Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[#six]

The whole purpose of this 'on the roof' stunt is to 'get the case to the Crown Court' in front of a JURY, without EVER realising that an appeal to the Crown Court from the Magistrates Court is only ever heard by a Judge NEVER a Jury.

He's now hamstrung by the Restraining Order - which if he ever breaches will only ever be dealt with by the Magistrates Court.

He would now have to do something SIGNIFICANTLY stupid to the property at Fearn Chase to get a trial in the Crown Court.

Citizens arrest of a police officer. That would get him his jury trial for kidnapping. But surely he wouldn't be so stupid.

[AndyPandy]

The whole purpose of this 'on the roof' stunt is to 'get the case to the Crown Court' in front of a JURY, without EVER realising that an appeal to the Crown Court from the Magistrates Court is only ever heard by a Judge NEVER a Jury.

He's now hamstrung by the Restraining Order - which if he ever breaches will only ever be dealt with by the Magistrates Court.

He would now have to do something SIGNIFICANTLY stupid to the property at Fearn Chase to get a trial in the Crown Court.

Citizens arrest of a police officer. That would get him his jury trial for kidnapping. But surely he wouldn't be so stupid.

But then that would be nothing to do with the question of ownership of Fearn Chase - he would have to do something significantly stupid to the actual property (something outside the remit of the Restraint Order) to get charged with an offence that would be tried in the Crown Court and ( not a Magistrates ) to get it the question of ownership in front of a Jury.

[Jeffrey]

Just got word that there's a documentary being made about the anti-eviction squads by a mainstream production company in England.

Should be fun.

[#six]

The whole purpose of this 'on the roof' stunt is to 'get the case to the Crown Court' in front of a JURY, without EVER realising that an appeal to the Crown Court from the Magistrates Court is only ever heard by a Judge NEVER a Jury.

He's now hamstrung by the Restraining Order - which if he ever breaches will only ever be dealt with by the Magistrates Court.

He would now have to do something SIGNIFICANTLY stupid to the property at Fearn Chase to get a trial in the Crown Court.

Citizens arrest of a police officer. That would get him his jury trial for kidnapping. But surely he wouldn't be so stupid.

But then that would be nothing to do with the question of ownership of Fearn Chase - he would have to do something significantly stupid to the actual property (something outside the remit of the Restraint Order) to get charged with an offence that would be tried in the Crown Court and ( not a Magistrates ) to get it the question of ownership in front of a Jury.

I was thinking if he went to the property and arrested the police who tried to arrest him for breaking the restraining order. In his mind that would be sufficient because if he owns the house how can he have the restraining order. Other than that I guess arson on the property would suffice.

[SoLongCeylon]

Just got word that there's a documentary being made about the anti-eviction squads by a mainstream production company in England.

Should be fun.

On last nights edition of " Can't Pay - We'll Take it away " ( Channel 5 UK ) Bailiffs who turned up to a house in Wales to collect a high court debt were suddenly confronted by a group of anti bailiff muppets. They were 100% A Typical. ie a bunch of scummy know it alls with greasy hair and bad teeth saying " the writ is not real" " there is no stamp " " there is no wet signature " " we will find out where you live" " why do you do this job"

The outcome - although the bailiffs left empty handed on the day - the debt was collected in full later.

[notorial dissent]

And then it will only be on the criminal matter before the court, they won't care about or listen to any other claims he is making.

[Skeleton]

And then it will only be on the criminal matter before the court, they won't care about or listen to any other claims he is making.

Agreed. I would also love to know where he got the idea a Jury would be called up for a Crown court appeal, that has got to be one of his crack legal team filling his head with nonsense, the Court should really refuse his application because that will save him some money. He will still have to pay but it will be less than the loss of appeal cost.

[Gregg]

Tom is just desperate to get someone, anyone, in any venue, to say he is right. About anything. If he declares its daylight at noon, and someone agrees with him, he'll take that as the starting point for why everything else he is saying falls magically into place which leads to which leads to which means in effect that fact of the matter is I still own the house and all that other stuff was just prelude....


I'm past feeling sorry for stupidity, and personally I'd be happy to see him left with nothing and standing in the street naked save the old drapes wrapped around him when he gets hits by a bus that ran a stop sign. So finally, his last dying breath could finally declare with moral certitude "It was the bus driver's fault!" and for once at least, he'd be right.

[notorial dissent]

And then it will only be on the criminal matter before the court, they won't care about or listen to any other claims he is making.

Agreed. I would also love to know where he got the idea a Jury would be called up for a Crown court appeal, that has got to be one of his crack legal team filling his head with nonsense, the Court should really refuse his application because that will save him some money. He will still have to pay but it will be less than the loss of appeal cost.

Well, ya gotta give him a few points, he got it half assed right. If he'd gone to Crown Court on a criminal matter I believe he'd have gotten a jury on the actual trial, but on an appeal nuh uh.

[doublelong]

After he gets a quote for the transcript if he needs it for an appeal, he my decide to have another crack at the roof again. Remember he has a wife and 3 kids he could sacrifice one in his unique game of Crawford chess. And maybe onesie on the roof would course significant damage/repair cost to take it direct to the crown.

[Fearnchase]

Just got word that there's a documentary being made about the anti-eviction squads by a mainstream production company in England.

Should be fun.

On last nights edition of " Can't Pay - We'll Take it away " ( Channel 5 UK ) Bailiffs who turned up to a house in Wales to collect a high court debt were suddenly confronted by a group of anti bailiff muppets. They were 100% A Typical. ie a bunch of scummy know it alls with greasy hair and bad teeth saying " the writ is not real" " there is no stamp " " there is no wet signature " " we will find out where you live" " why do you do this job"

The outcome - although the bailiffs left empty handed on the day - the debt was collected in full later.

I am just watching this now on catch up and nearly spat my tea out when that scouse idiot started waving his arms around

[ArthurWankspittle]

Other than that I guess arson on the property would suffice.

That would be my worry. It's about the only property related offence that would get moved straight to Crown Court and in front of a jury.

[SoLongCeylon]

I am just watching this now on catch up and nearly spat my tea out when that scouse idiot started waving his arms around

It was quite surreal seeing on TV a fresh bunch of freetards spouting the same nonsense as we hear from Taylor, Crawford etc. Just shows they hear something on the internet and want to believe it.

[AndyPandy]

Other than that I guess arson on the property would suffice.

That would be my worry. It's about the only property related offence that would get moved straight to Crown Court and in front of a jury.

So either Sue's got to be the next one to try for a trial by jury and do some significant damage to the property - she'd need a bigger hole onto the roof anyway

Or it's Arson, that's about it, that'd be just about the only thing, he might get 5 years for it, but hey ho, anything to prove it's his property eh?

[longdog]

I hope he has the his place well insured against fire before he torches it.

[NYGman]

Isn't it still arson, even if you own the place. Insurance fraud, if you made a claim, for sure. So how would arson help. He wouldn't have a house anymore, and would be locked up. I guess it solves hid homeless problem.

[TheNewSaint]

I wouldn't put it past Tom to destroy the house on the basis of "if I can't have it, no one can."

[AndyPandy]

Isn't it still arson, even if you own the place. Insurance fraud, if you made a claim, for sure. So how would arson help. He wouldn't have a house anymore, and would be locked up. I guess it solves hid homeless problem.

Oh yes, but if there's an idiotic thing to do then Tom Crawford's bound to do it.

I suspect his argument would be 'it's my house, I can do what I like with it' and if there's no insurance claim ( I doubt they've carried on paying insurance on a property they no longer own !!) then in his head 'where's the offence'!

Of course there would be 'no house' either at the end of it but it's the principle that matters

[exiledscouser]

Not just insurance - if the property is truly theirs then the Crawfrauds will have had no difficulty stumping up for last and half of this years CT being the pious souls they claim to be.

I do hope the police read this thread from time to time and take note because all that's left now is for Tom or one of his more idiotic followers (in a sea of stiff competition it has to be said) to torch the place, fuck the neighbors - they'll just have to put up with it as Tom gracelessly once said about them.

I'd hate to be right on this one.

[ArthurWankspittle]

So how would arson help.

He'd get moved straight to Crown Court in front of a jury because of the seriousness of the offence. It's the obvious way to get a jury trial.