------------------------------------------------------------------------ * G * O * A * N * E * T *** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sangath, www.sangath.com, is looking to build a centre for services, training and research and seeks to buy approx 1500 to 2000 sq mtrs land betweeen Mapusa and Bambolim and surrounding rural areas. Please contact: contac...@sangath.com or yvo...@sangath.com or ph+91-9881499458 http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-July/180028.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- On Tue, 7/28/09, J. Colaco < jc> <cola...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1: If there are properties which have been LEGALLY purchased under the > prevailing (at the time of purchase) Indian Law by anybody (British > citizens included), the said properties have been purchased legally. I agree. The key word is LEGALLY. > 2: It is illegal / unconstitutional / unethical (as per the > Indian Constitution as it stands now) to pass laws in 2009 and > make them retrospectively applicable for properties purchased antes > Presidential Assent of the said law. I agree. > 3: Unless ....the President in question is Mugabe. So Eddie attributes something to me that I have not written, implying I would support confiscation of properties. I have written NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, on confiscation of properties by the Goa govt. (a la Mugabe). Yet Eddie who wants to distract from his amazing claim that 100% of British national real estate transactions are legal with the caveat as far as he knows, writes this smear and Jose repeats it. This is Goan logic at work on the internet. You guys are the besht. > I personally believe that the issue of the short-fall of > the UK tourists to Goa is irrelevant to the basic legality of what is > being proposed with regard to the said properties. May be the shortfall in tourism has to do with people posting "Goa is a toilet" some months back. Gee, I wonder who posted that "Goa is a toilet"? > Is it the reasonable, fair and equitable thing to do? Sure ...this > principle is not applicable to the Mugabes of this world. I wonder if Eddie asked himself about the fair and equitable thing to do as Jose writes above, when he published a hit piece by a so-called journalist on a Toronto couple a year ago. Oh, I'm sorry, fair and equitable, due process, etc. applies to everyone else. Regards, George
