Delimara incident: FKNK says it has different version of events

Kenneth Cassar

Apr 15th 2009, 10:35

Nearly a whole month has passed. How about at least a general idea of the "different version of events"?

S.Buhagiar

Mar 25th 2009, 20:10

Min jghid li ed nhallsu it-taxxi bix il-pulizija jigru wara nies li ed igawdu id-delizzju u ahjar jaqbdu lil min igib id-drogi jmissu jisthi jghid hekk. Kulhadd ghandu xoghlu u ta l-ALE kienu qed jaghmlu xogholhom ghalhekk mhallsin bix jwaqqfu lil min ikun qed jikser il-ligi kontra l-kacca. u hadd mghandu ghalfejn jithassar lil hadd ghax mbilli ghandu 72 sena safrattant xorta wasal biex gera u gidem lil pulizija!! imma L-aqwa li kulhadd iparla minghajr ma jkun jaf x'gara.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 20th 2009, 17:48

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin: Here's a hypothetical scenario and a question which will help establish whether you truly do not understand the obvious implication of your statements, or whether you are just pretending not to understand to "save face". Suppose the police arrest someone at a football pitch, and they release a statement saying that not only did that person break the law, but that he attacked them (the police). Suppose the football supporters' club of which the arrested person is a member says that they have a different version of events, but don't give the details. However they say they are investigating further. Now suppose I say that I am looking forward to hear the TRUE version of the case (after reading the police version). Does this not mean that I disbelieve the police version? I have a hunch that you won't answer this simple question, although of course, you might surprise me.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 20th 2009, 17:39

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin: "So now you have diverted your energy to giving English Language lessons, Mr Cassar?" You leave me no alternative. It's for your own good. "Please stick to the topic being discussed". So now you're telling me to discuss the topic before I know the "true version"? "One thing I assure you, your comments below more than confirm your prejudice against the pro-hunting lobby". How so? "I look forward to hear the TRUE version" = "This version is FALSE". Prejudice is when someone judges on something without knowing the facts. YOU provided the facts (that you believe the police version is false). So mine can't be prejudice. "Another thing, the art of going round in circles seems to be predominant in the anti's!" Sure...If one can't comprehend basic logic or the English language, one will say that the other is going round in circles. Convenient way way of evading the truth! "...don't bother to answer as I will refrain from wasting my time further on this banal argument!" Of course.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 20th 2009, 12:25

So now you have diverted your energy to giving English Language lessons, Mr Cassar? Please stick to the topic being discussed. One thing I assure you, your comments below more than confirm your prejudice against the pro-hunting lobby. Another thing, the art of going round in circles seems to be predominant in the anti's! Convenient way of evading the truth!

And BTW, Mr Cassar, don't bother to answer as I will refrain from wasting my time further on this banal argument!

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 20th 2009, 11:11

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

"When one reads that the FKNK holds a different version to what was reported in the media, one has every right to await the outcome".

Very true. But when one says that one is eagerly waiting to hear the TRUE version, one is obviously implying that the other version is FALSE.

You could have avoided all this trouble by saying "I am eagerly waiting to hear the OTHER version" instead of "the TRUE version". I thought that you were only reluctant to admit your obvious mistake. Apparently you still fail to see it.

"Why are you deviating from the subject?"

I'm not. I am only persisting in correcting you, because you keep insisting in repeating your obvious mistake, and calling me names because I point that out.

"Why are you attacking the messenger instead of the topic?"

I am not "attacking the messenger". I'm only "correcting the messenger". Of course, "the messenger" fails to see an obvious error even after being corrected several times.

"Are you, in the process, happy with seeing just one side of the coin?"

Of course not. That is why I did not comment on the veracity of either.

Grow up, madam!

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 20th 2009, 10:43

When one reads that the FKNK holds a different version to what was reported in the media, one has every right to await the outcome. So what exactly are you getting at Mr. Cassar? Why are you deviating from the subject? Why are you attacking the messenger instead of the topic? Are you, in the process, happy with seeing just one side of the coin? Grow Up, Sir!

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 20th 2009, 08:21

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

I'm not backing out of anything or assuming anything.

When you say "I look forward to hear the true version of the case!" when commenting about another version, everyone with at least average intelligence knows that you very obviously implied that the reported version is untrue.

When one says that one wants to see both sides of the coin before commenting, one wouldn't be implying anything. But when one says "I look forward to hear the true version of the case!", one is obviously taking sides.

I hope that you're not assuming that the rest of The Times readers are so stupid that they would not immediately know what you implied.

It's very simple. The police make a report. You say that you look forward to hear the TRUE version of the case. If the police version is TRUE, only a silly person would look forward to hearing the TRUE version when it is already know. If the police version is UNTRUE, then the sensible thing to do would be to wait for the TRUE version...but you can only wish to hear the TRUE version if you believe that the police version is FALSE.

Elementary.

Kathy Elliot

Mar 20th 2009, 08:04

For the Illegality of the issue, please pursue this article:

http://www. birdlifemalta. org/media/press/hunting/view.aspx?id=153 (remove spaces)

Refer to paragraph starting "Konstantin Kreiser, EU Policy Manager". The article is dated this time last year, but from other research, I've found that the ban is still active. I'm really sorry for those who lost their hobbies, but is it really so terrible to stop hunting for a number of years, just to make sure that the population of birds is large enough for the next generation to see? Please correct me if I'm wrong on an informational issue; I would appreciate it.

As for hunting and migration routes: it's quite a long standing debate whether ducks and swallows in particular have changed migratory courses over the years due to more threats in certain routes than others. Climate change has also been pointed out to be a cause of these migration course changes. The theory doesn't really humanise the birds, it's merely a response to threat, like a gazelle running off when it sees a lion. Doesn't take a human to know you should scarper if you're about to die, I suppose.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 19th 2009, 20:45

Mr. Kenneth Cassar, so now you are backing out!! Earlier you stated that I had said that what was reported was untrue, which I categorically denied. Now you are saying that I implied that! Don't you think that you are assuming too much?! And you know what happens when one assumes!!!!!

Are you suggesting that when one wants to see both sides of the coin before commenting, moreso when the FKNK reported that it held information completely different from what was reported in the media, he / she is implying anything?! I believe you are the one who should admit your mistake! This is not the first time that you accuse someone unfoundedly. Shame on you Sir!!!!!!!!!!!

K. Camilleri

Mar 19th 2009, 14:33

LOL...........Given that usually FKNK are very gentle people whenever they demonstrate in protest they do it peacefully something like this looks like extremely impossible. How is it possible that a trapper from Zejtun bit a policemen. No No, FKNK MUST engage in an investigation cause we are sure the whole world is conspiring against FKNK. How can these people continue their lives in misery if they cannot trap anymore birds, even though they made many bird species extinct.

Poor policemen, probably he saw this old men and was trying to be nice....While the trapper bit him....LOL

A Grech

Mar 19th 2009, 10:24

a 72 man running from LAE?? AND SLIGHTLY INJURED?? how come? Shame on the police who hit people, and even worst old people just because they think they have the power to do it cause they are wearing a uniform. why dont they go after drug dealers?!!! il vjolenza fuq kollox hazina , fuq animal ahseb u ara fuq persuna..... does ministers read newspapers??? and see what is happening.... do they know that these hunters/trappers live for this hobby ?!!!! EU tradit l irgiel taghna dak kollox.....

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 19th 2009, 09:46

In any case...its a beautiful day...a public holiday...so I'm off to enjoy the countryside. Not on private land, don't worry ;)

Happy holiday to all.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 21:36

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

Let me try to explain once again. When one says "I look forward to hearing the true version of the case" after reading the reported version, one would be implying that the reported version is untrue.

You tell me that normal and sane individuals should read your comments to confirm that you did not say that. Well, I would say that normal and sane individuals should read your comments to confirm that you implied it.

I don't believe you are abnormal and insane, and am quite sure that you understand. I am more inclined to believe that you understand perfectly well, but are reluctant to admit an obvious mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, don't worry.

I'm also not expecting that you admit your mistake publicly. I am only expecting that you do not persist in insisting that you didn't, thus making your situation even worse.

I hold no personal grudges about you. I don't think I even know you. I have nothing to gain by proving you wrong, but if you insist on saying that it is I who am wrong when clearly I am not, I will have to go on correcting you.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 21:08

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

You did say "I look forward to hear the true version of the case!". What does this imply, if not that the presented version is NOT the true version?

Of course, I would not say that you are vegan or anti-hunting because you neither explicitly said so, nor implied so in any of your comments.

Of course, I'll also leave it to other readers to examine the facts and decide who is saying the truth. At least we agree on this.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 18th 2009, 19:25

MR. KENNETH CASSAR, Are you really serious when you wrote: "You did say that the reported news is untrue, didn't you? Read my fifth comment down". Normal and sane individuals should read my comments to confirm that I did not say that. You were wrong when you wrote that in your "fifth comment down". Really, Sir, you confuse me!! In no time at all, you might be saying that I am a vegan (because you wrote so, or that
I am anti-hunting, again because you wrote so. I challenge you to quote from MY comments whether I wrote that or not. DO YOU THINK ONE SHOULD TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY?!

Mr Cassar, from comments posted below, readers can judge for themselves as to who is being factual or not. Obviously, judging us on what each individual writes and not on what you prefer them to do. STOP TRYING TO BE THE JUDGE AND JURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 18:05

@ Frans Sammut:

Ah, now I get what you actually meant in your last comment.

So, apparently, it is fine by you to mention cases of police abuses, even if they have nothing to do with this particular case, while it is not fine to mention trapper abuses that similarly have nothing to do with this case.

Also, you perhaps consider that speaking of police abuses does not mean one is purposedly introducing an element of suspicion, while doing the same with regards to other trappers is actually doing so.

Is this what you meant? If so, can't you see that you are using two weights and two measures? If not, please explain what you meant by "now that you bring in again the other side of the argument"

Frans Sammut

Mar 18th 2009, 17:33

@Kenneth Cassar
No, Sir, I will retract nothing of what I said. Now that you bring in again the other side of the argument, I reaffirm what I wrote. I know what I'm talking about. What I referred to was not hypothetical but factual. Are you happy, now?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 17:04

@ Frans Sammut:

I stated from the outset that one should not make premature comments on the case in question. In fact, I never did.

My argument was that you contradicted your own premise by commenting on the police, describing instances where some of them abuse their powers, and going as far as suggesting some reasons why they do so, and thus importing an element of bias to the issue.

You will notice that you did not similarly say a word about trappers who trap illegally and who, when caught, retaliate violently (which, you will perhaps admit, we've also had cases of). Please note that I am only mentioning this to show you how your comment was biased. I say that past cases not involving the trappers and police officers in this actual case, are irrelevant.

You are still in time to recognise your mistake. Better late than never, I would say.

Frans Sammut

Mar 18th 2009, 16:32

@Kenneth Cassar
So, what's your argument again? I started off by stating that I would not recommend premature comments on the birdtrapper's case before it reaches a court of law. It took you some time and some arguing to reach the same conclusion. Better late than never, I should say.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 15:30

@ M. Cardona:

"since when do migratory birds choose their migratory itenerary based on hunting threats?"

Oh, is that what you meant? Fair enough. I still would not say this is "humanising" other creatures (since many non-human animals are capable of rational thought, but perhaps not to the extent of this particular case), but since you explained what you meant, fair enough.

I take my comment back.

M. Cardona

Mar 18th 2009, 15:27

@ R Gatt

If it were your own 72 year old dad or grand dad would you still make the same suggestion?

"Put him away in a room 6'mx 4m. Then maybe he'll feel what a tiny defenceless bird feels when in 6"x4" cage. "

If your answer is yes you really need some professional help.

Once more, humanizing other creatures. I'm not into trapping and all that, but last year someone gave me a ekora bunting, and you wouldn't believe how tame this bird's become. I barely walk into the garden that this bird doesn't start to sing. It even hand feeds.

Birds are not human and their perceptions to danger and freedom are different to ours. Many birds are prey species and risk being hunted most of their lives. It is their way of life, hunt and be hunted, if they reacted by human standards they'd all be nut cases in zero time. A caged bird will come to associate its human owner as its provider and relate accordingly. A human wouldn't.

M. Cardona

Mar 18th 2009, 15:14

@ Kenneth Cassar

since when do migratory birds choose their migratory itenerary based on hunting threats?

"their continued obstinate behaviour may deprive us of a good number of beautiful birds in the future, as they will shift their migratory tracks"

Oh yes, they watch the news and all that, and based on the risk assessment they decide to shift their migratory routes.

Human isn't it?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 14:35

@ Frans Sammut:

"did you ever come across a news item relating to police officers booking football spectators for swearing?"

I don't think I have. Mine was only a hypothetical analogy.

"Do you reckon the Paola Corrective Facilities would be able to house all the convicts?"

I don't think it would, but that's irrelevant. I don't think that people convicted of hunting or trapping illegally would be imprisoned either. They would only be fined - hence my carefully chosen analogy.

"If I admire you for something it's for the way you desperately try to wiggle yourself out of impossible situations created by your goodself".

Actually, mine are not impossible situations at all. They are carefully thought explanations or statements that follow from careful reading of others' posts, followed with logical arguments, equally carefully thought out and usually fool-proof.

"Do you mean to become a solicitor when you grow up?"

I’m actually 38, but perhaps yes, I should have considered becoming a solicitor when I was younger.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 14:28

@ Frans Sammut:

"where did Ms Zarb Darmanin claim she has all the facts?"

She didn't, and I never said she did. But she did say as a fact that the reported news is untrue. How does she know?

"Like myself, she wants to learn what really happened when the case reaches the court of law before she would pronounce herself. Do you affirm likewise yourself?"

That is the sensible thing to do.

"I suspect there are more selfish motives to anti-FKNK bloggers than would be self-evident"

I can only speak for myself.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 14:08

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

"how dare you say that I have already passed judgement?"

You did say that the reported news is untrue, didn't you? Read my fifth comment down. Quoting the FKNK is irrelevant. We are speaking about what YOU wrote, here.

R. Gatt

Mar 18th 2009, 13:47

Put him away in a room 6'mx 4m. Then maybe he'll feel what a tiny defenceless bird feels when in 6"x4" cage. Nobdy has the right to take the life and freedom of any of God's creatures. We were all born free and that's the way it should remain. The other day in B'Kara I happened to see a man walking into an insurance agency with one of these cages under his arm and a bird in it. I would love to say it's laughable, but in reality it's a pitiful situation. No to hunting and trapping. Full Stop.

Frans Sammut

Mar 18th 2009, 13:25

Of swearing and police charges.
Dear Mr Cassar, did you ever come across a news item relating to police officers booking football spectators for swearing? Do you reckon the Paola Corrective Facilities would be able to house all the convicts?
If I admire you for something it's for the way you desperately try to wiggle yourself out of impossible situations created by your goodself. Do you mean to become a solicitor when you grow up?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 13:13

@ M. Cardona:

Where exactly has Kathy Elliot "humanised" other creatures?

Frans Sammut

Mar 18th 2009, 12:41

@Kenneth Cassar
Pardon me, where did Ms Zarb Darmanin claim she has all the facts? Like myself, she wants to learn what really happened when the case reaches the court of law before she would pronounce herself. Do you affirm likewise yourself?
I suspect there are more selfish motives to anti-FKNK bloggers than would be self-evident unless people like Ms Zarb Darmanin and yours truly take up the cudgels for the sake of truth as opposed to sheer bias and downright prejudice.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 18th 2009, 12:40

Mr. Kenneth Cassar, how dare you say that I have already passed judgement?! I insist, before passing judgement, I have to see both sides of the coin! Quote: "Whilst information available to FKNK is completely different to that reported in the media, the FKNK is presently investigating further before taking any position on the matter". As such, I await the result of this investigation before taking sides!

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 12:25

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

"...as already asked by another contributor, where you present on the scene?"

Like I told the other contributor, I wasn't. That is why (unlike you) I neither proclaimed any bias or judgement.

"You seem to be so sure that you know the facts".

I don't, and neither do you. Where have I said that I know the facts? As for you, you already proclaimed that the reported version is untrue. I already asked you whether you have any insider information that shows the report to be untrue. You conveniently avoided this question. I await the outcome of the court case before passing judgement (if I do at all). You did not wait at all...you said the report is untrue.

"Whereas you are always ready to attack me from behind a computer monitor, you invariably shy away whenever we meet personally!!!!!"

When have we ever met personally? Do I know you?

Miriam Webster

Mar 18th 2009, 12:24

"FKNK says it has different version of events" - there's a shocker!

Kathy Elliott, I couldn't have said it better myself.

M. Cardona

Mar 18th 2009, 12:22

@Kathy Elliot.


Madam,

The main fallacy in your analogy with your swimming practices is that if you were denied swimming at Qawra you could swim elsewhere. In the meantime, irrespective of conjured theories, the fact remains that here in Malta there is no alternative to Spring hunting particularly so for turtle doves. Meanwhile, you'd never be denied as a result of misinformation or misleading interpretations but rather based on factual evidence.

Suffice to note the misinformation campaign....."may deprive us of a good number of beautiful birds in the future, as they will shift their migratory tracks, as has already happened".

Yes a number of birds in the behind the desk comfort, are now opting for low cost airlines and buy their tickets online, as regards the route they have made it a point to detour around Malta and head elsewhere. Respect all beings INCLUDING GAME and people but please, please STOP HUMANIZING OTHER CREATURES.

On a more factual side note, Madam, has anyone yet noted that a lot of turtle doves are taking nuptial residence in North Africa following major forestation and agricultural efforts thereat? Has this anything to do with decreasing numbers on European soil?

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 18th 2009, 12:14

Mr Kenneth Cassar, as already asked by another contributor, where you present on the scene? You seem to be so sure that you know the facts. Sorry, Sir, I prefer seeing both sides of the coin before passing judgement.

"Why should I be afraid of telling the truth, whether I am facing a computer monitor or another person?" This really baffles me, Mr. Cassar. Whereas you are always ready to attack me from behind a computer monitor, you invariably shy away whenever we meet personally!!!!!

Frans Sammut

Mar 18th 2009, 12:11

Excuse me, Miss Elliott, who said the hobby under review is illegal? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? I am neither a hunter nor a birdtrapper but this does not give me the right to pontificate on such matters particularly in relation to a man who has found himself in the sort of trouble the news item is all about. What's more, the FKNK has released a declaration stating that it has a different version of the events that led to the trouble this man found himself in. Aren't you, well-meaning bird lovers (for whom I have great respect, that is for both the birds and their lovers) rushing in when other feathered-creatures fear to tread?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 11:54

@ Frans Sammut:

Cont...

"Still I would not like to specifically comment on the particular policeman's actual conduct simply because I was not there when the incident occurred".

That's all I'm saying. So you do get my point.

"By the way, were YOU there, I mean on the spot where this policeman caught this monster, this public enemy, in flagrante delicto?"

I would not refer to trappers as monsters or public enemies, but to answer your question - no, I was not there. That is why I did not pass judgement.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 11:54

@ Frans Sammut:

"To start with a 72 year old soccer fan would not be causing trouble at the football ground".

Why would you make that assumption? Swearing is illegal at Maltese football grounds. Are you saying that 72 year olds do not swear?

"But if he did it would be self-evident that he started the trouble"

Why assume so about the football fan and not of the trapper?

"Besides, are we just arguing 'academically' or on a 'practical' level".

At a practical level. What you expect of others, you should do yourself - that is all I'm saying.

"I would not expect policemen to be 'soft' in tackling football ground situations"

If it is just a case of someone swearing, yes, you would expect them to be "soft" the first time. If the offender disobeys police orders, or worse still, attacks them, it would be another matter.

Cont...

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 11:44

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

"I made it very clear that I await the true story before commenting".

Of course. This is evidenced by the following (your) comments:

1. "they readily pass judgement without waiting to learn the true facts!" (suggesting that the true facts are not those reported. You should parhaps have said "without waiting to learn all the facts" if you did not want to imply that the report is untrue).

2. "I look forward to hear the true version of the case!" (once again making it clear - not only suggesting, this time - that the report is not true. Again, if you meant to say that you are looking forward to hear the complete version, you should have said so. By saying "the true version" you are making it clear that the reported version is false).

It does not require much courage to note these simple facts and to speak out about them. Why should I be afraid of telling the truth, whether I am facing a computer monitor or another person?

Kathy Elliot

Mar 18th 2009, 11:40

Agh! If I see another 'poor old man practicing hobby' comment I swear I'll have a conniption. Yes, I am sorry for him, and yes; after so many years of spring hunting, I'm sure its something of a family tradition for him and others alike. But it's not a 'hobby' anymore if it is illigal, or if it is harmful for the environment; then it becomes a crime. Bird killing quotas and protected species exist for a reason, after all. If the government suddenly declared that there was to be no swimming on Qawra bays, to give a random example, it would seriously effect my lifestyle, but I would still not swim there any longer. The law isn't 'optional' when one doesn't like it, you know! Its also unfortunate that some of these people are so selfish and do not realise that their continued obstinate behaviour may deprive us of a good number of beautiful birds in the future, as they will shift their migratory tracks, as has already happened, elong with the danger of extinction.

Frans Sammut

Mar 18th 2009, 11:35

The analogy you draw is fallacious. For more reasons than one. To start with a 72 year old soccer fan would not be causing trouble at the football ground. But if he did it would be self-evident that he started the trouble. Two strong points against your logic. Besides, are we just arguing 'academically' or on a 'practical' level and a very particular one at that.? The football ground and the open air spaces are very different scenarios. I would not expect policemen to be 'soft' in tackling football ground situations, where their own safety may be at risk. But the venue at issue is very different, fundamentally different I would say, and it requires, or asks for a very different attitude from police officers. Still I would not like to specifically comment on the particular policeman's actual conduct simply because I was not there when the incident occurred. So I would leave it to the court of law and await its judgment. By the way, were YOU there, I mean on the spot where this policeman caught this monster, this public enemy, in flagrante delicto?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 11:06

@ Frans Sammut:

Yes, you make yourself perfectly clear. However I suspect that I might not have made myself clear enough to you. Let me provide an example.

Suppose there is a fight between a 72 year old football team supporter and the police. The news (and police) report says that the supporter attacked the police after the latter tried to arrest the supporter because the supporter was breaking the law.

Suppose someone comes in and says that we should not comment before court proceedings take place, but then goes on to say that "local policemen are increasingly acquiring an image resembling that of the Keystone Kops. Strong with the weak and weak with the strong", and that "I have my doubts about the behaviour of certain policemen", and also that the fight may be due to "the effect of the rampant disgruntlement in the ranks (of the police)...presumed rights for overtime", and "not being able to have their own back on their superiors they might be venting their chagrin on others. A 72 year old may be considered as a soft touch".

Do you think this comment would be equally fair on both the police and the supporter?

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 18th 2009, 11:05

Mr. Kenneth Cassar, it appears you are finding it difficulty to understand certain comments posted, amongst them my comment and that of Mr.Frans Sammut. It is crystal clear that you are the one who is taking sides. I made it very clear that I await the true story before commenting. However, contrary to what you wrote, you again started attacking me and not the argument. This is a persistent trait of yours, Sir! Funny how hiding behind a computer monitor gives you so much courage to be insultive!!!

Frans Sammut

Mar 18th 2009, 10:38

Easy, boy, easy. I made no allegations in my posts. No mention of conspiracy theories either. I was just referring to my experience on the road where I have seen police officers use body language that reminding me of John Wayne of old and the Keystone Kops of later vintage. Now that you insist, I WILL INSIST as well that before we learn of the court's judgment I will not be ready to believe that this 72 year old assaulted the police officer. I have to be persuaded that the latter went up to the man in a decent way (again not in a John Wayne-like fashion) and informed him that he was breaking the law or something to that effect, after which he might have taken his particulars or escorted him to the police station or whatever is the lawful, decent, polite way of treating citizens, particularly senior citizens, before I will make up my mind on this incident. Now do I make myself clear?

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 10:12

@ Frans Sammut:

Devoting three whole posts on conspiracy theories about the police (without providing any evidence), IS taking sides, considering that the issue is about two trappers vs the police (or vice-versa).

I certainly agree with you that "before posting further comments people should be patient enough to learn all the facts", which is what I did. This would have been reasonable, had you not spoilt it with your allegations about the police. What applies to the trappers applies equally to the police.

Frans Sammut

Mar 18th 2009, 09:29

@Kenneth Cassar
If you calmly and reasonably review my comment you are bound to conclude that I did not take sides at all. I just insisted that before posting further comments people should be patient enough to learn all the facts. These will presumably be presented, presently, in a court of law. Till that I refuse to assume the oldster is guilty. I know of instances of police arrogance stemming from the reasons I mentioned below, disgruntlement, a sense of getting a raw deal from their superiors, etc. That a policeman acts like the Keystone Kops with a 72 year-old who, after all, had been promised that his hobby would not be touched on joining the EU is not what I consider good conduct. That is the scenario I would not like to have been the case. But to know that we must wait for the court's judgment. That was my point, so you don't need to get red under the collar and try to give me a lecture on logic in the process.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 08:19

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

Cont:

"Have I accused anyone (like others on YOUR side have)?"

Yes. You have accused the police of not saying the truth (or not the whole truth), since you imply that what actually happened is different from the statement by the police. Also, I have no others on my side. I speak for myself.

"Don't you think you are jumping the gun yourself, now?"

Not at all. I speak of facts.

"They start commenting and attacking the individual..."

I actually "attacked" your argument. In essence, what I wrote is that if you are right about your expectations of others (which you are), then your same logic applies equally to you.

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 18th 2009, 08:18

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

"my comment reflects facts...the anti-hunting lobby grabs any opportunity that comes its way to tarnish the reputation of hunters and trappers"

Even if this were true, the relevant facts have nothing to do with this. What's relevant is informed knowledge about this particular case. Have you any such insider information? If so, please share. Otherwise, do not do what you expect others not to...that is, to judge before knowing the facts. As you will find, I neither said they are innocent, nor guilty.

"we can also see that most of the comments below have passed judgement without knowing the true story. Unlike you and other readers, I prefer to know facts before passing judgement".

You already passed judgement by implying that what was reported is untrue.

"Please enlighten me as to what you see strange in my comment!"

That you pass judgement before knowing the facts, and expecting others not to do likewise.

"Have I taken any side?"

Obviously yes.

Cont...

Joe Fenech

Mar 18th 2009, 01:44

Illegal hunting, illegal immigrant, illegal developments....do we REALLY punish ALL illegality? Just take a look around you...!!!!

Joe Fenech

Mar 18th 2009, 01:42

Good teeth, stupid behaviour!

cassar i

Mar 17th 2009, 22:02

@ D fenech. Anke jien hekk qed inhoss....qed iberraq ....

A GRECH

Mar 17th 2009, 21:43

How can you tell a 72 year old man to stop trapping when he has been doing it all his life....
But I am afriad this is the reality.....How many more are going to suffer.Just put your self in the same situation,a hobby,a pass time that you have been doing all your life and you have to stop now and you cant do it any more.Every one has a hobby or a pass time just think about it and ask your self can I do with out it....can I CHANGE...

Dont think so!!!!!! He was promised like all the rest.....

Publio D. Rosso

Mar 17th 2009, 21:20

Ok let’s summarise the facts – relying on what has been reported so far course. A senior citizen was, pre EU accession, guaranteed that he would not be deprived of practicing his hobby; probably the only one he has ever practiced in his entire life and probably for most of his life. Suddenly, the 72 year old senior citizen is now a criminal, and like a burglar or a drug dealer is chased by the police and the incident splashed in the news paper. Why? For insisting on continuing to practice what he, his father and probably his grandfather have done all their lives i.e. what was guaranteed to him, a guarantee confirmed by a letter from the Prime Minister himself.

Franco Farrugia

Mar 17th 2009, 20:41

Since when does FKNK do its own investigations? Was FKNK represented in the environs of where this accident took place? And what 'position' can FKNK possibly take, other than that of the proverbial sitting duck?

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 17th 2009, 18:34

Mr. Kenneth Cassar, my comment reflects facts, namely: we all know that the anti-hunting lobby grabs any opportunity that comes its way to tarnish the reputation of hunters and trappers; we can also see that most of the comments below have passed judgement without knowing the true story. Unlike you and other readers, I prefer to know facts before passing judgement. Please enlighten me as to what you see strange in my comment! Have I taken any side? Have I accused anyone (like others on YOUR side have)? Don't you think you are jumping the gun yourself, now?

Sorry, Sir, that is the problem with the anti-hunting lobby. They start commenting and attacking the individual (instead of the argument) without having the facts or comprehending one's comment properly. That is indeed the reason for my various accusations that the anti's comments are baseless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Daniel Bonello

Mar 17th 2009, 18:17

Shame goes to gonzipn and our president who as former PN leader promised us hunters and trappers that our socio-cultural tradition will not be touched once we become EU members! We were promised from the MIC, from the prime minister of that time and now everyone can see that their promise was only made for votes!

I pity this man for having to suffer from such broken promises!

J Busuttil

Mar 17th 2009, 18:03

All these comments about a minor incident. Comment about something positive for example the 29 MILLION EUROS IN AID TO MALTESE FARMERS or how the GWU,MUT and MUMN are going to revise the utility bills from OCTOBER 2008 and bringing ENEMALTA in financial mess and having to seek aid from Government so that we have electricity and water and the Government with less financial resources to help the unemployed im this international CRISIS.

J.Farrugia

Mar 17th 2009, 17:51

Cannot understand all this nonsense from the hunters apologetics.
So when you're 72 you dont break the law ? I bet you could be 80 and still break the law ! So what are you suggesting ? That he goes scot free if convicted. Uwejja xi bluha!

And what has cataracts operations got to do with this ? Mela spiccajna bla argumenti ! ALE and doctors are not the same thing. Should we dismantle all the polic force and spend the money on doctors ? You would love that dear hunters and trappers wouldn't you..so you can continue flouting the law at will. Dream on - ALE is on you and whoever breaks the law - even a 100 year old trapping nanna will have to pay.

v.pulis

Mar 17th 2009, 17:34

If there are any doubts of whether the trapper bit the police officer or not prints can be taken of the wounds and proof established if the marks are compatible with the trapper's teeth....or dentures as the case may be!!

dmicallef

Mar 17th 2009, 16:46

So we have money to send policeman running after 72 year old people practicing a hobby, but we do not have money to pay for some people and resources to speed up operations at Mater Dei (bhal kattereti). Last week their were 6000 people waiting for this operation.

People pay your taxes so the governement can send police running after 72 year old people, then have fun when you go to hospital and you are placed 6001!!! Last week a lady lost her sight completly due to cateracts (kateretti) in her eyes and being on the list for too long.

Chris Galea

Mar 17th 2009, 16:20

What resistance could a 72 year old offer ? and how far and how fast could he run ?

marco meli

Mar 17th 2009, 15:29

"ale noticed the man running away" was he doing 62kph and was caught on camera????? bahhhh at 72!!! he was just practicing his hobby that was guaranteed to himm by our dear prime minister even after acession to the EU!!!!!

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 17th 2009, 14:22

@ Frans Sammut:

There you go again, repeating that "any comment prior to court judgment is premature and of NO benefit to anyone", while you yourself give free reign to wild speculations with regards to the police officers in question.

Don't you see that your own comment applies equally to your good self?
_______________________________________

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

So first you claim that "many of those commenting are jumping the gun!" and that "they are so enthusiastic to tarnish the reputation of hunters and trappers that they readily pass judgement without waiting to learn the true facts!", but then you go ahead and comment that you "look forward to hear the true version of the case", thus suggesting (twice) that the police's version of events is false.

Is this perhaps because you are so enthusiastic to defend the reputation of hunters and trappers, irrespective of any possibility that they could truly be at fault?

Jeremy J Camilleri

Mar 17th 2009, 14:22

I am totally AGAINST hunting and illegal trapping, however, when something like this occurs, it is best to wait for the court decision.

I have witnessed terrible behaviour by police officers before.....

Andrew Gatt

Mar 17th 2009, 14:07

@ T Mifsud...........READ THE FKNK STATEMENT before blabbering away. It's written in plain English. Or do you see just what you want to see?

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Mar 17th 2009, 12:49

I believe that many of those commenting are jumping the gun! They are so enthusiastic to tarnish the reputation of hunters and trappers that they readily pass judgement without waiting to learn the true facts!

I look forward to hear the true version of the case! All those accusations targeted at FKNK might have to be swallowed back by certain individuals!

MARK MIFSUD BONNICI

Mar 17th 2009, 12:47

Without hesitation or doubt the FKNK states that:
Th" FKNK is presently investigating further before taking any position on the matter. This, insofar as the issue concerns the conduct of police officials and not concerning the issues related to the passions of traditional hunting and trapping,"

They are not defending illegal trapping if any such trapping existed, but POLICE CONDUCT.

Can all those reaching their own conclusions confirm that what THE TIMES is reporting is correct. I for one would rather hear both sides of the story before making a fool of myself as most people commenting have.

The FKNK states it will not take a position before investigating the matter. Is there anything wrong with that?

David Borg Cardona

Mar 17th 2009, 12:42

@P. Zammit..
Issa jghaddilu ??????? .. An insensitive comment to say the least. Imagine if it was your own 72 yr old father. Oh yes I forgot you are one of the bird loving apologists..

joseph lia

Mar 17th 2009, 12:20

A 72yr old trapper running away from the law???? at 72yrs old.....incredible!

I wonder why this 72yr old spent over 6 hrs in the A&E department???

Chris Finch

Mar 17th 2009, 12:12

So come on FKNK, lets have the version of events as you understand them. Are you saying that the Policemen are lying?

M. Cardona

Mar 17th 2009, 11:52

@ Carmelo Aquilina......Yeah right some form of thuggery if you forget that the THUG was a 72 year old!

L..Galea

Mar 17th 2009, 11:26

Frans Sammut
Str8 2d point

Frans Sammut

Mar 17th 2009, 11:22

Some of the comments already appearing on this board confirm my misgivings. I repeat: any comment prior to court judgment is premature and of NO benefit to anyone. With all due respect to some of the bloggers commenting hereunder I have my doubts about the behaviour of certain policemen. It may be the effect of the rampant disgruntlement in the ranks. Presumed rights for overtime and what not. Even chasing birdtrappers is considered by some of them as a waste of time. Not being able to have their own back on their superiors they might be venting their chagrin on others. A 72 year old may be considered as a soft touch. If he retaliates he becomes the victim of bias and a whole range of prejudices. May I repeat what I already stated: I have no truck for birdtrappers and such like, but I am not dim-witted or naive enough to buy wholesale any story coming from certain quarters. I stand by what I stated: I would await the court's judgment before commenting on such matters that may at first blush seem straightforward but may turn out to be somewhat complicated episodes.

D. Fenech

Mar 17th 2009, 10:59

It's also unbelievable how police forces are sending out 2 helicopters (beside each other) searching for hunters and trappers. This is the way they're spending the money. Now, I'm not a trapper or a hunter, but there's not wrong with LEGAL hunting. Sure, I don't agree with ILLEGAL hunting. It's part of our culture, and I'm taking this opportunity to say that the same thing is going to happen with the fishing hobby!

Just my opinion.

Carmelo Aquilina

Mar 17th 2009, 10:59

The FKNK is as usual playing with words and siding with the rresponsible minority of law breakers and trying to give them legitimacy... If the reports are correct this was thuggery and poaching in one go, and yet the FKNK think the issue is not about the illegal behaviour but about the way the police behaved. This illustrates perfectly why the FKNK are part of the problem and not part of the solution.....

J. Borg

Mar 17th 2009, 10:52

The EU lies, BirdLife lies, the Police lie, the videos are tampared, shot birds are frozen, arson attacks are commited by environmentalists themselves, the Times lies, Saviour Balzan is double-faced, Ray Vella hurt himself, there is no illegal hunting, no gargue is destroyed for trapping,.......
You may have no other truth but ONE, that of the socio-cultural-traditional FKNK!

M. Tabone

Mar 17th 2009, 10:50

This shows how much the FKNK is ready to fight the battle against illegal hunting and trapping. Unbelievable.

c. camilleri

Mar 17th 2009, 10:49

Poor old man of 72, practicing his hobby and being arrested! Ara fiex wasalna ta!

Arrestat ghaliex kien qieghed igawdi id delizzju..... li ilu jaghmlu ghomru kollu. Tal-misthija fiex gabna gonzipn tal-misthija.

U il pulizija mux ahjar imorru jaqbdu dawk li idahlu id droga?? Dawk ma jaqbduhom imma... minjaf ghaliex...

apsaila

Mar 17th 2009, 10:28

So illegal trapping is rampant it seems FKNK? Instead of condemming the illegal act and resistance to police the self made conservation and hunting organisation defends these criminal acts basing itself on rumours.....typical of hunters/trappers deny deny deny.....always innocent. Please change your version the 80's are over......

A.Farruga

Mar 17th 2009, 10:28

I think these man were arrested for something. I do not think that the police arrested them because of Birdlife.
The only thing that FKNK should do is condem this man for trapping illegally and for using brut force with the police. Notwithstanding his age and his namra, if what happened, as decribed in the article is true, this man should pay for his actions. Having a namra is no excuse for bullying, having a namra for 72 years is no excuse to break the law. We are not living in the jungle as some hunters and trappers think we are. The law is the law, no matter how much you disagree with it.
If this man, really roughed up a police man after he himself broke the law, what force would this man use against any common man in the street who crossed his path on something else ? Once a bully always a bully and therefore the law should nip this at the bud.

Michael Fitzgibbons

Mar 17th 2009, 10:22

Frans, I have to take issue with you. You said, "Discussions prior to that can be of benefit to no-one." I cannot see the logic of stifling public debate - freedoms such as public discussion and debate should never at anytime be discouraged. If everyone waits until the dust settles to have a post mortem rather than a debate or discussion. That would be of no benefit to anyone.

Ivan Cutajar

Mar 17th 2009, 10:05

Personally hunting and trapping are NOT my Hobby. But how can you convince a man who is 72 year old to stop hunting in Malta, when he can go for a holiday in EU and hunt? People has the right for there hobbies.

Stefan Sammut

Mar 17th 2009, 09:52

FKNK always use same taticts! Believing in their sins!

Tony Caruana

Mar 17th 2009, 09:42

Ara fix gabna GONZIPN

Ragel xih f'lahhar ta hajtu qed jghamel dak li dejem ghamel Ghomru Kollu

Issa Gabuh Kriminali !!!!!

Kenneth Cassar

Mar 17th 2009, 09:35

@ Frans Sammut:

It is also not nice to sow doubt about the proper conduct of the police officers unless one has any evidence supporting this doubt.

Speculations, like the ones in your comment, are also a benefit to no-one.

T Mifsud

Mar 17th 2009, 08:56

Unbelievable! Always trying to diminish the extent of illegalities. If birds are caught being shot illegally on video, FKNK will say the video is tampered or that the bird is not what it seems. If someone is caught trapping illegally, the FKNK president defends him in persona infront of police even though there is in-your-face evidence, and now they are defending a physical attack on Police!

FKNK is becoming an accomplice to crime!

dspiteri

Mar 17th 2009, 08:48

A 72 year old man running?

Bird Trapping keeps you fit

Frans Sammut

Mar 17th 2009, 08:43

One cannot but observe that local policemen are increasingly acquiring an image resembling that of the Keystone Kops. Strong with the weak and weak with the strong i.e. those who have the right connections. They don't seem to throw their weight around with illegal immigrants either. I am very keen to see what the FKNK have to say about the alleged aggression attributed to a 72 year old. I don't reckon I need to stress that I have no personal connection with the organization or any of its members. Nevertheless I am not ready to buy notions about senior citizens assaulting the police without learning of all the evidence. I will wait to see what ensues in court before making up my mind. In the meantime I invite other bloggers to do likewise. It may not be nice for birds to be trapped by humans, much less so for humans to be entrapped by other humans. Such matters can only be resolved in a court of law. Discussions prior to that can be of benefit to no-one.