I’ve used it without thinking about it since early childhood. I so didn’t think about it that I actually had to look it up when Michael wrote in.

The point here – and how very disgraceful that I should have to spell it out to a defence lawyer – is that 1. they have a duty to the public to avoid such contacts, 2. they have to be seen to be impartial and not just be impartial, 3. the fact that Pierre Calleja was invited in the first place means that there was a pre-existing and very cordial relationship, which is in itself worrisome, especially when you consider the sort of men who were in that convoy.

Unfortunately, criminal defence lawyers trade in facts and so do not understand the significance of perception, the ‘Caesar’s wife’ rule and the rest of those considerations which are considered crucial to the proper operation of democracy.

I suggest you read some newspapers published in the democratic world (that is, not Italy) to see what sort of view is taken of top policemen going on jaunts with fixers and operators, to use the kinder description of something more serious.

Sorry to disappoint you, Michael:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ring-off

There are Labourites in that list who left because they took up another position in government, and other officers who were offered better positions in the private sector, where their experience is needed and appreciated.

Most have completed their 25 year service and now earn a pension. The question which should be asked is, with all the shit that’s going on around you, would you feel comfortable staying on after completing your service? The answer would be NO. But then again, like you, I am assuming.

In other words, he was pushed.

Labour will remain Labour – gvern taghna, naghmlu li rridu.