Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Crawfrauds · Post by **Crawfrauds** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:47 pm

off topic but this is why watching court cases is fascinating

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingha ... story.html

hes at notts crown tomorrow for a short hearing.

Post by **ArthurWankspittle** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:37 pm

getoutofdebtfools wrote:To be fair, I'm not sure Craig's misdemeanor is worthy of the court time but clearly the Judge will decide that.

Craig is, or was, charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage, which is deemed sufficiently worthy of court time that it has to be sent to Crown Court. I will not be surprised if some Crawfords and their supporters have misinterpreted the possible severity of the charge. Having said that, I can't recall if Craig's charge was changed at a later date.

Crawfrauds · Post by **Crawfrauds** » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:07 pm

Craig said six defendants. I say seven

All seven defendants are charged with conspiracy to commit criminal damage(max 10 years) and aggravated trespass(max 6 months?). As yiamcross noted judge Head said something all long the lines of "do we need the trespass charge". To my knowledge its has not been withdrawn. We know more on tuesday(if you read my brief summary of "the gay encounter" in which the defendant also stole a car, he was not charged with stealing the car as it was not the victims, thus making the trial less complicated, If he was charged it would have had no effect on sentence passed)

Also they have, in effect, all pleaded not guilty. Will there be guilty pleas on Tuesday? I have seen it so many times just before a trial starts

Six or seven? If six it will be because kellie or henry(i get them mixed up) has had his charges dropped. Why, because he has had a complaint upheld against the police. His barrister(notts crown) said "his evidence maybe inadmissible due to his treatment by the police"

As a side note tom crawford sufferd three or four injuries(minor) when he was arrested. The photos were shown in court and apparently taken at police station

As for charges being changed, the cps do it all the time. From memory the charges went from criminal damage to commit violent disorder to affray and now the current charges. I would not be surprised to see the charges again changed on tuesday. Nor would it surpise me to see the whole trial collapse due to the incompetence of the cps, but this is unlikely

#six · Post by **#six** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:03 pm

It seems that Ceylon has some audio prepared for the court case tomorrow. I don't know, but it doesn't appear to support their case. I guess that's for the judge to decide.

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... op4d_mLT4Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0w9wZ ... e=youtu.be

Crawfrauds · Post by **Crawfrauds** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:42 pm

Daily List for Tuesday 5 January 2016 at THE CROWN COURT,LEICESTER
Court 2 - sitting at 10:30 am
HIS HONOUR JUDGE FOWLER
For Trial
T20157341 CRAWFORD Craig
31XB0895515
LINKED TO
T20150805 HAWKINS Mark
31XB0895515
ATKIN Martin
31XB0895515
HAINING Mark J
31XB0895515
BRADLEY James J
31XB0895515
SHIER Elizabeth
31XB0895515
KELLIE Henry
31XB0895515

Hercule Parrot · Post by **Hercule Parrot** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:18 pm

#six wrote:It seems that Ceylon has some audio prepared for the court case tomorrow.

Not wishing to prejudice anything, and happy if a moderator wants to take this down, but this seems to be a complaint about how the Police dealt with the alleged offences after they had been allegedly been committed. Primarily a load of overblown nonsense about the Police "storming the building" in order to remove some people who had forcibly entered without the consent of the owner of the house (I choose my words carefully).

Supposedly the Police didn't complete a detailed risk assessment in triplicate before entering the building to arrest the suspects. I think that they very probably did, so the complaint is really that they didn't consult the suspects and their supporters while completing that risk assessment.

Either way it's utter bollocks - the Police have no duty to inform suspected criminals of the tactics they intend to use in their apprehension. And of course it still makes no difference to the proceedings of any subsequent criminal trial.

Jeffrey · Post by **Jeffrey** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:51 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:
My favorite part of the book was the dinner with Wing Chow segment. I read it over and over, made the book. Wing didn't share that assessment and sued Michael Lewis for defamation. Poor Wing lost at court and on appeal. Interested to see if it is in the movie.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... rt-appeals

Without spoiling the movie, I'll just let you know the dinner with Wing chow segment is in the movie and is amazing.

Pox · Post by **Pox** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:18 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:
Not wishing to prejudice anything, and happy if a moderator wants to take this down, but this seems to be a complaint about how the Police dealt with the alleged offences after they had been allegedly been committed. Primarily a load of overblown nonsense about the Police "storming the building" in order to remove some people who had forcibly entered without the consent of the owner of the house (I choose my words carefully).

Either way it's utter bollocks - the Police have no duty to inform suspected criminals of the tactics they intend to use in their apprehension. And of course it still makes no difference to the proceedings of any subsequent criminal trial.

Couldn't have put it better Hercule.

I do soooooo hope that they make utter fools of themselves in court ,particularly Haining, but he won't have to try hard to do that,will he?

Joinder · Post by **Joinder** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:31 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:
#six wrote:It seems that Ceylon has some audio prepared for the court case tomorrow.
Not wishing to prejudice anything, and happy if a moderator wants to take this down, but this seems to be a complaint about how the Police dealt with the alleged offences after they had been allegedly been committed. Primarily a load of overblown nonsense about the Police "storming the building" in order to remove some people who had forcibly entered without the consent of the owner of the house (I choose my words carefully).

Supposedly the Police didn't complete a detailed risk assessment in triplicate before entering the building to arrest the suspects. I think that they very probably did, so the complaint is really that they didn't consult the suspects and their supporters while completing that risk assessment.

Either way it's utter bollocks - the Police have no duty to inform suspected criminals of the tactics they intend to use in their apprehension. And of course it still makes no difference to the proceedings of any subsequent criminal trial.

It's not a matter of informing suspects.
It has to do with the safety of the officers and those in the building.

PeanutGallery · Post by **PeanutGallery** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:06 am

Hercule Parrot wrote:Supposedly the Police didn't complete a detailed risk assessment in triplicate before entering the building to arrest the suspects. I think that they very probably did, so the complaint is really that they didn't consult the suspects and their supporters while completing that risk assessment.

Either way it's utter bollocks - the Police have no duty to inform suspected criminals of the tactics they intend to use in their apprehension. And of course it still makes no difference to the proceedings of any subsequent criminal trial.

Exactly, any failings by the police in regard to this would be a separate issue. They likely did know what they were doing and would have been acting on the command of a senior officer, who no doubt would have been delighted to be back at Fearn Chase with the same bunch of idiots. As it was their was no harm to the rooftop gang recorded by the actions of the police. So it's a complete non-starter, no harm was actually done and no 'rights' were violated (aside from the rights of the property owner to not have inbred morons cluttering up the roof).

I am however sorry to learn that one of the six was pregnant, I feel sorry for that child already.

Post by **Burnaby49** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:14 am

Jeffrey wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:
My favorite part of the book was the dinner with Wing Chow segment. I read it over and over, made the book. Wing didn't share that assessment and sued Michael Lewis for defamation. Poor Wing lost at court and on appeal. Interested to see if it is in the movie.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... rt-appeals
Without spoiling the movie, I'll just let you know the dinner with Wing chow segment is in the movie and is amazing.

And is probably true to the book. The Wing Chow episode in the book was so great it didn't need any embellishment.

Bungle · Post by **Bungle** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:15 am

Bones wrote:
The trial will is about the rooftop six and the sandwich thrower one.. May be time to close this thread and have one about those specific people and the trial - in fact I will start one.

A new thread about the Rooftop Six would be an excellent idea. Look forward to reading it.

Post by **ArthurWankspittle** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:50 am

Bungle wrote:
Bones wrote:
The trial will is about the rooftop six and the sandwich thrower one.. May be time to close this thread and have one about those specific people and the trial - in fact I will start one.
A new thread about the Rooftop Six would be an excellent idea. Look forward to reading it.

I will close this thread off after today's (and tomorrow's?) court hearing, whatever the outcome, and further discussion of the situation can start in a new thread.

Post by **ArthurWankspittle** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:55 am

Will people keep on topic, polite and not speculate on court outcomes, just report them.

Bungle · Post by **Bungle** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:56 am

Isn't the trial listed for two weeks?

Post by **ArthurWankspittle** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:01 am

Bungle wrote:Isn't the trial listed for two weeks?

If it is someone is taking it seriously.

Crawfrauds · Post by **Crawfrauds** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:05 am

Crawfrauds · Post by **Crawfrauds** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:49 am

Crawfrauds · Post by **Crawfrauds** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:01 pm

hanlons razor · Post by **hanlons razor** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:48 pm

Anybody actually gone to watch this one?

Quatloos!

Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2