Cyprus-Forum.com

[RichardB]

Use this unfallible system for your verdict on the Case of CO'D Vs K

1.Think of a number between 1 and 9

2. Multiply by 3

3. Add 3

4. Multiply by 3

5.Add the numbers in your answer together
and post your verdict on the above poll

eg 2 (the number you thought of) x 3 = 6

+ 3 = 9

x 3 = 27 ( 2 + 7 = 9)

your verdict would be poll option 9

[Schnauzer]

Being something of a non-conformist, I decided to cast my vote in accordance with that which I thought to be fairest.

Since Jimmy has (and I am sure he would agree) made some capital out of Conor's antics (I refer to charging Japanese tourists £5. 00 Yanks £10. 00 (because he didn't like what they were up to in Iraq at the time) and regular patrons £1. 00 ) for his entertaining account of the spectacle they were observing whilst the incomparable Conor was busily snoring (or whatever else the filthy beast might be doing) in his tent .

I feel that Jimmy would view the matter with a slightly less critical eye than most of us, he has had a colourful life and would probably be a trifle less judgemental than most, I suspect he would advocate a good strong boot in the goolies for Conor's filthy language and perhaps a second one up the jacksie as he doubled up from the impact and pain of the first.

Actually, as Jimmy DID say to me "Gaw Blimey Guv'na th'Geeza mus' be awf 'is bleed'en rocka!"

[Oracle]

Ooh, I like the sound of Jimmy's solution! I'll vote for that!

[bill cobbett]

Voted for the second part of number 9...... number 9 ...... number 9

[supporttheunderdog]

Being something of a non-conformist, I decided to cast my vote in accordance with that which I thought to be fairest.

Since Jimmy has (and I am sure he would agree) made some capital out of Conor's antics (I refer to charging Japanese tourists £5. 00 Yanks £10. 00 (because he didn't like what they were up to in Iraq at the time) and regular patrons £1. 00 ) for his entertaining account of the spectacle they were observing whilst the incomparable Conor was busily snoring (or whatever else the filthy beast might be doing) in his tent .

I feel that Jimmy would view the matter with a slightly less critical eye than most of us, he has had a colourful life and would probably be a trifle less judgemental than most, I suspect he would advocate a good strong boot in the goolies for Conor's filthy language and perhaps a second one up the jacksie as he doubled up from the impact and pain of the first.

Actually, as Jimmy DID say to me "Gaw Blimey Guv'na th'Geeza mus' be awf 'is bleed'en rocka!"

it occurs to me, that with the way you and some others are abusing Conor, who was after all the victim of a bum deal with a violent crimininal of a property developer, and where ripping-off the Brits is something some of the anti-brit racists on this form seem to think is accepetable, that you are no better, if not a lot worse than the image of Conor. some seek to present.

[Milo]

supportheunderdog you do know you are replying to that well known racist and hate mongerer O it is in more than one guise on this Forum. It has to agree with itself quite often, as nobody else does Its very lonely. It resorts to childish games like this to back up its macabre reasoning, it amuses itself and one or two find it funny, most don,t.

Read back thru the profiles you will see what I mean

But keep your opinions coming, balance is needed. Just ignore those two, or one

[SSBubbles]

Another bulls**t thread!

[Oracle]

I see Conor's cheerleading cronies, the humourless hags, are out with their paranoid accusations and disapproval of anything balanced.

[SSBubbles]

I see Conor's cheerleading cronies, the humourless hags, are out with their paranoid accusations and disapproval of anything balanced.

Oops! I forgot that anything relevant on here has to mirror you and your biased posts!

[Svetlana]

Just when I thought peace would be returning to CF this happens!

THE Attorney-general will appeal a court decision and the sentence handed down in the assault of a British national by a developer following a dispute over a property.

On Wednesday, a Paralimni court sentenced developers, Christoforos Karayiannas, 55 and his son Marios, 35, to a 10-month jail term that was however suspended for two years for assaulting Conor O’Dwyer in 2008.

A third man involved in the incident, 31-year-old Charalambos Ttigis was fined €3,000.

The court found the trio guilty last month of assaulting O’Dwyer and causing actual bodily harm (ABH) – and not the more serious grievous bodily harm (GBH) count, the state had charged them with.

State prosecutor Thanasis Papanicolaou told the Cyprus Mail yesterday that the state will appeal. “I have been authorised by the Attorney-general to file an appeal for both the decision and the sentence,” Papanicolaou said. He added that this would be done in the next few days.

Papanicolaou stressed that the fact that the plaintiff was British did not make any difference to the state.

“Every person has rights in the Republic of Cyprus, whether they are Cypriots, foreigners, EU nationals or third country nationals,” he said. “The Attorney-general’s position is that nothing changes because he is British or any other nationality. Justice is for all.”

The GBH charge carries a maximum of seven years in jail while ABH goes up to three years.

In her decision on October 27, Judge Evi Antoniou said O’Dwyer – when he testified during the trial – was “excessive in most points.”

“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.”

During sentencing, the judge said she accepted the position that Christoforos and Marios Karayiannas had been repeatedly provoked by the plaintiff.

“Recording most of the conversations the plaintiff had with defendant One without him knowing … publishing the conversations on the internet, the claims of the plaintiff that defendants One and Two are liars and they mislead people, and publishing these claims as well as harassing” the defendants’ clients “cannot be ignored,” 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 to peacefully measure, according to his claim, the pavement of the house he bought and to take pictures,” the judge said.

That provocation was taken into consideration when deciding whether to suspend the sentence, the judge said.

It is believed that this particular point will be disputed by the prosecution in the appeal.

The legal precedent cited by the judge stated that provocation can be a mitigating factor in passing sentence but nowhere did it explicitly say that it can be used to suspend a sentence.