Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Interobang]

I was in Nottingham today so popped down to Fern chase (as i was in Carlton hill on business) the owner was there working on the house.

I suggested that should Tom or any of his fanboys/family come round again , or should Tom get found guilty (and there is no restraining order) in place then he should seek a civil injunction to keep Ol Tom away.

He said The crawfords havent got a cats chance in hell of getting place back. Nice enough guy

*edit* he now knows when this was

?!

[SteveUK]

I was in Nottingham today so popped down to Fern chase (as i was in Carlton hill on business) the owner was there working on the house.

I suggested that should Tom or any of his fanboys/family come round again , or should Tom get found guilty (and there is no restraining order) in place then he should seek a civil injunction to keep Ol Tom away.

He said The crawfords havent got a cats chance in hell of getting place back. Nice enough guy

The most sensible thing any Fearn chase occupant has said in years.

[Skeleton]

I was in Nottingham today so popped down to Fern chase (as i was in Carlton hill on business) the owner was there working on the house.

I suggested that should Tom or any of his fanboys/family come round again , or should Tom get found guilty (and there is no restraining order) in place then he should seek a civil injunction to keep Ol Tom away.

He said The crawfords havent got a cats chance in hell of getting place back. Nice enough guy

The most sensible thing any Fearn chase occupant has said in years.

Any Fearn Chase occupant? I think your being unfair with that comment. The only occupant's of Fearn Chase that appear to have caused any problems are the Crawfords, his former neighbours have throughout maintained a diplomatic silence and put up with his antics. Tom of course was not happy with them not showing their undying support for his cause and i quote told his neighbours via a local TV reporter "they would just have to put up with it."

[doublelong]

I was in Nottingham today so popped down to Fern chase (as i was in Carlton hill on business) the owner was there working on the house.

I suggested that should Tom or any of his fanboys/family come round again , or should Tom get found guilty (and there is no restraining order) in place then he should seek a civil injunction to keep Ol Tom away.

He said The crawfords havent got a cats chance in hell of getting place back. Nice enough guy

The most sensible thing any Fearn chase occupant has said in years.

Any Fearn Chase occupant? I think your being unfair with that comment. The only occupant's of Fearn Chase that appear to have caused any problems are the Crawfords, his former neighbours have throughout maintained a diplomatic silence and put up with his antics. Tom of course was not happy with them not showing their undying support for his cause and i quote told his neighbours via a local TV reporter "they would just have to put up with it."

As far as the neighbours go I think you have to take into account what was happening in the lead up to the 2nd July. Not just the 2 eviction attempts but we now know a small group were pitched up outside the house and I can honestly say I would not have voiced my opinions.

[SteveUK]

I was referring to 3 Fearn chase, but fat fingers and small phone screens etc

[getoutofdebtfools]

Does anybody know what will happen to the Royal Courts of Justice after Tom brings down judiciary system next week?

I was hoping to buy it and convert it into an HMO.

[Colin123]

Does anybody know what will happen to the Royal Courts of Justice after Tom brings down judiciary system next week?

I was hoping to buy it and convert it into an HMO.

Well i hope you have plenty of cash, You won't be able to raise a mortgage because Tom will be bringing the banking system down at the same time

[Bones]

Does anybody know what will happen to the Royal Courts of Justice after Tom brings down judiciary system next week?

I was hoping to buy it and convert it into an HMO.

Well i hope you have plenty of cash, You won't be able to raise a mortgage because Tom will be bringing the banking system down at the same time

But cash will be worthless, as Tom is telling the world about fiat currency blah blah

*Disclaimer - All freetard guru's only accept "donations" in fiat currency

[rumpelstilzchen]

If fiat currency is worthless why are all freetards so intent on not parting with it?

[letissier14]

Tom Who .... totally getting lost in the woods these days

Tom Crawford
Yesterday at 21:28

Hi all,

This post is by way of a............. WARNING!!!!! please share this warning to everyone you know.

If you have been abroad and purchased a torch or a mobile phone, I would suggest you examine it to see if it is capable of being turned into a stun gun i.e. Taser, for they are sold on the continent and other places currently legally, you can purchase these Ebay and on Amazon, but in this country the government has passed a Draconian law that will send you to jail if you have one of these devices and not for a few months, but for five years minimum sentence with no right of appeal or time of for good behaviour.

This man has had to suffer his rights been violated through an act known as a..... Strict liability offence, even a couple in their 60s caravanning suffered the same fate it is deplorable and unjust. I believe we have to do something about this as it is dangerous for the general population to allow this law to remain.

If you innocently purchase anything charged by electricity and you do not know the hidden capabilities you are in danger. This man is a kind and thoughtful family man with children, he bought one of these tortures not realising that it could be converted into a stun gun bearing in mind that he didn't have the parts to convert it, he even declared it at customs.

Now I want you all to take on the magnitude of the injustice involved in this charge, remember someone could put one of these things in your pocket and you will be having a five-year holiday in some prison, below is an explanation of this unjust law.

Briefly I will explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability.

For strict liability offences it can be said that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the offence actus reus, (action or conduct which is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused) of the offence.

It is often said that NO! mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) is needed for strict liability offences. This is probably an over simplification. A more complete answer would be that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.

Ordinarily the criminal law is concerned with blame worthiness. There are various levels of mens rea or blameworthiness. Some offences are more serious than others and, as a general rule, the more serious the offence the higher the level of mens rea required such as ‘intention’ or ‘recklessness’. This is related to the consequences of conviction and again, as a general rule, the more serious the offence – the greater the punishment.

In effect, it is possible to be convicted of a strict liability offence without ANY! degree of fault. The defendant may not have acted deliberately or in any way to bring about the state of affairs. It may be enough that the situation has arisen.

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT, THE MOST UNJUST LAW I HAVE EVER COME ACROSS AND NOW WE NEED TO HELP THIS INNOCENT MAN!!!!!!! AND REMOVE THIS LAW.

Not sure if this is who Tom is talking about, but found this on a quick google search

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-m ... story.html

Also

http://www.cps.gov.uk/london/press_rele ... souvenirs/

[Skeleton]

Having seen a variety of these items on my travels, you can take it from me that only the spectacularly stupid would not realise what they are, by merely looking let alone touching. I need to reference it but I am fairly sure the defence of "I did not know what it was, honest guv" has already been tried without success.

[daveBeeston]

Tom seems to have done as he almost always does and not fully looked into what he is saying, the items are not ones that can be convertered into stun guns but rather stun guns designed to look like other items(such as a mobile phone), they are sold openly as stun guns in other parts of the world.

Now if anyone that has an item that can be convertered into a stun gun is liable for prosecution then anyone with an old disposable camera is guilty of the offence, they can easily be converted using a soldering iron, some copper wire and electrical tape.

[longdog]

Tom seems to have done as he almost always does and not fully looked into what he is saying, the items are not ones that can be convertered into stun guns but rather stun guns designed to look like other items(such as a mobile phone), they are sold openly as stun guns in other parts of the world.

Now if anyone that has an item that can be convertered into a stun gun is liable for prosecution then anyone with an old disposable camera is guilty of the offence, they can easily be converted using a soldering iron, some copper wire and electrical tape.

Well quite...

It would take me about half an hour's soldering plus a trip into town to Maplins for five quid's worth of parts to make a stun-gun capable of being built into a torch, phone, tobacco tin, un-dyed kipper.

[Skeleton]

Tom seems to have done as he almost always does and not fully looked into what he is saying, the items are not ones that can be convertered into stun guns but rather stun guns designed to look like other items(such as a mobile phone), they are sold openly as stun guns in other parts of the world.

Now if anyone that has an item that can be convertered into a stun gun is liable for prosecution then anyone with an old disposable camera is guilty of the offence, they can easily be converted using a soldering iron, some copper wire and electrical tape.

Sadly some people are like that. Take Bali which openly sells such devices, where Heathrow advertises the latest Rolex watch to be wearing, every second billboard at Bali airport advises that smuggling drugs means the death penalty. Taking someone outside and executing them after ten years in a hell hole of a prison is to me cruel in the extreme, but two of the Bali 9 found out those signs were not kidding.

[Normal Wisdom]

There is no way that Tom wrote the warning about phones and torches which can "unwittingly" be turned into stun guns. Yet more copy and pasting from the silly old fool.

[getoutofdebtfools]

The mans become a fecking loon who lost the last of his marbles when Fort Crawford was taken by the Rothschilds/B&B.

[Bones]

There is no way that Tom wrote the warning about phones and torches which can "unwittingly" be turned into stun guns. Yet more copy and pasting from the silly old fool.

Funny you should say that....

For strict liability offences it can be said that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the offence actus reus, (action or conduct which is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused) of the offence.

It is often said that NO! mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) is needed for strict liability offences. This is probably an over simplification. A more complete answer would be that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.

Ordinarily the criminal law is concerned with blame worthiness. There are various levels of mens rea or blameworthiness. Some offences are more serious than others and, as a general rule, the more serious the offence the higher the level of mens rea required such as ‘intention’ or ‘recklessness’. This is related to the consequences of conviction and again, as a general rule, the more serious the offence – the greater the punishment.

In effect, it is possible to be convicted of a strict liability offence without ANY! degree of fault. The defendant may not have acted deliberately or in any way to bring about the state of affairs. It may be enough that the situation has arisen.

This essay says
http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/resources/es ... liability/

Briefly explain the meaning of, and reasons for, strict liability.
For strict liability offences it can be said that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.

Grade: A-C | £0.00.

It is often said that no mens rea is needed for strict liability offences. This is probably an over simplification. A more complete answer would be that the prosecution does not have to prove the existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.

Ordinarily the criminal law is concerned with blame worthiness. There are various levels of mens rea or blameworthiness. Some offences are more serious than others and, as a general rule, the more serious the offence the higher the level of mens rea required such as ‘intention’ or ‘recklessness’. This is related to the consequences of conviction and again, as a general rule, the more serious the offence – the greater the punishment.

In effect, it is possible to be convicted of a strict liability offence without any degree of fault. The defendant may not have acted deliberately or in any way to bring about the state of affairs. It may be enough that the situation has arisen.

[Chaos]

Tom seems to have done as he almost always does and not fully looked into what he is saying, the items are not ones that can be convertered into stun guns but rather stun guns designed to look like other items(such as a mobile phone), they are sold openly as stun guns in other parts of the world.

Now if anyone that has an item that can be convertered into a stun gun is liable for prosecution then anyone with an old disposable camera is guilty of the offence, they can easily be converted using a soldering iron, some copper wire and electrical tape.

Well quite...

It would take me about half an hour's soldering plus a trip into town to Maplins for five quid's worth of parts to make a stun-gun capable of being built into a torch, phone, tobacco tin, un-dyed kipper.

wouldn't be easier just to hit him in the head with the camera? he would surely be stunned.

[AndyPandy]

So tomorrow's Verdict Day. What are the predictions:

Guilty
Fine
Restraining Order to keep away from Fearn Chase
Judge declared Fraudulent/ Guilty of Treason
Tom tries to arrest Judge
Tom imprisoned for 7 days for Contempt of Court
Toms released after 3 days and goes straight round to Fearn Chase for more trespassing.
Tom rearrested for breach of the order and imprisoned for 14 days
Tom released after 7 days, declared a National Martyr and a day in September named after him

Ok the last is a bit far fetched - anyone else care to make a prediction?

[FatGambit]

Is all of the above an option?

Funny it's Merlin sentencing tomorrow too at a Court not too far away, bet their fine's gonna make anything Tom gets look like chump change.