The Crawfords Keep Looking For A Unicorn

[AndyPandy]

This should be fun!!

https://m.facebook.com/groups/practical ... view=group

[TheNewSaint]

Luke Robinson
Hey Tom..hope u r winning ur case bud.

[doublelong]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itg-lfs ... youtu.be&a
THE WAKE UP PROJECT TOM CRAWFORD ANALYSING WARRANTS OF POSSESSION
Title says it all.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Jesus Christ. When is Crawford going to finally realise if you don't satisfy your mortgage you lose your house? I am sure if that was explained to a ten-year-old they would understand it.

[Penny Wise]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itg-lfs ... youtu.be&a
THE WAKE UP PROJECT TOM CRAWFORD ANALYSING WARRANTS OF POSSESSION
Title says it all.

All that research and they still don't know their arse from their elbow

@ 6:10 Tom says that an ex96 is a warrant. It is not a warrant, an ex96 is infact a notice of appointment only

He should know this



It is also a notice for the Claimant and not for Tom

[littleFred]

I'm pleased that Tom has explained, at some length, why he thinks the warrant is invalid. It would be slightly more persuasive if he showed the actual warrant in his own case, rather than a blank warrant.

Sadly for Tom, in reality it explains his misunderstandings. So much of what he says is simply wrong, and expresses what he wants to be on forms, but not what is required. I'd need to transcribe the video to do full justice, so I'll mention just one issue, at 15 mins 50 seconds:

15:50:

The first thing you see on this warrant is that it's addressed to the defendant, and the defendant is entitled to a copy.

But we can read the actual words on the warrant:

To the district judge and bailiffs of the court

Tom has previously read this section, at 7m 30s, and he knows what these words mean. But now he skips over the obvious meaning, and claims, "The first thing you see on this warrant is that it's addressed to the defendant". No it isn't, Tom! It isn't!!!!!111!!

[Firthy2002]

I skimmed it but there is so much wrong it would take a video of my own just to debunk all of it.

[TheNewSaint]

Here's the only part of that YouToob link I find noteworthy:

0:00/35:55

That Tom needs 36 minutes to talk about warrants is all that needs to be said. If there was any material fact why as to he should still own Fearn Chase, it would not take this long to explain.

This is the act of a man who cannot handle the truth. So he continues analyzing blank procedure forms, drawing diagrams linking things to each other, and making out-of-context law citations, all in search of the reason why he lost his home. All because he cannot face the simple truth that he did not pay any of the principal. "Still looking for a unicorn", indeed.

I note that Ceylon's name is plastered on every frame of this thing. So he's either pushing Tom down this self-destructive path, or trying to benefit from Tom's victimhood. It's all pathetic at this point, really.

[Chaos]

It would be slightly more persuasive if he showed the actual warrant in his own case, rather than a blank warrant.

clearly he used a facsimile of a blank warrant. so, whatever he says can be ignored.

[ArthurWankspittle]

"Still looking for a unicorn", indeed.

One unicorn = £43,000 (capital repayment).

(I think I just invented a new slang term for amounts of money, to be added to pony, monkey, bag etc.)

[doublelong]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itg-lfsgd_k
Well I don’t think I have seen Hanning have to disable comments on a video before, he normally just deletes the ones he does not like. Maybe there was just too many comments pointing out old Tom was making it up as he goes along.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Chin up Tom, there might be hope for you yet*

http://www.moneywise.co.uk/news/2017-04 ... age-market

*There's no hope really.

[SteveUK]

Interesting snippet from a doomed FOI request. It seems some of Toms gang had started stalking officers when off duty, and even their families.
Oh the irony of crying wolf

The application of Section 38 Health and Safety in relation to question 3 has been appropriately applied in relation to this matter. Whilst we accept that Police Officers are filmed or recorded whilst in uniform and are in public facing roles. This particular situation has been assessed on Nottinghamshire Polices awareness before and after this Operation. Within the considerations favouring non-disclosure, it was clear that some supporters of Tom Crawford had targeted individual Officers on and off duty and extended this to members of their family. Nottinghamshire Police Officers were at this Operation as part of their duties to allow peaceful protest and prevent a breach of the peace. For these officers to then be targeted after this Operation, and this be extended to them whilst off duty and their family’s it is appropriate to protect the safety, physical and mental health of these individuals.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... EW.DOC.doc

[Penny Wise]

For the benefit of Amanda

it was clear that some supporters of Tom Crawford had targeted individual Officers on and off duty and extended this to members of their family. Nottinghamshire Police Officers were at this Operation as part of their duties to allow peaceful protest and prevent a breach of the peace. For these officers to then be targeted after this Operation, and this be extended to them whilst off duty and their family’s it is appropriate to protect the safety, physical and mental health of these individuals.

[exiledscouser]

Once again, rank hypocrisy by the Crawfraud supporters. They have a sliding scale;

"Sheeple" if you disagree with them;
"Troll" if such disagreement extends to a posting or comment on social media/forums such as this;
"Stalker" if a "Troll" takes time to attend any of their various public court hearings.

They went into an overdose of outrage when someone "got done" for assaulting Haining. I've every sympathy for Mark if he makes a complaint to the police for it to be dealt with "without fear or favour" which it apparently was.

They've never really reconciled how the "corrupt" Nottingham police (who Ceylon appears to hate with some passion) didn't just boot his complaint into the long grass. After all, if some grand Masonic conspiracy was at work and in operation against him, wouldn't that be the most likely thing to have happened?

Now we learn that Crawfraud supporters are "stalking" the very same police and their families themselves. Not very wise or clever because you'd be tweaking the tiger's tail. But yet another clear demonstration of their supporters' demographic!

[SoLongCeylon]

How To Live Mortgage Free - Find out tonight on UK TV Channel 4 ( https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/3 ... channel-4/ )

Can we expect a wide ranging interview with Tom on how he has expertly managed to do this or will it be with more savy people who have been able to get rid of their mortgages but also retained possession of their homes as well?

Find out tonight on C4.

[littleFred]

Now we learn that Crawfraud supporters are "stalking" the very same police and their families themselves.

Not now, but in September 2015.

[Hercule Parrot]

For the benefit of Amanda

it was clear that some supporters of Tom Crawford had targeted individual Officers on and off duty and extended this to members of their family.

Ah, but those weren't true Crawford supporters, you see. They were saboteurs, employed by Bradford & Bingley to undermine the swell of popular outrage at this poor family's suffering (eg "having to repay what they borrowed").

(Incidentally, we never heard any more about the supposed Quatloos stalker, did we? I suspect the whole story was imaginary).

[Jeffrey]

Is that the Channel 4 documentary that Quatloos people got contacted for information for?

[NYGman]

Is that the Channel 4 documentary that Quatloos people got contacted for information for?

I think the post missed the tag. The description is about people actually paying their mortgage, imagine that, living mortgage free because you actually paid it all off, what are interesting concept, so hard to grasp, but they may be able to just about explain it. (in case there is any doubt)