The answer may be obvious.

I disagree with the way he is clearly planning to vote in Konrad Mizzi’s favour when his conscience tells him that this is wrong. He should vote for what he thinks is right.

After all, in the same speech, he explained what is right and what is just, and said plainly that what Mizzi did is wrong.

Sometimes I wonder if they admit to themselves that what they might see as doing a good deed, that is to cover for someone who has messed up badly, they are actually sticking it to all those who suffer from that action.

This must be a national affliction in even the simplest of deeds such as selling tickets for l-Istrina when you are actually on duty being paid to do YOUR work or just coming in late and letting patients wait for an extra hour or so, while colleagues are expected to lie that you were held up in traffic or were called on an emergency.

A civil service mentality if ever there was one, pure abuse of the taxpayer and the client. In the case of covering for Mizzi, a clear abuse of the electorate AND the taxpayer.

An upstanding man is not he who covers for his friend but one who stands for what is right, calling a spade a spade.

I disagree with him for saying that he would have resigned in Konrad Mizzi’s position. He would never have been in Konrad Mizzi’s position, and that is exactly what he should have said. That is the trouble in this country. Nobody says the effing obvious. They try to coat it in sugar even in extreme circumstances such as these.