Quatloos!

No mention of stalking then. I thought that stalking was the accusation
Even if the Crawfords' account is true it does not alter the fact that Crawford lost his house because he did not pay his mortgage and he ain't getting it back.

so much litigation its getting hard to follow!

Is it Joinder?

I have a vague memory, perhaps other moderators can remember more, of Joinder, a Quatloos poster who got himself permanently banned, a difficult feat.

Joinder
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 379Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:37 am

He was obsessed by Tom Crawford. He'd go to the various Crawford hearings and Craig would FB about the criminal Quatloos troll. You can find his postings here;

search.php?author_id=28926&sr=posts

I'm changing that prior post's conclusion already. Doing a bit of research into Joinder jogged my memory. He was a troll who swamped Quatloos about the Crawfords and how they were right. He'd make provocative statments to provoke arguments and you British posters would fall for it. You won't find those posts in the listing I linked to because we moderators deleted them wholesale. I probably deleted fifty or more, maybe a hundred. We told him to stop, he wouldn't and was moderated. That meant that a moderator had to read and approve any posting he made before it was posted on Quatloos. He responded by swamping us with postings so he was eventually banned.

However there was somebody who caught the Crawford's attention at trial and elsewhere. Craig posted a picture of him on FB. We speculated for a while on who it might be but decided it wasn't Joinder because of his pro-Tom leanings. We never identified him. If he posted on Quatloos he never outed himself as the Crawford stalker. The Crawfords complained of his criminal activities and said he would be charged. Maybe, for once, they were right.

Craig Crawford:
So today we were witnesses for the assault on two of our friends mark and ellen. And criminal damage on his neighbours car which was caught on tv. A lovely 61 year old woman..
He is part of a site called "quatloos" theyre apparently in the know when it comes to law i say apparently.. because they don't... and they troll people they dont agree with. Some stalk...
The guy was found guilty of assault and criminal damage!!! Crawfords and co 1... stalker. 0

I believe the "mark" Craig is referring to is Haining! This was from Tom's last court appearance where if you recall they posted about police being called etc. I had a username on GOODF and was in PM contact with a regular poster and he told me ( in confidence ) Haining got attacked by the Troll. I kept this info in confidence until now seeing as (a) my user name got banned shortly after the GOODF was sold events and the GOODF user no longer posts as they were one of the inner circle of morons.

Anyway, possibly at long last the Crawfords have a victory of sorts and aren't they loving it. It's just a shame they won't be having a party round at Fearn Chase to celebrate cos they lost that one! I'm sure Amanda got our her onesie last night for the hubby. "Get em Off" Yuck, " keep em on "

Note how Menard jumps into the comments desperate for some ammunition

SoLongCeylon wrote: Anyway, possibly at long last the Crawfords have a victory of sorts and aren't they loving it.

I would disagree. If the story is true the Crawfords were only witnesses, they were not the victims in this case. The Crawfords haven't won anything. The victims have.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:Note how Menard jumps into the comments desperate for some ammunition

If you mean this exchange;

Robert Menard What name do they use on quatloos? What is their name irl?
Like · Reply · 2 · March 3 at 1:06pm

Martin Smith
Martin Smith no idea mate...Craig Crawford ?....anyone know his Quatlooser ID?..

We Quatloosers would also like to know. I have no idea who they are referring to. It's possible the Crawfords just assumed he was a Quatloos poster without having any evidence to support their comment. If they have an actual name I'd like to have it too.

Amanda said;

Amanda Pike
Considering a nats trump normally doesn't go unnoticed by the sad sacks who call themselves quatloser and weirdo trolls on facebook against my family I find it hilarious they haven't made one single post of their fellow associates conviction yesterday. The guy they egged on to attend to report back for them. To funny. They're a joke. I'd also like to point out the judge saying to him "what on earth were you doing attending Mr Crawfords cases for anyway" hahaha their ilk show themselves up time and time again. Sadly they are that deluded they've no idea about how normal people view them nor do they care. When asked in the witness box if i disliked the defendant I explained I didn't (under oath) I replied I just feel incredibly sorry for him and I meant it that goes for all his kind on quatloos and Facebook too. They're a sad sorry lot and most need some sort of evaluation which is a worry but in alot of their cases I feel nessasary To concern yourself with other peoples lives to the point of obsession well.....that needs looked at

Hard to post about him if we don't know who he is or that he was even on trial, let alone convicted.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:

SoLongCeylon wrote: Anyway, possibly at long last the Crawfords have a victory of sorts and aren't they loving it.

I would disagree. If the story is true the Crawfords were only witnesses, they were not the victims in this case. The Crawfords haven't won anything. The victims have.

True but the Crawfords have so few victories ( if any ) that even being slightly associated with a victory is something for them to celebrate. I guess the only real victory was getting off the Rooftop 6 charges.

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1 ... 66&fref=ts

So in which case, Mark Ceylon should be crowing from the rooftop about it, only- he isn't!

Being their biggest ally, I would have thought he would be broadcasting it far and wide Amanda.

So with this fantastic win by the crawfrauds, when are they moving back home?

The comment from Amanda is a funny one in itself, as far as im aware no one here knows the individual involved and the circumstances for the case being heard, Amanda around here we deal in facts and are not a place of speculation or guess work, tell us who the defendant was and if they are/where a member here im sure we will have something to say about them and their action(if that member is Joinder then he was widely disliked and banned).

rumpelstilzchen wrote:Note how Menard jumps into the comments desperate for some ammunition attention

major faux pas on your part there.

Is there any way to independently verify the facts of the case? Is it public record?

Burnaby49 wrote:

rumpelstilzchen wrote:Note how Menard jumps into the comments desperate for some ammunition

If you mean this exchange;

Robert Menard What name do they use on quatloos? What is their name irl?
Like · Reply · 2 · March 3 at 1:06pm

Martin Smith
Martin Smith no idea mate...Craig Crawford ?....anyone know his Quatlooser ID?..

We Quatloosers would also like to know. I have no idea who they are referring to. It's possible the Crawfords just assumed he was a Quatloos poster without having any evidence to support their comment. If they have an actual name I'd like to have it too.

um.....lying liars lie. considering the younger cfraud posted here himself, I'll wager he's talking about himself. there still hasn't even been an establish 'stalking' to begin with. just a tale told be people known to fabricate stories.

The case (assuming there was one) isn't sub judice, so I'll give my personal opinion.

As usual for the Crawfords, they dribble out such little information that it can't be verified.

I can't find any report in the Nottingham Post or elsewhere.

None of the Crawford supporters verify the assault or trial.

Craig and Amanda both claim to be witnesses. Neither publicised the trial in advance. They don't name the defendant. They don't give the full names of the victims (but this could be for reasonable privacy reasons). They give no details of the assault.

Most tellingly, to me: the Crawfords don't say why they think the defendant is a Quatloos poster.

I can't see any reason to believe anything in their account.

I wouldn't condone assault or criminal damage, and I would hope that anyone who posts on Quatloos wouldn't commit those (or other) crimes. Not that we are responsible for each other's actions, of course.

But given the tendency of the Crawfords to invent self-contradictory garbage, I suspect this is yet another example. They don't give details because they would soon contradict themselves.

Maybe it was a unicorn that did the assault.

that would be more believable

The Observer wrote:Maybe it was a unicorn that did the assault.

Possession of an offensive weapon (pointed horn)?