Wednesday 21 March 2018


Four years later….and we are still discussing Mistra

Because that’s where it all started isn’t it?

If it had not been for Mistra, the JPO tears under the tinda, that infamous debate with the dubious press card, and Alfred Sant being made to look like a coward who would not confront his nemesis, we would not be here, four years down the line, still talking about that permit for a disco.

We would not be here now, being bombarded with breaking news almost every hour, listening to people uncovering all the lies and counter-lies which led to the PN clinching yet another victory by the skin of its teeth.

An article written by a not-so-hidden hand, which was easily spotted at the time by those of us who can immediately spot someone’s writing style, led to an orchestrated, carefully stage managed mise en  scène.  I remember writing about the Sant/JPO incident which took place during the Broadcasting Authority debate  at the time, pointing out that people saw what they wanted to see, or what they were being led to believe they were seeing, with the help of a lot of precisely positioned reports in the mainstream and other media.

As the pieces which we suspected are now falling into place, with everyone involved at the time eager to reveal their part in the plot in order to point an accusing finger at someone else, each statement made is even more damning than the last.

But where does this leave all of us, the voters?

I’m afraid it leaves us with an even more bitter taste than ever. Disgusted, disillusioned and dismayed that the future of our country should be treated like a plaything, a toy, by those who are in the seat of power.

The twists and turns  continued today.  The de Marco family has issued a statement against the Labour party for trying to implicate the late Guido de Marco in the attempt on RCC’s life.  Where Labour was wrong, in my opinion, was in its  choice of headline. The Malta Star headline said “RCC: Guido’s words led to attempted murder”, when in the audio recording

 RCC  is simply heard saying that the late Guido de Marco  had stirred up resentment against him.

The fact still remains that RCC said what he said, and we have all heard the animosity in his voice with our own ears, especially the part where he scathingly refers to Guido’s children (he practically spits the word out) defending the man who tried to kill him.

Meanwhile, RCC has accused Labour of spin, putting into practice the maxim that the best form of defense is attack.

Yes, the spinning continues and we are dizzy with it.

In the face of everything we are finding out about what goes on behind-the-scenes, the desire to tune off,  shut down  and turn our backs on politics is stronger than ever.

And to think that “officially”, the election campaign hasn’t even started yet.

  • Ian

    Hi Josanne,

    A well written piece. But I still have some questions:

    Why is publishing Sabrina’s emails wrong but this is ok for PL?

    How can RCC be slandering De Marco, rather than PL slandering him, when RCC simply voiced his concerns about his own assassination attempt in a private conversation, while PL illegally braodcast it to the public? You will agree that the notion of slander encompasses an element of publicity…

    Just wondering…

    • All good points Ian, and on principle, I tend to agree. The leaking of private emails/conversations should always be considered unethical and on the face of it one cannot argue that it is justified in this case but considered wrong in the Sabrina Agius (former RTK journalist) case. But perhaps the question we need to ask is, does this private conversation fall into the domain of the public interest since the attempted murder was such a high profile case?
      And of course, there is another question: who gave this tape to the Labour party?

  • The aftermath of the confrontation at PN headquarters last Tuesday could have some unexpected effects.

    • very good blog Manuel, well observed and well written

  • Thanks, Josanne. I need not tell you that your articles are a joy to read, even when I don’t agree with your conclusions.


    I never thought the word ‘fuck’ would ever cross RCC’s ‘aristocratic’ lips. Here’s another one with a fixation on pedigree. He calls himself ‘sensitive’ with a weakness… he obviously, as I have observed, does not like to be commented upon etc. But how sensitive is he for others who have been torn from rib to rib by his friend who does the dirty work for him and the party on her blog? Doesn’t everyone deserve to be respected? Is it right to drag some people’s reputation in the mud and bring out all the flaws in their life and character? Why isn’t he sensitive for these people too? As always with Nationalists: What is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

Powered by