The silly life and shallow values of Consuelo Herrera – it's all about Facebook

Published: April 13, 2010 at 12:52am
Robert and Consuelo settle down to say the rosary. Today, it's the sorrowful mystery, because she is so harassed by the fact that her daughter can't post a picture of her on Facebook, my god.

Robert and Consuelo settle down to say the rosary. Today, it's the sorrowful mystery, because she is so harassed by the fact that her daughter can't post a picture of her on Facebook, my god.

I’m used to wasting time in court, but this afternoon’s hearing of the Consuelo Herrera defamation case was the absolute limit.

We sat there all agog to see what she would come up with, the queues of witnesses she would produce to prove that no, she didn’t have sex with policemen and prosecuting officers, and no, she didn’t target another woman’s husband and deliberately break up somebody else’s marriage, and no, she didn’t cheat and lie.

And oh look, here’s Michael Cassar. He’s the one who bought me drinks.

And gosh, here’s Robert Musumeci. It’s not true I went after him even though I was fully aware that he and his wife had just started a family. He’ll tell the court that it’s not true I took his money and his gifts, heard his brother’s prosecution case, and appointed him court expert when I was shagging him and thought nobody knew.

And here’s Charlon Gouder to say that no, he’s not my cosy friend and we don’t party together. And look, here are Jason Micallef and Ronnie Pellegrini to say that they don’t know me from Adam.

And instead, what did we get?

A couple of catering receipts, the documents to show that she relinquished hearing two cases in which I am involved – as though that has anything to do with the price of eggs, and no witnesses. That’s right. No witnesses – at all. Not one other than the magistrate herself.

Yes, sir. The only witness for the prosecution in this defamation suit is…..Consuelo Herrera. And she’s a limp witness because she has carefully circumvented all reference to the really serious things I wrote about her and instead claims she feels libelled because I wrote that she looks like the back of a bus.

She began this morning’s spiel in the witness stand by saying that Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Cassar RANG HER to say that it wasn’t he who had sent her drinks at that now infamous lunch.

Yet another lie – either that, or this magistrate who in her public duties has to be really accurate with information and details instead has a confused mind and is cavalier with the facts.

Michael Cassar did not ring Consuelo Herrera. Consuelo Herrera rang Michael Cassar. This is documented in all the newspaper reports of four weeks ago.

If the magistrate is not suffering from incipient, early-onset dementia, then she is a compulsive liar who cannot help lying even when there are credible witnesses and newspaper reports to contradict her. She seems to be lying just for the sheer hell of it, because there is no way on earth that she is going to get away with these lies.

This is what happened. When she spoke in court four weeks ago, she said that Michael Cassar was the officer who sent her drinks. I knew that she was lying, but being in the dock, I couldn’t say anything. On my way out of court I remarked to members of my family that Consuelo is a liar (but I knew that already, because I had watched her lie so extensively in her private life), and that she had lied under oath.

Consuelo overheard me, shot back into the courtroom screaming for the attention of the sitting magistrate, who had retired already, shot back out again dissatisfied with his reaction, gathered reporters, told them ‘She called me a fucking liar’, then reported me to the police as having asked her ‘Where’s your boyfriend, you fucking liar?’

The police interrogated me. I explained that I wasn’t talking to the magistrate but speaking to my family and that she had no right to eavesdrop, that I never said ‘fucking’ and I didn’t ask her where her boyfriend was because he could have been digging up L-Gholja tas-Salib for all I cared and I don’t use the word ‘boyfriend’ anyway because we’re 45 not 16.

I explained to the interrogating officer that I knew the magistrate to be a compulsive liar and that these were the third and fourth lies of the day. She had already lied about Michael Cassar and the Commission for the Administration of Justice, she had lied to journalists about what I said, and then she had lied to the police.

So nothing came of that, which must have really teed her off.

That night, I uploaded a post on this blog describing how she lied about Michael Cassar, that it definitely wasn’t him because I know him now, knew him then, and knew he was not Patrick Spiteri or the other officer I couldn’t identify. I knew this beyond doubt.

That must have thrown her into a panic. First thing the next morning, SHE rang Michael Cassar to say that she had made a mistake and to apologise for dragging him into it. He would NEVER have rung her himself because it is not correct procedure, just as it was incorrect of her to phone him – but then incorrect behaviour is a way of life with Consuelo Herrera.

Instead, Michael Cassar took the correct step of bypassing the magistrate completely, writing to the Chief Justice, and delivering the letter personally that same morning.

This afternoon in court, fully conscious of the fact that she was the one who rang Cassar and that she had apologised for and acknowledged her error, Consuelo Herrera said under oath that Cassar had rung her to explain that it wasn’t him, but that she remains under the impression nonetheless that it was him.

So, after having apologised to Cassar for ‘making a mistake’, she is now insinuating that he is the one who is lying, because she remains under the impression that it was him.

No, Consuelo, it wasn’t him. You have my word for it. And you have his.

I feel sorely tempted to use the F-word here, but I won’t. So I’ll just say, my god, what a frigging liar that woman is. But she has always been a liar, so no surprises there. The shocking thing is that she was made a magistrate.

Now we come to the second best bit. Her lawyer – miskin, ghax il-vera miskin – asks her in that tone some lawyers reserve for these occasions (sombre and sonorous): “How has this experience adversely affected your life?”

One would have expected her to say that she wakes up every morning and throws up, that she’s lost seven kilos through stress and anxiety, that she’s taking pills, that her hair is falling out, that she can’t sleep, and look, here’s a certificate from her doctor to confirm that she’s been suffering from depression.

Instead, what did we get?

‘Ehe iva, this experience has affected me and my family very badly. I’ve forbidden my daughter from uploading pictures of me on Facebook and now I’ve discovered that she’s the only girl in her class who doesn’t have a photograph of her mother on her Facebook account. And on Easter Sunday” – this in an impassioned voice – “my daughter told me, ‘Mummy, when can I upload pictures of you on Facebook?’ and I told her, ‘Never! You can never upload pictures of me on Facebook!’

So now we have it from the horse’s mouth. That’s what constitutes suffering and harassment in the Herrera/Musumeci household: not being able to upload photos of your mother on Facebook (and why any teenager would want to do that is a mystery, especially when your mother is somebody to be ashamed of, like Magistrate Herrera).

But oh, I almost forgot: Consuelo Herrera is suffering too, because wherever she goes, people ask her what’s been written about her lately.

Welcome to the real world of public life, madam. If you can’t stand the heat, leave that kitchen or behave yourself.

I sat there in the dock, and I thought to myself: what a shallow, stupid, silly, vacuous woman. Does she really believe that the minor irritation of being 15 years old and banned from uploading pictures of your mother on Facebook outranks the major suffering – caused by that same mother – of having your home and your family ripped apart and being forced to live away from your much loved father and in the home of some other man, of having to sleep and wake with the knowledge that in the next bedroom your mother is having sex with somebody who is not your father, a stranger to whom you have to become accustomed?

Come off it, Consuelo. If you try harder, you might actually be able to convince yourself that you did the right thing. You, and nobody else, are the one who brought about the chaos in your own household, and the attendant confusion and unhappiness of your children.

Facebook be damned.

85 Comments Comment

  1. minn_mars says:

    Daphne, keep it up. Don’t worry ghax “IS-SEWWA JIRBAH ZGUR”.

    • H.P. Baxxter says:

      Mhux veru on both counts. Still, Daphne should keep it up. If only to provide some relief on this barren rock.

  2. Overestimated Shakespeare aka Nostradamus formerly Avatar says:

    So if I am understanding correctly, she didn’t deny she presided on her lover’s brother’s case?

    She didn’t deny all the undignified things she did which reflect negatively on the standing of the judiciary in society?

    She JUST nagged about Facebook?


    She’s just going through the motions to give the illiterate classes the impression she’s fighting it out in court.

    In reality she is just abusing the system which is ultimately financed by our taxes.

    Isn’t it high time that the Commission for the Administration of Justice expresses itself on this charade? Shouldn’t President George Abela forget he was the one to sponsor her appointment and take the bull by the horns?

    Shouldn’t Malta be spared this new humiliation (following the Arrigo and Vella one)?

    Am I just an idealist?

    • ciccio2010 says:

      George Abela is busy preparing for the Benedict 4×4 visit. And then for his trip to Down Under.
      X’jimpurtah mill-Magistrata.

  3. Drinu says:

    How do such cases work?

    Will your lawyer get the chance to grill the magistrate?

    Can you get witnesses to expose her lies?

    When is the next sitting?

    [Daphne – They ‘work’ like all other criminal cases in the magistrates’ court: victim testifies, witnesses for the prosecution testify (there were none in this case), then cross examination (in this case postponed until after I testify), then the defendant (me) testifies, cross examination, my witnesses, etc. The next hearing is on 3 May, when I testify.]

    • Drinu says:

      Thanks for that….

      I have a few more questions if you don’t mind:

      What happens if you prove in court that the magistrate is indeed lying intentionally under oath?

      Would that be perjury? If so who is responsible of prosecuting her?

      In Malta what is the potential penalty for perjury?

    • dumbledore_ says:

      What fun! I can’t wait.

  4. Matt says:

    Daphne, it’s incredible how a person can grasp loads of complex law cases at school and yet be unable to think clearly with her legal strategy. She got the police to prosecute you for defamation and yet she comes across as if she has no game plan.

    I certainly would not want her to be the commander of my platoon. She could easily lead my men into a quagmire.

    She went on the offensive thinking that she would impress the spectators and journalists alike in her courtroom and teach a journalist a lesson. Instead people walked out of the courtroom dismayed, developing an opinion of the magistrate as a shallow person.

    Certainly no intellectual depth. I hope somebody advises her to drop the charges. Without doubt, public opinion of her in far more negative now than it was before she set the police on you.

    • Thaddeus2000 says:

      You honestly think Consuelo ever had any plan at all? This was obviously an attempt to scare Daphne. An ill-thought out one mind you

  5. sherpa says:


    You keep forgetting that this is Malta [pajjiz tal-Mickey Mouse] and anything is possible. NEVER A DULL MOMENT.

  6. Samantha says:

    I wonder how far they will go to shut your mouth. You stepped on sacred ground where nobody ever dared to step.

  7. Alan says:

    I was stunned, although not really surprised, to read yesterday’s sitting reported on and

    This blog-post of yours says it all.

    What you forgot to mention is that in court she also said that “the dinner was not important”. Of course nothing was wrong with the dinner. Once again, she is totally oblivious to the fact that it is accepting drinks from policemen that is wrong, not having the dinner.

    Ghall din il mara, xejn mhu xejn, she did nothing wrong or unethical, and she actually BELIEVES it. That is the worst part. All that, and lies, are her standard modus vivendi.

    She has not understood an iota of the implications regarding all that has been exposed about her to date.

    Maltese puts it very nicely – ta l-imgienen.

    Consuelo Scerri Herrera’s own actions and attitudes reveal that she is not fit to remain in her position as a magistrate.

    The Commission for the Administration of justice should do something about this NOW.

    It is unacceptable that someone with a character like Consuelo Scerri Herrera’s is deciding the outcome of legal cases as we speak.

  8. Anthony says:

    So it is all about uploading pictures on Facebook is it?
    How pathetic for the mother and how very sad for the fifteen-year-old daughter.

    • ciccio2010 says:

      Why would a fifteen-year old want to upload photos of her mother on Facebook? At that age, I would expect her to want to upload photos of her friends.

      After all, anyone wanting to see Consuelo’s photos, which are now not available on Consuelo’s own Facebook account, can look them up on this blog. They come with full commentary.

  9. Joe S says:

    I wonder how upset and traumatised her daughter was the first morning she faced il-perit across the breakfast table.
    That to me is more upsetting than not being allowed to upload pictures of dear mummy on Facebook.

  10. maryanne says:

    Her testimony was without merit and trivial. Isn’t there some rule or method by which a magistrate stops a person from wasting the court’s time?

  11. S K says:

    This woman is NOT fit for office! It worries me that she is in this elite band of individuals who administer justice. She has to go for the sake of the judiciary system.

  12. M. Cilia says:

    And what about Robert Musumeci’s baby? How will he/she feel when growing up?

  13. Joseph A Borg says:

    Kemm jien injorant! Din il-biċċa proża missni qrajta ma’ tazza tè u erba’ pastizzi!

    Qiesna f’xi kummidja! Jiddispjaċini għalik Daphne li kellek tghaddi min din il-farsa. Almenu għandek ir-riżorsi biex tiġġieled u twassal messaġġ lill-pubbliku.

  14. Gerry Adamms says:

    This Magistrate Consuelo Pilar Scerri Herrera is a matriculated liar, lying once more that it was Asst Commissioner Michael Cassar who brought her drinks. RESIGN if you have any honour left.

  15. red-nose says:

    I can hear snoring coming from the Commission for the Administration of Justice – heavy snoring too.

  16. The Bus Conductor says:

    “she recently found out that her fifth-form daughter was the only one in class who did not have a photo with her mother on facebook.”

    Consuelo dragged her daughter into the limelight, and said under oath that her daughter’s concern is that she can’t upload a photo of herself with her mother on Facebook.

    Wouldn’t any other 15 year in her situation be concerned about the really serious matters mentioned in this blog post? So why didn’t Consuelo mention those?

    If Facebook is the only thing her daughter is concerned about, then that should be a cause of concern for Consuelo, as there is something not quite right with her daughter’s priorities and reasoning.

    Had she not ‘found out’ on “Easter Sunday” of her daughter’s Big Problem, Consuelo would have taken the stand in court only to say that although she has no reason to doubt Michael Cassar’s word, she is under the impression that it was he who sent her drinks. Is she trying to make us believe that Michael Cassar lied, or that she is a witness who is not credible?

    • C Pace says:

      If her mother wished to drag her 15-year-old into this mess, she should at least have done so in a more credible manner.

      Let’s give the 15-year-old some credit – after all she is the only one of Consuelo’s three children who chose not to tack her mother’s surname onto to her father’s.

    • Chiara Scura says:

      So Consuelo Scerri Herrera thinks that it was Daphne’s blog which resulted in her daughter not having a photo with her mother on Facebook.

      What does the same daughter think of her mother not finding the statements about herself sleeping around defamatory in any way, and hence, true?

      What does the same daughter think of her mother leaving her father for another man, and one almost ten years her junior, at that?

      The magistrate must be using her younger daughter to gain sympathy votes. It instead had the effect of portraying the magistrate as a very shallow person with barely any principles.

  17. TROY says:

    Oh my! No pics of mummy dearest on Facebook, I wonder if PLAYBOY has them.

  18. Rita Camilleri says:

    Imma kif ghanda il-wicc li tmur ghax-xoghol kull filghodu. Wake up, Mr. President

    • Chiara Scura says:

      Le, le. Trid tghid “kif ghanda l-wicc tghid li t-tifla z-zghira taghha thossha mweggha ghax m’ghandhix ritratt m’ommha fuq Facebook. Mhux izjed ghandha thossa mweggha l-istess tifla ghax omma telqghet il-missiera u wegghetu u qeghda tghix ma ragel iehor?”

  19. E Gatt says:

    The reason why Dr Consuelo Scerri Herrera cannot publish her photos on Facebook is because the courts decided that the judiciary should not be allowed to use Facebook. The reasons why magistrates should not use Facebook should be obvious to people in such positions.

    Daphne Caruana Galizia had the courage to highlight the dangers of the artificial familiarity caused by Facebook especially by people who hold important positions in the judiciary. If Daphne Caruana Galizia’s arguments triggered off the Facebook ban for the Judiciary, then those who wish to see the judiciary’s reputation restored should be grateful to her.

    Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s daughter should realise that her mother’s position in the courts brings along certain trappings that she must accept. Dr Gavin Gulia recently explained the nature of such trappings when his father was a judge.

    (Yesterday I sent this comment to The Times online, but it wasn’t published)

    • La Redoute says:

      Magistrate Scerri Herrera saw nothing wrong in being on Facebook and clearly still doesn’t. If she’d had the right mindset, she’d have quietly explained to her daughter that she (the magistrate) had made a mistake when setting up a Facebook account, and she’d have kept her daughter’s conversation private. The poor girl is not to blame for her mother’s mistakes.

    • Bus Driver says:

      E. Gatt – yes it was published, but 20 hours too late.

      Your comment, along with some others also sent in early yesterday were this morning annexed to what is now yesterday’s news, so ensuring that they will be missed and so unread by the majority of persons accessing That is doubly ensured by the insertion of the same report under today’s publication – again with no comment annexed.

      The same tactic was adopted regarding the reports on the original hearing of the case some four weeks ago.

      The delay in publication of comments on the Scerri Herrera case is in stark contrast with the report on the FKNK standpoint. In the latter case, comments were annexed to that report very shortly after they were submitted.

    • ciccio2010 says:

      Maybe the Times thought your comment was offensive to Daphne Caruana Galizia or Dr. Gavin Gulia.

    • Loredana says:

      I too sent a comment to about this story, and mine wasn’t published either.

    • Ta' Ninu says:

      You’re right, Mr Gatt. May I add that what Consie should be concerned about is what her daughter thinks about the fact that her mother broke up a young couple’s marriage and destroyed a family when it was only just starting. If that is not reprehensible in itself, I do not know what is.

  20. Augustus says:

    The Magistrate should take John Wayne’s advice,”…git on your horse and git the hell outa’ here”.

  21. Grezz says:

    Hear, hear, Daphne!

  22. Greta Falzon says:

    I have a fifteen-year-old daughter and she would rather die than post a picture of me on Facebook (even though they say I’m not that bad on the eye). But I understand that she is going through the phase of her life where she wants to be autonomous and the worst thing for her is for her peers to see she is posting pictures of mummy on Facebook. I wonder how many fifteen-year-olds have pics of their mums on Facebook or anywhere else for that matter.

    the major suffering – caused by that same mother – of having your home and your family ripped apart and being forced to live away from your much loved father and in the home of some other man…..”

    And what about the suffering caused to the new mother who instead of enjoying the birth of her son/daughter with her husband had to face the trauma of the news that her husband was leaving her for another woman, ten years her senior, jekk ma tridx?

  23. Genoveffa says:

    My God, I am really beginning to doubt this person’s sanity. I could not believe the report when I read it yesterday. That statement alone regarding her daughter which shows her total shallowness should be enough for parliament to vote unanimously for her removal.

  24. rita says:

    Qed tahrab mill propja akkuzi li semmejt fuqha. Ovjament hi tenfasizza fuq li jaqbel lilha. Looking forward ghal meta se tixhed int Daphne!

  25. B Galea says:

    This woman comes across as being incredibly dim. I don’t mean that as an insult (although it is one) – she just strikes me as not being capable of seeing the bigger picture of her actions and words.

    “My daughter is the only girl in her class without photos of her mother on facebook”. Is that the best a MAGISTRATE can come up with as a defence? How the hell did someone with so little nous ever get anywhere near the bar in the first place?

  26. Clive says:

    If her daughter wants mummy on her Facebook she can easily post a link to this blog …. plenty of mummy’s pics here.

  27. red-nose says:

    This Facebook thing is only brought up to distract the court from the main issue. An upright magistrate hearing the case is surely aware of this!

  28. Magrin says:

    Excuse my ignorance, but is there such a thing as impeachment in Malta?

  29. M.G says:

    Consie, get out of our beautiful village as WE don’t want you there ….you’re blocking the beautiful views.

  30. ciccio2010 says:

    So the magistrate is not asking the Court to clear her name from some serious actions which constitute clear breach of the Code of Ethics for the judiciary. The Commission for the Administration of Justice should take note of this too.

  31. Justin Axisa says:

    In my opinion considering that she is a magistrate she should resign immediately after all these lies that she is saying. In court she said she had the impression that it was Micheal Cassar who sent her drinks (I read this yesterday on IMPRESSION?! Leave us alone.

  32. Mario Pace says:

    The more Consuelo speaks the greater mess she makes.

  33. Jo says:

    What happens usually when someone commits perjury when testifying?

  34. edgar cayce says:

    One sentence for CPSH and it says it all. For your and our sake ..Go!

  35. Leonard says:

    The issue to be addressed is that of persons being appointed to these positions in the first place. Recent cases have shown that meeting, and even surpassing, the minimum academic and professional requirements, and having an unblemished police record is not enough. Are the appointment criteria as strict as those for removal?

    • Alan says:

      Leonard, from what I understand, she was appointed by the Labour government as a “token female” in the judiciary, just as Nikita Zammit Alamango (the one in the photo with her arse being grabbed) was appointed to Labour’s Executive Council under the quota for token women.

      This should help you better understand the criteria required to be appointed by Labour. Her brother being a Labour MP is, of course, irrelevant.

      If what we have seen and heard to date, albeit from her own lying mouth alone, is not enough to have her relieved of her duties, then we are in a much sorrier state than I imagined.

  36. r attard says:

    daph, I know that you don’t need my suggestion, but then there is nothing wrong in writing it. I am sure that you are thinking of summoning Mr. Michael Cassar as your witness. Then this creepy compulsively lying magistrate will be unequivocally exposed and shamed before the same court that heard her say these horrible lies in the first place.

  37. Camillo Bento says:

    @Edgar, Consuelo Scerri Herrera will NOT go. But yes I would like to know if the police take ex ufficio action against perjurers.

  38. C Falzon says:

    Daphne, Magistrate Herrera seems to be implying that it is your fault that she cannot have her photos posted on Facebook. I wonder if you think you should go to jail for that.

    That just ‘doesn’t compute’.

    The way I see it is that she shouldn’t have been on Facebook in the first place because it is unethical.

    So, Daphne or no Daphne, she should have prevented her daughter posting her photo on Facebook anyway.

  39. vincent magro says:

    Il-kariga ta’ magistrat hija pozizzjoni gholja hafna fis-socjeta, u ghandha jkollha ir-rispett kollu tal-politici, tal-gurnalisti u tal-poplu kollu in generali.

    Hija kariga li tenhtieg rekwiziti mhux biss akkademici u ta’ gustizza, izda wkoll ta’ mgieba tajba li tixraq lill-kariga ta dan il-generu. Ir-responsabbilta tal-magistrat, ghalhekk, mhix biss lejn min appuntah, izda lejn il-poplu kollu li hu jistenna rispett minnhu.

    U propju ghalhekk hemm il-kodici ta’ etika ghall-gudikatura, biex wiehed isegwieh,ghalkemm forsi mhux bil-punt u l-virgala, imma b’mod li wiehed ikun jidher u jinhass li b’mod genwin qed isegwi fis-sustanza dak il-kodici,ghax inkella jigrilna bhal-wiehed li ghadda mill-ezami tas-sewqan u tat-tejorija, imbghad isuq bl-addocc.

    Issa f’kas li magistrat jikser dan il-kodici b’mod massigg, u gurnalista bhal Daphne jkolla l-kuragg ‘u l-hila’ li jgib dan ghall-attenzjoni tal-pubbliku, x’ghandna nghamlu ahna?

    Nghidu kemm hi kiesha Daphne u kemm tindahal fejn ma jesahhiex? Jew nirringrazzjawa ghax gabet ghal-attenzjoni ta’ kullhadd imgieba hazina ta magistrat, u li ghalhekk qieghda ssir hsara lis-sistema gudizzjarja kolla?

    Jekk l-allegazzjonijiet humiex minnhom jew le, ghad irridu naraw, izda l-bierah spiccat ix-xieda taghha Consuelo, u ma rribattietx l-akkuzi l-aktar serji li ghamlet fuqha Daphne.

    Jien lili ma jinteressanix jekk tixbahx lill-warrani ta xarabank, li fil-fehema tieghi kien kumment zejjed. Izda li jinteressani hu jekk id-dbatija li qieghdin ibatu l-magistrat u bintha, hijiex htija tal-‘gideb’ ta’ Daphne, jew hijiex htija ta mgieba hazina tal-magistrat.

  40. Guzeppi says:

    Thanks for the front view of the bus Daphne, headlamps, bumpers and all.

    Admirable account once again. As to her daughter and Facebook, I’m sure Consuelo is making all this up, mistakenly looking for sympathy.

    Which 15-year-old girl would want to upload her mother’s photo rather than her boyfriend’s?

    • Alan says:

      Well, you know how the saying goes in Maltese about the front being the same as the back. I guess it applies to this bus too.

  41. Guzeppi says:

    They’re discussing you and your blog right now on Dissett.

    [Daphne – I know. I’m watching.]

    • Alan says:

      I missed part of Dissett as I started watching late, but what the discussion seems to have missed is that blogging is de facto personal, and it can be as ‘biased’ as the blogger wants it to be.

      The freedom in blogging is almost ‘total’, within reasonable limits, and it is the ultimate expression to date of individual liberty and freedom of speech.

      [Daphne – But still subject to the laws of Malta on libel, slander and blackmail, as Austin Bencini pointed out.]

      • Alan says:

        The podgy fellow (didn’t catch his name) totally misunderstood the concept of blogging. He seems determined that blogging should be seen as the sort of equivalent of a regulated debate with a moderator.

        [Daphne – He’s LABOUR, Alan, what do you expect? Have you ever met one Labour supporter who’s happy with the results of post-1987 freedom of expression? For crying out loud. If you were progressive, would you vote Labour? No. If you believe in freedom of expression, do you vote Labour? No, no and no. The way we vote is an expression of our mindset.]

        He is wrong, and so are many others who see your blog as such. That is why you have some people screaming left, right and centre. They just don’t understand that you can, and you do.

        [Daphne – The podgy fellow is a lawyer called Alex Sciberras, a member of the Labour executive and son of Judge Philip Sciberras, who decides appeals on libel cases. Clearly, his father doesn’t talk to him about his work across the breakfast table, or maybe he does, and that’s why his son thinks and talks out of his backside, like many of his father’s decisions.]

      • Mandy Mallia says:

        Alan, most Labourites think of censorship Lorry-Sant-style.

        The new generation are worse, because they don’t know what it was like then, and thus can’t appreciate freedom of expression. Nor can they understand the concept; less so the implication of – putting it plainly – “shutting someone up” simply because you do not like what is being said, even if it is the truth.

        As for Consuelo’s pathetic statement in court yesterday about how her younger daughter feels about not having a photo with her mother on Facebook, did Consuelo not realise that (a) a magistrate cannot be on Facebook because commonsense says so, and, more recently, because of a change in the code of ethics, and that (b) her daughter is probably more seriously affected by the actions of her mother – most of which were not disputed in court, leading the casual observer to assume they can only be true.

      • Alan says:

        Mandy, the statement from Scerri Herrera about her daughter and the Facebook photos is the cause of incredulity.

        It’s just a pathetic ploy for sympathy, and nobody with normal teenage children will believe that statement for a second.

      • Alan says:

        Honestly, I had no idea who he was. Knowing now, I am not at all surprised at that attitude. It’s the same-ole-same-ole Labour thinking – control, not allowed, how dare they, we decide what, how and where anything should be done, dawn x’affarjiet huma, et al et ad nauseam.

    • Chiara Scura says:

      And there were thinking that theirs was what inspired the subject for the programme.

      [Daphne – And how excited they were thinking that I was going to get a right old bollocking from Reno Bugeja and Austin Bencini, who have brains and use them.]

      • Mandy Mallia says:

        Reno Bugeja may be tough, but he is generally fair – and good at his job, making the programme usually worth watching.

  42. Guzeppi says:

    So you ARE a blogger after all according to this guy.

  43. SDS says:

    I can understand how frustrated she must be, but is that the best she can come up with?

    So what is Daphne being accused of doing? Let’s see:

    – calling her a cow
    -calling her a liar
    -saying she looks like the back of a bus
    -being the reason why her daughter can’t upload photos of mummy on Facebook

    And why was her other daughter with her in court?

    [Daphne – Maybe because Robert and Jose won’t come with her instead. They’ve both been conspicuous by their absence. The first day she had Ronnie Pellegrini, Jason Micallef and Charlon Gouder for moral support. The second day she had no one except her court wotsit. And yesterday, she had her older daughter. I think the way she flew into a mad frenzy that first day and ‘imagined’ I’d asked her ‘Where’s your fucking boyfriend?’ (as if I would say that) is a dead giveaway that there was an earlier scene involving demands for his presence in court, which were refused. Issa narawh gej fit-tlieta ta’ Mejju. I’m looking forward to it. It will give me the opportunity to tell the wall: ‘Ara, mela you got your fucking boyfriend?’]

    Daphne, was the request for a protection order discussed yesterday?

    [Daphne – Yes. The police made a fuss and claimed that I had refused service, when they never even found me or spoke to me over the telephone still less in person. They wanted to serve me with the papers in court, but the magistrate didn’t allow them to because he said he would refuse the application anyway – it was their THIRD attempt.]

    • La Redoute says:

      That third attempt was another waste of police time, in other words. Has Magistrate Herrera no shame?

    • SDS says:

      I have trust in the judgement of the magistrate hearing this case, and I am sure he will never tolerate Consuelo’s need to question his decisions.

      After her 1st and 2nd unsuccessful attempts of getting at getting a muzzling order slapped on you, you would think that she would respect her colleague’s ruling, but in the name of heaven for the third time HE SAID NO.

  44. Ta' Ninu says:

    I wish Austin and the other guy would stop waffling. And (maybe I missed it) but has anyone remarked that had it not been for your courage D, the shenanigans of this magistrate would not have been exposed.

    And how dare Jacques whatshisname imply that you ”coloured” the facts to make them more readable? WHY didn’t he say that Consie BLACKENED her own name, reputation and integrity and that she is a disgrace to the judiciary.

    • Alan says:

      Ta’Ninu, I think he was referring to Daphne’s style of writing, humour, wit and entertainment, without which her blog would be as boring and unremarkable as Jacques Zammit’s.

      • Mandy Mallia says:

        @Alan – Jacques Zammit has been blogging for almost three times as long as Daphne has, and hasn’t made a fraction of the impact which she has made, love her or loathe her. Deflating his ego (further) is thus is a tad unkind, no?

    • Mandy Mallia says:

      Jacques Zammit probably has a little axe to grind, and consoles himself about his lack of impact by comparing this website to The Sun.

      • Gerry Adamms says:

        Jacques is a nobody. He’s just talking to the wall. that’s all. No one is interested in his type of stupidities.

  45. Guzeppi says:

    And Dr Sciberras will surely read this and learn a thing or two, hopefully.

    Though claiming otherwise, he clearly reads this blog MORE than he reads the politically-backed one. His several quotations exposed him.

    I love the way these people feel they have some right or qualification to define and determine at what ‘levels’ spontaneous, popular discussion should be carried out.

    Who do they think they are?

    [Daphne -Pompous asses who came out of nowhere, think they know it all and insist on imposing their tragic little mittilkless values on everyone else.]

    • SDS says:

      The first time he referred to tasteyourmedicine he hesitated as if he was not sure of it’s name – as if he doesn’t know.

      [Daphne – I would hesitate too, if the site I favoured had such a crap, unwieldy name. Obviously, they’re not big on communication skills.]

  46. Riya says:

    If Magistrate Consuelo wants her photo on Facebook she knows exactly what she can do. Resign from her position.

  47. Soopernechiril says:

    Maybe she was planning to post photos of her mummy in partywear.

Leave a Comment