Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[TheNewSaint]

I think this is informed and relevant discussion, addressing realistic hypotheses which would be significant to the underlying legal dispute.

I agree, I think it is fair comment. There have been threads where a moderator said "don't drag someone's un-involved family member into things." But since we're talking about a deceased person, and only their estate, I don't think anyone is being harmed.

Furthermore, this case is a matter of public interest, and Tom and Sue Crawford have chosen to be public figures through their actions. They are thus subject to greater levels of public scrutiny.

[arayder]

Let me speculate. . .

Maybe Tom and Sue knew all along they'd have mum's house as a back up. . .so when the whole thing at Fern Castle started going south they decided to go all getoutofdebtfree crazy. I suspect they didn't figure that they'd lose so much money on the house and get stuck with the costs B&B incurred in moving their arses out.

But I don't think the financial losses would have made any difference to Tom, had he anticipated them, since the matter turned out to be his one chance at celebrity. Now that Tom's invested everything in the attempt at the brass ring of importance and relevancy there is no turning back.

Observers have to wonder why Tom didn't plan ahead, keep the payments up on the Fern Castle house and cash in when he and Sue got mum's house out of the estate.

I speculate Tom has a chip on his shoulder so big that getting back at the man was all he could think about. Knowing he'd have a roof over his head no matter what, he chose being a celebrity over being a good provider.

----------
Dope Clock: It has been 63 days since freeman guru Robert Menard promised to bring legal actions to secure precedent setting judgments. So far there is no documentation of a single legal action by Menard.

[grixit]

Arthur W will have to the final say, of course. But until he does, here's my moderator's opinion. Let whoever has probate search abilities and whoever has names, places, dates, etc, communicate privately. If and when it is determined whether or not Tom has an attachable property interest, then report it. I believe we all know what the speculations and ifs are.

[Jeffrey]

We have zero confirmation that the bank is going after the house they inherited, so there's no legitimate reason to investigate this. You should wait for the bank to start proceedings first.

The only thing the public needs to know at this moment is that Tom and his wife still owe the bank a lot of money as a result of their attempts at blocking a lawful eviction.

[hucknallred]

Arthur W will have to the final say, of course. But until he does, here's my moderator's opinion. Let whoever has probate search abilities and whoever has names, places, dates, etc, communicate privately. If and when it is determined whether or not Tom has an attachable property interest, then report it. I believe we all know what the speculations and ifs are.

Anyone can search probate & for the sum of £10 get a copy of the documents. But as I say I think this is taking things a bit too far IMO.

[rumpelstilzchen]

But as I say I think this is taking things a bit too far IMO.

Normally I would agree with you but not in this situation. Both Tom and Sue have chosen to follow the footle woo and as a result of that footle woo they have found themselves to be in quite a bit of debt. No surprises there. When we see this happen to most sovs that is usually the end of the story. But in this case it is different. There is the possibility that Tom and Sue could be about to get their hands on a valuable asset. That is relevant to this story. The Crawfords have a large debt due to woo and they might soon have the means to pay it off. It is all related.
The Crawfords have chosen celebrity status,Tom is now a regular speaker at freetard meetings. If you choose to be a celebrity, imo, you have to accept the shit that comes with it.

[daveBeeston]

But as I say I think this is taking things a bit too far IMO.

I fully agree, the way this thread is going is in my opinion way to far, its all well and good delving into the lies of the eviction and exposing them but what is going on now with the almost obsessive need to out further information on the possibility of the inheritance of Sue's deceased mothers house is wrong.

Whether there is a house for Tom and Sue to inherit is irrelevant to their eviction and the story they have spun and should be left well alone, the only thing that should be discussed and debunked is the story they have spun and the outcome of it.

The delving into private lives is not warranted and is frankly a little uncomfortable and dare i say it makes us no better than those on Goodf and the Facebook sites who threaten to expose peoples personal details.

[#six]

But as I say I think this is taking things a bit too far IMO.

I fully agree, the way this thread is going is in my opinion way to far, its all well and good delving into the lies of the eviction and exposing them but what is going on now with the almost obsessive need to out further information on the possibility of the inheritance of Sue's deceased mothers house is wrong.

Whether there is a house for Tom and Sue to inherit is irrelevant to their eviction and the story they have spun and should be left well alone, the only thing that should be discussed and debunked is the story they have spun and the outcome of it.

The delving into private lives is not warranted and is frankly a little uncomfortable and dare i say it makes us no better than those on Goodf and the Facebook sites who threaten to expose peoples personal details.

Yup. Also in agreement. If B&B go after sues mums house then I think it is fair game to discuss as part of the on going situation. But even those who put themselves in the public eye deserve some privacy. Where they may or may not live is not pertinent to the court case or eviction so it should be of no interest to any of us.

[longdog]

But as I say I think this is taking things a bit too far IMO.

I fully agree, the way this thread is going is in my opinion way to far, its all well and good delving into the lies of the eviction and exposing them but what is going on now with the almost obsessive need to out further information on the possibility of the inheritance of Sue's deceased mothers house is wrong.

Whether there is a house for Tom and Sue to inherit is irrelevant to their eviction and the story they have spun and should be left well alone, the only thing that should be discussed and debunked is the story they have spun and the outcome of it.

The delving into private lives is not warranted and is frankly a little uncomfortable and dare i say it makes us no better than those on Goodf and the Facebook sites who threaten to expose peoples personal details.

Agreed 100%

If and when the Crawfords start posting about SMH being under threat from the evil bankers and corrupt courts then the subject becomes fair game but until then it's all speculation and nothing more.

[exiledscouser]

But as I say I think this is taking things a bit too far IMO.

I fully agree, the way this thread is going is in my opinion way to far, its all well and good delving into the lies of the eviction and exposing them but what is going on now with the almost obsessive need to out further information on the possibility of the inheritance of Sue's deceased mothers house is wrong.

Whether there is a house for Tom and Sue to inherit is irrelevant to their eviction and the story they have spun and should be left well alone, the only thing that should be discussed and debunked is the story they have spun and the outcome of it.

The delving into private lives is not warranted and is frankly a little uncomfortable and dare i say it makes us no better than those on Goodf and the Facebook sites who threaten to expose peoples personal details.

Well said.

[letissier14]

Personally I think that anything to do with the Crawfords should be exposed, after all they set up a facebook page and posted a picture of my house, calling me a troll etc, plus Tom even got my phone number off of Ceylon and phoned me and abused me.

[notorial dissent]

As one of the moderators, I am in accord with the rest. IF the bank or the lawyers go after SMH then it is an open topic for discussion, however, unless and until that happens, it is off limits, i think the other moderators will go along with this and start enforcing it, SO DROP IT AND DROP IT NOW!!!

While I agree that the entire Crawfraud family are truly awful there is no need or reason to sink to their level. So don't. If you don't have anything new to write about then I humbly suggest you don't.

[letissier14]

As one of the moderators, I am in accord with the rest. IF the bank or the lawyers go after SMH then it is an open topic for discussion, however, unless and until that happens, it is off limits, i think the other moderators will go along with this and start enforcing it, SO DROP IT AND DROP IT NOW!!!

While I agree that the entire Crawfraud family are truly awful there is no need or reason to sink to their level. So don't. If you don't have anything new to write about then I humbly suggest you don't.

Who do you think you're talking to? No need for capitals (shouting) that's just bloody rude!

[JamesVincent]

Just wanted to add my thoughts

After following this whole affair from you guys and gals excellent reporting that SMH may actually be important. Follow me for a second. If Tom, and I personally believe he did, did this entire scam knowing full well he had an out then his moving in to SMH goes to show the full extent of his disgusting behavior. If he encouraged or is still encouraging others down the same rabbit hole knowing full well they DON'T have an out Then people need to know that. We don't need the address, pics of the inside, comments on the architecture, etc. Just proving he got himself into it is enough.

I also agree if the bank starts proceedings against SMH then it's necessary to report it. I just have the feeling that Tom counted on dear old mum to pull his and Sue's briskets from the coals. It may very well backfire on him yet.

Also I agree with Lessitar, ND that was a little harsh.

[Fearnchase]

Tom owes the bank a shed load of money.
I now know the mother in laws full name.
I will find out where she lived.
If she owned it . Then I will find out who owns it Now.
If Tom or sue has a share in it. I will forward the bank the details as I now have a contact.
The bank don't know where he lives.
The bank is owed by the tax payer.
I don't intend to dilvuge any details until and only until I can prove Tom or sue owns anything now. If they don't no info will be given

[notorial dissent]

Just wanted to add my thoughts

After following this whole affair from you guys and gals excellent reporting that SMH may actually be important. Follow me for a second. If Tom, and I personally believe he did, did this entire scam knowing full well he had an out then his moving in to SMH goes to show the full extent of his disgusting behavior. If he encouraged or is still encouraging others down the same rabbit hole knowing full well they DON'T have an out Then people need to know that. We don't need the address, pics of the inside, comments on the architecture, etc. Just proving he got himself into it is enough.

I also agree if the bank starts proceedings against SMH then it's necessary to report it. I just have the feeling that Tom counted on dear old mum to pull his and Sue's briskets from the coals. It may very well backfire on him yet.

Also I agree with Lessitar, ND that was a little harsh.

Harsh or not, it is inappropriate and not justified at this point, and is beginning to drop to the level of gossip. Unless or until it becomes a public matter it is time to drop it. And yes, I was shouting since that seems to be the only way to get certain people's attention.

[NYGman]

Forum rules:
1) No Politics
2) No Religion
3) Cite all sources
4) No talking about Sue's Mother's House

[Bones]

I have no love for the Crawfrauds and their lies - However, I think we should just stick to their lies - jeez there is enough material there to keep us all going, without SMH... Whilst I am curious if the Crawfrauds now live there, I can happily live without knowing.

Lets just stick to revealing the truth about their lies

[arayder]

I think is it relevant to say that anyone is naive who thinks they are can be assured that "the bank" won't come after their assets (their cars and homes) when they owe a massive debt.

Just as a some freeman and sovcits have convinced themselves that they don't have to pay their mortgages or their credit card bills we can be assured that this sort of self delusion would be carried over to the matter of a bank hauling off the car or taking the second home.

[TheNewSaint]

what is going on now with the almost obsessive need to out further information on the possibility of the inheritance of Sue's deceased mothers house is wrong.

Whether there is a house for Tom and Sue to inherit is irrelevant to their eviction and the story they have spun and should be left well alone, the only thing that should be discussed and debunked is the story they have spun and the outcome of it.

The delving into private lives is not warranted and is frankly a little uncomfortable and dare i say it makes us no better than those on Goodf and the Facebook sites who threaten to expose peoples personal details.

If the circumstances were slightly different, I would agree with this.

If the death of Tom's mother-in-law were a fact we dug up, and not something the Crawfords announced themselves multiple times in a ploy to manipulate public opinion, then I would agree it should be left alone.

If the Crawfords didn't owe tens of thousands of pounds, and if this inherited home weren't the only discernible way they could pay their debts to society, then I would agree that the home is irrelevant.

If the Crawfords were commenting publicly only when necessary, and not injecting themselves into the court system and public discourse at every opportunity, then I would agree we should not be delving into their private lives.

But none of that is the case. I therefore side with those who feel this is fair topic for discussion.