Revisited: The Tom Crawford Affair


The notorious Bradford and Bingley Building Society (now known as UKAR), who were bailed out to the tune of £19.1b in 2008, was the Bank at the heart of the matter that arose between themselves and Tom Crawford of Nottingham.


Whilst this was not the first time this unscrupulous financial entity had been involved in a ‘difficult’ and fraudulent possession claim via the city’s county court, it marked the remarkable rise of a genuine grassroots movement determined to wipe out the scourge of the Great British Mortgage Swindle.

RogueMale has written about this matter in some detail previously and anyone who is not familiar with the issue is encouraged to dip into the articles.

The key question that any mortgagor should be asking is this –

“did the bank actually lend me any moneys to purchase my house?”

The splendid work of Professor Richard Werner of Southampton University on this matter emphatically demonstrates that the credit creation behind all loans and mortgages means the funds are created out of thin air. That is how the system works – 97% of the money supply in the UK is created out of the ether. Here is a quotation from Richard Werner that answers the question in a way that few will ever go near:

“I will tell you key points about banks.


In case you thought banks lend money, they take deposits and lend money. You are wrong .


Banking was developed, modern banking was developed, in the United Kingdom in the 17th century and the legal facts are very clear but not very well known.


Banks do not take deposits and banks do not lend money. That’s a fact. How is that possible? Well, legally they do not take deposits. They borrow from the public, because your money at the bank is not on deposit. Its not held in custody, it’s not a bailment. What is it legally? You have lent money to the bank. So the expression in banking are designed to mislead what’s really happening. Who is the owner of this money? It is the banks, you are just a general creditor. Which is very different from the impression given when we use the term deposit.


What about lending surely banks lend money? No they don’t.


No bank has ever lent any money.


How is that possible? What does a bank do?


Banks purchase securities and they don’t pay up. That’s what they do. How is that? Well if you go to the bank and you borrow money you sign a loan contract. Very crucial.


Your signature creates the money supply. Because the bank legally will consider the loan contract a promissory note.


And that is what is considered legally, is a promissory note.


Just like the bank of England Note, central bank money, paper money, is a promissory note from the central bank. And the bank purchases this contract. That is what they do, they purchase the loan contract. Now they owe you money.


You say I dont care about the mechanics, give me the money. The banker will say we will put it in your account. You will find it in your bank account. Well what is a bank account? It is not a deposit. Its a record of the bank’s debt to the public. It is a record of the bank’s debt to the new borrower, and they show you the record of how much money they owe you. That is it, they don’t pay up. And this is how the money supply is created. So lets go in sequence:


Step one: You go to the bank and you sign the loan contract, say a thousand pounds. This will be recorded in the bank balance sheet as an increase in bank assets. The bank, will then, record its debt to the borrower. But it will do some accountant trick. It should really say this is an accounts payable item. Something that the bank has to pay but it has not yet paid. But it wont record as an accounts payable. If you talk to an bank’s accountant they are horrified “No you cannot use an expression like accounts payable in a bank” And do you know why? Because they recorded it as customer deposit. They show it on the bank’s liability side as a customer deposit. But nobody has deposited it, the customer has not deposited for sure. The customer is borrowing it.


The bank has not deposited either. It is added to the money supply, and this is how 97% of the money supply is created out of nothing on the basis of a signature and of course on the credit of the borrower. That is money creation. So no money is transferred from any where else to the borrowers account.”



When asked in court to prove the alleged amount ‘owed’ by the Tom and Sue Crawford, the bank was unable to do so, relying entirely on a computer ‘print out’ which was dismissed by the Judge, Nigel Godsmark , above, (not that his final judgement went anywhere near that issue).

That fact needs to be stressed as clearly as possible, for it applies to all mortgagors, – when asked for verifiable proof that an amount is owed, the banks are incapable of providing it. Why? Because it is fictitious: it operates in the realms of fantasy. Any consideration on the part of the bank is an illusion.

The epic battle undertaken by Michael of Bernicia and the trustees of the family property portfolio against HBOS establishes a number of facts concerning the other illusions that exist at the heart of the swindle:

  1. There is no lawful contract, no signed agreement between the parties, as required at law.
  2. There is no valid mortgage deed, properly executed by the mortgagors – despite the fact that a conveyancing solicitor, Tim Grey of Sintons Lawyers in Newcastle, oversaw each and every aspect of the purported mortgages.
  3. That being the case, there is no valid and binding power of attorney, despite the fact that the banks claim to have an ‘irrevocable’ one – which is a legal impossibility.
  4. There is no valid debt. source

Thus, the swindle is predicated upon a series of illusions, which renders the entire mortgage industry a monumental fraud, perpetrated upon the people.  There are some 11.2 million of these fraudulent devices registered at the Land Registry.  It is literally a racket of monstrous proportions.


As the aphorism goes, the closer one is to the target, the greater the flak one can expect.

Sure enough, those paid trolls, shills and agents of the state and the banksters emerged from the shadows as soon as Tom and the Crawford family began to attract hundreds if not thousands of supporters to their cause.

Many of these trolls and shills sought to falsely and maliciously paint Tom as a stubborn misguided man who should simply have ‘paid off’ the fraudulent sum of £43k that was being claimed by the bank.

One such character suggested it be done by crowd funding – an option rejected by Tom on the basis of the facts. In every sense, nothing was owed. The bank had already unjustly enriched itself to the tune of over £120k in the form of payments made by Tom and Sue over the 25 years of the void mortgage, why should he make any kind of payment, let alone enlist the support of the public when said public had already been fleeced, one way or another, by the swindle, as have we all?

That same individual once suggested to me that “everyone knows that’s how banking works” and that we should all simply pay Caesar what is Caesar’s.  A glib response that serves only to maintain the status quo and which suggests he has some kind of vested interest in the continuation of the swindle. The levels of vitriol that spewed out from all those agents was like a tsunami and the Crawford family were deluged across the social media in utter bullshit.  I sometimes wonder how many have truly grasped the enormity of the fraud and thus understood how it has been used to enslave us all to false debt, simply to keep a roof over our heads.

The attitude of those who say that that is how it works and there is nothing we can do about it is, in one word, pathetic. It is characterised by denial whereby many seek to hide from the facts and cognitive dissonance clouds their minds. Yet, do we really need to be concerned with the majority of people who are unwilling or incapable of realising the truth of the matter?

For what are the implications of huge numbers of people seeing through the illusions of TGBMS?

An end to the genocide of eviction and greater personal freedom for all.  That is it.

To educate the people to the facts of TGBMS is the frequently stated aim of much of the work at this site. Whilst the release of the film will certainly go a long way to achieving that, in the meantime, anyone who has not quite grasped the reality that the banks do not lend anything is encouraged to watch the short film below in which Professor Richard Werner succinctly explains to a gathering of accountants the fact that credit creation leads to ‘money’ being created out of thin air. Quite what the hundreds of thousands of accountants across these lands would make of it is anyone’s guess, given the fact that they have a vested interest in continuing the illusion. However, they and all those who perpetuate the fraud of the banking system will, ultimately, be proven to be on the wrong side of history. All of which is more the reason for all right thinking individuals to salute the stance taken by Tom Crawofrd and those thousands who support him.



Acknowledgements: David R for his generous sponsorship of this site and, once again, Michael of Bernicia for his unflinching determination and robust exposition of the swindle in all its forms.

Finally, if one has the means and appreciates the work at this site, please make a donation of any size via the donate button. 


One thought on “Revisited: The Tom Crawford Affair

As of January, 2016 comments are open... cheers!