First secretary denies resisting warden

A.Farrugia

Aug 29th 2008, 23:28

I also think that names should never be publish unless proven guilty of any offence, and this includes appeals and all the measures available at law to the accused. It is indeed shameful that names are splash around so quickly without any thoughts of the consequences, when the persons involved are subsequently acquitted.
On my advice, journalists should adopt a no name basis even if the law and law courts allow them to publish names. A sort of addendum to their code of ethics.
In no way am I saying that the person mentioned here is innocent of the alledged offence he is accused of, I do not even know the person. I myself have never been accused of anything in front of a law court and neither have members of my family. However we have to take a humane approach to the accused. Innocent until proven guilty. Then splash the names as headlines (metaphorically speaking of course) if the editor finds it appropriate once proven guilty.

K. Vella

Aug 29th 2008, 21:03

@Reuben Balzan:
How were the "victims" protected here? http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080827/local/three-admit-indecent-acts

And on this story, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 29th 2008, 19:15

@ Charles Alamango:

I would say that the names of the accused should never be published until (if that is the case) the person is found guilty.

However, the names of rapists and paedophiles are not published probably to prevent vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

However, you might wish to visit Fr Joe Borg's blog. There is a discussion about compiling a register of paedophiles going on there.

Joseph Schembri

Aug 29th 2008, 18:53

In my opinion the name should not have been published, but neither that of all the other people who are accused of any crime. This is because they are presumed innocent. It is not uncommon for a person to be later found completely innocent but the media reports would have done irreparable damage.

R. Balzan

Aug 29th 2008, 18:50

@ Charles Alamango: Names of the people you mentioned are not witheld to protect them but their victims.

Charles Alamango

Aug 29th 2008, 16:04

This is excellent!!!!!
A person of integrity who is employed at the Foreign Ministry has his name splashed on all the media for 'disobeying' a warden.
Animals who molest and rape our children are protected and their names witheld. First class.....

C. Borg

Aug 29th 2008, 14:16

Wardens are definitely not the most popular people on the island, however all your "what ifs" and assumptions are misleading.

Is it true that Mr. Hussein initially pleaded guilty to the charges??

It is about time that something is being done about the littering in the country.

Alfred Baldacchino

Aug 29th 2008, 13:39

What would have been the warden's attitude if it had been one of the burly lorry drivers, who drive spewing smoke and building material along the way ?

John Zammit

Aug 29th 2008, 03:03

I would like to add something more to what the previous persons before me wrote below. I was driving my car near busy bee stopped to pick up my elderly mother and aunt the latter being half blind . Warden was spotted hiding behind a corner . she saw me going in the coffee place and immediately pounced on my car from a distance. Slipped the paper in a twinkling of an eye and hid again , while passer byes saw her behaviour which is highly illegal and inhuman. Every car has the right for drop of people and in the case of Anziani to give them ample time " minutes " to do so. So in this case I am not surprised that such incidents occur when wardens behave like vultures

S Sant

Aug 28th 2008, 18:08

To arrive at a stage of 'violently resisting' this warden (or any other person for the matter)speaks poorly of the warden's attitude/language used in the first place. I don't think that Dr.Al-shinawi 'resisted' to nothing. Perhaps particular wardens are adopting a provoking attitude towards 'offenders' and possibly leading even the most peaceful person to 'resist'? It is clear that particular wardens are abusing their position.

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 28th 2008, 14:22

Good point, Joseph.

Joseph Schembri

Aug 28th 2008, 09:54

There is something that I don't quite understand here. One charge is of 'having violently resisted a warden'. You resist someone if that someone uses physical force. Are wardens allowed to use force even for an offense like littering? Maybe it's the court language used that I don't understand.