday soon and yet we have heard boo about an interview or charges. From the video, I thought something was going to happen Monday or Tuesday.

Really want to know if he gets his jury of 12 or not.

It's a complete red herring. A collateral attack upon a decided matter. TC says that if he can be charged with burglary and win acquittal, it will vindicate his complete argument about the mortgage, the eviction, the debts etc :

If the jury say "you're wrong" I'll walk away. If they say "you're right" then it will prove everything I've done is correct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO7J6y7 ... be&t=2m56s

This is simply not true - a criminal hearing of a burglary charge cannot overturn separate, previous civil judgements. The same arguments were made when the rooftop commando were prosecuted last year. Their acquittal had no effect upon ownership of Fearn Chase, or the Crawfraud's continuing debt of £98,000.

My prediction - an injunction or ASBO-style order prohibiting TC (and perhaps other named persons) from Fearn Chase, followed by jail for contempt if he continues to cause trouble there. No consent, wet-ink seals or jury required.

Agreed. Tom no doubt egged on by Haining and others seems to have suddenly got the idea that if he gets his 'jury" trial, he will be able to use it as a platform to "persuade" the Judge the warrant was fake, he owes nothing, and the Judge needs to give him his house back, and lock up those that stole it. Of course the trial will be about why he was on the roof of a property he does not own and the Judge won't allow it, no doubt leading to Tom claiming the Judge not listening proves he was right all along and claim another stunning victory.

Extra popcorn will no doubt be needed when the builders move in, some knuckle dragging idiot is bound to do something stupid when that happens.

[Bones]

The planning permission was a great find. I have read it so many times but never noticed in the judgement that Tom Crawfraud admitted he had received the warrant...

Just when you thought it was going to go quiet it just kicks off again.

Amanda has still been unable to give a single reason why the warrant is not valid, except to simply claim that it is not valid

[PeanutGallery]

Wouldn't surprise me if the new owner doesn't want to press charges and Police simply drop it.

I'm not sure that the new owner would have much of a choice in the decision to charge, that would be taken by the police and CPS. However I think the best option to pursue would be to look into getting an order preventing Tom and his supporters from gathering in Fearn Chase.

This could be dealt with by local magistrates which would be the most effective of both dealing with Tom and ensuring that things don't escalate further. It's pretty obvious that the same group of individuals are involved in these protests and I would think that an argument can be made that it is not in the public interest to allow them to continue, and that the wider public interest would be towards preventing those individuals from doing this again.

[letissier14]

I'm not sure that the new owner would have much of a choice in the decision to charge, that would be taken by the police and CPS. However I think the best option to pursue would be to look into getting an order preventing Tom and his supporters from gathering in Fearn Chase.

This could be dealt with by local magistrates which would be the most effective of both dealing with Tom and ensuring that things don't escalate further. It's pretty obvious that the same group of individuals are involved in these protests and I would think that an argument can be made that it is not in the public interest to allow them to continue, and that the wider public interest would be towards preventing those individuals from doing this again.

Something has to be done because he clearly stated that he wont give up until he gets what he wants. Could he even end up with an ASBO?

[Skeleton]

The planning permission was a great find. I have read it so many times but never noticed in the judgement that Tom Crawfraud admitted he had received the warrant...

Just when you thought it was going to go quiet it just kicks off again.

Amanda has still been unable to give a single reason why the warrant is not valid, except to simply claim that it is not valid

Bones mate come on, they have the warrant when it suits them, at one stage Amanda proclaimed loudly (not unusual for her) they had it and it was being forensically examined and the results would be published.

Guy Taylor had a warrant, at one stage he put his pint down long enough, during the roof top bell ends love in, to wave it at Policeman proclaiming it now said Tom should get his house back.

Not forgetting Tom himself who depending on the scale of the "poor me" meter, has been issued with a warrant, then hasn't, then has.

By the way rumour has it they are still pulling straws at Crawford HQ as to who gets to explain to Craig what a warrant is.

[PeanutGallery]

Tom wanted to be charged and eventually go to trial for burglary. His defence would be that it is his own property thus not guilty. He would then lay out the evidence to "prove" the house was his.

However Tom hasn't committed enough of a crime to actually warrant a burglary charge.

Code: Select all

Burglary.

(1)A person is guilty of burglary if—

(a)he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or

(b)having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

(2)The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily harm F1... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building or anything therein.

Tom didn't steal anything, didn't do any gbh, and I don't believe he did any actual damage to the building. So Tom won't be charged with burglary, because as the law stands that is not what he did. He certainly didn't have the intent to commit burglary (because based on his statement and subsequent actions, he doesn't know what burglary is and therefore didn't actually intend it).

I think it's quite notable that Tom got up on the roof, this was no doubt an imitation of the previous shenanigans with the 6 + 1. Although the trouble was that it was much much smaller and much less significant. It's likely that Tom thinks or has been told, the only reason he hasn't got the house back following the rooftop acquittal was because he, the previous owner, wasn't 'in' the court and so the Judge couldn't rule that the property should be restored. I believe this is why he thinks the arrest, charge, court, HOUSE plan will work.

It won't. Tom has failed again.

Now when Tom isn't charged with burglary he's more likely to think that they don't want him to be making this argument in court, because now they know what he's trying to do and they are going to stop him from doing this. So he'll be thinking that they know he knows and this will only make him more and more paranoid and lead to more and more schemes in an attempt to get himself arrested.

[PeanutGallery]

I'm not sure that the new owner would have much of a choice in the decision to charge, that would be taken by the police and CPS. However I think the best option to pursue would be to look into getting an order preventing Tom and his supporters from gathering in Fearn Chase.

This could be dealt with by local magistrates which would be the most effective of both dealing with Tom and ensuring that things don't escalate further. It's pretty obvious that the same group of individuals are involved in these protests and I would think that an argument can be made that it is not in the public interest to allow them to continue, and that the wider public interest would be towards preventing those individuals from doing this again.

Something has to be done because he clearly stated that he wont give up until he gets what he wants. Could he even end up with an ASBO?

An ASBO would be the most sensible option, it would at least give the residents of the Chase two years respite from his antics and give the police powers to move him on or arrest him for breaching it. Ideally I suppose the best option would be to add Ceylon and Sue to the order.

[#six]

An ASBO would be the most sensible option, it would at least give the residents of the Chase two years respite from his antics and give the police powers to move him on or arrest him for breaching it. Ideally I suppose the best option would be to add Ceylon and Sue to the order.

I'm not a fan of ASBOs. Personally I think the option of jail with out jury and for a civil matter is wrong. However in this case it would seem to be the perfect solution.

Basically the magistrates court would hear evidence and grant an ASBO since it seem quite clear that Tom is being anti social towards the residents of Fearn Chase. If he breaches that order he gets jailed for contempt. All without jury. Tom gets no arena to claim his house was stolen and the public get protected from his antics.

[littleFred]

Tom didn't steal anything, didn't do any gbh, and I don't believe he did any actual damage to the building. So Tom won't be charged with burglary, because as the law stands that is not what he did.

But see http://bambuser.com/v/6182079 from 31:20. Ceylon thinks Tom will get what he wanted: to be charged with burglary and criminal damage. At this point in the day, Tom was in the police van. It seems to me that Tom planned this, possibly with others though no-one will admit to that.

I don't know if Tom did any damage, or whether he will be charged.

I am convinced that (a) his actions are futile and self-damaging, (b) he has a small but noisy following urging him on to further actions, and (c) the authorities may be obliged to place greater restrictions on his liberty.

[SteveUK]

And they're off!!

"someone call a Constable and have this Kunt Arrested.
Why didnt mr Barry Eckman turn up at court and produce the WARRANT ?
Surely he wouldnt have Knowingly bought a stolen property in an attempt to do some work on it and sell it before charges are Bought ??"

[getoutofdebtfools]

And they're off!!

"someone call a Constable and have this Kunt Arrested.
Why didnt mr Barry Eckman turn up at court and produce the WARRANT ?
Surely he wouldnt have Knowingly bought a stolen property in an attempt to do some work on it and sell it before charges are Bought ??"

In English please?

[SteveUK]

I'm afraid google translate didn't have a 'goodfy' option.......

[Pox]

And they're off!!

"someone call a Constable and have this Kunt Arrested.
Why didnt mr Barry Eckman turn up at court and produce the WARRANT ?
Surely he wouldnt have Knowingly bought a stolen property in an attempt to do some work on it and sell it before charges are Bought ??"

It was Society of the Spectacle who posted the above.
He often (I assume that he is a he?) resorts to threats of violence - for some reason I imagine him to be a 7 stone weakling who deals out threats from behind the protection of his keyboard.

[Bones]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 10#p451993

by tommc » Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:01 pm
Hi all,

I have stopped posting on this site because of trolls causing divisions between you all because of me, but on this one occasion I would like to say it is an honor to be supported by most of you on here over the years, I have a great respect for the depth of knowledge here and I value it.

Once our family victory is fully declared you will be required to attend the celebrations party in Nottingham Lol but on the real side of life it will be a victory for us all we win.

Tom

Fully declared ??? I thought you won your Court case - that is what you and guy told that reporter 15 times 111!!!!!

[NYGman]

Once our family victory is fully declared you will be required to attend the celebrations party in Nottingham Lol but on the real side of life it will be a victory for us all we win.

Tom

Fully declared ??? I thought you won your Court case - that is what you and guy told that reporter 15 times 111!!!!!

Isn't tom basically saying, so long and goodbye, as we will never be celebrating together in Nottingham, at least not at Fearn Close.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Surely he cannot be so deluded that he really does believe he will get his old house back?