Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Kifeas
Sure, maybe a higher court will come to a different judgement. But the situation at the moment is as I described, and not as you wished.

But then you say this is 'just the British court's interpretation....' as if that is unimportant ! On this topic people have been banging on in all sorts of generalising and vague ways about people being prosecuted in other jurisdictions and then when the only copncrete case is mentioned where this was tested in law you come along and discount it as 'just the British court's interpretation....' !!! It might be 'just the British court's interpretation....' but it is what stands at the moment, and forms a precedent judgement.

Furthermore, it is really pretty daft of you to impugn the integrity of a judgement - "the British court had just found the easy way out to escape from touching the hot potato, for obvious expedient political reasons!" - simply because you do not agree with the judgement or reasoning. There is nothing that made it self-evidently politically expedient to come to a 'no' conclusion than a 'yes' conclusion.

And what you claim was so obviously 'proved by all the supporting documentation' was clearly (a) ambiguous and (b) not definitive for the case to have gone to the highest levels of appeal. If it was so damned obvious how to interpret the law as you allege, then there would have been no need to move through the higher courts.

However, as you say, we'll see what happens next.

Copper, I am sure you must have heard somewhere that when the letter of the law is ambiguous, or it may accept more than one interpretation, then it is the spirit of the law that will count in the end, and not the one-sided interests of one of the parties in the dispute (i.e. those of the UK government as they were expressed through its judicial bodies!)

All the exchange of letters between Cyprus and the EU, when the treaty of accession was negotiated, prove that protocol 10 was an act that was invented so that the RoC is not penalized for its inability to enforce the EU aqui (when this is unfeasible) in all of its territories (because all of them acceded the EU,) due to the illegal Turkish occupation of the north! When however this is possible and feasible, such in the case of the Orams, then this exception granted through protocol 10 ceases to be a reason not to apply the aqui! It is very simple; protocol 10 was invented to safeguard the RoC, and not the crooks and the criminals to escape justice! This was the spirit of protocol 10, and you will digest it in a few months time!

[zan]

Kifeas
Sure, maybe a higher court will come to a different judgement. But the situation at the moment is as I described, and not as you wished.

But then you say this is 'just the British court's interpretation....' as if that is unimportant ! On this topic people have been banging on in all sorts of generalising and vague ways about people being prosecuted in other jurisdictions and then when the only copncrete case is mentioned where this was tested in law you come along and discount it as 'just the British court's interpretation....' !!! It might be 'just the British court's interpretation....' but it is what stands at the moment, and forms a precedent judgement.

Furthermore, it is really pretty daft of you to impugn the integrity of a judgement - "the British court had just found the easy way out to escape from touching the hot potato, for obvious expedient political reasons!" - simply because you do not agree with the judgement or reasoning. There is nothing that made it self-evidently politically expedient to come to a 'no' conclusion than a 'yes' conclusion.

And what you claim was so obviously 'proved by all the supporting documentation' was clearly (a) ambiguous and (b) not definitive for the case to have gone to the highest levels of appeal. If it was so damned obvious how to interpret the law as you allege, then there would have been no need to move through the higher courts.

However, as you say, we'll see what happens next.

Copper, I am sure you must have heard somewhere that when the letter of the law is ambiguous, or it may accept more than one interpretation, then it is the spirit of the law that will count in the end, and not the one-sided interests of one of the parties in the dispute (i.e. those of the UK government as they were expressed through its judicial bodies!)

All the exchange of letters between Cyprus and the EU, when the treaty of accession was negotiated, prove that protocol 10 was an act that was invented so that the RoC is not penalized for its inability to enforce the EU aqui (when this is unfeasible) in all of its territories (because all of them acceded the EU,) due to the illegal Turkish occupation of the north! When however this is possible and feasible, such in the case of the Orams, then this exception granted through protocol 10 ceases to be a reason not to apply the aqui! It is very simple; protocol 10 was invented to safeguard the RoC, and not the crooks and the criminals to escape justice! This was the spirit of protocol 10, and you will digest it in a few months time!

What happens if the Turkish army does move out tomorrow but WE the TCs do not sign up to the "RoC" anyway........

[Kifeas]

Kifeas
Sure, maybe a higher court will come to a different judgement. But the situation at the moment is as I described, and not as you wished.

But then you say this is 'just the British court's interpretation....' as if that is unimportant ! On this topic people have been banging on in all sorts of generalising and vague ways about people being prosecuted in other jurisdictions and then when the only copncrete case is mentioned where this was tested in law you come along and discount it as 'just the British court's interpretation....' !!! It might be 'just the British court's interpretation....' but it is what stands at the moment, and forms a precedent judgement.

Furthermore, it is really pretty daft of you to impugn the integrity of a judgement - "the British court had just found the easy way out to escape from touching the hot potato, for obvious expedient political reasons!" - simply because you do not agree with the judgement or reasoning. There is nothing that made it self-evidently politically expedient to come to a 'no' conclusion than a 'yes' conclusion.

And what you claim was so obviously 'proved by all the supporting documentation' was clearly (a) ambiguous and (b) not definitive for the case to have gone to the highest levels of appeal. If it was so damned obvious how to interpret the law as you allege, then there would have been no need to move through the higher courts.

However, as you say, we'll see what happens next.

Copper, I am sure you must have heard somewhere that when the letter of the law is ambiguous, or it may accept more than one interpretation, then it is the spirit of the law that will count in the end, and not the one-sided interests of one of the parties in the dispute (i.e. those of the UK government as they were expressed through its judicial bodies!)

All the exchange of letters between Cyprus and the EU, when the treaty of accession was negotiated, prove that protocol 10 was an act that was invented so that the RoC is not penalized for its inability to enforce the EU aqui (when this is unfeasible) in all of its territories (because all of them acceded the EU,) due to the illegal Turkish occupation of the north! When however this is possible and feasible, such in the case of the Orams, then this exception granted through protocol 10 ceases to be a reason not to apply the aqui! It is very simple; protocol 10 was invented to safeguard the RoC, and not the crooks and the criminals to escape justice! This was the spirit of protocol 10, and you will digest it in a few months time!

What happens if the Turkish army does move out tomorrow but WE the TCs do not sign up to the "RoC" anyway........

You neither have nor need to sign anything up to the RoC!

[zan]

Kifeas
Sure, maybe a higher court will come to a different judgement. But the situation at the moment is as I described, and not as you wished.

But then you say this is 'just the British court's interpretation....' as if that is unimportant ! On this topic people have been banging on in all sorts of generalising and vague ways about people being prosecuted in other jurisdictions and then when the only copncrete case is mentioned where this was tested in law you come along and discount it as 'just the British court's interpretation....' !!! It might be 'just the British court's interpretation....' but it is what stands at the moment, and forms a precedent judgement.

Furthermore, it is really pretty daft of you to impugn the integrity of a judgement - "the British court had just found the easy way out to escape from touching the hot potato, for obvious expedient political reasons!" - simply because you do not agree with the judgement or reasoning. There is nothing that made it self-evidently politically expedient to come to a 'no' conclusion than a 'yes' conclusion.

And what you claim was so obviously 'proved by all the supporting documentation' was clearly (a) ambiguous and (b) not definitive for the case to have gone to the highest levels of appeal. If it was so damned obvious how to interpret the law as you allege, then there would have been no need to move through the higher courts.

However, as you say, we'll see what happens next.

Copper, I am sure you must have heard somewhere that when the letter of the law is ambiguous, or it may accept more than one interpretation, then it is the spirit of the law that will count in the end, and not the one-sided interests of one of the parties in the dispute (i.e. those of the UK government as they were expressed through its judicial bodies!)

All the exchange of letters between Cyprus and the EU, when the treaty of accession was negotiated, prove that protocol 10 was an act that was invented so that the RoC is not penalized for its inability to enforce the EU aqui (when this is unfeasible) in all of its territories (because all of them acceded the EU,) due to the illegal Turkish occupation of the north! When however this is possible and feasible, such in the case of the Orams, then this exception granted through protocol 10 ceases to be a reason not to apply the aqui! It is very simple; protocol 10 was invented to safeguard the RoC, and not the crooks and the criminals to escape justice! This was the spirit of protocol 10, and you will digest it in a few months time!

What happens if the Turkish army does move out tomorrow but WE the TCs do not sign up to the "RoC" anyway........

You neither have nor need to sign anything up to the RoC!

Come on Kifeas..You know what I mean..What if they up and went tomorrow...What would you moan about then??? I think we can muster up 50,000 new recruits with TRNC/KKTC citisenship......

[Kifeas]

No, I do not know what you mean! Perhaps I will be able to do so, once you decide to speak proper, standard, comprehensible and intelligible English, and not the London's street language of poorly educate people!

[zan]

No, I do not know what you mean! Perhaps I will be able to do so, once you decide to speak proper, standard, comprehensible and intelligible English, and not the London's street language of poorly educate people!

It happens all the time One twat always comes up and has to point out mistakes and then makes one himself.....

I see that you do not want to answer because you know what's coming oh master of the worlds educated twats...Never mind.....Silence is much better in your case because every time you open your mouth you make a fool of yourself...Next time..Just say I don't know because I can't think that far ahead......