Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[rumpelstilzchen]

I'm done here and totally fucking pissed off with the constant digs at me. Just fucking delete my profile admin.

I can only speak for myself but FWIW I will be sad to see you go.

[Skeleton]

I think your reading to much into what i posted and taking it as a personal attack when its clearly not, i just find it a little hypocritical that you want to expose everything about them all while complaining they and Ceylon exposed some of your personal details online(and to others), but hey maybe its just me.

Your input is very much appreciated here and personally i've learned alot about GoodF and their antics from your posts which has helped me and family members stop some of our friends and acquaintances falling foul of the woo.

Of course it's not personal when you clearly state that you find it a little hypocritical that I want to expose everything about them all while complaining they and Ceylon exposed some of my personal details online(and to others).

Like I said on numerous occasions I have never exposed anything that they haven't exposed themselves publicly. I have never posted personal details about any of them.

I'm done here and totally fucking pissed off with the constant digs at me. Just fucking delete my profile admin.

*Admin asked for the discussion to stop about SMH, so I stopped, yet today you have to bring me up once more!

Stayed out of this till now but I think your reading to much into it fella, and I also think your taking it way to personally. It is a difference of opinion which could and should have been sorted out by means of PM etc.

The constant digs at you, seriously? I am not going to incite a flame war by encouraging you to provide proof, and albeit I do not micro read these forums and spend my life on them but I can't see "constant digs at you"

Step back and take a chill pill, you will not like that comment, but I for one and I hope I speak for many would be saddened by your departure, you have provided many an insight into the murky world of GOODF and FMOTL. It is a view many of us do not see and you have had that insight, please continue.

If you leave I wish you well.

I hope and trust you will not.

[Gregg]

perhaps it is time to close this topic and start new one. Call it The Further Adventures of Tom Crawford.

I would rather not, and in fact I'm not sure that closing the original thread and starting this one was the best move I ever made. Although I did make it clear in the first post that this thread was a continuation of the earlier one, and provided a link to the first thread, it might be a little clunky having the same topic in different places. In the old days, we limited all threads to ~100 posts (7 pages or so) and some of us are still accustomed to that, but the reason was technical issues with the software that ran the site and no longer is an issue.

Whatever y'all decide is fine with me, but that's just my thought on it.

[getoutofdebtfools]

SMH is only relevant of TC & SSC are inheriting it / already living there or UKAR enforce against it. If so, no need to publish an address as that would be wrong in my eyes. Naming the County / general area is fair game though.

Let's move on from this anyway.

Here's a thought, I wonder if Sue's mum changed her will at a late stage given everything that was already going on with Tom and Sue. It would have made absolute sense to leave them out maybe adding the children instead.

Also, if a will directs the house to Sue could she then do something to in law to immediately transfer it to someone else? Or does that have to wait until probate has finished?

[Gregg]

Well, my last post was before I read any further. Let's be civil, can we?

Just a little note, we do not delete profiles, even banned ones are left, but if you are not active for a period of time, which I believe is a year, I'm pretty sure they self delete.

I have never seen anything beyond speculation that their is another house involved, and was under the impression that she lived with Tom, Betty, Onesie and Betty et al.... but regardless, we don't DOX people on this site, not even bad people. From my point of view that pretty much ends the issue unless and until the details become a public controversy and the details common knowledge outside of our forum.

For now then, let that be the last word on the subject.

(on another note, I have received word that Betty survived the arrival in Key West of Hurricane Mathew and is now safe, if waterlogged, working the outdoor bar scene down by the harbor.)

[Skeleton]

SMH is only relevant of TC & SSC are inheriting it / already living there or UKAR enforce against it. If so, no need to publish an address as that would be wrong in my eyes. Naming the County / general area is fair game though.

Let's move on from this anyway.

Here's a thought, I wonder if Sue's mum changed her will at a late stage given everything that was already going on with Tom and Sue. It would have made absolute sense to leave them out maybe adding the children instead.

Also, if a will directs the house to Sue could she then do something to in law to immediately transfer it to someone else? Or does that have to wait until probate has finished?

Your on the wind up or a total bloody idiot because your not moving on.

SMH is off limits - How difficult is it?

Sorry MODS. Simply ridiculous now. Ban me I will cry.

[notorial dissent]

Letissier, my ONLY real comment to you was to the effect that I agreed with you about the Crawfrauds.

Beyond that, I was addressing everyone else. If that hit a bit too close to home then I am sorry, it wasn't intended towards you.

[SoLongCeylon]

We should ban Letissier from leaving. They are a good contributer.

[daveBeeston]

We should ban Letissier from leaving. They are a good contributer.

I agree, the contributions he has made have be extremely enlightening/helpful and i for one hope they continue.

The one thing i don't get though is the whole sudden swerve to "everyone's against me" just because i happen to have a different opinion/view on something, i mean jeez its the internet its going to happen and if your offended by that then well suck it up buttercup and move on.

Back to topic,

Im in Leeds at the time of Poppa Crawford's appearance so i may try to pop along if i get a spare few hour, for research purposes plus it gives me chance to try out my new Go Pro.

[TheNewSaint]

Im in Leeds at the time of Poppa Crawford's appearance so i may try to pop along if i get a spare few hour, for research purposes plus it gives me chance to try out my new Go Pro.

Please report if you can. I'm curious to know if anyone is even going to Poppa Crawford's rallies at this point. Or what they would even consist of. Even to a FMOTL audience, Tom's story of "I'm continuing my case by getting arrested so I can get before a jury" has to look a bit silly.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Im in Leeds at the time of Poppa Crawford's appearance so i may try to pop along if i get a spare few hour, for research purposes plus it gives me chance to try out my new Go Pro.

You've got a WeRe chequebook for the entrance "donation" I assume?

[longdog]

Even to a FMOTL audience, Tom's story of "I'm continuing my case by getting arrested so I can get before a jury" has to look a bit silly.

As far as I can work it out getting yourself arrested and convicted is heroic rather than silly to these loons. The more idiotic the reasons behind the arrest the more heroic you are.

[Pox]

Even to a FMOTL audience, Tom's story of "I'm continuing my case by getting arrested so I can get before a jury" has to look a bit silly.

As far as I can work it out getting yourself arrested and convicted is heroic rather than silly to these loons. The more idiotic the reasons behind the arrest the more heroic you are.

Perhaps Tom likes to see himself as a martyr for the cause and expects to be canonised for all his (futile) efforts?

[FatGambit]

We should ban Letissier from leaving. They are a good contributer.

I agree, the contributions he has made have be extremely enlightening/helpful and i for one hope they continue.

The one thing i don't get though is the whole sudden swerve to "everyone's against me" just because i happen to have a different opinion/view on something, i mean jeez its the internet its going toppen and if your offended by that then well suck it up buttercup and move on.

Back to topic,

I'll give you the short version, since our arrival here from the great ship GOODF, there has been one rule enforced against us from the very beginning which is opinion/speculation is not welcome, only facts are, you may remember i was immediately called out over a drink driving incident that I detailed here, told i was lying and to provide proof, which of course i couldn't because it happened to the guy 15 years ago, but the general attitude was, don't post if you don't have facts to back a claim.

This was also relevant in the brief run those guys had with their parking fines and stuff, and as they continued to speculate some were banned for either being idiots or failing to pony up the required proof.

Mirror that then to the present thread, where pretty much everybody has been allowed to speculate for over a year as to whether the Crawfords inherited SMH, and on occasion state as fact or assume that they did. so when this has been pointed out, the general consensus has been, hey button it, it's relevant speculation so is allowed, seriously can you not see the irony here?

You all assume Sue's Mum owned her property, have any of you considered she might have lived in a nursing home, or perhaps social housing and the tenancy succeeded to Sue? It can be done, as someone said up thread, this site deals in facts, not speculation, does it not?

So put yourself in his shoes, for the entirity of his membership he's been held to this 'facts only, no speculation' rule, yet others not, surely it's not that difficult to see why he has a 'everybodys against me' point of view?

[JamesVincent]

I can answer that in part. Speculation per se isn't the issue. Things like the drink driving ticket isn't speculation, you're saying someone commited a serious crime and that needs some backup. Accusing anyone of a crime needs some sort of verification since that can adversely affect someone's life.

Whenever we broach a subject there's gonna be some speculation, we are not gonna know everything the first time we talked about a subject. There is a thread on here that was pushing 100 pages before we ever knew anything. Every thing up to the point of the company going under was all informed speculation and talk. There was more then enough going on that We felt we were correct but until the FCC moved in there was no way of knowing.

But speculation just to speculate isn't good. Bringing it up as a possibility, some discussion ensues, then we figure out if it's relevant and move on. There's a lot of things I would love to know the answers to but not gonna happen right now. Until someone can find some facts then we need to focus elsewhere.

It has nothing to do with how or what we feel about the Crawfrauds, it just doesn't make sense to follow that line until we have some facts. And we don't need to broadcast things like addresses, just confirm what the situation is.

[Jeffrey]

I thought the Crawford's said they inherited SMH and/or were living there and that what we were speculating about was whether or not that was true, or if that played a part in their shenanigans with blocking the eviction.

[littleFred]

I thought the Crawford's said ...

You might think that. But do you have any evidence they actually said that? Any at all?

I don't think the Crawfords have ever said they inherited a house. I think the only people who have claimed this are posters on Quatloos. And they often post this as mere assertion with no evidence.

[Jeffrey]

Maybe we inferred it?

[TheNewSaint]

I don't think the Crawfords have ever said they inherited a house. I think the only people who have claimed this are posters on Quatloos. And they often post this as mere assertion with no evidence.

I did some investigative research on this, and I think you are correct. I found this comment on an August 2015 thread:

Does anybody know...what evidence is there that:
1. They are living at dead nan's house; and,
2. Dead nan owned the house (and therefore it may be inherited by Sue)?

Just curious as I've seen these statements several times but haven't seen anything to back them up.

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10722&start=60#p202645

The question was never answered. It seems it still has not been. But I did find what seems to be the genesis of the idea. It started with the Crawfords having access to the home, and quickly morphed into the idea of them inheriting it.

From Page 8 of the "Second Battle of Crawford Castle" thread, on July 26, 2015:

The really telling thing is that Tom has known for some time that he and Sue would have access to his mother in law's house as the Nottingham bungalow became a lost cause. By manipulating others and finding himself a warm place to live Crawford has managed to get the attention he has learned to love while not risking the roof over his head.

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... 40#p199428

arayder doesn't say Tom and Sue would inherit the house, just that they had access to it, which is not the same thing. arayder does not cite source for this assertion, and I couldn't quickly find it (though it may be out there somewhere).

This led to subsequent comments, all from Page 10 of that thread:

Is [Craig Crawford] backward. Does he not know that his parents are not in that house anymore? Does he not know Granny has died and left daddy and mommy a new fully furnished home for them to walk right into. They may not be there long though. That will depend on how much debt his loyal supporters have clocked up since his parents where evicted. The banks maybe along again before Sue has had chance to even try out grannies slippers.

We've still got a way to go with the trials. Then the prospect of a possession order on Sweaty Sue's mum's, with her hardly in the ground and all.

(NOTE: according to the timeline posted here, Sue's mother is believed to have died on May 30, 2015)

I really wouldn't be surprised if the Grand Children inherit it rather than sweaty Sue ... that will stop any claim in its tracks

[in response to Gh132] What? The Crawfords were financially savvy enough to write a will, and with something sensible in it? You're having a laugh. Short odds it all goes to Sue (She is the only near relative isn't she?). She was on the mortgage with Tom and is married to him. Goodbye inheritance.

And on Page 12:

Somewhere in this process Tommy boy realized that since he and Suzy were going to inherit her momma's house anyway he could play the victim card until he lost the bungalow and still have a roof over his head. The timing worked out well for ole Tommy boy and Suzy's mother died right on cue.

"Have access to" turned into "prospect of inheriting" turned into "short odds of inheriting" turned into "will inherit" in less than 5 pages.

To sum up: there is no evidence Tom & Sue Crawford would/will inherit the home. But, based on arayder's initial comment, and our compiled timeline which places Sue's mother's death about a month before the Crawfords were finally removed from Fearn Chase, there may be evidence they had the ability to stay there when the Fearn Chase home was lost to repossession.

[Bones]

I'll give you the short version, since our arrival here from the great ship GOODF, there has been one rule enforced against us from the very beginning which is opinion/speculation is not welcome, only facts are, you may remember i was immediately called out over a drink driving incident that I detailed here, told i was lying and to provide proof, which of course i couldn't because it happened to the guy 15 years ago, but the general attitude was, don't post if you don't have facts to back a claim.

You imply that there is some form of discrimination by the site team and some posters here towards people that used to post on GOODF that have since joined this site. I mean no offence but it is very unlikely that the site team know who did and who did not used to post on GOODF and from what I know about them from their posts, I very much doubt that they care where anyone used to post.

Just for the record I am one of the people that used to post on GOODF, until I was banned by Colon for highlighting the little scams he had going on. I have never seen or felt any evidence to show that posters such as myself that used to post on GOODF are treated any differently to anyone else.

I think we all need to draw a line and move on from SMH. Let's stick to the claims made by the Crawfraud's..... Tom has said that he is homeless

14 September 2016
http://www.nottinghampost.com/carlton-m ... story.html

He listed complaints about the handling of the case as it went through the civil courts. He described himself as homeless and said he had lived in the home with wife Susan.

27 September 2016
http://www.nottinghampost.com/mortgage- ... story.html

Crawford, who described himself as homeless at an earlier hearing, was ordered to pay £250 prosecution costs and a £15 Government surcharge. He received a six-month conditional discharge and told the judge he would lodge an appeal at the Crown Court.

Now whilst Tommy has described himself as homeless, clearly from his appearence that is not the case, Maybe we should deal with the topics being discussed now about the question of if there is or is not a SMH, in terms of where is Tommy calling home - (that is not an invitation to following him to find out)