He has "remade" the video he earlier took down. This one is almost a carbon copy with references to trolls and remarks about the new owners removed. He really is delusional though, and pissed with his own importance.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....
and the Magistrate said 'the whole case depends on who owns the house'
Well yes Tom it does, I could have told you that. You entered premises that weren't yours that's the whole point of you being charged, so of course the whole case revolves around that point.
So why are you so happy that the Magistrate confirmed it and how difficult do you think it's going to be to prove you NO LONGER OWN THE HOUSE, seriously this guy's a simpleton !!
He has "remade" the video he earlier took down. This one is almost a carbon copy with references to trolls and remarks about the new owners removed. He really is delusional though, and pissed with his own importance.
They are slightly different videos but the 'Barking Dog' one is still up.
I like the bit about the 'friendly' Magistrate ("Hello Tom") deciding that he didn't want to deal with Tom's case. A wise choice. Having dealt with Tom previously, he could see what was coming.
I have watched both videos and I'm confused about this plastic envelope of 'evidence' that Tom passed to the usher and why the Magistrate would ask the usher '5 times' what was in it. So what happened to this envelope? Was it given to the CPS? What did they do with it? Perhaps Tom will shoot another video to clear up the confusion.
The 13th September is the next hearing and he is pinning his hopes on one sentence from the Magistrates....'the case depends on who owns the house'.
Tom's seem to think that he will be given another opportunity to argue that his house was stolen. Being that this is a criminal case, the court will need to determine whether the property was still owned by the building society (having been legally repossessed) or whether it had been sold. Quite simple really. It I wasn't so far away, it could be an interesting hearing to attend.
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.
I would appreciate the thoughts of some of our contributors who are more expert in legal and court practices. For example, what are these "mentions" that he talks about?
I assume that he is delighted that the magistrate agreed that the issue turns on who owns the property because he thinks this means he can retry the whole possession case again. I doubt that he will be allowed to do that.
Similarly I assume that he was trying to provoke the CPS into charging him with burglary on the basis that he took "something" from the house after it had been repossessed and that if he wasn't the owner then he must be guilty of burglary. He is willing to admit to this simply to obtain a jury trial (although if he admitted it would a jury be required?). Presumably he thinks he has them over a barrel in that if they charged him with burglary he gets his jury trial and if (as happened) they didn't it "proves" that he owns the house.
I must admit I was expecting more from Tom's video and wondered if, after more than a year since my last one it would provide me with some material for another video of my own. Alas, it's thin gruel.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
littleFred wrote:Tom also no longer accuses the police of aiding and abetting in a burglary that he says never occurred.
He has also deleted from his Youtube Watch History the fact he watched and liked the song about a Penis. There was also some other watched history ( now deleted ) with a disturbing recurring theme!!! I guess Tom spends a lot of time on the internet in the evenings - once Sue has gone to bed in the room within someone elses house they now call home.
I found it interesting that in the latest video's Tom's voice is much weaker and the delivery more stuttery than his earlier "call to arms" videos. For the past six months or so his actions have been getting more and more desperate as he tries to remain above the radar. Lets see how many people turn up to support him on the 13th Sept. My Guess - less than 10.
This is getting to be rinse and repeat until fades away. Even getting jailed will likely just postpone the next round. Tom wants a trial in connection with the house, preferably with a jury (cos juries can agree with Tom and jury nullification and whatever....) so he engineers an incident to get arrested. He is going to court with the expectation of a victory which will reverse everything and prove he is right. Not that it is possible for that to be done by the outcome of a Magistrate court but that doesn't enter into Tom's comprehension. If he gets acquitted it will prove he is right and he'll er do something and get his house back. If he is convicted it will be because of the corrupt courts and the Illuminati not being able to continue without ownership of Fearn Chase. Neither outcome can actually give Tom what he claims. Side bet: he pleads No case to answer. My prediction: some time in the future he will get jailed for breaching a court order relating to Fearn Chase.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
Burglary can still be tried in a Magistrates court (i.e. no jury). I suspect the next hearing might have a District Judge presiding, rather than a panel of Magistrates.
I was trying to check up on disclosure rules without exactly getting it clear to me, however it seems to be well established that a defendant can't use an "ambush" defence by popping up with evidence that they could have mentioned earlier. Of course if that means his new "bombshell" evidence isn't admitted, that will be portrayed as a victory in some way.
the use of a 'mention hearing' can be to deal with all manner of things which could include (though not an exhaustive list) any outstanding issues of prosecution evidence disclosure, unexpected witness availability difficulties, having to change a trial date and/or venue, preliminary arguments over issues of law or admissability of evidence (if before the nominated trial judge): either the court, prosecution or defence can ask for a case to be listed 'for mention' if matters cannot be resolved administratively and a judge is needed to make decisions in relation to a forthcoming trial.
and the Magistrate said 'the whole case depends on who owns the house'
Please don't tell me Tom believes a magistrate can overturn Judge Godsmark's decision?
Of course he does. This is a common trait amongst such believers. If you follow American "Birthers" you will clearly see it. Once one tiny irrelevant thing is proven everything that Obama ever did in the last 8 years is reversed like re-winding a video. Osama Bin Laden will be very happy.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self
littleFred wrote:
I found it interesting that in the latest video's Tom's voice is much weaker and the delivery more stuttery than his earlier "call to arms" videos.
Maybe it was the time of day that he shot the videos, but in the 'Barking Dog' one, he seemed vague and would stop mid sentence and go off on a tangent.
He certainly seems to think that this forthcoming trial will be the day in which the whole 'ownership' of the house is bought back to life again. Given the 'huge significance' of this hearing, I wonder whether Craig and Amanda will be attending?
Last edited by Bungle on Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.
Was trying to explain to a friend of mine the other day why I find the particular case of Tom so amusing. Alas though, I think if you have not followed this from the very beginning it is hard to understand why it is so comical. The reason being that you would have to invest a great deal of time watching old youtube videos to get a sense of it all and that’s why I hope the channel 4 documentary gets made. As I don’t think it will portray Tom how he thinks or hopes it will.
Just a quick question, could this lead to him being sectioned? Moreover if this is a last ditch attempt by Tom and he goes full on “fruit cake” if it does not go his way?
doublelong wrote:Was trying to explain to a friend of mine the other day why I find the particular case of Tom so amusing.
My partner was looking over my shoulder the other day wanting to know what it was all about and why I was so interested, when I explained what had happened they said 'but you have to pay the capital off, everyone knows that' and my response to why I was so interested was 'it's comical' not because of the fact they lost their home but of the delusions surrounding why they lost it and the fact he's still incapable of understanding why !!
For me, the current humour is of the tragic-comedy variety. He rambled yesterday on ETFOTB, including that he has started a private prosecution. He doesn't bother to say who the alleged criminal is, or the alleged crime. Why not? After all, the alleged criminal will have heard about it by now. But I suppose this is yet another figment of Tom's imagination.
ArthurWankspittle wrote:This is getting to be rinse and repeat until fades away. Even getting jailed will likely just postpone the next round. Tom wants a trial in connection with the house, preferably with a jury (cos juries can agree with Tom and jury nullification and whatever....) so he engineers an incident to get arrested. He is going to court with the expectation of a victory which will reverse everything and prove he is right. Not that it is possible for that to be done by the outcome of a Magistrate court but that doesn't enter into Tom's comprehension. If he gets acquitted it will prove he is right and he'll er do something and get his house back. If he is convicted it will be because of the corrupt courts and the Illuminati not being able to continue without ownership of Fearn Chase. Neither outcome can actually give Tom what he claims. Side bet: he pleads No case to answer. My prediction: some time in the future he will get jailed for breaching a court order relating to Fearn Chase.
For all his lies and deception I for one sincerely hope he does not end up in prison, and I still live in hope that people like Guy Taylor, John Hurst and the rest of his crack legal team are now advising him that if he continues down this path that is increasingly likely to happen. Each new video he seems more gaunt and deluded mumbling has now replaced the previous confident Tom, I seriously doubt a term inside a prison cell would do him any favours in regard to his health. Someone needs to get hold of him and give the man a bloody good shake, and point him to the realities in life, he has lost the house and he will not be getting it back ever, however, as long as he associates with the useless twats he does, he is only ever going to be told it is his house and he can get it back. We can see from a video the obvious damage being done to Tom and his health but these heartless bastards will continue with the same advice to forward their own agenda's.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
littleFred wrote:Tom also no longer accuses the police of aiding and abetting in a burglary that he says never occurred.
He has also deleted from his Youtube Watch History the fact he watched and liked the song about a Penis. There was also some other watched history ( now deleted ) with a disturbing recurring theme!!! I guess Tom spends a lot of time on the internet in the evenings - once Sue has gone to bed in the room within someone elses house they now call home.
I found it interesting that in the latest video's Tom's voice is much weaker and the delivery more stuttery than his earlier "call to arms" videos. For the past six months or so his actions have been getting more and more desperate as he tries to remain above the radar. Lets see how many people turn up to support him on the 13th Sept. My Guess - less than 10.
so you're saying all the 'tissues' might not necessarily be craig's?
doublelong wrote:Was trying to explain to a friend of mine the other day why I find the particular case of Tom so amusing.
My partner was looking over my shoulder the other day wanting to know what it was all about and why I was so interested, when I explained what had happened they said 'but you have to pay the capital off, everyone knows that' and my response to why I was so interested was 'it's comical' not because of the fact they lost their home but of the delusions surrounding why they lost it and the fact he's still incapable of understanding why !!
LOL If my partner walks into the room and sees me watching Crawford related stuff on Youtube or Quatloos, she looks up at the ceiling, turns around and walks back out again.... and sometimes doesn't even leave the cup of tea she brought in for me.
LOL If my partner walks into the room and sees me watching Crawford related stuff on Youtube or Quatloos, she looks up at the ceiling, turns around and walks back out again.... and sometimes doesn't even leave the cup of tea she brought in for me.
My better half is the same, but she also adds "Are you watching that deluded guy and the bungalow again on Youtube - god his voice irritates me"
I don't take sides, I read all the facts and then come to my own conclusions
littleFred wrote:For me, the current humour is of the tragic-comedy variety. He rambled yesterday on ETFOTB, including that he has started a private prosecution. He doesn't bother to say who the alleged criminal is, or the alleged crime. Why not? After all, the alleged criminal will have heard about it by now. But I suppose this is yet another figment of Tom's imagination.
You have to remember that to these kooks "starting a private prosecution" means something completely different to what it means to a normal person. Copying and pasting hundreds of pages of guff off the internet, writing 'Private Prosecution" on the top, waving it at web-cam on YouTube and posting it to a "Common Law Court of Record" they've just made up and run themselves is "starting a private prosecution" in their mind.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
