“I informed my cabinet before going” = “I showed them my flight ticket stub by mistake when I got back “
“I’m afraid it will be a little while longer before we can let John Dalli out, sir.”
When sources in the European Commission told the press that John Dalli had lied (or sought to mislead) the Commission by saying that he left Cyprus to go to Malta urgently when he had really gone to the Bahamas,John Dalli’s response was that he had informed his cabinet.
The press then got wind of rumblings that he had not done anything of the sort, and that his cabinet only found out by chance that he had shot to the Bahamas and back, when he was supposed to be in Cyprus, because he presented for reimbursement his flight ticket stub for Nassau. And that when it was pointed out to him that flights for private purposes could not be reimbursed, he said that it was a mistake and took it back.
So Dalli was asked about this, and look at this reaction, reported in The Sunday Times:
However, The Sunday Times of Malta is informed Mr Dalli had accidentally passed on a boarding pass, indicating a flight between Nassau and London Heathrow Airport on July 8 along with a batch of boarding passes for flights in which he had been on official EU business and which he intended claiming expenses for.
When the staff member queried the Bahamas boarding pass, Mr Dalli took it back, as he had passed it on by mistake and did not intend claiming expenses for it, according a Commission source.
However, the source insisted, nobody from Mr Dalli’s Cabinet was aware of any other details of the trip, or knew what the former Commissioner had travelled to the Bahamas for.
Still, on the basis of this incident in which he passed on the Nassau boarding pass by mistake, Mr Dalli insisted yesterday that he had informed his Cabinet.
“The end result is that the Cabinet knew,” he said.
Isn’t this just unbelievable? What sort of primitive reasoning is this? Using that same line of reasoning, John Dalli can argue that he didn’t need to inform the European Commission about his trip to the Bahamas because they found out through the newspapers anyway, and the end result is that they now know about it.
11 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What a complex web he wove. This man has used his political career only to wheel and deal for his own benefit. Also, there is a pattern of behaviour – playing the victim for the last 25 years when he gets caught.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
So far some pieces of the puzzle are missing. He thinks the public is a fool.
And he is right. Or at least half right. Half the public is foolish enough to believe him.
This style of doing business and carrying out your affairs, wheeling and dealing your way through, often lands you in trouble.
Business sharks and fraudsters are particularly attracted to these types of financial operators and centres. They are commonly known amongst people in the trade to be centres of poor repute and only to handle with caution.
Dalli is experienced enough and should have smelled the rat.
Dalli did not need to smell the rat since they probably use the same perfume. He just wanted a piece of the cheese.
I don’t know which of these two sounds more arrogant and pathetic.
Dalli’s blatant lies and clutching at straws, while expecting our commiseration at him for being “persecuted” by the media, or Joseph Muscat being treated like a schoolboy by Dalli and then claiming Dalli’s explanations are satisfactory.
John Dalli is not convincing anybody who possesses a modicum of intelligence with his humiliating squirming and twisting but, if we are to believe Dalli himself, our Prime Minister is much less demanding. Both should resign before they cause more damage to themselves and to the nation.
This is confusing. According to some media reports, Mr Dalli went to Nassau by a private flight (in a private plane) and stayed on the aircraft for a few hours when in the Bahamas where he conducted his business (he did not enter the country according to him).Yet, he also tried to claim the cost of the flight (whether by design or accident) from his expenses.
These are at odds with each other as private flights do not issue tickets as with commercial flights.
[Daphne – He did not go by private flight/jet. He used scheduled flights. That’s why he had a ticket stub. He used private flights/jets for his later trips to the Bahamas, but not for that one in particular. That is where, I suspect, the confusion has arisen.]
Also, if he went to Nassau via the British Airways flight, there is no way he could have stayed onboard whilst the aircraft was turned around ready to return to London. He would have had to disembark and clear customs to enter the country so that he could immediately check-in for the return flight. As he would have had several hours wait, he could have conducted his business from the airport lounge. But he would have had to enter the Bahamas.
[Daphne – Not if he stayed in the transit area at the airport. That would not count as entering the Bahamas. Yes, you are right in that he would not have been allowed to stay on the plane. I raised that point myself. He is lying either about staying on the plane or about the ticket stub, and given that his staff really did see that ticket stub, then he’s lying about staying on the plane.]
Unless, he took a private jet from London to Nassau and the return by British Airways, but that seems… strange.
This is taken from tripadvisor with respect to transit through Nassau airport.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g147416-i169-k5106043-Transit_Through_Nassau-Nassau_New_Providence_Island_Bahamas.html
From what I can gather, you would have to clear immigration and customs as well as completing a landing card even if you are in transit.
Also, your passport will be stamped by immigration.
My bet is that he had to get off the plane whether private or not.
Exposed: conflicts of interest among EFSA’s experts on food additives
Corporate Europe Observatory, 15 June 2011
Because EFSA is supposed to be independent, it is crucial that its management and the scientific experts involved do not have a vested interest in the issues EFSA is advising on. However, EFSA’s history is riddled with criticism of industry bias.
In February, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) documented several examples of conflicts of interest on EFSA’s management board.
A conflict of interest is generally defined as a situation where an individual in a position of trust faces a conflict between their private interests and their official responsibilities
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):
“Conflict of interest occurs when an individual or a corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit his or their own professional or official capacity in some way for personal or corporate benefit”.
So the simple fact of being in such a position, even if no unethical or improper act results, represents a conflict of interest.
The conflict can be mitigated through disclosure, but it can be resolved only by removing the individual from the position.
Commissioner for Health and consumer policy John Dalli has recently pressed for better governance at the agency.
“Dalli presses for better governance at EFSA”, EU Food Policy, Issue 56, 15 April 11.
http://www.corporateeurope.org/system/files/files/article/EFSA_board_conflict.pdf
Unrelated matter : Today’s Times Paqpaq motoring supplement
James Piscopo , Transport Malta chairman and CEO
” Between 2000 and 2010 the level of car ownership nearly doubled “
I see Dalli has decided to keep his usual impeccable reasoning.