1. That there have been cases where statements were issued by others about facts verified by them, and he accepted those statements without checking them.

2. That on 19 November, the statement issued by Kurt Farrugia was supposed to have been factually checked by Kurt Farrugia, so he did not check it. He is effectively blaming Kurt Farrugia.

In his statements, Mallia insists that he had not written or seen the statement up to the time it was released.

He never says if he had influenced its content or if it had been read to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLRMshlTWuk

Hawnhekka jidher illi l-Ministru qed jivventila l-verita.

But you are only saying that ‘a caldo’ and ‘ai termini’ of…whatever.

Because as Ugo Betti wrote: “Cosi’ e’ se vi pare.”

It is not the much touted Joseph Muscat government transparency. Evidently there is no transparency at all, not even between cabinet ministers and their prime minister – let alone between government and governed.

That is Labour style democracy as it is put into practice.

Negligent leaves more room for manoeuvre, as it might elicit some sympathy from those who think that Mallia was working so hard he couldn’t be expected to oversee every detail. After all he did have a meal to concentrate on at the Police HQ.

The criminal lawyer thinks, well, like a criminal lawyer so true to form “he might have known that the car was hit” and (hypothetically speaking) if he did, his intentions were pure (insert symbol for sarcasm here).

If by that statement he is indicating that the control of such statements are in the hands of Dr. Joseph Muscat, then the Prime Minister should have been the one to get the sack.

He is basically telling us that they are all yes man and that statements issued by ministries are actually issued by the sleeping Prime Minister and his men.