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

[Joinder]

It's probably safe to assume that in the den of government shill trolls that your super secret PMs to other secret rebel freedom fighters are subject to unreasonable search and seizure with the delicacy of a TSA full cavity examination. Papers please.

Or perhaps nobody really cares what you post in private to others.

Indeed, my posts are so inconsequential that dozens have been deleted so outsiders, Tom, GOODF can't read them.
We have to maintain the vision of perfect harmony over here.... No dissent tolerated.

Bag it. You have been here long enough to know we tolerate plenty of dissent. Just not abuse. That's the only thing that'll get a post deleted. Even severely off topic posts tend to get moved.

Banter is allowed, subject to moderator whim.

And it takes an extraordinary amount of effort to get fully banned. Indeed there have been fewer than 20 people banned in the entire history of Quatloos. How do those other places stack up?

What is really easy, as we were reminded recently, is we all have the ability to ban someone from our own reading. That is to say, put them on ignore. AKA the amish death penalty. To get that you just have to be tedeous and annoying.

Which is where you're headed.

You want to engage, we'll engage. But bring something substantial, not this petty sniping.

Get with it. Already sorted.

[timcurgenven1]

Well i am going today, i have business in Nottingham this afternoon , i realise its only a plea hearing, BUT i want to see if Ceylon is going to remember to lose his name this time or if he remembers it......

[YiamCross]

Enjoy. I'd be tempted if I wern't tied up with matters of my own in court. More later, but let's just say Crawford and Haining shouldn't put their suits away too quickly...

[Normal Wisdom]

The hell? 5 masts of 5 rectangular sails each, plus at least 5 triangular sails-- that's a galleon pretending to be a schooner, but apparently being used as a yacht. How many crew does it take?

If my memory serves, there were about 100 crew in total although this included the kitchen and waiting staff etc. I was told that the ship can actually be sailed with a very small crew (25 if, again, I recall correctly) because so much is automated. It carries just over 200 passengers. It's called "The Royal Clipper".

[guilty]

Rooftop 6 + Craig Crawford
Court 3 Nottingham CC
Case started 11.30am

[YiamCross]

It's all go in Nottingham Crown Court!

A trail date has been set for the 5th January at Leicester crown court. Why not Nottingham? Maybe because a lot of their so-called supporters turned up, all the kith & kin who were smirking and laughing who,whilst not unruly, were disruptive.

The Rooftop dix stood in the dock together with Craig Crawford. The great Freeman lose the name Mark Haining suddenly found his name when asked to confirm who he was by the judge. He must be playing the do as I say not do as I do rule.

Craig Crawford and Mark Haining said they had no case to answer and made an application to dismiss. They have 4 weeks to produce a legal argument for that view which will be heard on the trial date. If their arguments are successful they won't have to face trial, otherwise they will

Judge thinks there should only be one charge, he has invited the prosecution to consider reducing the two charges they currently face to one charge.

Elizabeth Shier kept asking to speak but was told she could speak later. She kept saying she shouldn't be there. She entered no plea and judge directed a not guilty plea to be entered for her

An application was made by the prosecution to adduce previous convictions of certain defendants which means they can be put before the jury at their trial.

So, they really listened last time when the judge told them it might be best if they kept the numbers of their supporters to a minimum.

[fat frank]

An application was made by the prosecution to adduce previous convictions of certain defendants which means they can be put before the jury at their trial.

Don't go naming specific people and matching it to a possible outcome See my later post.

[Pox]

So the two charges are?

Was it affray and conspiracy to commit criminal damage?

Do all 7 of them face the same charges? I thought Craig was facing just one charge?

[wanglepin]

Judge thinks there should only be one charge, he has invited the prosecution to consider reducing the two charges they currently face to one charge.

It will be interesting to see what the goofs of goofsville read into that.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Was Tom there Yiam?

[YiamCross]

Was Tom there Yiam?

Oh yes. Greeting his fans

[YiamCross]

An application was made by the prosecution to adduce previous convictions of certain defendants which means they can be put before the jury at their trial.

quote]

looks like ...l be going down then

Could we remember this is sub judice and be careful whar we post? Be a shame to give any of them a get out of jail free card with prejudicial poats

[timcurgenven1]

I didnt get a chance to go, the meeting started early , looks like i missed something interesting,was looking forward to it to

[ArthurWankspittle]

An application was made by the prosecution to adduce previous convictions of certain defendants which means they can be put before the jury at their trial.

Note this is an application at this stage, I see no mention of a decision. Please therefore don't speculate about who this includes among the defendants.

Separately, are any of the defendants represented?

And further, from what I can tell, if found guilty, the likely sentence for the charges would involve custody.

[ArthurWankspittle]

So the two charges are?

Was it affray and conspiracy to commit criminal damage?

Do all 7 of them face the same charges? I thought Craig was facing just one charge?

I think the rooftop six face affray and conspiracy to commit criminal damage or criminal damage. Craig faces the same damage charge but not affray.

[PeanutGallery]

In regard to Ceylon and Craigs submissions of having no case to answer, I would suppose that they are going to send to the court a load of waffle about how Tom is still the rightful owner of the house and that they had his permission to enter the property and because of this no offence has been committed under common law.

They will try to argue that Tom's eviction was unlawful, thinking that they'll be able to get the jury to decide on that issue and put Tom back in his house. I'd love to say more, but I really don't want to make any comments that might dissuade Ceylon and Craig from taking this path. I'd even consider going so far as to say it's possibly the one tactic the CPS hasn't thought of and using it might catch them with their pants down. I'd be worried if I was in their shoes.

[FatGambit]

I thought of that too, doing criminal damage is generally when you do something to someone else's property right?

I can see them trying to argue that because B&B had not yet sold it, only had possession of it through repossession, and Tom's name still being on the land registry, would mean Tom's previous invitation to walk on the roof remains relevant, meaning criminal damage was not done.

I dunno, I'm no expert in the law here, and feel free to delete if speculation is too far out of bounds,

[timcurgenven1]

I am going to have make an effort to go to the Leicester case. Does anyone know how long the hearing lasted?, what was the judge like?,

Did anyone try the freeman stuff?

[guilty]

I'd even consider going so far as to say it's possibly the one tactic the CPS hasn't thought of and using it might catch them with their pants down. I'd be worried if I was in their shoes.

Oh my word! I hadn't thought of this. It's a slam-dunk defence!!!!1!!!!
Don't let Ceylon know. Shhhhhh

[guilty]

Does anyone know how long the hearing lasted?

1 hour and 10 minutes according to the xhibit site.