Tinny Tones are some of the most irritating sounds around. I am talking about mobile phones' ringing tones.

I get so irritated with the different piped 'tunes' I have to endure everywhere I go, that I changed mine to a regular ring. At least, I am spared my own phone getting on my nerves, even if that is tinny too. But a bell ringing is less irritating. I cannot bear good pieces of music being given the piped treatment.

Writing this reminded me of a quote I have prominently displayed on my office wall: "I have only one nerve left... and you're getting on it". My tolerance level with disturbances while working is pretty low.

I am now thinking of carrying it around with me and flashing it at people who insist on having loud conversations on their mobile phones on the minivans from the Floriana car park to Valletta in the mornings.

Maybe I should point out, at this juncture, that the voyeurism in the title refers to the powerless and passive listener, so anyone expecting some sexual titillation can stop reading this now.

Just as cigarette smoking causes passive damage to non-smokers, forced listening to other people's mobile phone conversations also causes a nuisance, if not as damaging, to our health.

Mobile phones are a bane as well as a necessity, especially for people who let their mobile (phone) control their life. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog in some cases, and they have to carry their mobiles everywhere they go as though it is a permanent body attachment.

But, besides the personal 'attachment' certain individuals have with their phones, which is, after all, a personal matter, there is also the issue of a code of conduct, which is non-existent when it comes to the use of mobile phones in public places, especially in a confined space.

I have written about this years ago, commenting on how rude I find it when one of a couple, sitting at a table at a café or a restaurant, spends time on the phone ignoring their partner, colleague or whoever.

This was brought back to me as I watched Waking the Dead on television on Thursday night. Two professional people were having dinner together in a restaurant and the man's mobile phone started to ring. "Do you mind if I take this call?" he asked the other person. When she said, "Go ahead", he got up from the table and moved away to answer the call, and he kept it short. How polite. How refreshing - a gentleman, I thought.

This is the kind of thing our Maltese series producers should be emulating. The roles being played on our television screens should promote good behaviour, not the reverse.

Now the role being played in the series I referred to was of a senior police officer, so the call might have been important, which explains why the phone was not switched off.

But how many people really need to be on call all the time? And it is not just people taking calls on their own table. How many times have you had to listen to a 'private' conversation, the details of which were not particularly entertaining, or indeed offering any interest whatsoever, even for people who enjoy eavesdropping?

Then there are the people who consider it crucial to have their phones on during meetings. Many of them have secretaries, and most have an answering service, so surely they can manage a couple of hours' meeting without interruption?

I find it so rude when a person I am trying to put a point across to at a meeting, blithely picks up on a call and proceeds with a conversation.

Of course, by the time he (it is usually a he, I am afraid) has finished taking the call, I would have forgotten the point I was trying to make. Although, I must admit, I have now got quite adept at switching off the 'voyeur' bit and stay concentrated on my agenda.

But I think the worst bad behaviour, when it comes to mobile phones, is their use in churches. I was stunned to see a note posted prominently in a chapel recently asking people to switch off their phones. Do they really need telling?

Another place where I found their use astounding was during a yoga class! This is supposed to be a place where one shuts everything out for an hour or so. Not only were phones ringing, but people were also arranging meeting times with their friends or keeping them posted on their current activity!

I can understand that sometimes people forget to switch their phones off, but answering and actually having a conversation during a yoga session I found unbelievable.

The latest news of course is that aeroplanes will soon be providing the facility to use mobile phones in the air. Now that they have got rid of smoking on board, they are about to introduce another nuisance.

When it happens, we shall lose one of the few tinny tone-free public spaces left.

On a wing and a prayer

The Hunting issue is still very topical and on Tuesday the hunting and trapping federation (FKNK) wrote to the Prime Minister urging the government to find "a meaningful solution" to the problem, to benefit (at least that is what I think they meant) "the government, the police and the thousands of hunters, trappers and their families".

Now I can understand that it would indeed suit the government, the police and the hunters and trappers for a solution to be found. But where and how do the "thousands" of hunters' and trappers' "families" fit in? If the latter do fit in this saga, what about the government ministers' and police officers' families? Do they have a role in this too? And what about all the rest of the Maltese families who want to see flying and singing birds, rather than dead ones?

Anyway, if anything, from what I hear, the families of hunters and trappers would benefit if hunting was curtailed, because it would give the men one excuse less to get away from home.

What I found amusing in the report, carried in the paper on Wednesday, was the police "source" saying they were finding it difficult to apprehend more trappers, because "spotters were positioning themselves in strategic positions and were informing other trappers, that the police were approaching, via radio".

Do the police really not realise the way they are shooting themselves in the foot? Admitting that the trappers are running rings round them is hardly something to trumpet! Are they even better armed than the police when it comes to communication technology?

Following one of my articles on the subject, I got an informative letter from Konstantinos Mentzelopoulos, director of the Tilos Park Association (TPA), a Greek, non-profit, NGO.

We are not alone, folks. While offering support and encouragement, he told me: "The staff of the association, on Tilos island, Dodecanese, Greece (in the Aegean, next to Rhodes) has experienced threats of death, beatings and bomb explosions during its three-year existence".

But despite this, they are still continuing the public advocacy of a hunting ban on the 63 sq km island that was initiated by the Tilos municipality under a PASOK (socialist) government approximately 14 years ago, and continued throughout the PASOK national governing period until 1994.

The anti-hunting ban has been implemented through a series of temporary administrative decrees ranging from one to three years in duration.

In 2004, a centre-right New Democracy government was elected and stated that it intended to disregard a 2003-2006 temporary administrative decree banning hunting on Tilos.

The association is currently involved in "stirring concern" in the New Democracy government of prospective additional EU lawsuits against Greece for failure to respect mandatory EU directives.

The Hellenic government would risk the loss of this €824,212 programme if it permitted the introduction of an activity that would jeopardise the intended results of the project which are to rehabilitate three threatened [Annex I] wild bird species to a favourable conservation status. However, this project is due to end in 10 months. The TPA is continuing its advocacy of banning hunting in this registered Special Protection Area.

"One recent additional support for continuing the island hunting ban is from an EU Directive entitled the Environmental Damage Liability Directive 2004/35/EC adopted on April 21, 2004 and required to be transposed by all EU member states into their national legislation within three years by April 21, 2007."

And this is where this letter should further interest stakeholders: "While one would be best advised to seek proper legal counsel on the subject before its application, there are interesting issues raised in this Directive, such as whether this Directive implies the loss of governmental immunity and resulting potential exposure of personal liability for official decisions taken by government representatives who take decisions that result in foreseeable environmental damage to protected species and/or habitats.

"This new EU Directive opens up a range of arguments against Member State governments and private groups or individuals that were left unaddressed by the Birds and Habitats Directives [79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC]."

Another experience shared with us is "the lack of enforcement problems associated with violations of EU directives" The letter concluded by wishing that 2007 would ensure "the conservation of the fragile environmental and wildlife resources, in your region and ours, which we at the TPA consider to be the real treasures of our world".

And so say the Maltese who share my thinking on the subject.

phansen@timesofmalta.com