There was a libel against certain Reno Borg. The Editor of l-Orizzont was taken to the Court as witness to say who was Reno Borg. At that time there was a Reno Borg who was Director of Education and Dr. Reno Borg who was candidate with the Malta Labour Party and Director of the Bank of Valletta.

The difference that at that time on the Orizzont there was an order not to put a photo of the author of the article and another order not to put qualifications of the author brought a misunderstanding both for the Courts and also to the readers. The Courts could not distinguish between both Reno Borg (who is who) and the readers did not know certain correspondents in which line they are specialised. For instance if a person writes on Law he must be a Lawyer, if he writes about medicine a Doctor etc. The same goes to John Zammit, when I write I find several John Zammits, This year already several persons phoned me if that John Zammit who died in February was me, Another died this week (7/7/2010) John Zammit of Haz-Zebbug and another John Zammit from Gozo who had been imprisoned and had the same age as me. John Zammit is found in every town and village in Malta and Gozo and even were I live there is another one.

I remember way back when I had the interview for the vacancy of Editor, I suggested that on the Union Press newspapers all articles must be signed and also have a photo of the writer and if he is writing on certain professional subject include the qualifications. It was taken and today most and rarely any article is not signed, even reports and from then (from my suggestions) all the readers know who is writing and the qualifications. This I am saying so that all of you will know what part has been played by Dr. John Zammit in the journalism field and how he is over qualified not only with a Ph.D. and in Librarianship, journalism, advertising, marketing and managment that he also has learned printing, Macinmtosh computers and he is so over qualified that even abroad want to employ him as lecturer. But John Zammit who is over 60 years and is passing true several health problems does not want to employ himself any more as first of all money is nothing for him, although he is not rich and secondly he has worked over 45 years and that is enough to enjoy his last days before he dies.

Regarding lecturing he has lectured free and individually, several students from Maastricht University, several German students, especially from Augsberg University, several Maltese students and helped alot of Maltese journalists in their BA, Masters degrees even pushed Dr. Joe Mifsud into journalism (the one at Super 1 who is now a Lawyer) He helped several persons who became Managers even with Air Malta) and this for not a single 1 Cent. So Dr. John Zammit is truely a Ph.D. and if you do not know the money for his studies was provided to him by his uncle from America. The thing that I can tell you is that when John Zammit asked other persons with Ph.D.s and Masters, nobody did want to help him and just show him how they got their qualifications and from then on Dr. John Zammit decided that he also should stop showing others how to get the qualifications and is not going to disclose any more information, especially when he is finding that several persons are full of hatred and try to destroy him instead of thanking him for what he has done for Malta and the Maltese….and he is the victim and finds himself in Court and fined a 1,000 Euros…

He also had the experience in the 1980s to work as journalist with the British Labour Party newspaper “Labour Weekly” (the only Maltese journalist).

Regarding Daphne I respect her and I am not going to attack her, all I can say that way back when Daphne began working with Godfrey Grima at Development House, Floriana I remember her there while Godfrey nearly convinced me to leave Union Press to work with him. At that time even Remig Farrugia wanted me to work with him with “The Malta Economist” and “Luqa News”. I noticed that Daphne was becomming a first class journalist and had very good command of the English language. Daphne is one who was with me in the Diploma in Journalism Course at the University of Malta with John Demanuele, Peppi Azzopardi, Alfred Mousu’, Anna Bonanno, Dr. Carmen Sammut, Dr. Natalino Fenech Dr. Silvio Debono and the best of the cream of the journalists of today. Cheers to Daphne and all!!!

But this is just an argument over semantics.

The fact that in the case of JPM, GS and the Fed no one has yet been brought to book smacks of corruption, especially in view of the huge bonuses they are still taking home.

But this is America.

Virtually no corruption in Europe,but when there is,it is of the most insidious kind.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581547.ece

http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a268.asp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/regulation-siemens-scandal-bribery

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7758042/Duchess-of-York-attempts-to-brush-off-scandal-at-Hollywood-charity-event.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/worldbusiness/14iht-scandal.4596099.html?_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_CDU_contributions_scandal

The only thing virtual about them is: unstoppable and untouchable.

Of course it was taken as a ‘shit happens’ event but the problem always was that market value was never going to be a fair price when it took him years to put together a holding that was as easy to manage as the place he had built up and managed over 40 years.

Some of the fields he had initially purchased were only a few miles away yet took over three hours to get to them with certain implements over public roads.

What do you do when a harvest is a race against time?

This wasn’t simply a matter of requisitioning someone’s house,this was half a lifetime’s work and sole source of income. Just because legislation exists in these cases it doesn’t mean it is always fair and let’s face it, do you believe that it would ever favour Joe Public? It never does,it’s always a case of take it or leave it.

As for the case of the children, two different countries, two different interpretations – neither of them can claim to be perfect yet interfere and control we must.

Marriage, a social contract? No shit! But who’s going to be the judge on that one? Some quango of pseudo intellectuals with some make-believe qualifications from some second-rate polytechnic? Do you remember Malta’s flirtation with marriage counsellors? Yikes.

Where does one draw the line as to who or what constitutes mentally competent? There may be some obvious cases but…aaagh, bring on the 10-foot bargepole; can of worms ahead.

And what is wrong with Tacitus? I did give it some thought.

Here’s my interpretation. In most countries a bribe would be considered unethical where in others it is seen as business as usual and just another cost of doing business. Probably those countries you see it as entrenched. It only becomes a vice when you legislate against it (in order to control it but invariably fail).

Do you honestly believe those countries which you perceive as less corrupt are truly so?

[Daphne – They definitely are. Corruption is entrenched at all levels throughout southern Europe. It is virtually alien to northern Europe. This is not to say that there is no corruption there, but that it is not a way of life. Slip some money to a transport guard in Rome or Paris and you’re waved on your way. Do the same in Stockholm or Oslo and you might be arrested – and that’s if you have the poor judgement to do it in the first place.]

I tend to believe they are more adept at hiding it, even legislating to cover it up – look at the mess Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and even more so the Federal Reserve have got this world in to,and yet they get away with it.

[Daphne – That is not corruption. That is fraud and malpractice, which are completely different.]

Then there are the various knightly orders which on payment admit you to their order so that you can add “Knight Hospitaller of the Order of Zebbug Malta & Ghawdex”.

To each his own.

Relax, relax. I was trying to keep the post short and sweet so as not to bog you down with what I thought was an off-subject post.
As to the first point, I was only 14 and living in the England at the time -1977. It may well have been a disagreement on market value, but the biggest bone of contention was that the requisitioned land also included the resident farmhouse (a beautiful house built before the turn of the century).

This left the farmer with about 300 acres of adjoining land and the headache of either traveling to the land through public roads (do you have any idea of the expense and effort it entails to move a combine on public roads?) or having to sell the remaining land (a forced sale would somehow negate your argument of property being worth what someone is willing to pay for it-which I would agree with under normal circumstances) and buying something of equivalent size, again a forced purchase, farmland of the right size, quality and price doesn’t just appear from nowhere. I’d hate to call you of all people naive.

[Daphne – Relax? I like arguing these matters. It beats talking about the price of fish any day. I’m not naive, and that’s why I see the matter differently to somebody who was 14 at the time. Airports are built on land. In small countries like England (and even smaller ones like Malta), that is always going to be somebody’s land. Airports cannot be sited according to where land is cheapest or requisition is most convenient for the owner. They have to be in specific places, with a particular orientation for the runway. And if you own the land, well, it’s just one of those ‘life’s a bitch’ things. If you think that the democratic solution is for the country to go without an airport so that no land is requisitioned, you’re wrong. Also, land which has been earmarked for an airport has no market value other than what the requisiitoning authority thinks is a fair price to pay for compensation. Nobody else is going to buy it with that prospect hanging over it.]

Also, a ‘competent authority’, I thought you could at least recognise a euphemism and misnomer if there ever was one, I mean, was the local rent regulation board a competent authority in your view? After all the rent laws served a public purpose.

[Daphne – No, they did not. There you have an example of the abuse of a system designed for public purpose. That system was designed to ensure that people could be housed in the aftermath of World War II, when so many had lost their homes. It was never intended to be permanent, but because paying a couple of peanuts every year for your home and with sitting tenant rights became so comfortable, cheap and convenient, no one had any incentive to move out and get a home of their own. And then the rent regulation board would not allow increases in rent because of lack of popular support – and owners effectively lost their property for what sees to be all time, except for the privilege of paying inheritance tax on it. Social housing should not be provided by ripping off private landlords. The situation is not analogous to an airport.]

As for the second point, a possible touche on that one because I honestly don’t know if the ‘tenants’ were tenants or squatters.

[Daphne – They obviously had no rights if the landlord was able to obtain an eviction order. You can’t just go round throwing people out of flats. You must have the legal right to do it (they haven’t paid their rent, their contract is up, etc).]

But still,a police investigation would have been ‘nice’ considering England isn’t a fascist state, and one doesn’t have to open the door to a bunch of thugs for them to gain entry, Fenech Adami can attest to that one.

[Daphne – I think you are naive to believe the woman who, after protesting against the fascist pigs for evicting squatters, went on to claim that she had been beaten to within an inch of her life and that the fascist pigs had told her not to press charges. I would chuck a bucket of salt on that one, if I were you.]

As for the assumption that I believe a peer shouldn’t have property rights, nothing could be further from the truth; while my sisters and I have bought our own properties, my mother still has a number of houses still controlled by the ‘competent authorities’,
which I believe still constitutes abuse.

[Daphne – There you have it. And yet you think that the peer who got an eviction order against his ‘tenants’ did so because he was privileged, as though there is one law for peers and another law for ordinary people. Come on.]

Why no comment to link I posted? There are many more examples of Britain’s social services interfering in the most mundane of everyday activities – schools photographing the contents of children’s lunch boxes, couple’s barred from marriage because of learning difficulties and the list goes on and on.

[Daphne – Because I happen to think that there is no solution to this one. They are right in principle and wrong in manner aspects of its interpretation. Our solution in Malta may seem to be the more democratic and respectful of parental rights, but it fails children equally badly: they are left to rot in institutions without the experience of a family, simply because the parents who have abandoned them – many times from birth – will not sign them away for adoption, as ‘majtezwel’ not do so. What’s in it for the parents to sign them away? A parent who has dumped a child is not going to see the situation in terms of that child’s best interests, by definition. Don’t be too horrified about people not being allowed to marry because of ‘learning difficulties’. That’s a politically correct term which describes a host of mental setbacks. Do you not realise that marriage is above all a contract, and that to enter into a contract one must be judged to be mentally competent? ]

As Tacitus said – The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.

[Daphne – As if. Think before you quote, for heaven’s sake. Where is corruption most rampant and entrenched, in states with more or less legislation?]

While I totally agree with your views on America’s fascist leanings, I can’t say the same on your assertions of Britain’s democratic credentials. If Britain is a democracy, it is heavily weighted in favour of the ruling and peer class.

Two examples experienced by close acquaintances:

1. A farmer friend had 200 acres of land straddling an airport which needed to expand. He is ‘offered’ 50% of market value or get destroyed in court.

[Daphne – Slow down, slow down. Let’s take this step by step. Your friend has 200 acres of land – presumably part of a much larger estate – and he is an underdog because he doesn’t have a title to go with it? I don’t think so. You’re speaking about requisition for public purpose. That has little or nothing to do with democracy when it is correctly used rather than abused as it was in Malta for years. The rules on compensation for requisition are in the legislation. Instead of going on what your friend told you, you should check the legislation. It is highly unlikely that compensation is set at 50% of market value. What you probably have there is a disagreement on market value. Your friend was offered a price against survey by a competent authority and saw it as half of what he could get on the open market. Did he actually have an offer for twice that sum, or is it just what somebody told him it’s worth? Land and buildings are worth what people are prepared to pay for them, and not what we expect to get for them.]

2. Another friend organised demos against a prominent peer who was forcibly evicting tenants from an apartment block he owned in London. After receiving numerous death threats she was beaten to within an inch of her life in her own flat and ‘advised’ by the local police not to pursue with charges (sound familiar?).

[Daphne – If they were squatters, then I would have been demonstrating in favour of the ‘prominent peer’. I cannot bear people who abuse of the property of others. Malta is full of them. If they had tenancy rights, then they couldn’t have been evicted. They were obviously evicted because they had no such rights. And they were forcibly evicted because they tried to stay on despite not having the right to do so. That’s why the police would have been brought in. And that is the perfect illustration of how things work in a real democracy: according to the rule of law, and with full respect to the rights of the individual, whether that individual is a peer or a pauper. What you appear to be suggesting here is that the ‘prominent peer’ should have no rights to the enjoyment of his property simply because he is a peer – and we don’t like peers, do we? – while people without tenancy rights should be allowed to stay on in a prominent peer’s property because he can afford it and they don’t want to move out. That’s fascist thinking. As for the story about being beaten to within an inch of her life in her own flat – I reserve judgement. Did she let them in or what? Were they wearing name-tags which allowed her to press charges? Come on. I can’t stand these stories. All those crocheted muesli-eaters banging on about ‘fascist dictators’ when nobody is more fascistic than they are.]

Maybe this is why they prefer to dispense with pomp.

On a less personal note:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7840835/Mother-whose-children-were-taken-for-adoption-joins-class-action.html

Remember, A government which is big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take away everything you have.
Barry Goldwater.

Red nose, go back to school and learn the difference between sarcasm and irony. Then come back with another Oscar Wilde quote.

HP BAXXTER- SarcaSM IS THE LOWEST FORM OF WIT – Oscar Wilde

After all, when someone is elected to be an ‘onorevoli’ it is with the votes of people and with the promise and commitment to serve.

Insisting on being addressed as ‘onorevoli’, even when you are no longer an MP, is ridiculous, especially if your performance was not really inspiring in the first place.