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

[bmxninja357]

Obviously, 'the State' is not very efficient in it's 'killing off programme', though not looking well after his afternoon on the roof, he still looked very much alive!!!!1!!!!

They have to do an environmental study to determine if putting him underground would be hazardous to the local wildlife, then do a feasibility study, then put it out for public review.

Then the bidding process.

I can speed up the process.

1.Environmental impact of bumping off Tom Crawford and subsequent burial.
This has been decided as having a low environmental impact and no wildlife or foliage will be suffer from the burial.

2.Feasibility of bumping off Tom Crawford
After long and arduous discussion(15 minutes including coffee/tea break)it has been agreed upon that it would be feasible as the costs to the public purse would be minimal and it would be in the public's interest to carry out the agreed upon actions.

3.Public review
The results of the public review where 99% in favour with just 1% disagreeing,the 1% would not give their names as they claim doing so would enter them into a contract and as such the 1% of disagreement has been disregarded.

Bidding process.
I enter my terms,for me to carry out the "bumping off" of Tom Crawford my price is as follows,a large bag of Skittles (regular not sour),bus fair to and from the job (saving tax payers money on the usual taxi/limo).
I just need to know if it is to be an "accident" or a "statement" im cool either way.


Disclaimer
The above is purely fiction and should not be taken serious in any way(i would be happy with either regular or sour Skittles)

This is simple. If someone was going kill Crawford I got two words for ya.

Hat bomb!

Peace
Ninj

[daveBeeston]

I am by nature a man of very liberal bent who believes in the equality of all regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion or lack thereof but I cannot... Nay... WILL NOT accept Sour Skittles as being the equal of regular Skittles. They are not and never will be and the claim that they are is political correctness gawn mad.

Oh dear i though we where a more enlightened bunch but alas it would seem not resorting to Tasteism what is the world coming to,have we not evolved enough to accept a tasty treat that may be different to the original but is still on par and just as satisfying or will i have to sit at the back of the bus while enjoying my sour fix on the way back from storming Castle Crawford and riding the world of an oxygen thief


I think we may be going a little off topic here so lets get back to it TOM CRAWFORD NO ON IS TRYING TO KILL YOU EXCEPT FATHER TIME and he does not work for the banks or the Government he is entirely self employed.

[Jeffrey]

Getting back to the topic, has Tom been charged yet?

[AndyPandy]

All very quiet, but hopefully, he and his cohorts are planning something spectacularly stupid to keep us entertained !

[longdog]

have we not evolved enough to accept a tasty treat that may be different to the original but is still on par and just as satisfying

Except they're not!!!!111!!!

[Skeleton]

Getting back to the topic, has Tom been charged yet?

I for one do not think he will be. Notts Police are obviously well aware of who Tom Crawford is and his You Tube videos, Facebook rants/threats from him and his siblings etc. Given the recent lack of bullshit from camp Crawfraud my guess is he has already been interviewed and presented with a bit of paper warning him to stay away from his former home. Why stoke the fire even more by charging him?

[PeanutGallery]

I would concur, it's also quite likely that the police want to prevent the situation escalating. They know Tom wants a big court circus trial so that his supporters can pile into Nottingham and make more of a nuisance of themselves, so the best thing is to try and make it go away.

It probably won't, at least Tom won't, he'll keep going on but the momentum and support will peter out and more and more he'll become less and less. Of course while the police might be unable to help, Tom may find himself facing a civil claim or restraint order from neighbours in Fearn Chase. Certainly if I lived there I would look into getting an anti-harassment order against him, his family and supporters, because quite frankly it is unfair on the other residents to be disrupted so frequently because one old idiot didn't pay his mortgage and has lied about it.

[AndyPandy]

Like you say Peanut the Police are well aware of Tom and his agenda, they probably haven't even set a date to interview him yet.

He's going to have to pull another stunt, such as occupying 3 Fearn Chase this time (even though it's probably not habitable) to really force their hand, as I suspect they're not playing ball and charging him with anything significant.

I'm also predicting a restraint order (which he'll breach) and eventual imprisonment - probably in about a years time - for continually breaching the order - just like Ebert did.

[#six]

It's not unusual for Nottinghamshire police to wait months before they make their decision on whether to charge or not.

[afateworsethandeath]

And if it's an offence with a 6 months statute of limitation, it may be out of time. What a great shame that would be! TC denied his grand standing day in court due to a deliberate oversight

[Jeffrey]

Not sure if this belongs here or on Ceylon's channel but he's uploaded a video of Michael O'deira from the Saturday meeting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZxl0qv5jbs

A lot the old canards, "there was no warrant" etc, but it stood out to me because it's the first one where they explicitly argue that they should never have to repay a mortgage.

There's also some semi-tragic lamentations by Michael about how the judge in his case ignored his notarized affidavit.

[getoutofdebtfools]

I, for one, will be disappointed if Tom is not charged for his recent rooftop antics.

I was looking forward to seeing the Crawfords and their moronic followers call "conspiracy" when they're told a criminal court isn't interested in their pointless civil matter.

All is not lost though as I'm sure this laughable story will just keep giving.

Keep up the the entertainment Tom/Amanda/Ceylon, makes me smile every day

[Interobang]

I, for one, will be disappointed if Tom is not charged for his recent rooftop antics.

That's ok, you'll get your wish. Of course he'll be charged, whether he likes it or not... He has damaged somebody else's property... THE END



?!

[Normal Wisdom]

Hi All,

Looks like Tom and others tried to shoehorn their nonsense into a meeting about the upcoming election of Police and Crime Commissioner for Nottingham. Update from Tom on ETFOTB FB page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/5311314 ... 6/?fref=ts

Hi All
CALL FOR PUBLIC ENQUIRY INTO THE UNLAWFUL EVICTIONS IN THE NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AREA...
Interesting meeting last night with the present Police and Crime Commissioner Paddy Tipping ( and he does commission crime) The meeting was held in a church a place for truth, Paddy Tipping was shaking in his boots. His friend Vernon Coaker Member of Parliment for Gedling crept in and sat at the back of the hall, two Public servents who did absolutely nothing to stop the unlawful attack against the Crawford family and our Castle. Paddy Tipping has said he will have a meeting about our case after we called for a criminal investigation into the criminal activities of the following (we await with baited breath)... THE UNHOLY TRINITY ARE AS FOLLOWS
John Collins (Leader of Nottingham City Council)
Paddy Tipping (current Police & Crime Commissioner for Nottingham)
Chris Eyre (Chief Constable for Nottinghamshire)
Unlawful evictions are evident and are taking place not only in the Nottinghamshire area but Country as a whole, enough is enough. Paddy also talked about the strategic alliance and business plan, joining forces with Leicester & Northamptonshire Police forces.
The chairs of the meeting Jennifer Scott from the Nottingham Evening Post contribution was interesting and biased in favour of Paddy Tipping against the other candidates and also the Public speakers in the audience. If you listen to the video it is blatent what side she is coming from. I have been informed that Paddy is very good friends with the owner of the Nottingham Evening Post ?
Well done to our good friend Mickey Summers for surging ahead in the light of the criminality going on to get these criminals brought to book he is an inspiration and his support for our plight is greatly appreciated.
I also took the opportunity of walking to the back of the hall and asking Vernon Coaker if he had any business connections with Paddy to which he replied No....
Wishing everyone and their familys well... more news coming on my current position with the Police regarding when I got onto the roof of my house soon....
Tom

So Tom is calling for a public enquiry now? I assume that if the existing PCC only agreed to meet with Tom and co. it was only to shut them up in the meeting. He should know by now that it is the worst possible thing to do because he will never scrape them off. The report in the Nottingham Post tended to focus on other issues but did contain this passing comment on the interjections by Tom and co.

Towards the end of the evening, protesters who claim the police have not dealt with their cases fairly, asked questions about historical child sex abuse and corruption in the force. All candidates argued different ways to tackle the alleged corruption

http://www.nottinghampost.com/year-old- ... story.html

[Footloose52]

So, according to Tom, Paddy Tipping is good friends with the owners of the Trinity Mirror Group of newspapers. Hmm - that is a publicly quoted company ...

Or does Tom mean the CEO and the board or is it the largest shareholder. What planet is Tom on, it just gets better and better.

[longdog]

So, according to Tom, Paddy Tipping is good friends with the owners of the Trinity Mirror Group of newspapers. Hmm - that is a publicly quoted company ...

Or does Tom mean the CEO and the board or is it the largest shareholder. What planet is Tom on, it just gets better and better.

I think you'll find "I have been informed that Paddy is very good friends with the owner of the (insert current bogie-man)" is YouTard for "I've just pulled this shit out of my arse".

[Bones]

Tom has completely lost the plot on the EFOTB's group on FB and is completely deluded.

Hi all, The family and I would like to thank the many Hundreds of good people who came to support us last year..........THANK YOU ALL
smile emoticon
smile emoticon
smile emoticon

This day one year ago 2nd of May, Sue and I won our court case, the criminal County Court knew it and so did Bradford and Bingley and so they conspired against us, the following is some of our defence that we placed into court, many who have followed our case did not know this information, but we are still in battle with the criminals, We will not stop We will not retreat and We will win this battle not just for us but for everyone who has been unlawfully evicted.

1) Bradford and Bingley changed our mortgage and we proved it in court by letters submitted before judge Godmark, on seeing this Bradford and Bingley backtracked and lied, we claimed that throughout the 25 years of payments we would not move from the fact we had an endowment mortgage and that was that as far as we were concerned we still paid it !!!!
Bradford and Bingley then agreed it was indeed still an endowment mortgage, this was to get them out of the corner that we put them in because if they didn’t they were trapped by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 look this act up it is very interesting.......... FRAUD

They then went onto claim we had cashed in our endowment and supplied to the court an account number that was supposed ours, it was at this point their barrister nearly fell of her seat when I produced our account number that she had in her hands at the time but hadn’t noticed that the numbers were different, but good old Judge Godmark true to form piped up with yes! Mr Crawford but the numbers are very similar; that’s right judge Godmark the number 1 does look very similar to an other 1, and in some respects 5 does look like another 5, just try paying money into an account with just one digit wrong they wont take it, the digits were not only wrong the ones that were there were in the wrong order, stupid or criminally minded……...FRAUD!

Tom you idiot, you posted a copy of your own Mortgage Statement on youtube showing the endowment payout being credited to your mortgage account.

2) Then we had them with checkmate with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. You will have to read it all but just a taste that they didn’t do in fact they breached every part of this act………… FRAUD!

Checkmate ? The LOP (MP) 1989, was introduced after you took out your mortgage in 1988

3) Bradford and Bingley admitted they capitalized the arrears that we had when were late paying them when I was ill, Judge Godmark ignored the following Judgment and allowed Bradford and Bingley to commit……….. FRAUD!

Bank of Scotland plc v Rea, McGeady 2014
Bank of Scotland damned by judge as 'unconscionable' after it 'double billed' mortgage borrowers who fell into arrears
The case concerned borrowers who, after being declared in arrears, saw their regular monthly repayment jump higher, sometimes by hundreds of pounds, without their consent.
Bank of Scotland, part of Lloyds Banking Group, had 'capitalised' the arrears, rolling the missed payments into the outstanding loan and triggering higher monthly payments to clear the debt. The practice is commonly used when borrowers fall behind on payments.
However, the bank then continued to regard borrowers as in arrears and used this to start repossession proceedings against them and to seek additional payments towards the arrears.

4) We have also produced in court our payment books that proved there was NO!!! arrears, arrears is the only legal way they could have lawfully evicted us, so once again they lost in court on that one to……..FRAUD!

Just win one of the above and case over.

You stopped paying your mortgage, of course there were arrears

Michael O'Deira
Michael O'Deira "What had been established and agreed by all parties was the fact that there had never been any change from an endowment to a part repayment, part interest mortgage and that the Crawfords had continued to pay out, albeit on an entirely fraudulent mortgage. In other words, the purported bank had repudiated its agreement with the Crawfords – a key tenet of Tom’s skeleton argument:

Thus, the judgment by Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith granting the B&B possession back in 2012 was void ab initio, as it was demonstrably procured by the B&B’s solicitors perpetrating a fraud upon the court, in that the Bank’s directors had repudiated the conditions of the mortgage by unilaterally changing the terms to avoid the bank’s contractual obligations, to the obvious detriment of Tom and Sue Crawford and in clear breach of the Unfair Terms in Contracts Act 1977." Read more: http://roguemale.org/.../tgbms-cameras-are-the-new.../...

Mickey O'Deria you my friend are an idiot and responsible for the Crawfrauds losing the equity in their home with your nonsense

[Bones]

1) Bradford and Bingley changed our mortgage and we proved it in court by letters submitted before judge Godmark, on seeing this Bradford and Bingley backtracked and lied, we claimed that throughout the 25 years of payments we would not move from the fact we had an endowment mortgage and that was that as far as we were concerned we still paid it !!!!
Bradford and Bingley then agreed it was indeed still an endowment mortgage, this was to get them out of the corner that we put them in because if they didn’t they were trapped by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 look this act up it is very interesting.......... FRAUD

They then went onto claim we had cashed in our endowment and supplied to the court an account number that was supposed ours, it was at this point their barrister nearly fell of her seat when I produced our account number that she had in her hands at the time but hadn’t noticed that the numbers were different, but good old Judge Godmark true to form piped up with yes! Mr Crawford but the numbers are very similar; that’s right judge Godmark the number 1 does look very similar to an other 1, and in some respects 5 does look like another 5, just try paying money into an account with just one digit wrong they wont take it, the digits were not only wrong the ones that were there were in the wrong order, stupid or criminally minded……...FRAUD!

Seriously, Tom ?

From the judgement

30. Bradford & Bingley have information from Phoenix Group (successors to Royal Life) indicating that their records show that endowment policy premium payments were received from the account of S A Crawford (Mrs Crawford) up to and including 25 June 1991. There is no record of any payments thereafter and the policy was surrendered on 22nd July 1992 with a surrender payment of £178.75.

There is a credit to the Crawford’s mortgage account of £178.75 on 23rd July 1992.

Your own video Tom, that you made https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx57G54gkWQ

[LordEd]

just try paying money into an account with just one digit wrong they wont take it, the digits were not only wrong the ones that were there were in the wrong order, stupid or criminally minded……...FRAUD!

And the proof of paying into that account for 25 years is........

[Bones]

2) Then we had them with checkmate with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. You will have to read it all but just a taste that they didn’t do in fact they breached every part of this act………… FRAUD!

From the same video that Tom made



Tom, you signed it in September 1988. As confirmed by s.1 (11) and s.2(7) of the act, it is not retrospective. Tom the judge explained this to you and you still don't understand

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989

64. The 1989 Act did not apply when this mortgage was created in 1988 and Mr Crawford recognises that. His submission is that any subsequent mortgage contract should have complied with the formalities of s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

65. The problem with the submission is that both sides agree that there was no subsequent mortgage contract replacing the original 1988 mortgage agreement. This is the same factual point. Mr Crawford asserts that he never agreed to go onto a repayment mortgage but then Bradford & Bingley do not say that he ever did - the mortgage stayed as it was.

66. I did wonder whether Mr Crawford was trying to make a point here about the later £5,000 loan but:- a) That loan was granted by 9th June 1989 before the coming into force of the 1989 Act on 26h September 1989; b) The original mortgage deed is expressed to be effective to secure the original £41,800 loan and any subsequent borrowing.

67. I also wondered whether Mr Crawford was confusing a contract for a mortgage with the mortgage deed itself. The s.2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 formalities apply only to a contract for a mortgage. Unless those formalities are complied with, a party is not contractually obliged to execute a mortgage. But that does not effect the validity of a mortgage deed which is actually executed. The formalities of a deed are governed by s. 53 Law of Property Act 1925 and they are complied with in this case. The distinction was authoratively emphasised by the Court of Appeal in Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542.

68. The cases cited by Mr Crawford in his skeleton argument do not assist him. United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib [1997] Ch 107 dealt with the formation of contracts for the disposition of an interest in land. It does not say that the 1989 Act applies to an executed mortgage deed. Murray v Guinness (unreported 1998) is again about the requirements of a mortgage contract as a contract for the disposition of an interest in land. It does not say that the Act applies to executed mortgage deeds. Keay & Keay v Morris Homes [2012] 1 WLR 2855 likewise deals with the formalities necessary for a contract for the disposition of an interest in land. It does not apply the 1989 Act formalities to executed disposition deeds. Helden v Strathmore [2011] EWCA Civ 542 is the case which is precisely on point. It emphasises that the formalities of s.2 of the 1989 Act apply to mortgage contracts and not mortgage deeds. Bank of Scotland v Waugh [[2015] 1 P&CR DG3 held that a document which was not a valid deed for lack of attestation could still be a contract for a mortgage if it complied with s.2 of the 1989 Act. It does not say that in order to be valid, a mortgage deed must comply with s.2.