Cyprus-Forum.com

[boomerang]

Supposing?...are you for real man...I am gonna suppose that I was kicked out of my ancestral land?...Get real mate...

Your example has nothing to do with the price of fish regardless how much spin you wanna put on it...

What we have here is a clear violation of my rights, hence the punishment at turkeys expence...pay up for the loss of enjoyment of my property...CLAER VIOLATION and nothin is suppose...

Man srop spinning, and spit out...what you are suggesting is a negotiation for the return of my property...You got the stolen goods and you wanna negotiate...

Furter more the ECHR ain't supposing when they are finding turkey guilty in violation of my rights and while saying the ancectral deeds belong to me...which that is not even argueable...the punishment and not supposing, its clear cut, for the prevention of the enjoyment of my property while maintaining ownership...get it right and stop supposing...

You want us to negotiating with the thieves to return our stolen goods...yeah pull the other it plays jingle bells...

[boomerang]

I never mentioned 'negotiations' or 'thieves'. What are you talking about ?

The thieves are equivalent to the ridiculous property commision you ask us to negotiate with...

here it is...

iv. Given the basic disagreement on recognition and therefore the application of which body of law, there is the present danger (and some people claim, wrongly in my view) that TRNC is law-less. It is not lawless, and the ECHR is basically saying that whatever the law is in northern Cyprus - occupation, Turkish, TRNC, RoC, English colonial, or whatever else - the effective administration has an obligation to uphold human rights. How is it - TRNC, or really Turkey - going to meet this obligation in respect of the property question ? Answer, the Property Commission

[CopperLine]

Let me add that the Boomerang-Paphitis argument has strong echoes of the Bush/Blair argument about alleged weapons of mass destruction - that he absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. How does anyone prove a negative ?

X :You have weapons of mass destruction !
Y : No we don't !
X: Yes you do !
Y : Prove it.
X : We don't have to prove it, you do.
Y : We don't have any weapons of mass destruction.
X : Yes you do ?
Y : Where ?
X : That's for you to prove.
Y : We don't have any so we can't prove their absence ?
X : Ah, so you can't prove that you don't have any weapons of mass destruction. That must mean that you do have some weapons of mass destruction.

Replace the words 'weapons of mass destruction' with the words 'stolen property'

[CopperLine]

Boomerang,

1. I did not introduce the Property Commission : the ECHR and the government of Turkey and TRNC did.
2. I did not ask you or anyone else to negotiate with the PC. The PC is a quasi-judicial body, it is not a negotiating body.

So you score a full 100% on the misrepresentationometer.

[boomerang]

Let me add that the Boomerang-Paphitis argument has strong echoes of the Bush/Blair argument about alleged weapons of mass destruction - that he absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. How does anyone prove a negative ?

X :You have weapons of mass destruction !
Y : No we don't !
X: Yes you do !
Y : Prove it.
X : We don't have to prove it, you do.
Y : We don't have any weapons of mass destruction.
X : Yes you do ?
Y : Where ?
X : That's for you to prove.
Y : We don't have any so we can't prove their absence ?
X : Ah, so you can't prove that you don't have any weapons of mass destruction. That must mean that you do have some weapons of mass destruction.

Replace the words 'weapons of mass destruction' with the words 'stolen property'

Fuck me copperline this is the biggest spin of them all...

Start by explaining the ECHR verticts...which you don't need to substitude a damn thing...

Just remind me not to hire you as my defence attorney...you would crusify me to the max ffs...

Bush and Blair...its a fucking classic...I will give you to..you are the spinmeister of the forum...you win hands down...

[boomerang]

Boomerang,

1. I did not introduce the Property Commission : the ECHR and the government of Turkey and TRNC did.
2. I did not ask you or anyone else to negotiate with the PC. The PC is a quasi-judicial body, it is not a negotiating body.

So you score a full 100% on the misrepresentationometer.

...The ECHR asked turkey to set one up...but what you failed to say is that the outcome was already set up by the ECHR...via previous rulings...

Stop bloody spinning willya

What the PC should be doing is handing out checks for loss of enjoyment to someones property...now you get it?...have you seen them doing so?...I haven't

[CopperLine]

I've posted a lot on the ECHR in the past. I'm interested in it. I know how it works and what it is supposed to do. I'm not going to repeat every last judgement, every last procedure or every last detail in every post. Some bits I'm critical of; some bits I'm supportive of. I'm not a simpleton who praises only when it acts in 'my favour' and condemns when it acts against. I do not see law in such crude terms; law is a social institution and fulfils a social purpose.

What's your point Boomerang ? (Apart from finding some spurious pretext to accuse me of spinning). I describe the ECHR procedure, reply to a question about how the PC is supposed to work, what the laws of occupation are, and attempt to clarify how legal systems work ....... and you accuse me of spin, assert that I'm telling people to negotiate with thieves, and other such nonsense. You fundamentally misrepresent what I've written - not even using the words I'd actually used - and then accuse me of of spinning.

Sad to say, Boomerang, but I can't help feeling that you're just looking to pick a fight. You're stirring. If so, I just can't be bothered, I'm not interested.

You are just wasting everyone's time. Mine included. I'm really not interested in inventing and fantasising about what other forum members might, but are probably not, thinking. You are at liberty to carry on inventing false claims and making false accusations - I can't stop you. But I can ignore you.

[boomerang]

What's your point Boomerang ? (Apart from finding some spurious pretext to accuse me of spinning). I describe the ECHR procedure, reply to a question about how the PC is supposed to work, what the laws of occupation are, and attempt to clarify how legal systems work ....... and you accuse me of spin, assert that I'm telling people to negotiate with thieves, and other such nonsense. You fundamentally misrepresent what I've written - not even using the words I'd actually used - and then accuse me of of spinning.

You are just wasting everyone's time. Mine included. I'm really not interested in inventing and fantasising about what other forum members might, but are probably not, thinking. You are at liberty to carry on inventing false claims and making false accusations - I can't stop you. But I can ignore you.

Fistly copperline on every ECHR judgement 6 judges were in agreement...the only judge that was not in agreement was, well well the turkish judge...this is a fact...

How on earth then do you see the outcome if the PC was handling the outcome...you do not think they would be BIAS?...

Furthermore the outcome was decided via the various past judgements and they seemed to point to restitutions, not paying out...

Now has the PC in the north come out and start giving out checks?

Man I really had you down for a thinker, but obviously I was greatly mistaken...

Hence why I originally asked the question if you think the rest of the world was stupid...obviously you seemed to think so...

In the mean time keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep on spinning...just remind me to not hire you as my defence attorney...better still start representing the tcs in any future settlement...I can safely say we are in good hands...

[Paphitis]

If you want to claim you land in Limmasol, you must prove that YOU have not stolen GC property. Once this is done you are free to claim your land. If you have stolen GC property, then you could be prosecuted.

No Paphitis and a thousand times no, this is not how law works, neither in Cyprus nor in any modern legal system. This is not my opinion; this is a matter of demonstrable fact. You don't believe me ? OK, go to a court in Cyprus and look at any number of proceedings and judgements, and tell me whether the personal history of criminal or civil wrongs of claimants is investigated before cases are heard. It'll be in the records. And what do the records show ? They show that no court ever looks into that history. It simply does not happen. (Now you may wish that it would happen but, thank god, it doesn't work like that ... anywhere with a modern legal system).

If I did occupy stolen GC land (which I don't, as a matter of fact) then yes I would face prosecution. But I would such a prosecution irrespective of your status, crimes and misdemeanours or my other alleged crimes and misdemeanours.

It is not a case of TCs being required to prove that they have not resided in stolen GC property and hencewith prove their innocence before claiming their property. They must however prove that they are not or are no longer the beneficiary of stolen goods, before claiming their land. It is not really a case of having to prove innocence before they get their property. They must prove that they have no stolen property interests in the "trnc", and then they can have their rightfully owned land in the RoC.

I do not know what the hell you are suggesting and I admit that I am far from a legal person but a mere layman, but the RoC is only trying to protect the 200,000 thousand GCs which have lost everything as a result of the Turkish invasion. The RoC is merely trying to ensure that the TCs do not double dip, by being the beneficiaries of someone's stolen land in the "trnc" and at the same time claiming their own land in the RoC which effectively means that this person has a holiday house in the RoC on top of being in possession of stolen property in the Occupied Areas.

[Jerry]

Boomerang, I enquired with the PC last year about their proceedure for compensation/restitution/exchange. They are badly organised, access to them is not easy you have to find them first and then they tell you to apply in Turkish. If you don't like their offer you then can go to the ECHR. I wrote to the ECHR and told them that because the PC was poorly run I had no faith in them and would like to apply to the Court, they sent me all the necessary paperwork to start a claim they did not say you must use the PC first - that surprised me. If a few more Cypriots did what I have done I think the Court would soon realise that the PC is a not an effective or efficient body.

With regard to TCs taking action through the EHCR I'm sure there are some who would claim that they were forced to leave their homes in 1963/4, I have seen the empty villages.