How bloody stupid
This comment came up beneath a story on the National Bank theft, on timesofmalta.com. I’ve just seen it.
Steve Sant
May 15th, 19:07
The government actually owns 68,119,673 shares or circa 145 million Euro worth of shares. The truth is whilst the Government only lately paid 50 million for the dry docks and another 50 million for the buses, he thinks that we shareholders are a mere spit in a puddle. You see the last time around he won the election with a few thousand votes to spare, now he should know that friends and families of the National bank (a scandal) number around 3,000. We are trying to gather enough support to get as many of those people to vote against this government as a protest. We’ll just see what happens then, because it seems the only way these politicians listen is when you take away a vote, so be it then.
I trust that this does not put the recent meeting with Joseph Muscat in a new light.
This is what I call perverted reasoning. It is the sort of thing that I tend to forget lots of people do. They use their rear-end, rather than their head, to work things out.
I take it for granted that people can think straight, and then I’m surprised when they don’t.
So let’s see if I can follow this absurd reasoning.
1. Labour government steals bank and ruins shareholders’ lives.
2. Some shareholders take government to court (because government is government no matter who is in it).
3. Court case takes forever.
4. PN government gets blame despite clear separation of powers under PN government.
5. PN government says no settlement until court case decided (this is debatable).
6. Shareholders whose lives were ruined decide to punish PN for not compensating them for bank stolen by Labour. Method of punishment: voting for (this includes not voting PN) the very ones who stole the bank in the first place.
Go figure. Well, with a bloody low IQ like that, I’m not surprised the proceedings have dragged on so long.
Aren’t these particular shareholders missing something very important here?
What they should be asking for, before money, is for the godforsaken Labour Party to get down on its knees and beg forgiveness for the untold misery it caused those very people, their parents, and their grandparents.
An apology, before the money.
Vote for the people who stole the bank to punish the people who didn’t steal it? I’ll put a rocket up their butt and light it before I do that.
You have to be really, really skewed to reason that way.
Steve Sant, whoever you are: I suggest you have your head examined.
Kemm hawn cwiec fid-dinja, jahasra.
23 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Little Joey, the fool, has now got himself involved in a crime his commie party committed. Keep digging, asshole. You’re too thick to learn.
He’ll take that seat, no matter what. In his own words, the end justifies the means.
Malta has become one whole satirical society.
Very well said, Daphne.
For some people money is everything. They may get some monetary compensation or even their full share but who’s going to pay for what their relatives went through?
Will the heirs be prepared to forgive and forget if they are compensated?
[Daphne – Who are they going to forgive and what are they going to forget? The tazpayer, who has to fork out the money?]
I really don’t follow your reasoning.
You don’t expect the P. N. to pay for something that was not their doing. Correct.
The as you call it, theft, was commited by the P.L. when in governmet, so we expect them to solve it. Correct.
[Daphne – No, Silvio, WRONG. At law and in fact and beneath the Constitution, the government is the government is the government. There is no such thing as ‘the Labour government’ or ‘the PN government’. I am speaking here of POLITICAL PARTIES. You don’t reward the political party which did you the grossest harm (stole your bank) on the basis that you really need to punish the political party which did you the perceived harm (failed to compensate you).
The court case is AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. The facts of the matter, and the proceedings of the case, will not change because the party in government changes. Nor will the result and the outcome. And the compensation for the crime committed by the Labour Party in government will be paid by the same lot of taxpayers, if so decided, whoever is in government.]
Isn’t that exacty what Muscat is promising to do?
[Daphne – What is Muscat promising to do, Silvio? I see that you are one of those people who hear what you want to hear, and not what is actually said.]
Couldn’t this mean that the P.L. are accepting their responsibility and will be trying to amend the as you call them, sins, of their predecessors.
[Daphne – Silvio, you are particulary slow this week. NO, IT OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT. Think about it. How does Muscat make amends, as you put it – using other people’s money, of course – without 1. apologising for the gross wrong that was done, and 2. admitting in the most public way possible that the Golden Years were not so golden and that Mintoff was a corrupt shit?]
I’m afraid you are too biased to accept that this was a very generious offer by Muscat and a very good move by Jerremy.
[Daphne – Madonna kemm int banali, Silvio. Where exactly did you see an offer? Il-vera kaz ta’ min irid jemmen, jemmen. Jeremy was wrong to go there. It was a major strategic error that will further divide the shareholders, who are already divided on too many issues – which is one reason why things have ground along so slowly – and it will put the backs up of those who are best placed to assist, while gaining nothing from Labour, which will only seek to gain for itself instead, as per usual.
No, I am not biased. I am not in any way involved, and I have refused to become involved. This is not about money, and the first thing that the shareholders should have asked for is an apology from the Labour Party. Sadly, they have lost their focus, removed their eyes from the ball, and forgotten what this was all about in the first place. Every time you meet a few of the major shareholders, whose names I shall not mention but one was interviewed in a newspaper recently, all you get is bitterness, bile and spite against the Nationalist Party. You’d think they stole their bank. Every sentiment of hatred that they should be feeling for Labour they have project onto the PN. Warped reasoning at its best. The point at issue here, to my mind, is that no amoung of money will ever make up for the long-term pain, disruption, chaos and suffering that so many families and individuals were put through, and in Malta you cannot sue for THAT kind of compensation anyway as you can elsewhere, so they are focussing on comepensation for the actual shares.]
Just try asking the shareholder what they would prefer, Muscat going on his knees and asking forgivness or getting back some of the money they lost?
Ask a silly question and expect a sillier answer.
[Daphne – I think you forget to whom you’re speaking, Silvio.]
From the tone of your broadside, and the quite harsh words you us in my regard, I guess that to-day you are in what I call your killer mood.
I have learnt through experience to keep away and close my mouth when ladies are in that mood.’
So I will do so and avoid another thrashing.
Anyway you made my day.
I think Sant is the first part of his surname
If he’s the Sant Something I know, he’s a moron.
And after you’ve asked your mother who your father was, be proud of your name and tell us all. Then call people names, brave heart.
Sant? Not followed by anything else? Are we part of the common people now?
Poor Steve. Inbreeding is so bad for the IQ.
[Daphne – Not at all, MFAFIHetc. Inbreeding is only bad for the IQ when stupid people marry other stupid people (which is usually the case) and perpetuate the problem into the next generation. But they don’t have to be related to each other. You can have repeated intermarriage (come on, not inbreeding) situations in families of sharp people, and the next generation will be sharp too. Obviously, because those are the genes. But when an intelligent man marries a stupid woman – it rarely happens the other way round – he’s taking a big, big risk, and it’s pointless thereafter complaining because his children are useless. What do such men imagine, exactly? That their genes will dominate?]
Inbreeding IS a source of lower IQ over time, whether you like it or not. It’s a fact not an opinion. It’s just not the ONLY source.
Is it the case here? Who knows. On the other hand, if it was the ONLY source I’d say the gentleman was his own first cousin.
Appalling. Reasoning a la Malte at its best. There is an expression in Maltese that is suitable for such a person: “jirraguna minn s***u.”
As you said, Daphne, they should ask the Labour Party for a public apology. Probably, Joseph will make a vague attempt at onewhen he is guaranteed all or a big chunk of the 3,000 votes mentioned, and then leave things at that.
Stop dreaming sabih !
Exactly my thoughts. The reasoning of a twisted mind.
Daphne, while I am in full agreement with the overriding gist of your argument, I fear that you are too quick to exonerate successive Nationalist Governments since 1987 on the basis of the ‘separation of powers’.
Yes we have an independent judiciary and so it must be.
But litigation is the last resort for the resolution of any dispute, not the only avenue for a solution.
[Daphne – The court cases were instituted in the 1970s, under a Labour government. They dragged on under a Labour government for at least a decade. I do not try to exonerate anyone. I merely point out that clear thinking is of the essence in situations like this. That, and principles. You do not corrupt your thinking or your principles on the understanding that others have corrupted theirs. It only serves to weaken your position and your arguments. It’s bad enough that some of them used, for many years, Ian Refalo, who was also Mintoff’s lawyer. What were they thinking?]
The bank was seized by an unconstitutional act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament which is unconstitutional is null and void and as a result incapable of having legal effects.
The Courts are only required insofar as there is disagreement between the government and the shareholders around the legality of the government’s actions in 1973/1974. Parliament is perfectly empowered to rectify any wrongs it has committed should it accept them to be so.
It is the fact that successive Nationalist governments since 1987 have failed to accept to shoulder the responsibility of declaring the actions of their predecessors to have been wrong which is where I believe the system has failed.
[Daphne – I agree with you there, but I do not make the mental leap from that to imagining that it is the Nationalist Party in government which did the greater wrong, or that it is the Nationalist Party in government which is responsible for the protraction of a court case of which nobody now seems to have taken proper ownership. You can rest assured that nobody with a reasonable degree of intelligence will ever consider rewarding those who stole the bank by punishing The Others. The conclusion is obvious, to my mind: that those who even consider doing this, who think this way, are not particularly clever or principled, and that these qualities are in part responsible for the mess they are in so many years down the line. I, on the other hand, take great pleasure and satisfaction in shafting Labour at every possible opportunity, and voting Nationalist is part of that, quite aside from the fact that I believe they deserve my vote. Mur ghid lili, nivvota li dawk il-qabda bastids li tant ghamlu hsara. I’d have to be on magic mushrooms, or brain-dead.]
He who knowingly enjoys the proceeds of any crime is equally culpable.
[Daphne – No, actually he is not, neither at law nor in fact. And this is where your argument and Steve Sant’s falls down. You argue that they are “equally culpable” but then advocate punishing only the one – and what’s more, by rewarding the other. You cannot punish both in our electoral system, dear sir. So logic, common sense and common decency dictate that you punish the ones who stole the bank in the first place, even if it means rewarding the ones who didn’t compensate you. You don’t reward those who stole the bank merely to punish those who didn’t compensate you. And not voting for the PN is rewarding those who stole the bank, even if you can’t bear to vote for the PN. I never take my eyes off that ball, I’m sorry (well, no, I’m not sorry). And quite frankly, I can’t understand how some people can live with themselves when they reason like this.]
The failure of successive Nationalist Governments since 1987 to place the issue on the agenda with a view to resolving it so as to mend this open wound in our history, is unforgiveable. The sale of the shares in Bank of Valletta, by the government, to the public while the very ownership of that bank’s assets is still undetermined is, to say the least, highly irresponsible and, had it been committed by any person other than the government would be termed criminal.
[Daphne – Wrong again. While I agree with you that the shares in Bank of Valletta should not have been sold without this matter being sorted out, you forget that the court cases are civil, not criminal. I am not in a position to know why there has never been any demand for criminal prosecution of the original perpetrators. Perhaps you are best placed to explain.]
A quick look around reveals countless examples of how civil society deals with its own mistakes … even without judicial intervention. It is too convenient for the Nationalist Party to hide behind the separation of powers so as to justify successive Nationalist governments’ failure to provide redress.
[Daphne – Yes, agreed, and….? What, now, exactly? Vote Labour to thank them for doing what they did? Il-vera kaz. Disgraceful.]
Ian Refalo is one of the current advisers to shareholders. He will be at next Monday’s meeting at the Salesians hall in Sliema.
[Daphne – And he is also Mintoff’s lawyer.]
Daphne, I fear that you may have missed my opening line. When I said that I am in full agreement with the overriding gist of your argument what I was saying was that I too deplore the proposition that voting Labour is somehow the sensible option for persons who feel that the Nationalist Party has let them down on the National Bank issue.
There is no basis to support that kind of twisted logic or spineless behaviour.
My comment was never intended to defend that position, and I and Steve Sant do not share a common line of argumentation.
My contribution was solely intended to shed light on what I feel is the all too convenient excuse as used by Nationalist governments since 1987: the separation of powers.
The Nationalist government would have done this country a favour had it taken the first opportunity at its disposal to declare the taking of the NBM shares as the deplorable act of a tyrannical government, apologised on behalf of the government and it would probably have got away then with only a token compensation.
[Daphne – Yes, I share this view.]
From my experience there are very few who see this as a question of financial gain. For most it is a question of justice, the rule of law and the need for a country to release itself from the shackles of its past and to breakaway, and disassociate itself from, the tyrannical acts of its past leaders.
Article 344 of the Criminal Code: “Whosoever shall in Malta knowingly receive or purchase any property which has been stolen, misapplied or obtained by means of any offence, whether committed in Malta or abroad, or shall knowingly take part, in any manner whatsoever, in the sale or disposal of the same, shall, on conviction, be liable …” – which is why I say that, had it been anybody else other than the government, it would be criminal.
I do not defend any proposal to support Labour. I am, however, resisting any defence of what the Nationalists have done and failed to do on this matter. The Nationalists, by enjoying the spoils of their predecessors, hove lost their entitlement to plead innocence of the injustices perpetrated in 1973/1974.
The government offered an out of court settlement but it was turned down by the shareholders.
[Daphne – It wasn’t quite like that, from what I understand.]
A bunch of mad men. Point well argued, Daphne – well done. Maybe they will now question their reasoning.
Mr Sant expects more of the PN than of the PL. The MLP had 10 years in which to resolve the problem – a time when many of those originally involved were still alive.
Frankly, those 3000 would be better off fire-bombing Mintoff’s door (metaphorically, I hasten to add), than firing salvos into their own feet.
If Labour think an out of court settlement suffices to avoid the flak during an electoral campaign, they’re mistaken.
What they miss is that a government defends itself before the courts on the basis that the money belongs to the taxpayer. Anyone heard Joseph mentioning the car tax class action lately?
This cannot preclude the shareholders’ right to get back their assets, which begs the following; If Mintoff suspended the constitution, it should also follow he removed any immunity his role as prime minister had at the time
I say the whole electorate deserves to have a look into the financial records registering the money trail as well as a couple of Swiss bank accounts. We’d be surprised.
Mintoff transformed the Labour Party into a vehicle for his interests, effectively making it a commercial bank. Maybe Stefania Craxi, a favourite on Joe Grima’s Inkontri, could help. As could Joe Sammut, whose business, up till last year, included managing transactions between Libya and Rome.
While we’re at it, we could look into the re-exportation of discounted Libyan oil at non-discounted prices, in a personal capacity. With, oh I don’t know, a Dutch business partner perhaps.
Or if we wanted to look further back we could consider the ethics of being the minister for post-war reconstruction and participating in that reconstruction in one’s personal capacity as an architect.
Or being involved in the public works department and knowing where the new roads are going to pass…. and buying up (indirectly, no doubt) the property close by… Well we know how that works with ‘public’ gardens.