Cyprus-Forum.com

[Acikgoz]

Balls in your court right now - step up or shut up. I'm not Mickey Mouse so stop acting like Goofy.

[Malapapa]

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/98997 ... ision.html

I hate having to repeat myself and I won't do it again, on this or any other thread.

Gul and Talat agreed that ECHR decision was a significant legal win, officials said.
(So not justice for refugees wanting a speedy, fair, local remedy, as required by the ECHR, but a significant win for Turkey and its subordinate regime)

Talat also thanked Gul for Turkey's support to TRNC during legal process at ECHR.
(So perhaps you'd care to explain why Talat was so grateful to Gul over an 'impartial' ECHR ruling)

[Acikgoz]

We've been through this, get to the interesting stuff you were going to reveal...

[vaughanwilliams]

VW, even Cherie Booth/Blair does not agree with your notion of bias. She was adamant in Court that there was no actual bias only apparent bias and people like you would not be able to tell the difference.

His "substantial contribution"? Delivering a just verdict. He did not need to declare an interest, he's always been Greek. Oram's counsel knew that before the trial. It was suggested that they kept this bias notion in reserve as an "ambush" in case the verdict went against Orams.

Of course the judge in the High Court has always been English; just like the Orams. Should he have stood down?

Had this English judge found against the foreigner Apostolides, what would you have made of accusations of bias, vaughan?

Both you and Jerry miss, or care to miss, the point.

1. It has nothing to do with the judge being Greek, it has to do with the award he recieved from the GC government for his "substantial contribution" to Cyprus. He could have been Chinese and the lack of impartiality would still be there.
2. Apparent bias is sufficient to cast doubt on impartiallity according to the precedent I have mentioned. It is not my opinion but was that of the Crown.
3. The "substantial contribution" was not "delivering a just verdict" as the one came before the other. However, he may be in line for another "award" since the verdict.
4. If some hypothetical English judge had a political interest in Cyprus, in some way or another, then yes, he should also have stood down. A judge sharing nationality with either a plaintiff or defendant is not an "interest". If it were courts would not be able to function.

[Kikapu]

VW, even Cherie Booth/Blair does not agree with your notion of bias. She was adamant in Court that there was no actual bias only apparent bias and people like you would not be able to tell the difference.

His "substantial contribution"? Delivering a just verdict. He did not need to declare an interest, he's always been Greek. Oram's counsel knew that before the trial. It was suggested that they kept this bias notion in reserve as an "ambush" in case the verdict went against Orams.

Of course the judge in the High Court has always been English; just like the Orams. Should he have stood down?

Had this English judge found against the foreigner Apostolides, what would you have made of accusations of bias, vaughan?

Both you and Jerry miss, or care to miss, the point.

1. It has nothing to do with the judge being Greek, it has to do with the award he recieved from the GC government for his "substantial contribution" to Cyprus. He could have been Chinese and the lack of impartiality would still be there.
2. Apparent bias is sufficient to cast doubt on impartiallity according to the precedent I have mentioned. It is not my opinion but was that of the Crown.
3. The "substantial contribution" was not "delivering a just verdict" as the one came before the other. However, he may be in line for another "award" since the verdict.
4. If some hypothetical English judge had a political interest in Cyprus, in some way or another, then yes, he should also have stood down. A judge sharing nationality with either a plaintiff or defendant is not an "interest". If it were courts would not be able to function.

VW, all you say would make sense if the Greek judge was the ONLY one to make a decision on the Orams case. He wasn't, therefore there is no point going over what he was awarded with and by whom, because if you are going to call him a "crook", then you need to call all the rest of the judges on the panel "crooks" also for allowing themselves to be corrupted by the Greek judge.! Besides, it was known to everyone that the Greek judge was honoured by the RoC and no objections were raised before hand to remove him. Obviously it was not a concerned, or as Jerry put it, was to use it as a weapon against him if the ruling went against the Orams. Normal everyday tactics by lawyers of lost cases and defendants.!

[vaughanwilliams]

VW, even Cherie Booth/Blair does not agree with your notion of bias. She was adamant in Court that there was no actual bias only apparent bias and people like you would not be able to tell the difference.

His "substantial contribution"? Delivering a just verdict. He did not need to declare an interest, he's always been Greek. Oram's counsel knew that before the trial. It was suggested that they kept this bias notion in reserve as an "ambush" in case the verdict went against Orams.

Of course the judge in the High Court has always been English; just like the Orams. Should he have stood down?

Had this English judge found against the foreigner Apostolides, what would you have made of accusations of bias, vaughan?

Both you and Jerry miss, or care to miss, the point.

1. It has nothing to do with the judge being Greek, it has to do with the award he recieved from the GC government for his "substantial contribution" to Cyprus. He could have been Chinese and the lack of impartiality would still be there.
2. Apparent bias is sufficient to cast doubt on impartiallity according to the precedent I have mentioned. It is not my opinion but was that of the Crown.
3. The "substantial contribution" was not "delivering a just verdict" as the one came before the other. However, he may be in line for another "award" since the verdict.
4. If some hypothetical English judge had a political interest in Cyprus, in some way or another, then yes, he should also have stood down. A judge sharing nationality with either a plaintiff or defendant is not an "interest". If it were courts would not be able to function.

VW, all you say would make sense if the Greek judge was the ONLY one to make a decision on the Orams case. He wasn't, therefore there is no point going over what he was awarded with and by whom, because if you are going to call him a "crook", then you need to call all the rest of the judges on the panel "crooks" also for allowing themselves to be corrupted by the Greek judge.! Besides, it was known to everyone that the Greek judge was honoured by the RoC and no objections were raised before hand to remove him. Obviously it was not a concerned, or as Jerry put it, was to use it as a weapon against him if the ruling went against the Orams. Normal everyday tactics by lawyers of lost cases and defendants.!

Well put Kikapu and I agree with most of what you say.

The two main points of my objection remain:

1.The fact that no-one seems to know what the "substantial contribution" was that the judge made towards Cyprus. Both Military and Civil awards are usually announced accompanied by a description of the reason(s) and/or circumstance(s) under which they are awarded.

2. The judge did not voluntarily raise the question of impartiallity himself, by declaring an interest, and offer to step down before hand, even though the award was public knowledge, putting himself above and beyond reproach.

[Jerry]

LOL and Jerk yourself AciKgoz but no need to be sorry. I would say there is as much chance of the ROC Court being biased as there is of the IPC, wouldn't you sgree? LOL, LOL

As I mentioned earlier and seems like you agree -

Either the legal system can be flawed or the legal system is squeky clean. Take your pick and apply evenly, not just what suits you where it suits you and then assume you are worthy of a valid opinion.

Silly boy, didn't you know they are different legal systems. One is squeky clean the other submits to expediency.

[Jerry]

VW, even Cherie Booth/Blair does not agree with your notion of bias. She was adamant in Court that there was no actual bias only apparent bias and people like you would not be able to tell the difference.

His "substantial contribution"? Delivering a just verdict. He did not need to declare an interest, he's always been Greek. Oram's counsel knew that before the trial. It was suggested that they kept this bias notion in reserve as an "ambush" in case the verdict went against Orams.

Of course the judge in the High Court has always been English; just like the Orams. Should he have stood down?

Had this English judge found against the foreigner Apostolides, what would you have made of accusations of bias, vaughan?

Both you and Jerry miss, or care to miss, the point.

1. It has nothing to do with the judge being Greek, it has to do with the award he recieved from the GC government for his "substantial contribution" to Cyprus. He could have been Chinese and the lack of impartiality would still be there.
2. Apparent bias is sufficient to cast doubt on impartiallity according to the precedent I have mentioned. It is not my opinion but was that of the Crown.
3. The "substantial contribution" was not "delivering a just verdict" as the one came before the other. However, he may be in line for another "award" since the verdict.
4. If some hypothetical English judge had a political interest in Cyprus, in some way or another, then yes, he should also have stood down. A judge sharing nationality with either a plaintiff or defendant is not an "interest". If it were courts would not be able to function.

VW, I was in Court for the entire trial. All the points you mention were argued at that time, all were countered by Apostolides counsel and if you read through the verdict you will see that the judges agreed.

Must go, got a plane to catch!

[vaughanwilliams]

VW, even Cherie Booth/Blair does not agree with your notion of bias. She was adamant in Court that there was no actual bias only apparent bias and people like you would not be able to tell the difference.

His "substantial contribution"? Delivering a just verdict. He did not need to declare an interest, he's always been Greek. Oram's counsel knew that before the trial. It was suggested that they kept this bias notion in reserve as an "ambush" in case the verdict went against Orams.

Of course the judge in the High Court has always been English; just like the Orams. Should he have stood down?

Had this English judge found against the foreigner Apostolides, what would you have made of accusations of bias, vaughan?

Both you and Jerry miss, or care to miss, the point.

1. It has nothing to do with the judge being Greek, it has to do with the award he recieved from the GC government for his "substantial contribution" to Cyprus. He could have been Chinese and the lack of impartiality would still be there.
2. Apparent bias is sufficient to cast doubt on impartiallity according to the precedent I have mentioned. It is not my opinion but was that of the Crown.
3. The "substantial contribution" was not "delivering a just verdict" as the one came before the other. However, he may be in line for another "award" since the verdict.
4. If some hypothetical English judge had a political interest in Cyprus, in some way or another, then yes, he should also have stood down. A judge sharing nationality with either a plaintiff or defendant is not an "interest". If it were courts would not be able to function.

VW, I was in Court for the entire trial. All the points you mention were argued at that time, all were countered by Apostolides counsel and if you read through the verdict you will see that the judges agreed.

Must go, got a plane to catch!

As the saying goes, "they would, wouldn't they?"

[Malapapa]

VW, even Cherie Booth/Blair does not agree with your notion of bias. She was adamant in Court that there was no actual bias only apparent bias and people like you would not be able to tell the difference.

His "substantial contribution"? Delivering a just verdict. He did not need to declare an interest, he's always been Greek. Oram's counsel knew that before the trial. It was suggested that they kept this bias notion in reserve as an "ambush" in case the verdict went against Orams.

Of course the judge in the High Court has always been English; just like the Orams. Should he have stood down?

Had this English judge found against the foreigner Apostolides, what would you have made of accusations of bias, vaughan?

Both you and Jerry miss, or care to miss, the point.

1. It has nothing to do with the judge being Greek, it has to do with the award he recieved from the GC government for his "substantial contribution" to Cyprus. He could have been Chinese and the lack of impartiality would still be there.
2. Apparent bias is sufficient to cast doubt on impartiallity according to the precedent I have mentioned. It is not my opinion but was that of the Crown.
3. The "substantial contribution" was not "delivering a just verdict" as the one came before the other. However, he may be in line for another "award" since the verdict.
4. If some hypothetical English judge had a political interest in Cyprus, in some way or another, then yes, he should also have stood down. A judge sharing nationality with either a plaintiff or defendant is not an "interest". If it were courts would not be able to function.

Sorry vaughan, but I don't think you're in a position to deliver a just verdict as to this judge's apparent bias; given that, like the Orams, you got swindled and are trespassing in the north.

Your "substantial contribution" to the outlaw regime casts doubt over your impartiality.