It certainly looks very much like him, and that’s Lydia Abela next to him.

I understand the ‘Friends’ argument completely.

I will give you an example, which I personally faced a few years back, in the only court case I have ever been involved with in my entire life.

I will limit myself to saying that on a reply filed by my opponent, which was entered into the official file before being passed on to the judge for review, there, in a corner, was a prominent, up-and-rising person’s very readable signature, with the annotation “seen”.

The person in question was not a member of my opponent’s law firm, nor was there any note/advice made to the court that this person was also being officially involved in the case on behalf of my “opponent”.

Turns out the person didn’t have the intention, or slightest interest, to form part of this case.

This sorry attempt by my opponent’s representatives to indirectly influence/put weight on, or whatever was going on in their pea-brains, the case to their favour, made me furious.

I had one foot in the door of the Commission, ready to make an official report against my opponent’s representatives and this person, but I was calmed down by a friend who took it upon himself to “sort out the matter”.

Net result – I ended up receiving an unofficial apology, and asked very nicely not to take the matter further.

It was enough to pacify me then. I was going through enough as it was with the case. And, as I said in another post of mine, I left it at that, because I include myself in the vast majority of citizens who after a certain point, just shut up so as not to make matters worse.

What if it had been a simple phone call instead of a signature ?

I consider myself “lucky” in that what happened to me was something I could actually see.

I shudder to think of all the poor souls in court who have their cases influenced …. and are none the wiser.

These things happen almost everywhere in the world, but in our case we are such a small community, that blind justice for all is an even more impossible utopia to achieve.

I live very much the same situation. My husband occupies a certain post for which he has to be very careful whom he mixes with. We recently refused to go to a christening because there was going to be a person who has problems with the law.

This is precisely the point – we did not go – so there are no pictures of my husband or myself hanging around this particular person, much less embracing him in a half drunken stupor.

No such photos will ever appear on Facebook BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST. If I were a judge and you were to ask to be my Facebook friend, since you’re a journalist and should be able to write freely, which could, in turn, be prejudicial to me, I would write you a polite note saying that given my position and your profession it may not be such a good idea to be Facebook friends – exactly as I would with respect to attending the same dinner or lunch party.

Knowing your place and not feeling so superior that you can get away with anything has nothing to do with Facebook. Moreover even if a judge or magistrate is not on Facebook, as you well know, it does not automatically mean that his debauchery will not end up on Facebook anyway.

I’ve seen many pictures of people who are not on Facebook, on other people’s Facebook pages – including a magistrate – who might I add was behaving respectfully in a photo which showed a group of friends enjoying a fun dinner and not a sleazy party – that my friend – is the difference.

Take care and keep up the good work.

…… don’t hold your breath waiting for any outcome of their “investigations” and / or any sanction that may be due, to be willingly made public.

Quite true. In fact – ironically – it is thanks to Facebook that this case has been given all this coverage.