I'm sorry that this post is after Scunners latest but I started it a while ago, then my battery died, I have only just resumed and would be grateful if I could post it now.
Until now I have been sat sitting here in Üzümlü, quietly watching this thread unfold.
Now I have decided to join in the 'bun-fight' on the main issues raised whilst keeping my comments as concise as possible.
As a former Estate Agent, having dealt with property in the UK, Spain & America, I can categorically state that a good percentage of Builders/Developers will tell 'absent' buyers anything they want to hear just to get a sale. Whether they keep to their word is often another matter. Caveat emptor!
When I sold my business in the UK, it put me in a position whereby we were fortunate enough to choose where to retire to, be it in the UK or elsewhere. We chose Üzümlü.
That was our preference in Turkey, we do not dislike Fethiye, Calis, Hisoranu, Ovacik (or even Kaya, KKOB) in fact we visit them all several times each year, but we just don't feel like living in any of them.
Now to the 'incident'. Where I was not witness to the fact, I will use the term 'allegedly'.
It is not denied by the bar owner that the incident took place however the alleged cause has never been fully defined, it would appear that there were several factors involved, such as alleged theft of sunglasses, alleged jealousy over a friend of the bar owner being offered words of comfort by the female 'victim' concerned which allegedly ended with the male 'victim' hitting the man concerned, the very large bar bill that the 'victims' allegedly failed to pay before leaving, even though they & the bar owner knew they were leaving the country a few hours later and the alleged actions of the bar owner that followed.
The incident was investigated by the Jandama and the findings sent to the Court prosecutor.
About 3 months ago the bar owner received notification from the Court that no action was to be taken in the matter because of inconsistencies in the statements of the two 'victims', basically their story of events allegedly did not match, and the Court prosecutor could not understand how, when the male 'victim' had allegedly had his Passport allegedly stolen, did he manage to leave the country?
I'm sure that others will dispute what I have said here but these points are as I see them.