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.

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?

“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.

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!

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.

I feel he’s got even bigger ones in his closet!

http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/courtservices/Judgements/script_get_judgement_document.aspx?CaseJudgementID=63386

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?