Careless talk costs life

Years ago, in the late 1970s, a friend of mine called Pete was attending St Edward’s College here on the island. Dom Dom the Communist Son was Prime Minister and life was tough, most things were in short supply and that included free speech, which Dom had noticed was even less popular in countries run by his friends such as Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro and that saint of human rights and economic success Robert Mugabe.

Pete was not a great academic, he sat at the back of class, was rather lazy, had very bad eyesight and so took little interest in lessons unless there was an opportunity to embarrass or wind up Miss Bonello. She was the form’s rather attractive but politically motivated teacher.

Consequently, one day she asked her class how many of them were Dom Mintoff supporters.

Not really knowing what a Mintoff supporter was, but wanting to be liked by the pretty teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for little Pete.

So the teacher asked him why he has decided to be the odd one out... yet again. Little Pete said, “Because I’m not a Dom Mintoff supporter.”

The teacher asked, “But why aren’t you a Dom Mintoff supporter?”

Pete replied immediately, “Because I’m a Nationalist.”

Then the teacher asked him why he was a Nationalist.

Pete answered, “Well, my Dad’s a Nationalist, as is my Mum, and therefore, so am I.”

Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, “If your Mum was a moron and your Dad was an idiot, what would that make you?”

Little Pete replied, “A Dom Mintoff supporter”.

He was deported to Zimbabwe where he died.

Svetlana had her day in court and won – now your taxes will pay for an appeal demanded by Inspector Raymond Clouseau

Those of you who follow this column will recall the outrageous case of Svetlana Podgorska who came to Malta in 2008 to live with her Maltese partner. She had held previously a senior management post in a British casino and took up a casino job here upon her arrival.

However, Svetlana perceived that there might be an opportunity to run roulette tables and other assorted card games at weddings and business conferences where the winnings were “monopoly money” and the overall winner got a certificate. She could derive her income by renting out the tables and organising the same on such occasions. Such a concept is already working successfully in places like the USA and the UK.

Conscious of not wanting to break the law in Malta she contacted the Lotteries and Gaming Authority and subsequently a meeting took place with them in May 2008. It was attended by Dr Joseph Borg, the Director Legal and Enforcement, his secretary, Svetlana and Brian, her partner.

Dr Borg gave Svetlana a copy of the gaming acts and it was agreed that she would return with a report and make a presentation once she had had an opportunity to study current Maltese legislation.

She duly did and returned to see Dr Borg in November 2008 and, in front of the same attendees, delivered her report and made her presentation. She put forward three propositions the first of which was for amusement only as there was no money involved. He replied by saying that he would need two months to look into the detail of all three proposals and would meet with her again in due course.

A third meeting was called in February 2009. At this meeting, Dr Borg, on behalf of the Lotteries and Gaming Authority, and therefore the government, said that provided that there wasn’t the word “casino” in the title, due to the premise definition, her first proposal was acceptable. This was because her scheme qualified under the Act’s definition of no prizes or cash were being given out and as such no licence was required under the act due to this fact.

As a result, she named her company “Viva Vegas”, ordered her roulette tables, took an office lease in Sliema and designed the marketing material. She was happy despite having taken the best part of a year to research and get her project officially approved.

People applauded her honesty and professionalism as she had bothered to do things properly and meticulously.

However, in late May 2009, the police arrived without warning at her premises, confiscated her equipment and arrested her on the grounds of contravening article seven of the Act which states that “no person shall import, manufacture, maintain or supply any relevant gaming device unless such person is in possession of a valid licence to this effect issued by the Authority or unless such person is exempted from such licensing requirement in respect of such relevant gaming device in terms of regulations made under this act.” This is the very same act that Dr Joseph Borg had previously told Svetlana that her business project had no need to comply with.

She had been told by a senior government official that her activity did not need a licence; there was no gambling of real money involved – therefore it is surely unlikely that even the dimmest of housewives could get hooked on winning “monopoly money”; she hadn’t even started trading or distributing her material; and what sort of a threat did she present to the public good?

I mean how many people have you heard of going bankrupt due to “monopoly money” debt? How many have stolen in order to pay off “monopoly money” debt? And do you know of anyone being beaten up due to owing “monopoly money” debt?

Nevertheless, when these facts were understood, common sense must surely have prevailed. Oh no this is Malta and it didn’t. Indeed, after Inspector had subjected Svetlana to a five-hour interrogation, during which he inferred that all Russian women he had ever come across were prostitutes, he still seemed to have failed to grasp the lunacy and stupidity of the case he had before him.

Svetlana was understandably traumatised. She had attempted to do everything right but now she might be charged with a criminal offence and had bought equipment and marketing material, set up a website and signed a lease and yet was unable to operate.

Surely, her friends insisted, that common sense, despite the inspector’s apparent lack of it, would prevail in the end. No it didn’t, as he next phoned her lawyer to say that, upon advice of the Attorney General’s Office, the police were going to proceed with charges.

Obviously, Svetlana’s initial reaction was to phone the very man, who as Director Legal and Enforcement of the Lotteries and Gaming Authority had told her to proceed. However, suddenly Dr Joseph Borg was no longer taking her calls. An aide advised her that he had been told by police not to talk to her.

A good friend of hers with some influence organised a meeting for her with Dr Tonio Borg, the Deputy Prime Minister, to highlight the role of the LGA as a government body in advising on legal issues. He listened carefully and qualified his comments by saying that he hadn’t practised law for some time. Nevertheless, it was his opinion that if article seven was applied to the rest of us in the same fashion it would mean that any tourist, permanent resident or Maltese national entering the country with a chess board or a pack of playing cards would be in breach of the law in the same way.

So, despite having sought and got the approval of a senior government official and having not even begun to trade Svetlana was forced to take legal advice from Dr Robert Abela, son of Malta’s admired President, in order to protect herself. His interpretation of the current Lotteries and Other Games Act led him to believe that his client hadn’t a case to answer.

I’m sure those of us with even a little common sense and any sense of justice agreed with both him and the Deputy Prime Minister. But this does not excuse what had happened here. An innocent and law abiding woman was to be persecuted by the government and one was forced to wonder why?

Eventually, after nine months the case went to trial and Svetlana was found innocent as all the evidence suggested she always would be. The result was that an enraged Inspector Raymond Clouseau declared his intention to appeal, which he duly did at the taxpayers’ expense. So, amazingly, the case goes on.

Now there are serious questions here that need to be answered. Why didn’t Dr Joseph Borg ever step forward publicly and admit to telling Svetlana that he approved of her “amusement only” option with no licence required from the LGA and that she might operate as a result?

Of course, it is the prosecution’s right to launch an appeal against a judgement that has gone against them. But it does seem odd that the inspector is doing this given the evidence. Could he be wasting the taxpayers’ money by appealing against an obviously sound judgement, and if so, why is he doing this? And why is a competitor being allowed to do exactly the same thing that Svetlana wanted to do without fear of prosecution? Go to www.maltayes.com/events/casino and see the same kind of operation working as it has done continually despite my exposing its existence in this column last summer.

As a result of all of these questions it does not seem an altogether unreasonable assumption that the Inspector might be pursuing a personal vendetta against an innocent woman by abusing his position and the public purse and yet not taking similar action against her competitor? Why would he do that? It is all very strange is it not? And why is the sale of the same casino and card games by shops such as Lidl, Gadget, among others, still continuing in Malta unabated?

Lastly, can Dr Gonzi, or anybody else for that matter, ever erase this kind of unbecoming behaviour from the face of Malta’s government? And haven’t you – the Maltese people of respectable reputation – had enough of this kind of thing?

Of course, as I said last July, you may not think that Svetlana’s case has much to do with you – after all she isn’t Maltese. But think again for three important reasons. Firstly, she is an EU citizen and Malta is in the EU. Secondly, Malta is your country and should be a place to be proud of. Thirdly, the next time a lone character is being bullied by these people it could be you.

Brown has blood on his hands

The wet and toothless Chilcot Inquiry is a typical product of the cynical and corrupt administration that has ruined once Great Britain these last 13 years. It has completely failed to really press any members of the government past, like Tony Blair, or present, like Gordon Brown, on their actions and has tended to just allow them self-serving monologues instead. These are designed to say how well they managed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why? – because all the Inquiry members have either received favours or expect to from these sleaze ridden crooks who continue to cling to power.

Therefore, thank God for heads of the Armed Forces who have stepped up and told the truth in great numbers. Among these was Lt Gen Sir Graeme Lamb, who in a withering assessment of the “doomed” state of the armed forces, said that the SAS had even been denied Vietnam-era equipment that would have saved lives.

The whole government has blood on its hands but none more than Premier Brown, who, as Chancellor, starved the forces of cash, which instead he wasted on socialist domestic incompetence.

Every time he sees those coffins, draped in Union Jacks, being shouldered aboard aircraft in Camp Bastion in Afghanistan he should know that more young lives have been lost and their parents’ destroyed amid bleak grief due to him sending troops out to fight with inadequate equipment that the British public would never have begrudged their taxes being spent on.

It is better to pay for a war with cash than save the money and pay with your troops’ blood instead. Don’t go to war unless you believe this. I don’t think Brown ever considered this. I bet the parents of young soldiers did.

The young British troops dying are only boys but their lives are over – terminated by rotten and useless equipment. They and their families have been betrayed by Gordon Brown.