Cyprus-Forum.com

[vaughanwilliams]

The truth is , Vaughan Williams if you had any money to your name you would have bought a property with legal title instead you bought an ethnically cleansed property. Do you think that the current status quo or a solution based on ethnic cleansing is safe to real estate values? One nut case or fruit loop (maybe like this Fatma K woman) could commit a couple of pin prick attacks sending the value of the home you live in to plummet.(You don't actually own it anyway) At the end of the the 40,000 turkish troops walking around CYprus are largely 18 year old conscript Mummy's boys. One lunatic volunteer terrorist could destabilize the entire property market in occupied Cyprus in the absence of a solution which confers justice to the individual human rights of the ethnically cleansed of Cyprus. All Fatma would have to do is buy some brake fluid and Pool Chlorine .Kaboomuhumad! They say EOKA consisted of about 107 trigger happy adventurers and they had 30,000 British Soldiers shitting themselves. EOKA B consisted of less than 50 people look what they did and they weren't even stirred up by ethnic cleansing.

Have you thrown all your toys out of your pram, yet?

[SKI-preo]

we are organizing a collection to buy this cheap skate property speculator a razor so he can shave his beard and and a bar of soap so he can have a shower. I will donate 1 euro.

[vaughanwilliams]

About how much revenue would you say would by lost to the RoC economy if everyone travelling to TRNC stopped using Larnaca and used Ercan instead? People only use LCA because it is convenient and often cheaper. The threat of arrest might convince the travelling public that it ain't worth it. Just what CTA needs, I'd say.

"Cyprus Turkish Airlines" have not been given rights to fly straight to "Ercan" ... how long before their "right to fly over RoC airspace" is deemed unacceptable and they are suspended altogether?

CTA have never had "rights" to fly straight to ECN, but it has never stopped them flying there. If you could have had their "right to fly over RoC airspace" deemed unacceptable, you would have done it by now. Stop bluffing.

[vaughanwilliams]

we are organizing a collection to buy this cheap skate property speculator a razor so he can shave his beard and and a bar of soap so he can have a shower. I will donate 1 euro.

When it gets to a reasonable amount, I will come down and collect.

[CopperLine]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

[SKI-preo]

I'll donate a razor and some soap I'm not handing over cold hard cash to a penniless alcoholic who can't afford to buy legal property and so buys ethically cleansed property. You'll piss it all on illegal ethnically cleansed beer from an illegal ethnically cleansed brewery. Drink responsibly.

[Viewpoint]

Cant wait to read about the first arrests, when do you think they will take place? CTA better buy a few more planes.

[YFred]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

Isn't that what we call a double edged sword?

[vaughanwilliams]

I'll donate a razor and some soap I'm not handing over cold hard cash to a penniless alcoholic who can't afford to buy legal property and so buys ethically cleansed property. You'll piss it all on illegal ethnically cleansed beer from an illegal ethnically cleansed brewery. Drink responsibly.

Have you been talking to my wife?

[vaughanwilliams]

Bill Cobbett
Whatever the status of the various hotels you mention (expropriated, illegally sold, etc) - and I've no problem with rightful ownership being restored - the implication that those who stay/visit such hotels or other tourist facilities are liable to arrest is really too far fetched. Whilst you are right in principle this is practically impossible to achieve. Trespass is a civil law matter and so would require all of the following improbable requirements to fall into place : tourist X in dodgy hotel Y would have to be seen by rightful property owner Z 'trespassing' in hotel Y. Property owner Z would then have to track and identify tourist X and issue a writ against them from a RoC court. Demonstrating tresspass is not as easy as it might first appear. Doing so against a foreign tourist, back in their home country is nigh on impossible.

In sum, if you treat this as a civil matter between erstwhile owner and tourist then it is, in my view, an empty threat.

By contrast if it was treated as a criminal matter, between the RoC and the tourist then all sorts of possibilities (probabilities) arise. The moment the tourist set foot in RoC (effective administration) they could be arrested, but it would still require some proof of entering/using illegally acquired property. Of course the obvious answer to this is to say that anyone entering the north is, by definition, entering illegally occupied/acquired territory and property. If that is the case then the problem is not with the TRNC but with the RoC to the extent that the latter allows people, tourists included, to travel to and from the north. It is RoC public policy to allow people to move to and fro across the Green Line; and that sends a clear message to tourists (and courts) that it is not regarded as illegal to travel to, use and return from illegally acquired territory/property. And that is the price that RoC has to pay for EU membership. (If RoC claims jurisdiction over the whole island then it is a fundamental of EU membership that it cannot then say that EU citizens, TCs and foreign tourists included, cannot go to and from territories under its jurisdiction).

In sum, in my view, unless RoC public policy changes by 180 degrees and thereby breaches basic EU acquis provisions then tourists in the north are not liable to arrest on criminal grounds and the chances are infinitesimally small on civil grounds.

Isn't that what we call a double edged sword?

It's just GC bluster which hasn't been thought through.