One wonders who that might be, thought he was into tower cranes lately.

When even James Tyrell comes along and describes the FAA as being in need of funding, thus fees necessary, people may have not understood.

Rest assured developers have, they’ll simply ask the FAA what’s expected from objectors to offer more.

Astrid retracted her action in Mellieha, herself stating objectors had chosen to settle with the developer.

If that’s not blackmail.

Consider now for a moment why Muscat chose to appoint her to spearhead the lobby to counteract Sandro’s.

It’s called ndawwru lira u nkabbru l-ekonomija. The more conflicting the design agenda, the better for the FAA.

One could see it coming when she’d resort to all the loopholes in regulations to poison any proposal, no discernment to quality whatsoever.

It also explains her ridiculous arguments selected to oppose ad oltranza, ask that other NGO tasked with restoring the garrison right below the upper barrakka: In the end it was about a poxy ‘restaurant’ serving hobz biz-zejt and burnt capuccinos to pink Germans.

To think the FAA’s statute requires her removal since at least a couple of years. Yet no-one challenges her.

A fraud, now an agglomeration of ‘experts’ intent on pushing their business, the baroque as an excuse for luxurious culture trips abroad the latest.

The purpose of the release is to generate work for which the writer of the release could bid. There are not many who provide these consultancy services locally so, if government does carry out the required studies, the writer of the release has a very good chance of getting the work.

People still have to understand how FAA operates. It is an NGO which seeks the interests of individuals and groups of people and presents it in the guise of lobbying for the environment.

Need you ask?

The item with news value nowadays would be when Joseph Muscat deals with a company that has a good reputation, or engages the services of someone who is not a crook, a sex pervert, or both.