Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

....the UN knows the effect of EU aquis on the properties issue and are putting together a new system of dealing with properties, much different from the nonsense proposed by Annan.

Does this mean the UN is now taking the lead - or proposing a new plan? Also, I would be curious what would be considered not "nonsense" from a GC perspective.

a crazy thing we're thinking of trying called "everyone gets his property back."

And where did you see any negotiations about everybody getting their property back?

That is crazy alright, are you going to give the TC land back to the TC owner? Now where did you get this crazy notion that it is possible. Has it ever been put on the negotiating table?
There are some people on this forum who are wise enough to accept that not everybody will be able to go back or would wish to go back. Are you going to force people who do not wish to go back?

Whether people go back to their property or not is up to them. The important thing is that their property is given back to them to do as they wish.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? The rest of the world has grasped it.

Your view of this is very black or white.

Where the Cyprus property problem becomes grey is in the time that elapsed since 1974 and what has happened during that time. You may argue that time elapsed has no bearing, no matter how short or long that time period may be.

Is it not within the realms of black and white thinking such as yours to suggest that the Americans would not understand the concept if we were to suggest they gave America back to the "Indians"? A similar situation exists in many places around the world e.g. Australia, but I suggest they would not subscibe to your concept either.

waffle all you like my soap dodging friend, but I have title deeds from the land registry left to this country by Great Britain and reocgnised by the world as the only legitimate land registry on this island. Even if a GC president signs this away we will always have the right in court to our property.

I think you choose to go off on a tangent, now.

Please explain to me how you, as a GC dispossessed of your land, differ from an American Indian or an Australian Aborigine who are clearly never going to regain what was once theirs and according to you, still is?

Please explain to me when an ROC title deed will cease being legal certificate for property.

The two are not the same. Legal certificate to a property does not guarantee a property only compensation. Read the last ECHR ruling.

[DT.]

....the UN knows the effect of EU aquis on the properties issue and are putting together a new system of dealing with properties, much different from the nonsense proposed by Annan.

Does this mean the UN is now taking the lead - or proposing a new plan? Also, I would be curious what would be considered not "nonsense" from a GC perspective.

a crazy thing we're thinking of trying called "everyone gets his property back."

And where did you see any negotiations about everybody getting their property back?

That is crazy alright, are you going to give the TC land back to the TC owner? Now where did you get this crazy notion that it is possible. Has it ever been put on the negotiating table?
There are some people on this forum who are wise enough to accept that not everybody will be able to go back or would wish to go back. Are you going to force people who do not wish to go back?

Whether people go back to their property or not is up to them. The important thing is that their property is given back to them to do as they wish.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? The rest of the world has grasped it.

Your view of this is very black or white.

Where the Cyprus property problem becomes grey is in the time that elapsed since 1974 and what has happened during that time. You may argue that time elapsed has no bearing, no matter how short or long that time period may be.

Is it not within the realms of black and white thinking such as yours to suggest that the Americans would not understand the concept if we were to suggest they gave America back to the "Indians"? A similar situation exists in many places around the world e.g. Australia, but I suggest they would not subscibe to your concept either.

waffle all you like my soap dodging friend, but I have title deeds from the land registry left to this country by Great Britain and reocgnised by the world as the only legitimate land registry on this island. Even if a GC president signs this away we will always have the right in court to our property.

I think you choose to go off on a tangent, now.

Please explain to me how you, as a GC dispossessed of your land, differ from an American Indian or an Australian Aborigine who are clearly never going to regain what was once theirs and according to you, still is?

Please explain to me when an ROC title deed will cease being legal certificate for property.

The two are not the same. Legal certificate to a property does not guarantee a property only compensation. Read the last ECHR ruling.

I've read it, show me where it says my title deed does not count anymore or that my land doesn't belong to me anymore.

[vaughanwilliams]

....the UN knows the effect of EU aquis on the properties issue and are putting together a new system of dealing with properties, much different from the nonsense proposed by Annan.

Does this mean the UN is now taking the lead - or proposing a new plan? Also, I would be curious what would be considered not "nonsense" from a GC perspective.

a crazy thing we're thinking of trying called "everyone gets his property back."

And where did you see any negotiations about everybody getting their property back?

That is crazy alright, are you going to give the TC land back to the TC owner? Now where did you get this crazy notion that it is possible. Has it ever been put on the negotiating table?
There are some people on this forum who are wise enough to accept that not everybody will be able to go back or would wish to go back. Are you going to force people who do not wish to go back?

Whether people go back to their property or not is up to them. The important thing is that their property is given back to them to do as they wish.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? The rest of the world has grasped it.

Your view of this is very black or white.

Where the Cyprus property problem becomes grey is in the time that elapsed since 1974 and what has happened during that time. You may argue that time elapsed has no bearing, no matter how short or long that time period may be.

Is it not within the realms of black and white thinking such as yours to suggest that the Americans would not understand the concept if we were to suggest they gave America back to the "Indians"? A similar situation exists in many places around the world e.g. Australia, but I suggest they would not subscibe to your concept either.

waffle all you like my soap dodging friend, but I have title deeds from the land registry left to this country by Great Britain and reocgnised by the world as the only legitimate land registry on this island. Even if a GC president signs this away we will always have the right in court to our property.

I think you choose to go off on a tangent, now.

Please explain to me how you, as a GC dispossessed of your land, differ from an American Indian or an Australian Aborigine who are clearly never going to regain what was once theirs and according to you, still is?

Please explain to me when an ROC title deed will cease being legal certificate for property.

I'm sure it never will, but rightfully and/or legally owning property isn't the same thing as taking repossession of it. Ask a Commanchee or a Sioux.

[YFred]

....the UN knows the effect of EU aquis on the properties issue and are putting together a new system of dealing with properties, much different from the nonsense proposed by Annan.

Does this mean the UN is now taking the lead - or proposing a new plan? Also, I would be curious what would be considered not "nonsense" from a GC perspective.

a crazy thing we're thinking of trying called "everyone gets his property back."

And where did you see any negotiations about everybody getting their property back?

That is crazy alright, are you going to give the TC land back to the TC owner? Now where did you get this crazy notion that it is possible. Has it ever been put on the negotiating table?
There are some people on this forum who are wise enough to accept that not everybody will be able to go back or would wish to go back. Are you going to force people who do not wish to go back?

Whether people go back to their property or not is up to them. The important thing is that their property is given back to them to do as they wish.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? The rest of the world has grasped it.

Your view of this is very black or white.

Where the Cyprus property problem becomes grey is in the time that elapsed since 1974 and what has happened during that time. You may argue that time elapsed has no bearing, no matter how short or long that time period may be.

Is it not within the realms of black and white thinking such as yours to suggest that the Americans would not understand the concept if we were to suggest they gave America back to the "Indians"? A similar situation exists in many places around the world e.g. Australia, but I suggest they would not subscibe to your concept either.

waffle all you like my soap dodging friend, but I have title deeds from the land registry left to this country by Great Britain and reocgnised by the world as the only legitimate land registry on this island. Even if a GC president signs this away we will always have the right in court to our property.

I think you choose to go off on a tangent, now.

Please explain to me how you, as a GC dispossessed of your land, differ from an American Indian or an Australian Aborigine who are clearly never going to regain what was once theirs and according to you, still is?

Please explain to me when an ROC title deed will cease being legal certificate for property.

The two are not the same. Legal certificate to a property does not guarantee a property only compensation. Read the last ECHR ruling.

I've read it, show me where it says my title deed does not count anymore or that my land doesn't belong to me anymore.

It does not say that, but it does say that you may have to settle for compensation rather than reinstatement.

[DT.]

....the UN knows the effect of EU aquis on the properties issue and are putting together a new system of dealing with properties, much different from the nonsense proposed by Annan.

Does this mean the UN is now taking the lead - or proposing a new plan? Also, I would be curious what would be considered not "nonsense" from a GC perspective.

a crazy thing we're thinking of trying called "everyone gets his property back."

And where did you see any negotiations about everybody getting their property back?

That is crazy alright, are you going to give the TC land back to the TC owner? Now where did you get this crazy notion that it is possible. Has it ever been put on the negotiating table?
There are some people on this forum who are wise enough to accept that not everybody will be able to go back or would wish to go back. Are you going to force people who do not wish to go back?

Whether people go back to their property or not is up to them. The important thing is that their property is given back to them to do as they wish.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? The rest of the world has grasped it.

Your view of this is very black or white.

Where the Cyprus property problem becomes grey is in the time that elapsed since 1974 and what has happened during that time. You may argue that time elapsed has no bearing, no matter how short or long that time period may be.

Is it not within the realms of black and white thinking such as yours to suggest that the Americans would not understand the concept if we were to suggest they gave America back to the "Indians"? A similar situation exists in many places around the world e.g. Australia, but I suggest they would not subscibe to your concept either.

waffle all you like my soap dodging friend, but I have title deeds from the land registry left to this country by Great Britain and reocgnised by the world as the only legitimate land registry on this island. Even if a GC president signs this away we will always have the right in court to our property.

I think you choose to go off on a tangent, now.

Please explain to me how you, as a GC dispossessed of your land, differ from an American Indian or an Australian Aborigine who are clearly never going to regain what was once theirs and according to you, still is?

Please explain to me when an ROC title deed will cease being legal certificate for property.

The two are not the same. Legal certificate to a property does not guarantee a property only compensation. Read the last ECHR ruling.

I've read it, show me where it says my title deed does not count anymore or that my land doesn't belong to me anymore.

It does not say that, but it does say that you may have to settle for compensation rather than reinstatement.

no it doesn't.

[YFred]

....the UN knows the effect of EU aquis on the properties issue and are putting together a new system of dealing with properties, much different from the nonsense proposed by Annan.

Does this mean the UN is now taking the lead - or proposing a new plan? Also, I would be curious what would be considered not "nonsense" from a GC perspective.

a crazy thing we're thinking of trying called "everyone gets his property back."

And where did you see any negotiations about everybody getting their property back?

That is crazy alright, are you going to give the TC land back to the TC owner? Now where did you get this crazy notion that it is possible. Has it ever been put on the negotiating table?
There are some people on this forum who are wise enough to accept that not everybody will be able to go back or would wish to go back. Are you going to force people who do not wish to go back?

Whether people go back to their property or not is up to them. The important thing is that their property is given back to them to do as they wish.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? The rest of the world has grasped it.

Your view of this is very black or white.

Where the Cyprus property problem becomes grey is in the time that elapsed since 1974 and what has happened during that time. You may argue that time elapsed has no bearing, no matter how short or long that time period may be.

Is it not within the realms of black and white thinking such as yours to suggest that the Americans would not understand the concept if we were to suggest they gave America back to the "Indians"? A similar situation exists in many places around the world e.g. Australia, but I suggest they would not subscibe to your concept either.

waffle all you like my soap dodging friend, but I have title deeds from the land registry left to this country by Great Britain and reocgnised by the world as the only legitimate land registry on this island. Even if a GC president signs this away we will always have the right in court to our property.

I think you choose to go off on a tangent, now.

Please explain to me how you, as a GC dispossessed of your land, differ from an American Indian or an Australian Aborigine who are clearly never going to regain what was once theirs and according to you, still is?

Please explain to me when an ROC title deed will cease being legal certificate for property.

The two are not the same. Legal certificate to a property does not guarantee a property only compensation. Read the last ECHR ruling.

I've read it, show me where it says my title deed does not count anymore or that my land doesn't belong to me anymore.

It does not say that, but it does say that you may have to settle for compensation rather than reinstatement.

no it doesn't.

Was there no comment regarding the age you were at when you occupied the property before you can call it home. I suspect you were younger than 11 which will exclude you from getting it back if the IPC decides to compensate.

Are you really surprised at such decision after delaying the peace process for decades. The sad fact for you is you could have had in 2004 and voted against it. The real question is did that not learn you nofink?

[DT.]

....the UN knows the effect of EU aquis on the properties issue and are putting together a new system of dealing with properties, much different from the nonsense proposed by Annan.

Does this mean the UN is now taking the lead - or proposing a new plan? Also, I would be curious what would be considered not "nonsense" from a GC perspective.

a crazy thing we're thinking of trying called "everyone gets his property back."

And where did you see any negotiations about everybody getting their property back?

That is crazy alright, are you going to give the TC land back to the TC owner? Now where did you get this crazy notion that it is possible. Has it ever been put on the negotiating table?
There are some people on this forum who are wise enough to accept that not everybody will be able to go back or would wish to go back. Are you going to force people who do not wish to go back?

Whether people go back to their property or not is up to them. The important thing is that their property is given back to them to do as they wish.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? The rest of the world has grasped it.

Your view of this is very black or white.

Where the Cyprus property problem becomes grey is in the time that elapsed since 1974 and what has happened during that time. You may argue that time elapsed has no bearing, no matter how short or long that time period may be.

Is it not within the realms of black and white thinking such as yours to suggest that the Americans would not understand the concept if we were to suggest they gave America back to the "Indians"? A similar situation exists in many places around the world e.g. Australia, but I suggest they would not subscibe to your concept either.

waffle all you like my soap dodging friend, but I have title deeds from the land registry left to this country by Great Britain and reocgnised by the world as the only legitimate land registry on this island. Even if a GC president signs this away we will always have the right in court to our property.

I think you choose to go off on a tangent, now.

Please explain to me how you, as a GC dispossessed of your land, differ from an American Indian or an Australian Aborigine who are clearly never going to regain what was once theirs and according to you, still is?

Please explain to me when an ROC title deed will cease being legal certificate for property.

The two are not the same. Legal certificate to a property does not guarantee a property only compensation. Read the last ECHR ruling.

I've read it, show me where it says my title deed does not count anymore or that my land doesn't belong to me anymore.

It does not say that, but it does say that you may have to settle for compensation rather than reinstatement.

no it doesn't.

Was there no comment regarding the age you were at when you occupied the property before you can call it home. I suspect you were younger than 11 which will exclude you from getting it back if the IPC decides to compensate.

Are you really surprised at such decision after delaying the peace process for decades. The sad fact for you is you could have had in 2004 and voted against it. The real question is did that not learn you nofink?

No yfred thats not what it said...Let me know when you want to stop walking into this.

[YFred]

DT you can live in denial all your life. I know what it said and it upset a lot of patriots accusing it of corruption. This mentality will get us nowhere. Good luck with your application yo the IPC, I wish we had something similar in the south we can apply for.

[DT.]

DT you can live in denial all your life. I know what it said and it upset a lot of patriots accusing it of corruption. This mentality will get us nowhere. Good luck with your application yo the IPC, I wish we had something similar in the south we can apply for.

The patriots that were accussing it for corruption didn't understand it either.

Read it again Yfred. Might be a good idea to take it to that law firm of yours in london so that they can explain it to you.

[YFred]

DT you can live in denial all your life. I know what it said and it upset a lot of patriots accusing it of corruption. This mentality will get us nowhere. Good luck with your application yo the IPC, I wish we had something similar in the south we can apply for.

The patriots that were accussing it for corruption didn't understand it either.

Read it again Yfred. Might be a good idea to take it to that law firm of yours in london so that they can explain it to you.

Only if you accompany me there. I don't feel safe going on my own.