Cyprus-Forum.com

[B25]

Thank you so much Jerry, Bill and Copperline.

I like court cases and this was like watching it on TV.

Contrary to what Copper says about timing of result, my own guess is that they will stretch it out until something is decided on the Cyprob, whichever way it goes.

I doubt the UK courts would want to be blamed for stuffing up the carpet baggers.

Anyway, good work guys.

You may be right B25 but if the appeal court defers its decision for reasons of the not wanting to 'interfere' with the Cyprus negotiations then it would be doing exactly what the Orams' latterly argued and wanted : namely to not allow a court decision to compromise the possibility of settlement. In other words to delay a legal judgment for reasons of political expediency.

Anyway, the judgment will be given when it is, regardless of our guesses. My point was not when the decision will be given so much as that the legal reasoning has already been completed. Thus whilst the judges obviously can't say so now they will have already identified the bases of their decisions and most probably the final decision itself. It will take time to cross the t and dot the i, and to write the judgment - and judges are very busy people : )

Copperline, don't take this wrong, but I am getting to like you

My point was that since that had already heard the most of the arguement, then there is no real reason why the final judgement should take that long. I stiil can't help thinking that this is still ploticised in some way. After all they originally sent it to the ECJ for the same reason!

We shall see.

Whilst political expediency may not be a valid reason to delay the judgement it could, in this case, prove to be an advantage to the ROC. The uncertainty and delay could be a "warning shot" to Turkey that the law is catching up with it. Rather than break down the negotiations could see some genuine concessions offered by Turkey.

jerry mate, I'd like to think you are right, but this is Turkey we are talking about. They don't give a shit about anything and really, who's going to make them.

Now if there were any countries with bollocks they would have sanctioned/embargoed the Turks long ago, but alas.

Anyway time will tell.

btw, brilliant job on the court reporting, bravo.

[YFred]

Thank you so much Jerry, Bill and Copperline.

I like court cases and this was like watching it on TV.

Contrary to what Copper says about timing of result, my own guess is that they will stretch it out until something is decided on the Cyprob, whichever way it goes.

I doubt the UK courts would want to be blamed for stuffing up the carpet baggers.

Anyway, good work guys.

You may be right B25 but if the appeal court defers its decision for reasons of the not wanting to 'interfere' with the Cyprus negotiations then it would be doing exactly what the Orams' latterly argued and wanted : namely to not allow a court decision to compromise the possibility of settlement. In other words to delay a legal judgment for reasons of political expediency.

Anyway, the judgment will be given when it is, regardless of our guesses. My point was not when the decision will be given so much as that the legal reasoning has already been completed. Thus whilst the judges obviously can't say so now they will have already identified the bases of their decisions and most probably the final decision itself. It will take time to cross the t and dot the i, and to write the judgment - and judges are very busy people : )

Copperline, don't take this wrong, but I am getting to like you

My point was that since that had already heard the most of the arguement, then there is no real reason why the final judgement should take that long. I stiil can't help thinking that this is still ploticised in some way. After all they originally sent it to the ECJ for the same reason!

We shall see.

Whilst political expediency may not be a valid reason to delay the judgement it could, in this case, prove to be an advantage to the ROC. The uncertainty and delay could be a "warning shot" to Turkey that the law is catching up with it. Rather than break down the negotiations could see some genuine concessions offered by Turkey.

jerry mate, I'd like to think you are right, but this is Turkey we are talking about. They don't give a shit about anything and really, who's going to make them.

Now if there were any countries with bollocks they would have sanctioned/embargoed the Turks long ago, but alas.

Anyway time will tell.

btw, brilliant job on the court reporting, bravo.

You would say that, wouldn't you old chap. Now run along and play with your pirilluthga.
In the mean time these judges are the same judges that put people into prison without charge indefinitely, so let’s not get over excited about how fair this lovely GCfile judges are. Fair they are not. If they ruin the rights of 240000 thousand people opportunity to reach a settlement then on their head be it.
In the words of Ghandi when he was asked what he thought of English civilisation "what civilisation?" he replied.

[Malapapa]

You would say that, wouldn't you old chap. Now run along and play with your pirilluthga.
In the mean time these judges are the same judges that put people into prison without charge indefinitely, so let’s not get over excited about how fair this lovely GCfile judges are.

How many time have you heard a child say "it's not fair" when given what they perceive to be a raw deal by their parents? There are hundreds of thousands of people in prison in the UK who will all tell you judges aren't fair.

This isn't about people's perceptions of "fair" YFred. This is about justice and the legal process. To think judges would be friendly to "GCs" is simply preposterous.

Fair they are not. If they ruin the rights of 240000 thousand people opportunity to reach a settlement then on their head be it.

It won't ruin the opportunity. Just as any "settlement" won't ruin the opportunity of individuals seeking legal recourse if they feel such a settlement infringes on their individual human rights.

In the words of Ghandi when he was asked what he thought of English civilisation "what civilisation?" he replied.

Ghandi was asked about "western civilisation". And he replied, "I think it would be a good idea." Just as I think it would be a good idea if you considered what you were saying before posting inaccuracies.

[Viewpoint]

If the judge was Turkish and the decision went against you im sure you GCs would be the first ones to lodge an objection as you always do.

[YFred]

You would say that, wouldn't you old chap. Now run along and play with your pirilluthga.
In the mean time these judges are the same judges that put people into prison without charge indefinitely, so let’s not get over excited about how fair this lovely GCfile judges are.

How many time have you heard a child say "it's not fair" when given what they perceive to be a raw deal by their parents? There are hundreds of thousands of people in prison in the UK who will all tell you judges aren't fair.

This isn't about people's perceptions of "fair" YFred. This is about justice and the legal process. To think judges would be friendly to "GCs" is simply preposterous.

Fair they are not. If they ruin the rights of 240000 thousand people opportunity to reach a settlement then on their head be it.

It won't ruin the opportunity. Just as any "settlement" won't ruin the opportunity of individuals seeking legal recourse if they feel such a settlement infringes on their individual human rights.

In the words of Ghandi when he was asked what he thought of English civilisation "what civilisation?" he replied.

Ghandi was asked about "western civilisation". And he replied, "I think it would be a good idea." Just as I think it would be a good idea if you considered what you were saying before posting inaccuracies.

I couldn't help noticing that you made no comment about these judges who lock people up without trial indefinitely? With no chance of actually knowing what it is they are supposed to have done?

These are the same fair judges that are bringing their judgement and if this judgement finally causes the collapse of the talks, then you can explain it to the 160000 GCs why they have to wait 10 million trillion years to go through the EU court system to get some compensation.

[Malapapa]

If the judge was Turkish and the decision went against you im sure you GCs would be the first ones to lodge an objection as you always do.

If those bankrolling the Orams's legal costs had a problem with having a Greek judge preciding at the ECJ, why didn't they object at the time, do you think? Before the proceedings started?

[Malapapa]

I couldn't help noticing that you made no comment about these judges who lock people up without trial indefinitely? With no chance of actually knowing what it is they are supposed to have done?

What are you talking about?

These are the same fair judges that are bringing their judgement and if this judgement finally causes the collapse of the talks, then you can explain it to the 160000 GCs why they have to wait 10 million trillion years to go through the EU court system to get some compensation.

You are such a child. After the "unfair" judgement, throw your tantrums, stamp your feet, sulk in your corner. And, then, if and when you're ready to talk, we'll talk. Meanwhile the judgements will continue; however long it takes.

[bill cobbett]

If the judge was Turkish and the decision went against you im sure you GCs would be the first ones to lodge an objection as you always do.

If those bankrolling the Orams's legal costs had a problem with having a Greek judge preciding at the ECJ, why didn't they object at the time, do you think? Before the proceedings started?

Yes, of course they knew and knew months and months before that Skouris was the Presiding Judge and had plenty of time to raise their claim of apparent bias.

Speaking from memory, the Os claim they did lodge some sort of preliminary application for this claim with the Court office which they failed to chase up and they also sent a letter to the ECJ with their claim. Neither of these actions would be seen as proper and due service on the other party. In any event Mr A didn't get notice or details of the claim until a week before the hearing, which seems to be way outside procedure.

[YFred]

I couldn't help noticing that you made no comment about these judges who lock people up without trial indefinitely? With no chance of actually knowing what it is they are supposed to have done?

What are you talking about?

These are the same fair judges that are bringing their judgement and if this judgement finally causes the collapse of the talks, then you can explain it to the 160000 GCs why they have to wait 10 million trillion years to go through the EU court system to get some compensation.

You are such a child. After the "unfair" judgement, throw your tantrums, stamp your feet, sulk in your corner. And, then, if and when you're ready to talk, we'll talk. Meanwhile the judgements will continue; however long it takes.

I am talking about our fair minded judges, what else.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-i ... e_1888.jsp

If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.

[Malapapa]

I couldn't help noticing that you made no comment about these judges who lock people up without trial indefinitely? With no chance of actually knowing what it is they are supposed to have done?

What are you talking about?

These are the same fair judges that are bringing their judgement and if this judgement finally causes the collapse of the talks, then you can explain it to the 160000 GCs why they have to wait 10 million trillion years to go through the EU court system to get some compensation.

You are such a child. After the "unfair" judgement, throw your tantrums, stamp your feet, sulk in your corner. And, then, if and when you're ready to talk, we'll talk. Meanwhile the judgements will continue; however long it takes.

I am talking about our fair minded judges, what else.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-i ... e_1888.jsp

If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable.

I agree. It was laughable. But so is equating this with an ECJ judgement enabling a refugee to seek redress from those who occupy his stolen property without this permission.