Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jack M]

YOUR cover was blown ages ago mate, get back in your tent, rain is forecast.

Well, Maynard, banned member of this forum several times, I'd suggest you ask the owner of the forum to track my ISP and he/she will inform you that my posts come from the Midlands in the UK.

Conor is presently in Cyprus, which I think is a well known face. Wipe that egg off your face it makes you look very silly.

[Oracle]

STOP!

We're getting distracted by the minor events of Conor's 'crimes and misdemeanours' ...

The case we should really be interested in is the "Shame on Cyprus" campaign which he voiced/led/orchestrated/promoted/founded.

Didn't he post some stuff here advertising his anti-Cypriot campaign?

Wasn't there also a, specifically, anti-Cyprus website which no longer exists and all 'shameoncyprus' searches divert to his "KaraAnus" one ? (how grown up of him )

There was also a thread here where some pieces of evidence were mounting to suggest he doctored some "front page" newspaper article. Has it been deleted?
Search, search search .... He posted a lot of damning stuff here. No wonder he is too ashamed to show his face, instead letting his followers do his dirty work.

[Jack M]

Nice try Oracle. Can't answer fact so we'll revert to type.

Conor has committed no crime. He has an entirely clean record.

Karayiannas and Son are convicted criminals

[Oracle]

By: George Psyllides
Published: November 5th, 2010

“He was stressed, lost his temper, and through his testimony it became evident that the only thing he wanted was the punishment of the defendants,” the judge said. “This led him to numerous contradictions in his testimony.”[/b]

Pity when considering contradiction that the Judge couldn't even get the number of days Conor spent in hospital correct amongst other things.

That's not a contradiction.

Pity also that she failed to mention the phone call made to the police saying they were going to beat him up. Clearly proving premeditation which entirely negates provocation.

Maybe this was one of the contradictions.

Overall:

Sounds like you were in Court -- all the way from the Midlands, did you say

[Oracle]

Provokation involved taking photos of his own house. Yes, that is a really terrible thing to do.

The judge said: "The plaintiff’s behaviour cannot be isolated from the way things went. He activated four spy cameras; one being a micro- camera hidden well in his jacket"

I am so glad you bought this up. Such a massive precedent for future cases. I can envisage its use now:

Laywer for a defendant just found guilty of rape: M'lord/lady, my client was provoked into raping this woman. She wore a provocative outfit the night following the rape.

Your example is flawed!

More accurate would be an example such as "Conor spiked her drinks with Rohypnol".

You see, he was the one who (premeditatively) armed himself with something quite out of the ordinary (FOUR SPY CAMERAS!) for what he claimed (contradiction? ) was to merely take photos of the house.

[Schnauzer]

I don't suppose anyone has considered the idea that the parties, in different ways, ARE BOTH TO BLAME for this event. A bit like Hitler and Stalin perhaps, both bad blokes but mainly good in the eyes of their own people. (I hate using the Americanised term - "guys")

Fair comment Jerry, for as much as it was wrong for the physical attacks on Conor (in the eyes of the law) it was equally wrong of Conor to offer abuse to those who attacked him (also in the eyes of the law).

The behaviour of BOTH parties may be questionable BUT, when the matter of 'Provocation' is considered, I would suggest that Conor's actions both prior and subsequent to his 'Drubbing', were far more provocative than those of the businesspeople he was both dealing with and NOT.

As to his subsequent 'Campaign' he has merely proven himself to be as poor a property negotiator as he is a property speculator. (IMHO).

Maybe, I'm not sure what kicked off the saga in the first place. My guess is it just escalated from nothing to what we we see today because both parties were used to solving their disputes by applying the law of the jungle. Personally, I would not like to do business with either party, a couple of rough buggers by the sound of it.

It is my belief (and I readily admit that I could be wrong) that Conor initially spotted an opportunity to capitalize on his intended purchase BEFORE it was completed, he may have let the cat out of the bag and the builders (who are property speculators) considered and acted upon the proposition themselves.

What followed, may not have been quite as straightforward as it should have been (had no such speculation been envisaged) and the situation descended into what it has now become.

THE most important 'Nosedive' in the whole sorry mess, was Conor's offensive language AND attitude toward the professionalism of the businesspeople he was dealing with (and subsequently those in Cyprus's entirety), Conor was even given the opportunity to PROFIT from his purchase, he refused, actually insisting that the offer of (I believe more than £20. 000.) was insufficient, since HE valued the property as worth more.

It is my belief that Conor, being a bit of a 'Jack the Lad' made a serious misjudgement in his assessment of the business acumen of (what HE considered were) 'Backward Cypriots', he got his fingers burned financially and his arse kicked physically, it's as simple as that.(IMHO)

[Schnauzer]

YOUR cover was blown ages ago mate, get back in your tent, rain is forecast.

Well, Maynard, banned member of this forum several times, I'd suggest you ask the owner of the forum to track my ISP and he/she will inform you that my posts come from the Midlands in the UK.

Conor is presently in Cyprus, which I think is a well known face. Wipe that egg off your face it makes you look very silly.

Well Jack M, if you ARE in the midlands, you have my complete sympathy I assure you, I am currently around 'The Quantocks' (more precisely close to them) and the weather is not very pleasant, particularly since I am subjected to periods of 'Sleeping Rough' (and I MEAN rough, with neither tent nor provisions for days at a time) on a survival exercise.

As for 'Egg on my face', I am sure that there were times over the last weekend that I would have relished such a luxury since I endured three days with neither bite nor sup.

Not sure about your initial comment, perhaps you would care to elucidate.

[hissyfits]

This is so very sad.

Conor and his family have suffered untold grief and severe financial losses. The builders reputation is ruined and because of the wide-spread publicity on many of the forums relating to buying property in the ROC, I very much doubt that he will be doing much business with Brits again! He has a criminal record, points on his license and still has to face even more future court appearances. The handling of the case by the ROC's judiciary and Government show them to be reactive rather than being proactive and at times discriminatory. In short there are no winners but plenty of losers in this sad affair.

Perhaps one of the questions that needs exploring to prevent further occurrences is, how this could possibly have got so out of hand? Given that the builder had already found a buyer, so was not going to be financially compromised, and Conor no longer wanted the property. as he felt it was not being built as shown on the original plans, the way forward would have appeared simple. Legal representation with the return of his money, deregistering of the property by Conor (as this has created uncertainty for the new owner now) and then go their separate ways.
Instead the builder appears to believe that he has the right to keep all monies, accept no responsibility for amending the plans without consultation and then sell on the property without discussion or negotiation with Conor.

Conor then retaliates by setting up his web site and naming and shaming the builder and his lawyers, before any court hearing or charges. By now both parties are spiraling out of control. The lawyers are acting like those American divorce lawyers, that cause couples, who were initially happy to have an amicable divorce, to suddenly bleed each other for every available penny and make you see faults in your partner that you never knew existed until they kindly pointed them out to you! There appears to be no negotiation and certainly no mediation. The legal profession showed, in my opinion, a complete lack of judgment and their unethical stance must be questioned. The frustration and helplessness must have contributed to feelings running so high, that physical assault was displayed.

This is the only thing that cannot be excused. Physical violence is simply unacceptable and 3 against 1 is nothing more than thug behaviour. It was not premeditated as the builder was able to notify the police of what his actions were going to be and then drive a considerable distance to carryout the assault. Just like Conor could be said to have taken the law into his own hands, so did the builder. Why did he not report this to the police and allow the situation to be dealt with by the law? Taking photos for submission in a court case cannot be seen as unreasonable behaviour, but Conor should have pursued this via his lawyer. To do as he did was confrontational BUT that can in no way be an excuse for violent behaviour. The violence was extreme.........ramming into a car, being pulled out of that car and attacked by three people should never have been viewed as ABH. That really is taking the Mickey!

ABH/GBH is not defined by the "provocation" but the degree of the assault and resulting injuries.

[Oracle]

How much does he pay you per word?

[Z4]

Go Conor!