Ivan Falzon’s work phone could not be used to donate money to the political party, but could be used to ‘encourage” others to donate money.

Try being a woman and pointing out such a “mistake” committed by a man in Malta and you’ve earned yourself a committed enemy for life.

A bruised ego takes precedence over correct procedure. Those sort of egos think they deserve what they’ve taken. The shorter they are, the bigger the ego.

As they say it takes a thief to catch a thief and if one examines the life of Joseph Muscat since when he was an altar boy one will immediately discover what a manipulative and deceitful mind he has.

What is the lie acceptance factor? He’s already up from Qala Council, where it will have been more of same. Direct orders, trading in influence. Now it’s a question of going that rank higher.

Yes, I know it well. When I first read the story I didn’t get that the text was to a random number. I didn’t see the photo in the story originally. I thought the text went to Ivan Falzon. My mistake. However, I’m still in agreement with you that it was a very dodgy story, made out to be a joke. And I still think The Times journalist fell for it without questioning whether there was any truth to it.

Possibly because he would have texted everyone in his contacts list to ask them if they had been fooled into donating. But, if he didn’t “group message” them, then I would be very suspicious.

It would take just one person who received the first message to be able to say whether or not a second message was sent. Perhaps not everyone in his contacts list was taken in by his explanation.