If you park your car but left it open with the keys in the ignition, would you argue that consequently I would have the right to drive away in your car and then crash it beyond recognition with no legal responsibility for damages?

That is where the Nationalists went wrong. The squatters can never be expected to vote PN, even if they were given title to the land they occupied in a an illegal manner.

Why try to pander to their whims when you should know from the very start that nothing you give them will win them over to vote for you?

And every successive government since then has told them they can stay. Since then they have invested money to better their shanty and now it is a summer home, bedroom, kitchens, verandas etc.

My point is, is it their fault or the govts of past?

If this govt throws them out, is that right, after all they invested money due to previous governments telling them they are fine were they are.

If I was one of them, and this govt decided to throw me out, I would sue every govt official that told them (or wrote to them) telling them they can stay there.

Who is to blame. The people or the government and what is the solution? Comments?

Yes. But he ‘s going to have to plain why he can’t override that court decision. I doubt that that was in the small print.

Just one word will suffice – VOTES!

[Daphne – What does Humpty Dumpty have to do with it, David? Courts never rule against ‘governments’ per se: in the state itself, it’s against the relevant state department or body. Outside the country, e.g. the ECHR, cases and rulings are X vs Malta. However, many of the decisions which led to the cases are ultimate government decisions, as with this one.]

Actually, this court decision means that any agreement he has made with the squatters has no legal value.

What difference does it make whether he reads the judgement or not. The Court has delivered its judgement which is clear: the shacks have to go. Whatever Joseph promised before the elections is history.