Robbing the rich to give to the rich – a modern tale of a load of bankers

Now I just bet you all thought you were living in the TRNC, maybe in Lapta, maybe in Kyrenia, maybe even Famagusta. Well, you are all wrong, I am about to enlighten you. Are you ready? You are all living in “Sherwood Forest”. Now gasp, feign horror and stand back in amazement. Maybe some of you are saying, poor old Pauline, she has finally lost the plot.

No, I haven’t. Allegedly, according to the Advocate representing Akfinans Bank Limited (this is where you hiss and boo) the key player in this pantomime, since the residents of Kulaksiz 5 have other homes, they are playing for sympathy (oh no they are not) from the system and not being truthful (oh yes they are). So now perhaps you can see where I am going with this sad little tale. Allegedly, we have a modern day Robin Hood (Akfinans Bank Limited) using a variation on a theme, robbing from the rich to give to the rich, whereas Kulaksiz 5 see it as a complete reversal of that theme and see it as robbing from the poor to give to the rich. I cast myself in the role of Maid Marion, who in my version does not swoon and fall into the arms of Robin Hood (oh no she doesn’t). No in my version, she rejects his stupid claims and tells him to bog off.

Another key player in this travesty or tragedy, take your pick, is Boysan Boyra aka Friar Tuck a man of truth and honesty who will, with God’s help, demonstrate the truth to the Court and win the day for Kulaksiz 5 and then as in in all good -v-evil tales, they will be allowed to live happily ever after in their own homes.

I may have turned a little whimsical on you but it is exactly as my tale portrays. Allegedly, Akan Kursat acting for Akfinans Bank Limited is putting across the point that by claiming some will be homeless and penniless, members of Kulaksiz 5 are lying. Well, certainly there will be some of us, me included, who will not be homeless. Three of the couples living on Kulaksiz 5 at present have assured me that their homes there are all they possess. They do not have property in the U.K. and they are on fixed incomes. So how could they ever hope to start again when all their capital is tied up in their homes, purchased legally and correctly to the letter of the law here in the TRNC? This seems to be yet another perpetuation of the myth that, because you are British, you are loaded and therefore it is in order to squeeze you until you squeak.

Now if we follow the line of thinking that the Bank seems to be, theft is acceptable if the victim can afford to be stolen from. Now there is a cock eyed way of justifying the unjustifiable. Are they seriously asking a court of law to rule in their favour because the victims can afford to be stolen from?

Now let’s look at the rest of Kulaksiz 5’s situations. I have explained that those three couples will be left homeless and destitute. There are two couples in the U.K. who took out mortgages on their U.K. dwellings to fund the purchase of their future home at Kulaksiz 5. When they feel the time is right to move here permanently, the result of their losing their villas will be they will be left with mortgages to pay and have lost all the money they borrowed plus some they put in from their savings. There is one extremely disabled lady with multiple sclerosis who bought as an investment to allow herself to come occasionally to enjoy some sunshine which she finds beneficial to her medical condition and for her family to use also. There is Eva McCluskey, a lady wracked by illness and grief now, having sadly lost her husband around Christmas time last year, the husband she had planned to live with in her villa, but whose medical condition, exacerbated by the stress of the situation here, is no longer alive to share their dream. There is another couple who bought their villa as a future retirement home but I have no information on how they funded this purchase. That just leaves me, Pauline Read. My story is different. Agile and I did plan to live in our villa till we ‘popped our clogs’. From the beginning the villa was a ‘lemon’. Depending on whose version of just what the problem with the build was, you can take your pick. It was built over a well, or it was built on red clay without the right foundation, or the foundation was not put in or it was number 5 with ambitions to be number 7. I really do not know the answer. What I do know is that after two rebuilds of the back end it was still moving. Water penetration was a severe problem. The wardrobes were black with mould and the spores were so prevalent they were airborne and because of my permanent lung disease this was causing me great difficulty in breathing. This was the reason we made the decision that to spend any more money on a lemon would be a waste and continuing to live there in its appalling condition would have been harmful to my health.

Of course, as reasonable thinking adults all of you reading this will realise that this ‘K5 are lying they are really all loaded’ ploy is just a red herring to try to negate any sympathy the Court might have for them. How ridiculous is that? Do they really think that the Judge would allow his decision to be based on anything but the law; if I were the Judge I would feel insulted by such an inference.

Age is irrelevant; whether a person is rich or poor is irrelevant. Alleged theft is not decided on age, creed, colour or affluence it is decided on whether it happened on not. It is as simple or as complicated as that.

Pauline Read Chartered Institute of Journalists