Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[exiledscouser]

You've missed one out Gordon, the fairly early claim to have paid off more than three times (read THREE TIMES!!!!11!!!) the original loan meaning of course the cumulative value of their interest payments. Ergo, the loan had already been repaid, in full, many times over. I'm surprised he hasn't attempted a DD clawback - maybe he has and failed.

But that tack (along with many others) now lies abandoned and forgotten as they've gradually shifted further and further away from that initial first Goofy post and into the realms of pure wackiness.

Over on EFOTB they are regaling one another with an old interview TC gave to RT (Russia Today) an insidious propaganda channel of that country which is certainly no friend of the UK.

[Pottapaug1938]

When I was doing real estate closings, I can remember more than one client being shocked about the fact that the total of the interest which they would be paying, during the term of the mortgage, far exceeded the actual mortgage amount. It was not always easy to get them to understand the concept of the interest and that their earliest mortgage payments would be almost entirely credited to outstanding interest and not to the principal amount of the mortgage. They couldn't believe that there wasn't a "fairer way" to structure the mortgage, and/or that it wasn't a scam being run by the banks.

Fortunately, the vast majority of my real estate clients easily understood how mortgages were structured.

[TheNewSaint]

Not just that, but the time value of money. It's easy for Tom Crawford to say "we paid more than the cost of the house", without acknowledging that the £41,800 they repaid over 1988-2012 had much less real value than the £41,800 they borrowed in 1988. According to an online inflation calculator, the equivalent amount in 2012 was £80,326.39 - almost twice as much. Of course, the real number is somewhere in between, as the amount is repaid over that long time frame.

I can appreciate that this might be confusing to unsophisticated people. And the numbers certainly seem unfair on the surface. But ordinary citizens should be more educated about this sort of thing.

[littleFred]

And houses typically increase in value greater than either inflation or mortgage rates. Which is a financial reason for people to buy houses.

But in GOOFy-land, houses should be free. (So they wouldn't increase in value. And they would never be built.)

[The Observer]

I can appreciate that this might be confusing to unsophisticated people. And the numbers certainly seem unfair on the surface. But ordinary citizens should be more educated about this sort of thing.

I am willing to bet that if the shoe was on the other foot, that if Tom Crawford had been the lender, he certainly would understand why the cost of the mortgage was increased by the time value of the money he had lent out. I imagine that if Tom had a savings account and the bank stopped giving him interest on that money, he would have not been happy with the bank explaining that they had already repaid him the amount equivalent to what was in the account over the years.

[longdog]

Does anybody with a intelligence level within the normal spectrum NOT know by the time they leave school that interest alone on a 25 year mortgage is often a multiple of the amount borrowed? I'm pretty sure this was covered in first year O level economics when I was 12 years old.

[NYGman]

Does anybody with a intelligence level within the normal spectrum NOT know by the time they leave school that interest alone on a 25 year mortgage is often a multiple of the amount borrowed? I'm pretty sure this was covered in first year O level economics when I was 12 years old.

Or the Inverse Rule of 72, which can be used to estimate how long a sum will take to double given a specific interest rate.

Hint Divide 72 in to the % - Eg, 5% = 5/72= 14.4 Years [Actual time is 14.21 but this is an estimation tool]. So even if I have no clue and do the math, assuming a 5% mortgage, I would expect it to Double twice over 30 years [$100=$200 in 14yrs, and then $200 doubles again in another 14 yrs, so $100 invested at 5% for 28yrs will yield about $400], even if I were an idiot. This would equal paying back 3 times the amount borrowed, which seems to align with the facts, but we all know TC doesn't care about the facts.

[Pottapaug1938]

Does anybody with a intelligence level within the normal spectrum NOT know by the time they leave school that interest alone on a 25 year mortgage is often a multiple of the amount borrowed? I'm pretty sure this was covered in first year O level economics when I was 12 years old.

Or the Inverse Rule of 72, which can be used to estimate how long a sum will take to double given a specific interest rate.

Hint Divide 72 in to the % - Eg, 5% = 5/72= 14.4 Years [Actual time is 14.21 but this is an estimation tool]. So even if I have no clue and do the math, assuming a 5% mortgage, I would expect it to Double twice over 30 years [$100=$200 in 14yrs, and then $200 doubles again in another 14 yrs, so $100 invested at 5% for 28yrs will yield about $400], even if I were an idiot. This would equal paying back 3 times the amount borrowed, which seems to align with the facts, but we all know TC doesn't care about the facts.

TC could also look for a lender who only charges simple interest.

[NYGman]

TC could also look for a lender who only charges simple interest.

Good luck with that, and if you happen to know any, I want one too!

[Pottapaug1938]

TC could also look for a lender who only charges simple interest.

Good luck with that, and if you happen to know any, I want one too!

You have to ask Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny for a referral.

[SteveUK]

troll update....



Burnaby49 edit - I don't see the image and I assume other readers can't either so here is the link to check for yourself;

https://s24.postimg.org/jkaphsu51/Scree ... _00_20.png

[letissier14]

Did this actually happen or is it just another diversion tactic by the Crawfrauds?

[SteveUK]

Burnaby49 edit[/u] - I don't see the image and I assume other readers can't either so here is the link to check for yourself;

How strange, I can see it..thanks for the fix though

[letissier14]

They need to get their stories straight



Some in house fighting about the rooftop 6+1

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby49 edit[/u] - I don't see the image and I assume other readers can't either so here is the link to check for yourself;

How strange, I can see it..thanks for the fix though

What I see is a white square with a red X on it. However I've figured out why. It's because I'm an old guy who is only comfortable with things that I've used for years. The chair I'm currently sitting on is a rocking chair (awkward while using a computer) that's over a hundred years old. It belonged to my grandfather and when I was an infant it was almost the only chair I remember him using. My wife is constantly berating me because I don't have a cell phone or any other devices. Those of you that met me in England recall the friend I was with. We've been friends for half a century. I held exactly the same job for thirty-two years, have lived in one house for thirty-eight years, and have been married almost forty years. I hate change.

That philosophy carries across to my computer. My operating system is a copy of Windows XP I bought in 2000. Leading edge at the time but I still use it sixteen years later. So, figuring that might be the problem, I copied the link to your posting and ran it through Fire Fox and it showed fine. Almost all of my software is at least a decade old. In other words I'm a Neanderthal warily watching the homo sapiens moving in.

[#six]

Sounds like bull to me. If this guy had been in court then they would know his name and they would be shouting it from the rooftops (pun intended). Add to that the fact that there are two completely different stories of what happened in court. As Judge Judy would say - if none of it makes sense then it isn't true.

[Bones]

So Jay & Craig telling different versions... oh which one to believe.... The multi-millionaire, internet guru or the guy that was awarded compensation, brought a mercedes and was going to buy a Ferrari with a WeRe cheque - both so trust worthy and honest people



So it is ok for them to go to other peoples court hearings but not for anyone but the brainwashed freetards to attend theirs. Stalking their stalker - freetards do love their double standards....

So Craig obviously doesn't have any love for Ricky. Is Ricky the guy that revealed that the warrant was presented as evidence during the hearing and then released a copy with other documentation into the public domain.

I like how everytime Craig doesn't like someone, it is because they have either said or done something against a woman... wow craig is such a nice guy with such high morals

[grixit]

Given the sov propensity to become certain that some act of a random stranger, such as walking down the other side of the street, is significant, it may be that both reports are true-- one refers to a person who tried to give the court the usual sovereign babble, the other refers to someone who walked out. Each observer decided that the person they saw was the legendary stalker, but unlike physics with its duality, both were simultaneously wrong.

I'm still leaning to the idea that the stalker is a self created fear object, like a Slenderman on the Land.

[Bones]

Amanda is on form today





Dare to break ranks with the Crawfords and even though he risked his life (climbing on the roof) and his freddom as a result of their lies, they have turned on him

[letissier14]

So Craig obviously doesn't have any love for Ricky. Is Ricky the guy that revealed that the warrant was presented as evidence during the hearing and then released a copy with other documentation into the public domain.

I think it is the same guy