UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[longdog]

» Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:10 pm

there should be closed forum for WeRe verified members only, to exchange experience, build tactics, support Peter and each other, get to know each other and to build the community, as far from zombie trolls as possible, etc

Strangely enough in the 11 years I've been banking with the Co-op I've never given any thought to building tactics.

[LordEd]

as far from zombie trolls as possible, etc

Zombie trolls look for brains. Slim pickings over there.

[NYGman]

» Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:10 pm

there should be closed forum for WeRe verified members only, to exchange experience, build tactics, support Peter and each other, get to know each other and to build the community, as far from zombie trolls as possible, etc

Strangely enough in the 11 years I've been banking with the Co-op I've never given any thought to building tactics.

I agree with you on the tactics issue, what tactics do I really need to write a check to pay a bill? I have been a CitiBank Customer for over 20 years, and I have never had to join a private forum to discuss how to use a check, they just work as expected. As long as I have cash in the account to cover, the bank pays the check. I also have not had any experiences that I felt needed exchanging, as all my checks have been cashed, all my deposits have been credited, and my requests to withdraw available funds have always met with success. This is how a bank should work, what is there to discuss. I honestly have no desire to join a community of fellow citibank customers, there really is no point to that.

Edit: Looks like the Tom Crawford and WeRe bank thread are merging, perhaps someone can move some of these WeRE posts over? I realize there is some crossover, but should probably try to stay on topic as much as possible. Unless Tom in celebration of his huge court win, offers to pay off his non-existent balance, with a check from a non-existent bank, with non-existent funds.

[midjit-gems]

http://roguemale.org/2015/05/10/tgbms-c ... itchforks/

[letissier14]

http://roguemale.org/2015/05/10/tgbms-c ... itchforks/

Taken from that link "The main plank of Tom’s argument was that the mortgage, despite the B&B’s attempts to change it, had remained an endowment one and that the bank had repudiated the original agreement when it unilaterally attempted to change it over to a repayment mortgage. The mortgage never changed, end of! They were falsely claiming it was on the instructions or agreement of Tom and Sue, when the fact was there was no such contract in place. And, in any event, any contractual arrangement for a change in the terms and conditions had to comply with s.2 of the 1989 Act.

In other words: whilst the Crawfords, by making the mortgage payments, carried out their side of the agreement, the bank (who attempted to unilaterally change it) failed to perform on the original agreement for an endowment mortgage. That is why the B&B’s original possession claim was false: there was no valid agreement in place between the parties, which means they had no contractual or equitable right to bring the claim in the first place.

When this was pointed out to Nigel, he stood up and left the court room. Upon his return there began a farcical sequence whereby Michael O’Bernicia was effectively addressing the court whilst speaking into the ear of Tom, as his ‘MacKenzie friend’.

That's the point, they didn't make the mortgage payments hence the arrears - I give up with these people. They can't even remember their own story now!!!!!

[Hyrion]

That's the point, they didn't make the mortgage payments hence the arrears - I give up with these people. They can't even remember their own story now!!!!!

Not to mention the illogic in their logic:

That is why the B&B’s original possession claim was false: there was no valid agreement in place between the parties

whilst the Crawfords, by making the mortgage payments, carried out their side of the agreement

Nice logic there..... how is it possible for the Crawfords to carry out their side of the agreement when "there was no valid agreement in place"?

Why where they bothering to pay a mortgage when a mortgage apparently did not exist?

Ahh... the many logical questions that illogical claims can't possibly cover.

[midjit-gems]

http://roguemale.org/2015/05/10/tgbms-c ... itchforks/

Taken from that link "The main plank of Tom’s argument was that the mortgage, despite the B&B’s attempts to change it, had remained an endowment one and that the bank had repudiated the original agreement when it unilaterally attempted to change it over to a repayment mortgage. The mortgage never changed, end of! They were falsely claiming it was on the instructions or agreement of Tom and Sue, when the fact was there was no such contract in place. And, in any event, any contractual arrangement for a change in the terms and conditions had to comply with s.2 of the 1989 Act.

In other words: whilst the Crawfords, by making the mortgage payments, carried out their side of the agreement, the bank (who attempted to unilaterally change it) failed to perform on the original agreement for an endowment mortgage. That is why the B&B’s original possession claim was false: there was no valid agreement in place between the parties, which means they had no contractual or equitable right to bring the claim in the first place.

When this was pointed out to Nigel, he stood up and left the court room. Upon his return there began a farcical sequence whereby Michael O’Bernicia was effectively addressing the court whilst speaking into the ear of Tom, as his ‘MacKenzie friend’.

That's the point, they didn't make the mortgage payments hence the arrears - I give up with these people. They can't even remember their own story now!!!!!

I did wonder if I'd maybe gotten confused but no it appears not. They RM seem also to have this selective misunderstanding of how an endowment mortgage works. It's really not that difficult. I am however a thick, stupid, troll who can't speak legalese so maybe it's me that's got it all arse about tit?

Please god can someone get the truth from these eejits before they claim aliens snatched their bodies in the dead of night and forced them to do naughty things which resulted in the whole sorry mess they now find themselves in.

[Hyrion]

I am however a thick, stupid, troll who can't speak legalese so maybe it's me that's got it all arse about tit?

I'd say the end-result speaks volumes with regards who is getting it right and who is getting it wrong.

Those of us that choose to work with the system (by paying the debts we willing entered for example) are not having any problems and end up owning our property with the value being available to pass on to whomever we will (usually dependents).

We also take full responsibility for our actions and choose to employ actions that build on prosperity.

On the other hand, the OPCA crowd like to do exactly the opposite. Take no responsibility for their own actions. Work against any system they end up dealing with (the banking and Legal systems in this case). The end result is - to us - quite predictable.

It really does raise quite the philosophical and psychological questions surrounding why OPCA individuals are choosing paths that lead to destroying their own futures.

[JonnyL]

So, does this big breaking news announcement promised by Ceylon have anything to do with Sepp Blatter resigning?

[rumpelstilzchen]

I take objection to the slogan "We are all Tom Crawford" I keep seeing. I am not Tom Crawford nor do I wish to be compared with Tom Crawford. I honoured my agreement and paid my mortgage in full unlike Crawford who did not. That is why he is in the shit and I am not.

[Burnaby49]

Edit: Looks like the Tom Crawford and WeRe bank thread are merging, perhaps someone can move some of these WeRE posts over? I realize there is some crossover, but should probably try to stay on topic as much as possible.

Valid point. However I'm possibly the only moderator paying close attention to this discussion and I'm not going to bother sifting through all. The solution is just to keep Peter of England items in the appropriate discussion.

I've been discussing the issue of topic relevance off-line with a British contributor who has very politely accused me of going off-topic on Peter by rambling on too much about pubbing. No argument, guilty as charged, but I responded;

You've got a point. I agree, at least in general, that a discussion should stay relatively on topic. But I would argue that there is already so much excessive, essentially pointless posting on the Peter of England discussion that a diversion to pubbing, or any other topic, makes little difference to the focus.

There have been almost 1,500 postings on this topic, a phenomenal number. The most postings in a Canadian discussion is on the Dean Clifford thread which has almost 56,000 viewings, almost twice that of Peter, but only 2/3 the number of posts. Most of the recent Peter postings, while on topic, add little since they are essentially repetition and chit-chat. Everybody seems to be marking time waiting for the scheme to collapse.

Overall the British contributors are going a great job. But, at least to some extent, the postings on this topic, and Tom Crawford, seem to have taken on a life of their own regardless of whether there is anything new to report.

This comment is even more appropriate to this discussion because it has over 300 more posts than Peter. This isn't a record for Quatloos but it probably soon will be. The only contender I'm aware of is this one with 1,812 posts but that one has almost a quarter of a million viewings and is a very significant topic, an ongoing Ponzi scheme that was revealed through the Quatloos discussion;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4971

However, at heart the Tom Crawford discussion is largely about one hapless individual having his home foreclosed and taking bad advice on how to keep it.

I'm not pointing this out as a moderator warning. It doesn't matter to me or the other moderators how many message are posted about Tom and his problems. And, as I've said, I'm guilty of off-topic postings. However I'd suggest that you are diluting the impact of Tom's story by the volume of posts on it.

[longdog]

I've been discussing the issue of topic relevance off-line with a British contributor who has very politely accused me of going off-topic on Peter by rambling on too much about pubbing. No argument, guilty as charged, but I responded....

If beer is off topic then maybe the topic is wrong

After two days of riot control introducing a new puppy to the rest of the pack I either have a beer tonight or go on a killing spree

[Bones]

I've been discussing the issue of topic relevance off-line with a British contributor who has very politely accused me of going off-topic on Peter by rambling on too much about pubbing. No argument, guilty as charged, but I responded;

How can someone go on too much about pubbing ?

I suppose pub comments could be limited to Guy Taylor's thread as they relate to the topic of that thread

[vampireLOREN]

Edit: Looks like the Tom Crawford and WeRe bank thread are merging, perhaps someone can move some of these WeRE posts over? I realize there is some crossover, but should probably try to stay on topic as much as possible.

Valid point. However I'm possibly the only moderator paying close attention to this discussion and I'm not going to bother sifting through all. The solution is just to keep Peter of England items in the appropriate discussion.

I've been discussing the issue of topic relevance off-line with a British contributor who has very politely accused me of going off-topic on Peter by rambling on too much about pubbing. No argument, guilty as charged, but I responded;

You've got a point. I agree, at least in general, that a discussion should stay relatively on topic. But I would argue that there is already so much excessive, essentially pointless posting on the Peter of England discussion that a diversion to pubbing, or any other topic, makes little difference to the focus.

There have been almost 1,500 postings on this topic, a phenomenal number. The most postings in a Canadian discussion is on the Dean Clifford thread which has almost 56,000 viewings, almost twice that of Peter, but only 2/3 the number of posts. Most of the recent Peter postings, while on topic, add little since they are essentially repetition and chit-chat. Everybody seems to be marking time waiting for the scheme to collapse.

Overall the British contributors are going a great job. But, at least to some extent, the postings on this topic, and Tom Crawford, seem to have taken on a life of their own regardless of whether there is anything new to report.

This comment is even more appropriate to this discussion because it has over 300 more posts than Peter. This isn't a record for Quatloos but it probably soon will be. The only contender I'm aware of is this one with 1,812 posts but that one has almost a quarter of a million viewings and is a very significant topic, an ongoing Ponzi scheme that was revealed through the Quatloos discussion;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4971

However, at heart the Tom Crawford discussion is largely about one hapless individual having his home foreclosed and taking bad advice on how to keep it.

I'm not pointing this out as a moderator warning. It doesn't matter to me or the other moderators how many message are posted about Tom and his problems. And, as I've said, I'm guilty of off-topic postings. However I'd suggest that you are diluting the impact of Tom's story by the volume of posts on it.

Well I guess we are marking time, it does not dilute the message if we were all sitting in a bar waiting for an expected incident to unfold.....would we not spend the time in expectation and also in idle chatter.

[Burnaby49]

I've been discussing the issue of topic relevance off-line with a British contributor who has very politely accused me of going off-topic on Peter by rambling on too much about pubbing. No argument, guilty as charged, but I responded;

How can someone go on too much about pubbing ?

I suppose pub comments could be limited to Guy Taylor's thread as they relate to the topic of that thread

A foolish question. It's obviously impossible to "go on too much" about pubbing and real ale. Few British readers will have done as extensive a "survey" of British pubs as I have even though I live thousands of miles from the appropriate venues. So it's clearly a topic I'm willing to yammer on about all day. However I agree that if I do too much babbling on the subject it becomes a digression from the topic.

[Hercule Parrot]

Well I guess we are marking time, it does not dilute the message if we were all sitting in a bar waiting for an expected incident to unfold.....would we not spend the time in expectation and also in idle chatter.

Agreed. But we ought to start a new topic when the warrant is executed, perhaps. Mark that major event with a fresh page?

[NYGman]

Well I guess we are marking time, it does not dilute the message if we were all sitting in a bar waiting for an expected incident to unfold.....would we not spend the time in expectation and also in idle chatter.

Agreed. But we ought to start a new topic when the warrant is executed, perhaps. Mark that major event with a fresh page?

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10614

Was actually working on it when you made the post. Feel free to keep this one going on current events, and use the Eviction thread to discuss that process, and thoughts on how it will happen, and the response from GOOFy

[Burnaby49]

Well I guess we are marking time, it does not dilute the message if we were all sitting in a bar waiting for an expected incident to unfold.....would we not spend the time in expectation and also in idle chatter.

Agreed. But we ought to start a new topic when the warrant is executed, perhaps. Mark that major event with a fresh page?

Exactly what we did for Robert Menard. Wserra started this discussion back in 2008;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=3019

It plodded along in fits and starts for years then, after 261 posts, it seemed to just die out in October 2014. However in early 2015 Menard rose from the dead and suddenly got active. He tried to started a debit card money for nothing scheme similar to Peter's fake bank. A $250 a month payment to Rob would get you $2,500 a month on a debit card supplied by Rob. It worked through some unexplained Freeman magic. So the discussion started up again in January 2015 and has been very active since with news of Rob's arrest and charges for impersonating a peace officer, his court hearings, his arrest warrant for failing to appear and his current status as a fugitive from the warrant.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10492

Although it had been running as a single discussion we moderators agreed it was getting unwieldy so I broke it up into two separate parts. The dividing line was the two month hiatus before things suddenly blew up. That gave readers the chance to skip all the early stuff and focus on Rob's new adventures.

This discussion is already 90 pages and almost 1,800 posts and I suspect that few new readers are going to plow through it from the start. So perhaps when the warrant is executed it's time to start a new discussion with a summary at the beginning of the basic facts to give new readers the background and continue on with the post-execution developments.

[Jeffrey]

Something about 1999 stands out to me.

Tom must have written to the bank claiming they changed the mortgage policy hence the: "unable to find any instructions from you to change your account" line that they keep quoting out of context as an admission that the bank changed the terms.

Meanwhile, we know that the endowment policy was being paid out of Mrs. Crawford's account and that it was she who stopped paying into it.

Is this the possible explanation for all this confusion. Did Mrs. Crawford cancel the endowment policy without telling her husband about it? The 1999 Customer Needs Analysis was also signed by Mrs. Crawford, that document explained to her that they lacked a repayment policy.

The only way I can see Tom not being complicit is if Mrs. Crawford cancelled the endowment policy without informing her husband. Then denied cancelling in 1999 when the bank informed them. Which meant Tom blamed the bank for the lack of a repayment method being ignorant of what his wife had done behind his back.

[guilty]

Ooooooh! I'm frightened....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABubdtOPL8g

I can't sleep at night - the tension is just too much. When is my employment as a government shill due to end?