You’re a fine one to talk. Your attempts at logic are not particularly impressive.

No one is accusing Harry Vassallo of adapting party policy to suit his interests.

What people are saying here is that Dr Vassallo’s protected tenancy is in conflict with his own party’s stated policy. The law allows him to retain that tenancy. It does not oblige him to do so.

And now I am sure you will rise to the challenge of beating your previous attempts at thwarted “logic” with another inane comment.

Furthermore, some things, though legally right, are morally wrong …

Or in other words, what was he waiting for to give up the lease title? The law to pass? Why did he not make the grand gesture, accompanied by the press clicking away recording the deed to posterity, and present the keys to the owner WHEN he formulated the policy?

People in politics have not just to be squeaky clean, but have to look as pure as the driven snow. If not, they stand the risk of being compared to Lorry Sant and the rest of the merry men. And I am sure that HV is not of that ilk. But he is not being consistent.

If Vassalo lives in “protected” accommodation and he had pushed a policy of perpetuating that system, THEN you could have accused him of adapting party policy to suit his personal interests.

But they are fighting openly to end the system from which he is benefiting – and that can only increase his credibility.

[Moderator – Victor, you are beyond reason.]

On another matter. I have desperately tried to extract one word of policy in what Alfred Sant has been saying in the past 7 days. I came up with this pearl of wisdom on how to fill up our hotels. Just in case some readers missed out on Alfred Sant’s words : “The Maltese elderly could also be encouraged to spend time in hotels during winter through the introduction of a joint scheme between the government and the private sector.” Any comments from the MHRA?

I applaud you for taking up the cudgels in defense of HV.

Wish you would have done likewise with JPO, instead of protecting AS.

Back to HV. If he was really enjoying protected rent, and so far I have not come accross anything to the contrary, than he should never even have considered committing his party against it. It is one of the basic tenets of politics, that one should cover his bases (I have a feeling that the mod would delete the appropriate word – spoilsport :)) and not leave himself exposed in such a manner.

Let’s be logical:

1) He rents “protected” premises;

2) He and his party have been agitating for years for the “protection” to end.

3) That proves he is ready to sacrifice his personal interests for his principles.