Alternative sites for disco

I refer to the article entitled "Pullicino Orlando 'Offered Land For Disco'" which appeared on the front page (September 23).

The main thrust of the article that followed this title was in fact that of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando having offered me two sites, one at Ta' Qali and the other at the Rinella Movie Park for my planned venue.

This is entirely untrue and both the quote and the entire thrust of the article are grossly misleading.

Dr Pullicino Orlando never "offered" me any such alternative sites and, in my evidence given to the Magistrates' Court on September 22, I never said that he did. The Times did not faithfully report what was said and what has been presented as an actual quotation from my evidence is untrue.

In my evidence, I gave a detailed background of the context in which I had met Dr Pullicino Orlando and complained to him, as I had done to other MPs from both sides of the House, about the way in which my plans for a disco at the Splash and Fun Park in Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq had been undermined. It was following this that, after having looked into the matter, Dr Pullicino Orlando proposed that for party events I use standard public venues in non-residential areas, such as Ta' Qali and Rinella Movie Park.

This is entirely different from his having "offered" me such sites, as the headline in the article actually quoted me as having said. This may be duly verified directly from the records of the court proceedings and The Times should, quite frankly, have acted with great caution and even greater attention when reporting evidence tendered in a court of law.

This single subtle changing of words has given an entirely different and practically heinous slant to an otherwise insignificant exchange.

Editor's note
This is a literal translation (by The Times) of what Mr Micallef said in court: "He had proposed to me two sites, one close to the Rinella Movie Park and the other in some other locality in Ta' Qali". Admittedly, The Times could have used the term "proposed" rather than "offered" but, given the above quotation, The Times could hardly be accused of misleading readers and a "subtle changing of words" giving "an entirely different and practically heinous slant..."