One photograph Anglu Farrugia won't be uploading on his 'websajt'
When I and others were arraigned before the criminal court by Inspector Anglu Farrugia, on trumped-up and falsified charges in connection with police aggression at a protest demo against the government’s education policies, thousands of people gathered outside the law courts to show their support for us and their anger at the police and the government.
This is a photograph of the demonstrators making their way from the gate to the city down Republic Street.
Possibly, this is something else that Anglu Farrugia doesn’t remember. Or perhaps he thought they were there to support him in his successful hunting-down of the 19-year-old girl who beat up a policeman twice her size and left him for dead.
Anglu Farrugia – he doesn’t change, does he? Now he’s hunting down evil people who buy votes from starving Laburisti. What a country, where such mediocre rubbish can get to the top of the Labour Party, and the only ones who object are those who don’t vote Labour.
16 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Well – that is one big elephant in Anglu’s room.
I feel he’s got even bigger ones in his closet!
I remember going to that protest.
Mur ghidilna that we’d still be hearing about it almost three decades down the line.
Look on the bright side, though – At least it may serve as a reminder to the ignorant fools who choose not to vote at election time or to vote Labour “because it’s time for a change”.
You would think that this sad excuse for a police officer would keep a low profile in some discreet office in a village sidestreet. He has instead found refuge in a Labour Party overflowing with Mintoffian dregs.
And this is what the ‘Jew b’xejn jew xejn’ campaign much vaunted by Labour eventually translated to, yet another totally unnecessary burden on the taxpayer, since church schools were running well until Mr Zero Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, aided by the violent aristocracy of the workers, saw fit to stick his warped ideological finger in:
“The Times, Thursday, 22 January
Church schools owed over €5 million in arrears
By the end of 2007, the government owed church schools €5,065,828 in arrears. The amount for 2008 was still being calculated because the exercise included reconciliation of amounts due with payments made. The information was given by Education Minister Dolores Cristina while answering a parliamentary question by Evarist Bartolo (PL).”
Tajba! L-ewwel tal-Labour bdew jiggieldu biex jaghmlu l-iskejjel b’xejn, imbaghaq tefghu l-ispejjez ta’ dawk il-miljuni kollha fuq dawk li jhallsu t-taxxi. B’xejn, ukoll! Il-vera cwiec in-nies, jahasra!
If you were able to get rid of all those chips on your shoulders, you may actually discover that it costs the government far less to finance church schools (per student) than state schools.
So to put it in even simpler terms – if all Church and Independent schools were to stop operating, a significantly larger proportion of ‘your’ tax would be needed to educate those children. But you’d probably still be happier if former were to happen, right?
@ Bus Driver – actually few church schools were ‘running well’ in the 80s and as employment conditions got better for teachers, many Church-run schools would have become unsustainable despite the regular donations from parents and the Curia’s help.
If anyone got the better deal, it was the government. It got all the church’s land in exchange for financing the schools which were far cheaper to run than their state-run counterparts. Not a bad deal for the tax-payers, eh?
It is time that those “who do not vote Labour” organised their own conference on “Revisiting Labour’s History.” Before those who vote Labour bring about a repetition of that history.
I have read your recent posts and I cannot find anything short of ‘DISGUSTING’ to say, excuse the caps.
Thinking about what I was reading in the first post, I thought that Anglu Farrugia took issue to something far ‘worse’ than the description of your ordeal.
Nope. No such thing in the article you wrote in 2003, which I read afterwards.
It was, in fact, devoid of any witty colourful metaphors or innuendos.
You merely repeated facts that have been previously proven in a court of law, and gave your opinion that a man like that should not be leader of the Labour Party, or heaven forbid, PM.
So, our courts now decide that the proven truth and a perfectly logical opinion stemming from this, must be punished.
Usually I giggle at what goes on in this Asterix and Obelix island of ours, but this time I am DISGUSTED.
Of course you should go to appeal, and to the ECHR if that’s what it takes.
The silver lining, if you can call it that, is that the our youth who have no idea of what happened here before they were born into a safe land of plenty, may be given some history lessons on who is leading Labour and where they should cast their vote in 2013.
Keep this message alive, and strange as it may seem, thank Anglu Farrugia for giving you the opportunity to do it for years to come.
I have just finished reading the on-line judgement of your court case.
Disgusted has now gone to incredulous.
If I understood it correctly, the judgement-cum-farce is now ‘disagreeing’, and thus discarding, what was said in the judgement of 1984?
What the hell is going on? Is this normal practice for a magistrate? Is it even legal?
Here’s the judgement, for others who might wish to read it:
http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/courtservices/Judgements/script_get_judgement_document.aspx?CaseJudgementID=63386
Daphne, the case law quoted states clearly that public figures have to accept that the limits to freedom of expression are wider than normal.
I’d say that a person seeking the post of Prime Minister has to accept even wider limits. Anglu Farrugia has not done so, showing clearly that he is not fit for Prime Minister. Nor as Deputy Prime Minister.
I would take the case all the way to the European Court. At least they will hear about, and document, the ordeal that you went through at the hands of Anglu Farrugia as already documented more than once in this sentence.
I’d say also that anyone seeking the post of Prime Minister, and hoping to hold that position afterwards, must be above any suspicion of events described here.
“Illi ghal dak li ghandu x’ jaqsam mal-fatti kif esposti miz-zewg partijiet jirrizulta li huma dijametrikament opposti ghall-xulxin, b’ naha wahda tpingi l-operat bhala wiehed nefast u kundannabbli, u n-naha lohra tpingieh bhala xoghol ezegwit impekkabbilment;
iii. Illi f’ dan ir-rigward, din il-qorti ftit ghandha xi tghid hlief li tiddikjara li hadet konjizzjoni tazzewg
versjonijiet lilha ipprezentati;”
Kif tista’ tinkiteb l-ahhar senteza ta’ dan il-paragrafu u mbghad il-magistrat jikkonkludi li l-kwerelata ma pprovditx bizzejjed provi ta’ dak li qalet?
Tista’ taghmel trattament shih ta’ din is-sentenza. Nghid biss li dak kollu li hemm f’pagna tmienja, ma jmissux inkiteb ghax mhux oneru tal-magistrat li jikkumenta fuq l-istil tal-gurnalisti.
U wiehed irid jifhem li meta taqra is-sentenza bil-Malti, tinghata impressjoni differenti ghal meta taqra l-artiklu ta’ Daphne, bl-Ingliz.. It-traduzzjoni m’ghandiex tkun tal-kliem biss izda anke tirrifletti ‘hsieb’ li bih wiehed jikteb.
Is-sewwa jirbah Z G U R.
and to think that this same person has now made it his mission to work in the interests of those seeking ‘justice’ through the law courts …
I was at that demonstration and many others, and I thank God that I returned home alive after each one. Those born after 1980 have no idea what this country went through in the dark ages of Mintoffian/Karmenu rule.
Amazing how the court arrived at that decision.
The PN never learns – does it? We know where most of the policemen who were notorious for their violence against those who opposed the Labour regime ended up, being given promotions and nice pensions by the PN government.