Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

That Greece is evil bad and unsafe and has always been so? Idiot!

Try using a mirror and put Turkey in place of Greece, then look up the word hypocrite.

X doesn't equal Y.

That you would seriously try and equate Greece with Turkey is a measure only of the degree of ignorance you possess!

But, I'll give you this much - you must love Turkey very much to come here and attempt such an unlikely proposition ...

Your ability to fail to comprehend and then distort as a result of that failure is never ending.

The 'equation' is between YOUR behaviour and MINE.

Of the two of us , one of us has a much more pronounced, persistent and relentless history of trying to make out that a given country is 'evil' and 'bad' any and every time that country is mentioned or part of a given discussion and often even when it not.

Hence the accusation of hypocrisy.

[erolz66]

European Union immigration policy, including the Dublin Regulation does not reflect the present realities or do justice to the disproportionate burden that falls to the Greek immigration authorities. He states there is a clear need for a comprehensive reconsideration of the existing European Legal Regime, which should take into account the particular needs & constraints of Greece.

Classic GiG. Ignore the actual ruling - ignore the details of that entirely as if they just did not exist and instead take the 'separate opinion' of a single judge, who concurred with the actual ruling, and present that as the only relevant part, all without making clear that the quote given is such.

http://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/cont ... no-3069609

You really are a nasty piece of work.

and back in the real world you just show, once more, exactly how you 'work'.

[GreekIslandGirl]

European Union immigration policy, including the Dublin Regulation does not reflect the present realities or do justice to the disproportionate burden that falls to the Greek immigration authorities. He states there is a clear need for a comprehensive reconsideration of the existing European Legal Regime, which should take into account the particular needs & constraints of Greece.

Classic GiG. Ignore the actual ruling - ignore the details of that entirely as if they just did not exist and instead take the 'separate opinion' of a single judge, who concurred with the actual ruling, and present that as the only relevant part, all without making clear that the quote given is such.

I have hardly ignored the ruling if I happen to also listen to what the judges had to say for lessons to be learned.
You on the other hand, refuse to see reason because, and only because, the ruling suits your agenda. Such mentality probably comes from proximity to Sharia whereby chopping a parent's hands off is fine even if he can't then provide for his starving children - or stoning a woman to death because she was a victim of some man's actions.

However, I value your new-found sense of *justice* and obedience for the rule of law if you would now kindly go one step further and not only let your fellow thieves in the north know about 'rulings' but also how to put them into practise and give back the occupied properties to their rightful owners.

[erolz66]

I have hardly ignored the ruling if I happen to also listen to what the judges had to say for lessons to be learned.

Classic GiG

You did not quote the actual ruling at all or refer it. You quoted only from the separate opinion of a SINGLE judge and are even now are trying to present that as being what the judges had to say about "lessons to be learned" - a phrase that does not exit at all within the judgement itself neither do the individual words 'lesson' or 'learned', as opposed to the phrase separate opinion which is the explicit phrase and heading under which your quote comes from.

This is what you do. This is what you always do.

[GreekIslandGirl]

I have hardly ignored the ruling if I happen to also listen to what the judges had to say for lessons to be learned.

Classic GiG

You did not quote the actual ruling at all or refer it. You quoted only from the separate opinion of a SINGLE judge and are even now are trying to present that as being what the judges had to say about "lessons to be learned" - a phrase that does not exit at all within the judgement itself neither do the individual words 'lesson' or 'learned', as opposed to the phrase separate opinion which is the explicit phrase and heading under which your quote comes from.

This is what you do. This is what you always do.

Why would I requote you back the ruling? I used the contextual quote of one of the three judges here because it was the one most relevant to what I was saying and I didn't need to repeat it as I had used the same information along with the other judges (less relevant to this specific point) on the other thread.

It's you who screams forum rules at me and one of them is to keep quotes concise.

Unfortunately, you are too easily distracted by trees and do not not see the wood! Making you very tedious to exchange with.

[erolz66]

I have hardly ignored the ruling if I happen to also listen to what the judges had to say for lessons to be learned.

Classic GiG

You did not quote the actual ruling at all or refer it. You quoted only from the separate opinion of a SINGLE judge and are even now are trying to present that as being what the judges had to say about "lessons to be learned" - a phrase that does not exit at all within the judgement itself neither do the individual words 'lesson' or 'learned', as opposed to the phrase separate opinion which is the explicit phrase and heading under which your quote comes from.

This is what you do. This is what you always do.

Why would I requote you back the ruling? I used the contextual quote of one of the three judges here because it was the one most relevant to what I was saying and I didn't need to repeat it as I had used the same information along with the other judges (less relevant to this specific point) on the other thread.

The ECHR Grand Chamber, by definition, is comprised of 17 Judges. That is what Grand Chamber means. It will always include a “national judge” (a judge elected in respect of the State against which the application was lodged).

What you did was ignore the judgment in this case. What you did was take the separate (you do know what separate means ?) opinion (you do know the difference between opinion and judgement ?) from a single judge , of the three judges who wished to have their separate opinions recorded, from the 17 judges who made up the Grand Chamber. You then presented this separate opinion from a single judges as being

what the judges had to say for lessons to be learned

and then as being a

contextual quote of one of the three judges

Not 'one of the three judges that wished to record separate opinions out of the 17 that made up the Grand Chamber'. Just "one of the three judges"

What you did not do was say '"Whilst this judgement did indeed find against Greece, I would point out the separate opinion of one of the 17 judges that made the judgement stated that ..." and then go on to quote the relevant section, having placed it in it's correct context. This is what someone with integrity, someone with intellectual honesty, would have done and this is what you did not do.

Just one more small example of how you behave here, how you have always behaved here.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Not 'one of the three judges .

Only three made contextual points of relevance and only four made any points at all so who cares if there were 17 judges?

As I said - wood and trees!

[Lordo]

how can nato stop this. that is exactkly how nato does things. they shamelessly use threats to get their way and are corrupt with it. erdogan is perfect for them. he is one of them.

[repulsewarrior]

...it is convenient practice for the Navies involved, getting to know one another so to speak.

It will help against the pirates, their numbers will dwindle as the risk of prosecution increases.

...and it will make for better vessels, and crews, adapting to the demands that in the future will continue to be made of them.

[Lordo]

...it is convenient practice for the Navies involved, getting to know one another so to speak.

It will help against the pirates, their numbers will dwindle as the risk of prosecution increases.

...and it will make for better vessels, and crews, adapting to the demands that in the future will continue to be made of them.

there are no pirates on the boats. they make one of the refugees control the boat.