Comments on: Malta's Ceaucescu rewrites history

By: Prefect

Prefect — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:30:15 +0000

Reference the Ark Royal and nuclear weapons. At the time the policy of HMG was “neither to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any of its ships”, so no-one can say for certain whether she was or not at any particular time. However the matter has since been declassified and it is known that all ships capable of operating anti submarine helicopters could and often did carry tactical nuclear depth charges. Another version could be carried by Sea Harriers. Since the end of the Cold War, the policy has changed. WE177A -see Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE.177

By: Capt. Lawrence Dalli

Capt. Lawrence Dalli — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:24:00 +0000

Good Afternoon Daphne,

Keep on posting, well done.

Just a small note – According to my archives the Grand Harbour blockade occurred 25th June 1988 with HMS ARK ROYAL, HMS EDINBURGH, RFA FORT GRANGE and RFA OLWEN headed to Saint Paul’s Bay because of seriously irresponsible persons.

[Daphne – Yes. I remember it well. They towed the Copper Mountain across the harbour mouth. We had taken the babies down to St Paul’s Bay to see the Ark Royal. The rampage I’m referring to in this piece took place in Valletta – the usual, involving the law courts, etc.]

By: Simon Pearson

Simon Pearson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:14:01 +0000

In reply to taxpayer.

I was fortunate enough to be serving aboard HMS Brazen in 1986 when we sailed into Grand Harbour and I often search for information on this fantastic period in my life as I would love to be able to find a picture/footage of the event to remember in the years to come.

I want to say a MASSIVE thank you to all the people of Malta who came out on that momentous day to welcome us in, it was truly humbling.

Here’s hoping this post may trigger a reply from someone who remembers the day as fondly as I do.

Kindest regards,

Simon

By: MikeC

MikeC — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:57:00 +0000

When discussing Maltese politics, there are a couple of simple questions one can ask people, and on the basis of the answer you can decide if their credibility level is anywhere above zero.

In other words, should you bother to continue the debate? Is there any sense in it? Is anything they say on any other topic credible at all? Should they be participating in a democratic debate? Even if only on the grounds that it is a necessary evil in support of the democratic process itself?

The questions can be related to a particular time in history. For instance, with reference to the recent past, one can ask “who won the referendum on EU entry?” If the answer is ‘those who voted no’, then you know that your interlocutor is either (a) a moron, (b) simply has no grasp of the basic principles of democracy, or (c) is in bad faith.

An older question resurrected by Malta’s favourite unelected lunatic is “who provoked the political violence in the 1980s”. If he/she answers “the PN”, then he is either (a) a moron, (b) someone who is a victim of that violence in the form of the state television’s propaganda at the time, (c) in bad faith, or (d) an active & willing participant in that violence.

When the person of whom the question is asked happens to have been a member of the police force at the time, one starts to think of combinations of the above choices.

Excluding (b), and probably (a), of course…..

One also starts experiencing emotions such as contempt, disgust, revulsion, abhorrence.

One also wonders if perhaps the continental countries which have made holocaust denial a crime aren’t onto a good thing.

By: PR

PR — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:10:40 +0000

What utter nonsense for Kevin to claim that once violence ended in 87 then it was the Nationalists who provoked the violence. The violence ended because the mental PM, the corrupt senior ministers, the murderer Commissioner of Police and the equally violent head of the armed forces were no longer around to protect the thugs and the SAG. On the eve of the Zejtun meeting, KMB inspected the barricades erected to stop the Nationalists from entering Zejtun – he did nothing to have them removed. When Fenech Adami was giving a passionate speech in parliament on the violence of the 80s and he mentioned the head of the armed forces, the latter stormed into the House and threatened him. Can you imagine that happening today and worse still having high ranking ministers protecting such behaviour?

There was a very serious case of violence post-87 during a wedding in Zejtun, at which the new prime minister was one of the guests. If I am not mistaken gunshots were fired. The facts of the matter are that there were a bunch of thugs who felt that they were above the law and acted with total impunity to intimidate Nationalist supporters. To not acknowledge the wrongs when many liberties were denied by a police state is despicable, but to blame it on the persons who suffered the tear gas, torture, beatings, frame-ups etc is as cowardly an action as placing a gun in someone’s farm for him to get the blame for a murder. Keep your mouth shut or give a superficial apology but don’t blame it on the victims.

By: david s

david s — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:03:51 +0000

Kevin, if indeed you had any principles you should have stood up to be counted when you were in the police force serving under that ahdar Lorry Pullicino. That is what my friend did, (and he was a Labourite). And because he did so, Pullicino made his life hell, and my friend ended up resigning. Yes, although he was a Laburist he could not bear the goings-on at the depot. Not only have you no principles, but you have the effrontery to insult the victims of violence inflicted by your buddy Lorry Pullicino. And now you call those who criticise you hodor. U mur ixxejjer, ghax veru wiccek u l-warrani xorta. Actually, I apologise to your warrani.

By: kev

kev — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:14:14 +0000

Labour supporters have traditionally used the phrase “nazzjonalisti hodor”, and some people here seem to be doing their utmost to resurrect that phrase. Any objective mind reading these comments would come to this conclusion, especially in the light of what I actually wrote. I never apologised for the police state that Malta was (and to a certain extent still is). But you people not only made tangential leaps in order to accuse me of anything that came to mind, you have also betrayed your narrow-mindedness. Il-veru misskom tisthu! Nazzjonalisti hodor, indeed!

By: Antoine Vella

Antoine Vella — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:00:01 +0000

Kev,

“I could write volumes on the subject, but if those few lines provoked such reactions, then you’re evidently not ready for the full story.”

No doubt, you could fill volumes with factual horror stories of the time when the police (including the highest ranks) were little better than thugs in uniform but you prefer to spin stories from your parallel universe.

KMB is as credible as Pilate claiming that Jesus nailed Himself to the cross. By supporting him you are not making his absurdities more convincing but your ‘convictions’ more absurd.

By: Darren

Darren — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:09:20 +0000

It was HMS Ark Royal that was blocked from entering the grand harbour; Brazen was the first RN ship to visit Malta a year before this incident. And this incident happened because of KMB and his ‘adherence’ to the Constitution regarding the ban of military vessels carrying nuclear arsenal entering Malta, HMS Ark Royal never had any nuclear armament in the first place. It was such an embarrassing incident.

And it certainly isn’t the biggest aircraft carrier in the world; its displacement is registered at 20,000 tonnes. There are other carriers which weigh 90,000 tonnes.

By: David J Camilleri

David J Camilleri — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:48:08 +0000

And who shouted “GWERRA GWERRA kontra n-Nazzjonalisti” in 1998? – And they said it was “New Labour” then! @Kev pls note! Labour never change no matter how much they try to change their name, as Tal-Labour remains like a wolf disguised in sheep’s clothing.