Edward Zammit displays a level of arrogance which, if left unchecked, sends an unacceptable message not only to drivers but also to other members of society who believe that they have the choice if and when to obey the law.

Mr Zammit admits that he parked in front of a 'No Stopping' sign. Why did he believe that he could ignore it? Because "there was neither traffic nor queues inside"? Did the sign indicate that the driver had the choice to ignore the sign if he felt like it? Or does Mr Zammit believe that there should be a level of breach which is acceptable?

The traffic warden was right to send a message to Mr Zammit who should consider himself lucky that his car was not towed away. That would certainly have been a lesson not quickly forgotten.

Mr Zammit suggests that the warden 'discriminated' against him presumably because she also parked in the 'No Stopping' area. Where else does he suggest the warden should have parked to deal with his breach of the law?

I am not a great believer that democracy works nor indeed that we who live in Malta, or anywhere else, live in what the western world would define as democracy, but it is the closest we are going to get. To assume and to outwardly demonstrate that we can ignore the law imposed by an apparently democratically elected leadership is the slippery slope to anarchy.

I say more power to the traffic wardens in their attempt to alleviate the increasing traffic and parking problems in Malta.