Cyprus-Forum.com

[vaughanwilliams]

When its a Greek judge its not bribery what hypocrites you GCs really are.

The matter of the Greek judge and the claim of apparent bias was looked at, was investigated, in a transparent and argued way by the GB Appeal Court.

The matter of Turkish bribes (if any) or Turkish influence (if any) in this ECHR ruling won't be open to the same kind of investigation will it?

If you can't see the difference between the two cases you really are more of a one-lined, ask questions but never answer any, fool than we gave you credit for so if you have , as usual, nothing to add to debate, clear off!

Vassilios Skouris, president of the ECJ, was decorated by the late Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos with the Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III of the Republic of Cyprus for his “sincere and strong feelings for Cyprus and its people.” The Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III is the highest honor awarded in the southern part of Cyprus, given to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the welfare of the Cypriot people.
Would you care to hazard a guess what that "substantial contribution" was?

I hope this is not another one of those pseudo-circumstantial TC-style conclusions you’re preparing us for…

No. This is a straight forward request for an answer. What did this man do that was a "substantial contribution" to the Cypriot people/Cyprus. Not a difficult question, but I suspect it has a "difficult" answer.

Don't suspect. Paste his name into "Google" and see what you can pin on the man who was instrumental in confirming legally that you're a duped trespasser. Present the facts and then others can assess whether your attempts to assassinate this esteemed judge's character has merit or not.

If it was as easy as that, we could google him and find out what his "substantial contribution" was, but we can't because I suspect it isn't knowledge that is in the public domain.

[vaughanwilliams]

When its a Greek judge its not bribery what hypocrites you GCs really are.

The matter of the Greek judge and the claim of apparent bias was looked at, was investigated, in a transparent and argued way by the GB Appeal Court.

The matter of Turkish bribes (if any) or Turkish influence (if any) in this ECHR ruling won't be open to the same kind of investigation will it?

If you can't see the difference between the two cases you really are more of a one-lined, ask questions but never answer any, fool than we gave you credit for so if you have , as usual, nothing to add to debate, clear off!

Vassilios Skouris, president of the ECJ, was decorated by the late Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos with the Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III of the Republic of Cyprus for his “sincere and strong feelings for Cyprus and its people.” The Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III is the highest honor awarded in the southern part of Cyprus, given to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the welfare of the Cypriot people.
Would you care to hazard a guess what that "substantial contribution" was?

I hope this is not another one of those pseudo-circumstantial TC-style conclusions you’re preparing us for…

No. This is a straight forward request for an answer. What did this man do that was a "substantial contribution" to the Cypriot people/Cyprus. Not a difficult question, but I suspect it has a "difficult" answer.

Don't suspect. Paste his name into "Google" and see what you can pin on the man who was instrumental in confirming legally that you're a duped trespasser. Present the facts and then others can assess whether your attempts to assassinate this esteemed judge's character has merit or not.

Took your advice, Malaprop, - Googled, Wiki'd, you name it, and couldn't find anything about WHY the award was given. All the references are there that the award was made, but other than "substantial contribution", there was nothing to explain WHY it was made. Unless you or someone else throws some more light on it, we must draw our own conclusions.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and all that.
If R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) sets any precedent, then I am not so much attempting to assassinate his character, as he is committing suicide, and he should have surely seen that himself and withdrawn.

[YFred]

When its a Greek judge its not bribery what hypocrites you GCs really are.

The matter of the Greek judge and the claim of apparent bias was looked at, was investigated, in a transparent and argued way by the GB Appeal Court.

The matter of Turkish bribes (if any) or Turkish influence (if any) in this ECHR ruling won't be open to the same kind of investigation will it?

If you can't see the difference between the two cases you really are more of a one-lined, ask questions but never answer any, fool than we gave you credit for so if you have , as usual, nothing to add to debate, clear off!

Vassilios Skouris, president of the ECJ, was decorated by the late Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos with the Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III of the Republic of Cyprus for his “sincere and strong feelings for Cyprus and its people.” The Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III is the highest honor awarded in the southern part of Cyprus, given to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the welfare of the Cypriot people.
Would you care to hazard a guess what that "substantial contribution" was?

I hope this is not another one of those pseudo-circumstantial TC-style conclusions you’re preparing us for…

No. This is a straight forward request for an answer. What did this man do that was a "substantial contribution" to the Cypriot people/Cyprus. Not a difficult question, but I suspect it has a "difficult" answer.

Don't suspect. Paste his name into "Google" and see what you can pin on the man who was instrumental in confirming legally that you're a duped trespasser. Present the facts and then others can assess whether your attempts to assassinate this esteemed judge's character has merit or not.

Took your advice, Malaprop, - Googled, Wiki'd, you name it, and couldn't find anything about WHY the award was given. All the references are there that the award was made, but other than "substantial contribution", there was nothing to explain WHY it was made. Unless you or someone else throws some more light on it, we must draw our own conclusions.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and all that.
If R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) sets any precedent, then I am not so much attempting to assassinate his character, as he is committing suicide, and he should have surely seen that himself and withdrawn.

All these bash patriots and not one can mention something that this man has done other than convincing the other judges to vote roc way. They seem to have GSMS (Gavvurui Selective Mammory Syndrome). aka they are a bunch of Tits.

[Jerry]

Further interest from my MEP: -

"Dear Mr "Jerry"

The question is, does the ECHR's ruling mention a period, during which the local jurisdiction must judge the case?

If not, you should appeal, on these grounds, and ask for such a period to be set, because the local jursdiction might otherwise delay the case - and any further appeal to the ECHR - indefinitely.

If you can obtain a ruling to this effect, then the local court will be under pressure, not only to deal with your case in good time, but also to deal with it more fairly.

Yours sincerely

.... ....."

I have sent an appropriate response.

[vaughanwilliams]

When its a Greek judge its not bribery what hypocrites you GCs really are.

The matter of the Greek judge and the claim of apparent bias was looked at, was investigated, in a transparent and argued way by the GB Appeal Court.

The matter of Turkish bribes (if any) or Turkish influence (if any) in this ECHR ruling won't be open to the same kind of investigation will it?

If you can't see the difference between the two cases you really are more of a one-lined, ask questions but never answer any, fool than we gave you credit for so if you have , as usual, nothing to add to debate, clear off!

Vassilios Skouris, president of the ECJ, was decorated by the late Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos with the Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III of the Republic of Cyprus for his “sincere and strong feelings for Cyprus and its people.” The Grand Collar of the Order of Makarios III is the highest honor awarded in the southern part of Cyprus, given to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the welfare of the Cypriot people.
Would you care to hazard a guess what that "substantial contribution" was?

I hope this is not another one of those pseudo-circumstantial TC-style conclusions you’re preparing us for…

No. This is a straight forward request for an answer. What did this man do that was a "substantial contribution" to the Cypriot people/Cyprus. Not a difficult question, but I suspect it has a "difficult" answer.

Don't suspect. Paste his name into "Google" and see what you can pin on the man who was instrumental in confirming legally that you're a duped trespasser. Present the facts and then others can assess whether your attempts to assassinate this esteemed judge's character has merit or not.

Took your advice, Malaprop, - Googled, Wiki'd, you name it, and couldn't find anything about WHY the award was given. All the references are there that the award was made, but other than "substantial contribution", there was nothing to explain WHY it was made. Unless you or someone else throws some more light on it, we must draw our own conclusions.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and all that.
If R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) sets any precedent, then I am not so much attempting to assassinate his character, as he is committing suicide, and he should have surely seen that himself and withdrawn.

All these bash patriots and not one can mention something that this man has done other than convincing the other judges to vote roc way. They seem to have GSMS (Gavvurui Selective Mammory Syndrome). aka they are a bunch of Tits.

They do seem to have gone a bit quiet.

[Malapapa]

Don't suspect. Paste his name into "Google" and see what you can pin on the man who was instrumental in confirming legally that you're a duped trespasser. Present the facts and then others can assess whether your attempts to assassinate this esteemed judge's character has merit or not.

Took your advice, Malaprop, - Googled, Wiki'd, you name it, and couldn't find anything about WHY the award was given. All the references are there that the award was made, but other than "substantial contribution", there was nothing to explain WHY it was made. Unless you or someone else throws some more light on it, we must draw our own conclusions.

Why must one draw conclusions when one has been presented with no evidence? You see, that's why you're in a mess, vaughan; swindled out of your money, trespassing on someone else's property, and now playing devil's advocate. Because you recklessly jump the gun without doing your homework.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and all that.
If R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) sets any precedent, then I am not so much attempting to assassinate his character, as he is committing suicide, and he should have surely seen that himself and withdrawn.

You've been living in bandit country for far too long, vaughan and lost sight of how the legal process works in the real world. Why on earth should someone who has made a substantial contribution to a country and its people withdraw as a judge from a case involving people accused of trespass in that country?

If the Orams's defence was concerned about bias why didn't they make a case for the judge to withdraw?

Could it be that, like you, perhaps, they had absolutely nothing to pin on him and were simply trying to discredit his character, after the event?

No doubt the English judge viewed such desperate, underhand tactics against one of his colleagues very dimly indeed. As would any objective observer, viewing your attempts now.

[vaughanwilliams]

Don't suspect. Paste his name into "Google" and see what you can pin on the man who was instrumental in confirming legally that you're a duped trespasser. Present the facts and then others can assess whether your attempts to assassinate this esteemed judge's character has merit or not.

Took your advice, Malaprop, - Googled, Wiki'd, you name it, and couldn't find anything about WHY the award was given. All the references are there that the award was made, but other than "substantial contribution", there was nothing to explain WHY it was made. Unless you or someone else throws some more light on it, we must draw our own conclusions.

Why must one draw conclusions when one has been presented with no evidence? You see, that's why you're in a mess, vaughan; swindled out of your money, trespassing on someone else's property, and now playing devil's advocate. Because you recklessly jump the gun without doing your homework.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and all that.
If R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) sets any precedent, then I am not so much attempting to assassinate his character, as he is committing suicide, and he should have surely seen that himself and withdrawn.

You've been living in bandit country for far too long, vaughan and lost sight of how the legal process works in the real world. Why on earth should someone who has made a substantial contribution to a country and its people withdraw as a judge from a case involving people accused of trespass in that country?

If the Orams's defence was concerned about bias why didn't they make a case for the judge to withdraw?

Could it be that, like you, perhaps, they had absolutely nothing to pin on him and were simply trying to discredit his character, after the event?

No doubt the English judge viewed such desperate, underhand tactics against one of his colleagues very dimly indeed. As would any objective observer, viewing your attempts now.

"Why on earth should someone who has made a substantial contribution to a country and its people withdraw as a judge from a case involving people accused of trespass in that country?"
Something you don't understand - IMPARTIALLITY!

Now, stop ducking the question.
What did he do that was a "substantial contribution" to Cyprus?

I cannot find any reference to it even though I followed your advice and Googled it. You don't say/know what it was so we MUST come to our own conclusions.

The Judge was very remiss not to declare an interest beforehand and offer to step down. Had he done this justice would have been seen to be done.
As it is, it hasn't.

[Malapapa]

"Why on earth should someone who has made a substantial contribution to a country and its people withdraw as a judge from a case involving people accused of trespass in that country?"
Something you don't understand - IMPARTIALLITY!

Prove he wasn't impartial! If there was a case to answer for, why didn't top human rights lawyer Cherie Bair make it and get him to stand down?

Now, stop ducking the question.
What did he do that was a "substantial contribution" to Cyprus?

I'm not ducking the question. Like you, I've no idea. But I'm sure whatever it was does not warrant accusations of not being impartial or the defence would have requested that he step down.

I cannot find any reference to it even though I followed your advice and Googled it. You don't say/know what it was so we MUST come to our own conclusions.

The Judge was very remiss not to declare an interest beforehand and offer to step down.

What interest? It would have been remiss of the Orams's defence team not to point out an interest if they thought there was one. Which means they couldn't find one.

Had he done this justice would have been seen to be done.
As it is, it hasn't.

Justice was done. But hoodwinked trespassers don't like the verdict.

[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.

[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?