Ah, so now he’s a man of principle, not a cocky bastard
Franco seen with one of his clients, a notorious cock-ayne trafficker
Franco told timesofmalta.com this morning that he is a man of principle.
The reporter who put the story together – there is no by-line – must have an agenda of his own, because he described Franco’s performance on Bondi+ last Tuesday as “strong and passionate”.
It was anything but, and if you want to know why, ask a woman, not a young man with an agenda.
Any woman watching that show would have had all her alarm bells going off at once and her antennae on red alert.
The reporter also described Debono – what is going on at The Times, exactly, that some reporters are allowed to press on unsupervised? – as a top criminal lawyer.
He is not. He is a criminal lawyer, full stop.
The fact that you chase reporters to get your name in the press and call yourself a top criminal lawyer does not make you one. It’s how good you are at what you do that counts. The Times should seek not Franco’s opinion on this, but that of his peers, who won’t speak publicly anyway of a ‘kollega’, not least because this particular ‘kollega’, as we have seen, can be spectacularly vicious and will stop at nothing.
So I have a question for Franco the man of principle, a question the anonymous reporter from The Times could perhaps ask, given that I would rather scrub the sick off bar-room floors than talk to Franco myself at this stage.
How does a man of principle square it with his conscience when he deliberately sets out to use the ‘right to a lawyer’ ruling, for which he campaigned, to release into society those who pay him to take up their brief, including seasoned traffickers of cocaine and heroin, when he knows they are guilty as hell?
We are not talking here about somebody who burgled a house, stole a wallet, or snatched a bag to pay for a drug habit.
We are talking dangerous people.
No doubt, the answer he will give to this will be the answer he gave me when I told him that he couldn’t square the two imperatives of loyalty to his party and party leader with client confidentiality when he took up Cyrus Engerer’s brief.
Client confidentiality demanded that he conceal from his party leader the important information that Cyrus, then a PN politician, was being prosecuted for maliciously emailing pornographic pictures of his former boyfriend to his former boyfriend’s boss, work colleagues and friends.
Debono’s reply to me?
“Kullhadd irid jiekol.”
Nice. I prefer my men of principle made in a different mould, though one assumes that the anonymous reporter at The Times has a different outlook. To him, men of principle might be men who shout and throw their weight around when they don’t get what that want.
Perhaps what The Times reporter should be asking is why women of all sorts and all ages are reacting so viscerally to Franco Debono. He is our worst nightmare, the sort we are biologically programmed to run a mile from.
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Gay men too.
Kullhadd irid jiekol!
His problem is not really that. When it comes to his profession, irid jiekol kollox ta’ kullhadd.
As for the ‘kollega’ business – I said it publicly, I wrote it on other blogs and will write it again here – I have never and never will consider Debono to be a ‘kollega’.
A kollega is not one who approaches other lawyers’ clients asking them to transfer their brief to him. This is the very first thing we used to be taught but unfortunately Debono could never grasp the importance of this gentlemanly conduct between lawyers, and I know this first hand.
“A kollega is not one who approaches other lawyers’ clients asking them to transfer their brief to him”
I came to know about that, and people told me he offered to charge less than his colleagues.
Man of principle my foot!
My thoughts precisely! Perhaps that’s why his GF is simply that: his GF.
Won’t go ahead, too afraid to walk away.
Okay, just speculating. But he sure comes across as a nasty character; not marriageable stuff.
http://www.winning-teams.com/codependent.html
Pretty much like those architects who won’t stop at nothing to satisfy their clients’ brief (make that their own), nitpicking loopholes in regulations to break their spirit.
Or political leaders whose unquestionable trust is theirs by default.
Whizz kids on the rampage, sharing one ambition; be on TV. Either by having an own talkshow, a whole station or being one of the actors in a televised parliament.
Who gives a toss how social the contract, refined the architecture or just the laws are?
Debono’s reply to me?
“Kullhadd irid jiekol.”
The sort of reply expected from a Corleone hood as an excuse for doing what he does.
Pftttt
Lawyers don’t release “criminals”, courts do.
And when courts do it is usually because they are not criminals, but because they are innocent.
You, other bloggers, The Times or anyone else calling someone a criminal does not make that person a criminal. Only a court can make this determination.
Says a lawyer.
I was going to write something similar myself. Guido de Marco used to teach that it is the Court which determines the guilt or otherwise of somebody. Anything short of that is tantamount to lynching.
So let’s us not break the golden thread.
ghalaq halqek MERDA …ikolli nghid il-hobby tieghek hu li taqa ghan nejk u qed jirnexxielek 100%…ftakar li mis-sema l’isfel kulhadd l’istess u l-ingliz jghid”What you put on your mother’s doorstep it will come knocking at you back”.
Ahem… hekk jghid l-Ingliz?
Liema wiehed, dak li jkun jixrob il-Marsa?
What is the statute of limitations for animal cruelty?
If it doesn’t extend back to the time when Franco Debono was a cock-fighter, can we change the law now . . . retrospectively?
If it can be done, then can he be prosecuted – and with enough witnesses to come forward – found guilty and removed from parliament?
Problem solved?
Just asking.
Well, it won’t pass in parliament will it?
Back to the drawing board.