![bang head :brickwall:](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif)
![bang head :brickwall:](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif)
![Image](https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t34.0-12/12527972_10207782409370935_2074433454_n.jpg?oh=9dcbb4f3400f6d13ea3c3270b66d0b0f&oe=56997C18)
![Image](https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t34.0-12/12506892_10207782409450937_204248643_n.jpg?oh=323035f162ea3e473d041b34f37e1135&oe=56996324)
![Image](https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t34.0-12/12512111_10207782409490938_954609359_n.jpg?oh=bfcb89507884ef2483b17c4e193b73a0&oe=569873C7)
And their supporters believe all this nonsense
![naughty finger :naughty:](./images/smilies/eusa_naughty.gif)
I'm sure someone on here can answer each question in turn
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
An accurate description:vampireLOREN wrote:How nice....in years to come this photo will have pride of place in the History of the Family Crawford.letissier14 wrote:Oh dear - they really don't learn do they
None of his question warrant (oops no pun intended) an answer. The boy Crawford is full of shite. The case had nothing at all to do with a warrant. This is what was said on Day one of the trial:letissier14 wrote:This is going to run and run I'm sure![]()
![]()
And their supporters believe all this nonsense
I'm sure someone on here can answer each question in turn
I'm not sure what to make of that. Does it mean a total lack of understanding about a subject qualifies anyone to spout errant nonsense? I would have thought the very fact that he understands nothing should be a cue to shut up since getting involved with things he knows nothing about could well have serious consequences. As he likely would have discovered if the CPS had any level of competency at all and the fact he got a lucky break should be good reason to quit while he's ahead. But then if Craig had any brains at all he would have stopped his parents from getting themselves into this mess in the first place.Normal Wisdom wrote:Never forget the Craig has always freely admitted that he doesn't understand the law or mortgages so he is simply regurgitating somebody else's nonsense.
Other than the video of them breaking into the house.NO EVIDENCE
I'm sure it was reported that one of the 6 +1 was pregnant?letissier14 wrote:Oh dear - they really don't learn do they
Craig Crawford wrote:The CPS said in front of a room full of people that NO JUDGE would sign the documents to prove their legitimacy!!!1!!!
Illuminati Agent wrote:[wave of the hand] This is not the evidence you think it is!
What would be the point in lifting a stay on the execution of a warrant that had expired? It would be legally pointless and not worth the Judges time.CC (Craig Crawford) wrote:The Godsmark judgement was NOT a reissue of a warrant. It was to lift the stay on the warrant from 2012 which had expired already...
Assuming true, so what? If there's no actual requirement for said signature then why would it matter that a Judge would issue the warrant while refusing a not-legally-required-request to sign it?CC wrote:The cps said infront of a room full of people that NO JUDGE would sign the documents to prove their legitimacy!!!
Assuming true: that might give you reasonable grounds for a defense against the criminal charges the CPS should have properly brought.CC wrote:All of this confirms things were so messed up and the eviction was unlawful.
Please be more specific.ConstableHayWain wrote:I don't ever see robustly challenged in a blow for blow way by the Court either.
That really depends on a number of factors. If the house has been sold and is occupied by a family with a very young child and they (the Crawfords) break in - they may very well be facing even more serious criminal charges then they did before. In such an instance, I certainly hope the CPS agents involved don't muck up the evidence and charges like they did this last go around (my humble opinion on their professionalism).ConstableHayWain wrote:Now if the Crawfords or supporters do re-enter the house, having had the aggravated trespass case kicked expensively out , what will the local police and bailiffs do given the court did not uphold their actions the first time
The Godsmark judment does exactly that. Do a search here or checkout my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/910768235657449/ & the pined post gives a concise list of the Crawford lies and the evidence which shows them up for what they are.ConstableHayWain wrote:...I don't ever see robustly challenged in a blow for blow way by the Court either.
It isn't, there aren't, they never will because when they lose in court it's because TPTB are afraid of them, are corrupt, are paedophiles, satanists, masons or just plain don't like them. They have been, see Godsmark and Youtube.ConstableHayWain wrote:If true there does seem to be some legitimate civil rights issue, If not the rather irritating GOODF tin foil hat brigade may be silenced. either way i would like to see the challenges they make unequivocally tested and rebutted or upheld by law.
Good question. My experience of the legal system is not so much that it's corrupt or biased, just incompetent. The CPS do come over as the best ally a criminal could have these days.ConstableHayWain wrote:Now if the Crawfords or supporters do re-enter the house, having had the aggravated trespass case kicked expensively out , what will the local police and bailiffs do given the court did not uphold their actions the first time, Although the the substative case was found in favour of the finance company for possession of the house, it seems there were nothing illegal was done by the reposition/ occupation of it by the 6, despite the statement on the trespass case against the 6. the occupation by crawfords if not the ownership seems to be on no mans land?
Welcome! Nice to see a new face.ConstableHayWain wrote:New to the board, Hi!
I have followed the case via fragments of social media since some of the first protests, and I am intrigued by the claims made by GOODF and Craig in this case, that the process of repossession being followed in all these cases has been so short-cut it is fundamentally illegal, broadly for the reasons, copied here a few posts back cut and paste from some social media entry he (Craig ) made. Which whilst for the most part aren't upheld by courts, I don't ever see robustly challenged in a blow for blow way by the Court either. If true there does seem to be some legitimate civil rights issue, If not the rather irritating GOODF tin foil hat brigade may be silenced. either way i would like to see the challenges they make unequivocally tested and rebutted or upheld by law.
Now if the Crawfords or supporters do re-enter the house, having had the aggravated trespass case kicked expensively out , what will the local police and bailiffs do given the court did not uphold their actions the first time, Although the the substative case was found in favour of the finance company for possession of the house, it seems there were nothing illegal was done by the reposition/ occupation of it by the 6, despite the statement on the trespass case against the 6. the occupation by crawfords if not the ownership seems to be on no mans land?
I simply mean that Craig admits that he doesn't understand the issues but is still prepared to pronounce on them in great detail. Thus I presume he is simply repeating what other "experts" have told him. Attempting to debate with him would be like arguing with a parrot. To my mind it is also pointless analysing his comments because they are simply a repetition of assertions that have already been discredited on multiple occasions. Clearly the Crawfrauds and their followers are too stupid and too blinded by self interest to ever learn the truth of their situation so they will continue to bang their heads against the wall trying to overturn a situation that is done and dusted. They will never, ever get the house back but it won't stop them p***ing in the wind - probably for the rest of their lives.YiamCross wrote:I'm not sure what to make of that. Does it mean a total lack of understanding about a subject qualifies anyone to spout errant nonsense? I would have thought the very fact that he understands nothing should be a cue to shut up since getting involved with things he knows nothing about could well have serious consequences. As he likely would have discovered if the CPS had any level of competency at all and the fact he got a lucky break should be good reason to quit while he's ahead. But then if Craig had any brains at all he would have stopped his parents from getting themselves into this mess in the first place.Normal Wisdom wrote:Never forget the Craig has always freely admitted that he doesn't understand the law or mortgages so he is simply regurgitating somebody else's nonsense.
You are making a fundamental error here. Having a case collapse on a specific charge does not automatically mean a lesser charge would have had the same result.ConstableHayWain wrote: it seems there were nothing illegal was done by the reposition/ occupation of it by the 6, despite the statement on the trespass case against the 6.
It would only seem that way to someone who does not fully understand the case.the occupation by crawfords if not the ownership seems to be on no mans land?