PBS fined over Norman Lowell programme
Norman Lowell.
The Broadcasting Authority has fined PBS €1,164 after finding that Norman Lowell's comments in Bondiplus of May 3 to have been 'manifestly offensive' to the public and could have been avoided.
In a three-page statement this afternoon, the Authority said that it was of the view that it was a mistaken decision for the programme producers to carry this programme live and without editing.
Furthermore, the Authority said it could not understand why such prime time exposure should have been given on state television to a person who was well known for his racial hatred and offensive opinions, a person who had been convicted of racial hatred by the courts and handed a suspended sentence.
Referring to the charge that the programme had violated rules on racism, the BA noted that the discussion had included references to Mr Lowell's absurd and surreal theories, including his racism and his contempt of the Jews. In this context the presenter had prepared himself well to nullify Mr Lowell's prejudice and Mr Lowell had been confronted in a serious and determined manner. The Authority therefore felt that it should not proceed further with this part of the accusation.
The Authority complained, however, that extracts from Mr Lowell's book which were insensitive and offensive had been quoted but not sufficiently countered.
Among them were Mr Lowell's denial of the holocaust, when Mr Lowell had referred to these victims as "the six million ghosts' a comment which appeared to have surprised the presenter, who did not react in a satisfactory manner.
Another quoted extract of the book said that babies with disabilities should be aborted or subjected to mercy killing within an hour of birth. The reading of this extract gave Mr Lowell an opportunity to continue to offend and expand on his proposal, while the intervention of the presenter was minimal, the BA said.
Furthermore, after the presenter read an e-mail from a woman who had adopted a child from Ethiopia, Mr Lowell declared that all those who adopted a non-Europid, should be deported, with the adopted children, to the countries from where the children had been adopted, so as to live in the child's natural habitat.
Such comments, the BA said, could not be more offensive to parents who had adopted babies of different races.
The Authority noted that PBS in its arguments on the case had said that the comments by Mr Lowell were condemnable but freedom of expression should prevail. The Authority, however, referred to a decision it had taken in 2004 in another programme also involving Mr Lowell, when it said that freedom of expression should be exercised while respecting the rights and freedoms of all people.
In this case, PBS was defending the unfettered right of expression of an individual who was fighting to deny the rights of person born with disabilities and those parents who adopted children of different races, the BA said.
PBS SUES BROADCASTING AUTHORITY
Meanwhile, PBS has taken the Broadcasting Authority to court, saying that the Authority did not observe the principles of natural justice when it fined the state broadcaster €1,164 after finding that the March 8 edition of Bondiplus broke political impartiality rules. The programme was based around an interview with Foreign Minister Tonio Borg.
PBS said the Authority had acted upon a charge made by its own CEO and had not considered all the facts of the case.
It asked the court to order the BA to refund the €1,164.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
123 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Tony Scott
Jun 3rd 2010, 14:18
Part 1
@Norman Lowell
Let me tell you something I am a handicap so for you I should not exist let alone live.
For your information what I did and got in my entire life is all with my capacity. I never asked for pity from no one.
Not only that, I fought against all currents starting when I was still at the primary school against some idiot of a priest because my family was with labour. Later when I was still at the Secondary School I was one of the ring leaders protesting against the then Nationalist Government. I protested when there was the Labour Party in the beginning of his legislation. When I saw wrong doing whatever government of the day I was never afraid to fight my own way.
Apart from that in the Music Industry many know what I have done. No need to mention anything as I am not a person to boast.
Robert Bonnici
Jun 5th 2010, 11:55
Freedom of speech is extremely important in today's society, whatever the case maybe, we need to be able to have the opportunity to voice our opinions and beliefs without censorship.
I believe that Norman Lowel had the right to air his policies on national tv during prime time, infact i thinks its critical to us all that he did. Normal Lowell is building momentum among voters on by incorporating social issues that affect us all,with his own disgusting and inhumane convictions. We all needed to see for ourselves how important it is for us to reject his manifesto and pull together as nation who should believe in the rights and equality of everyone, regardless of color, creed, imperfections and social status!!
However, i would have liked to see someone rebuff Lowells statements by educating the viewers on the severity of having someone like him given the power to act out his evil intentions.
Roderick Micallef
Jun 3rd 2010, 14:15
Whilst I oppose most of Mr.Lowell's comments, I am surely and truly in favour of democracy and freedom of speech and the latter are surely becoming the exact right opposite. How can we say we live in a democratic country when as soon some one says something against our beliefs or views we instantly get a defensive, personal reaction?
At times I am amazed at the amount of racism in Malta, to me it only became evident as soon African immigrants (illegal or not) started reaching our shores! Imnalla nazzjon Kristjan il-Maltin suppost, paroli ghandna!
Sean Grima
Jun 3rd 2010, 14:13
as usual people seem to think that freedom of speech is absolute and unlimited. this is not the case. freedom of speech cannot be used to incite racial hatred or to slander people.
Joseph Camilleri
Jun 3rd 2010, 13:03
@ N Lowell
The parents of disabled children (not handicapped please) are NOT unfortunate and this disability is NOT a burden .
The only burden and unfortunate thing is that we readers have to suffer reading the stupidies you and NL write and say.
C.Zammit
Jun 3rd 2010, 11:07
How can you talk about all the country?. It May have been offensive for some but not for everybody.Lets remember that in the last meps election his party got nearly 4,000 votes. So now that's the fashion every body has to voice the same opinion or else if you are not a sheep and follow the rest you are ignorant! That's what the world today makes you believe. Where is freedom of speach? where? He has the right to his opinion too. Please Note that right-wing parties are gwowing in europe and it's only in Malta that they are not given a voice. Other countries in Europe such as Italy has the Lega Nord , BNP UK, NPD Germany and many other around europe. Also note that the Lega nord is in a coallition Govement together with berlusconi party. BNP elected some members in the european parlament and is also the 3 biggest pary in britain and the NPD also had some good results. So why is it only in Malta that we try to block such parties? What a Democratic Country. www.bnp.org.uk
claire palmer
Jun 3rd 2010, 09:06
whether or not you agree with him is beside the point. the issue here is people are constantly being fined for having an opinion!!!
freedom of speech does not exist in Malta...
Marcel Dingli
Jun 3rd 2010, 12:39
Thats the tactic. Financially press your opponents, make them lose their jobs, and give them hell in the Law Courts with long delays. Does the PN really think it will get back its lost sheep this way?
Norman Lowell
Jun 3rd 2010, 08:07
Part 3
"This is not freedom of speech, this is abuse and hatred against hundreds of Maltese families and parents."
This is nothing of the sort. You are too blinkered and biased and lack the intellectual reach to understand NL's great vision.
"The authorities did well to defend these families."
The authorities defended no one except themselves. They want you and those masticating bisons to wallow in their usual ignorance and mediocrity. In fact no one, but no one commented on the illegality of the recent MEP elections.
Norman Lowell
Jun 3rd 2010, 07:59
Part 2
"His main agenda is to have an elite SELECTED group of Europeans who will dictate to the rest of Europe what should be done..."
It is obvious you have not read NL's book. The Imperium Elite are restricted to five prerogatives. All else falls into the Dominium, or Regional competence. These will enjoy total autonomy and freedom. Certainly much more than we have here in Malta.
"What makes you think you will be one of the few selected elite persons?"
Very few would wish to be one of the Elite. The burden of responsibility this carries is awesome, too much for most, a rigorous, ardous, disciplined life: a lifetime undertaking. Most would rather live the happy life of an ordinary citizen, within the safety and harmony of the Imperium.
Norman Lowell
Jun 3rd 2010, 07:54
Part 1.
E. Schembri
@ Adriano Spiteri
"Do you really beleive Norman Lowell is in favor of us Maltese??"
Why not? Who else does? Our MEPs, our parliamentarians?
"What if you, or your kids had a child with a disability, would you still think he loves his fellow Maltese?"
NL would not touch a hair of those living handicapped or mentally retarded children. He would actually increase help towards these unfortunate families, millions saved once we solve the illegal immigrant problem.
What NL is advocating is that no future handicapped or mentally retarded children will be born. Should any parents insist on keeping such future births, then they will be allowed to - at their expense. However, parents who do not wish to carry this burden will be free to terminate such pregnancies before, or just after birth. No church, no government, no busy body will be able to stop them.
David Seychell
Jun 2nd 2010, 20:22
What is worst, denying the existence of the holocoust or denying the existence of God? What is more offensive to the Maltese people in general, when someone denies the existence of the holocoust or when someone denies the existence of God, on national TV? Which one is the worst and which one is not permissible on national TV according to current laws?
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 3rd 2010, 12:08
What's worse? Denying the holocaust, of course. There is no evidence for God. There is plenty of evidence for the holocaust. There is no law against denying the existence of God on TV.
Adriano Spiteri
Jun 2nd 2010, 19:00
@ Mr E.Schembri
Thanks Mr Schembri for expressing yourself. We might agree to disagree but it's always healthy when both views are given the same kind of treatment - in this case thanks to the person responsible for the ToM comments section!
I do not think that Mr Lowell 'hates' people with a disability, as portrayed by some. The way he explains himself and his decisive tone on encouraging the fittest rather than the weakest might sound depriving to our friends with special needs. Nevertheless he's one solid libertarian meaning his views are far from tyrannical. One can argue ad eternum on so many issues - reason should always prevail.
Everyone has a right to attack his message as long as he fully understands it. But blaming the messenger and threatening his constitutional rights is mean. You are wrong in stating that the authorities needed to protect 'certain' families. What from? From an opinion or ideology?
We live in an oppressive country where even divorce, in 2010, is strongly rejected by our so-called 'Nationalist' party. That shows how tyrannical this administration is rather than letting people think and take decisions for their own.
Martin Cassar
Jun 2nd 2010, 16:16
Having a Lowell is actually a must!
A healthy society must have a room and equal rights for every member of the society, this vary to include extremists, moderates, gays, lesbians, black/white peoples, clergy, paedophiles, prostitutes, lawyers, teachers, businesspeople, thieves, drug addicts, religious, atheists….etc. The trouble however occurs when a certain category that may create instability within the society outnumbers and unbalance the harmony of the society. A healthy society is also like having a luxury villa, can you imagine living in the most expensive villa without having a toilet?Or again, can you envisage living in the most expensive villa and having a countless number of toilets?
Having Mr. Lowell in our society is healthy sign but too many Lowells will be like having a luxury villa with too many toilets. In democracy, ballot boxes are the only way to avoid unbalanced society, thus any body that may create unbalanced society should never pass from ballot boxes.
If you look at it in different way you will find out that, Hitler was patriot, so is Osama Ben Laden, the crusaders were patriots so are the Jihadists, all depend on which side of the fence you stand.
S Farrugia
Jun 2nd 2010, 15:37
@ E.Schembri
Let us suppose you are right, then why does Norman Lowell have the support of people with disability and of their families ?
You are missing something and that is called " misinformed". He spoke to many of these families. You would be as surprised as much as I was, when I found out the truth. In fact, many people are being very inaccurate in their comments and assuming is a big mistake.
S. Calleja
Jun 2nd 2010, 13:26
It's ironic that the same people who are saying that Lou Bondi should not have done such a programme have probably watched it eagerly till the very end.
E.Schembri
Jun 2nd 2010, 12:32
@ Adriano Spiteri
Do you really beleive Norman Lowell is in favor of us Maltese??
What if you, or your kids had a child with a disability, would you still think he loves his fellow Maltese? He is just riding on the immigrants issue to gain support from people of your likes who are unable to see the deep reality within.
His main agenda is to have an elite SELECTED group of Europeans who will dictate to the rest of Europe what should be done. If God forbid that ever happens, you can forget about democracy, human rights, tolerance, respect, compassion and everything else a civilised country is based on.
Wake up!!! Norman does not care about you or your kids or anything else. What makes you think you we be one of the few selected elite persons? He already mentioned that these elite people will be of the likes of Hitler (his hero).
This is not freedom of speech, this is abuse and hatred against hundreds of Maltese families and parents. The authorities did well to defend these families.
Kenneth Curmi
Jun 2nd 2010, 12:17
"the BA noted that the discussion had included references to Mr Lowell's absurd and surreal theories".
Surreal? Mr. Lowell's theories are anything BUT surreal. Everyone is keen on using that word, yet nobody knows what it means.
E. Ferrito
Jun 2nd 2010, 12:16
People continue talking about stupid issues such as this and the advertising campaign of a man willing to impress others... The only serious issue that this incident raises is that humans have lost respect, towards others and many times even towards themselves.
Freedom of speech is an important part of democracy but is democracy the best way forward? Does real democracy exist outside the realms of thought? I am not so sure but unluckily I am no genius so I have no real solution. I can just use my 'freedom of speech' (lol) to express these concerns.
The world of individualism in which we live makes sure that true democracy does not exist. It is me first, second, third and so on to infinity, so how can I trust democracy? How can I trust 'democratically' elected people's representatives if in reality society today forces each and every one of us to care only about oneself?
GiovDeMartino
Jun 2nd 2010, 11:28
Ghaziz Kenneth Cassar naqbel mieghek mija fil-mija li kulhadd ghandu dritt jiddubita u jikkritika li jrid u li joghgbu. Imma altru tikkritika u tiddubita u altru zzeblah it-twemmin anki tal-minoranza ahseb u ara tal-maggoranza. Nahseb li l-problema hija tieghek. Altru ma nemminx f'Alla u fil-Knisja u altru mmur il-pjazza tal-Mosta u nibda nidghi u nzeblah it-twemmin ikun ta' min ikun.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 3rd 2010, 12:17
Meta qatt ghidt jien li niggustifika li xi hadd imur il-pjazza tal-Mosta (jew x'imkien iehor) u jibda jidghi u jzeblah it-twemmin ikun ta' min ikun? X'ghandu x'jaqsam dan ma li tikkritika r-religjon?
Il-kumment tieghi kien risposta ghall-kumment tieghek dwar min jidher fuq it-TV u jikteb fil-gazzetti u jikkritika r-religjon u "jiftahar" (jiddikjara hi l-kelma propja) li hu ateju. Ma kellekx ghalfejn iddawwar is-suggett li ghazilt int stess.
A. Debattista
Jun 2nd 2010, 10:06
Where is the freedom ??!!
Joss Galea
Jun 2nd 2010, 13:06
no one has the right to offend people!!!!! He should be banned from talking in public!!! What does he think he is!!!
S. Calleja
Jun 2nd 2010, 13:51
This is a difficult one, since people get offended for various reasons, e.g. if we were to pass a law to prohibit offending material from being broadcast, then we would have to remove practically everything, starting from certain adverts and political programmes.
You cannot have freedom of speech and expect that everything that is said in public will be music to everyone's ears. There is no such thing as the right not to get offended.
You could have used other arguments though. Incitement of racial hatred, for instance, is one of them.
Christian Sciberras
Jun 2nd 2010, 10:05
Ha told you!
I can't stress my point enough!
dvella
Jun 2nd 2010, 09:55
Ha Ha tajba Lou BOND! May be you should sell the piece of mmmmm art, Lowell handed to you to make up for the fine and help PBS to pay up!!!!!
Sean Grima
Jun 2nd 2010, 09:29
Norman Lowell is an insult to any standard of decency and a blot on our country.
Alexander Laurence
Jun 3rd 2010, 16:52
Naqbel mieghek habib! Nisthi nghid li dak minn pajjizi!
Adriano Spiteri
Jun 2nd 2010, 08:45
PART I of III
"The Broadcasting Authority has fined PBS €1,164 after finding that Norman Lowell's comments in Bondiplus of May 3 to have been 'manifestly offensive' to the public and could have been avoided"
The Broadcasting Authority criticised Bondi for inviting Norman Lowell without any opposing opinion. Well, the PM was invited alone by the same Lou Bondi. Is this a case of two weights and two measures?
What does this mean? It means that this failed administration is threatening freedom of expression, that they now decide who goes public and who doesn't. One can of course agree or disagree with Norman Lowell but what's true is true. He has been the ONLY unswerving voice in favour of us Maltese - only to be ridiculed and mocked by the do-gooders, the vipers that slither dungeons of detritus in search of opportunity.
Adriano Spiteri
Jun 2nd 2010, 08:45
PART II of III
Whoever you are, whatever you believe in, do you think that a person should be stripped of his right of thought and expression, be they what may? Is this a democratic or a tyrannical Government we have?
GonziPN promised to review racism and xenophobia laws prior to the general election (manifest point number 273). No candidate had uttered a word on this. The reviews were carefully devised to dissuade people from expressing their inner-feelings. The Maltese have always been generous with the invited. Hence, such a legal revision, can only be considered as a threat to the electorate posed by the elected.
Nowadays, people who like me, speak against ILLEGAL immigration or against multiculturalism are suddenly labelled racist. I'm afraid that Illegal Immigration is not the only problem our country is facing. There's another far worse that might our efforts to eliminate the threat of illegal immigration useless - tyranny.
Adriano Spiteri
Jun 2nd 2010, 08:44
PART III of III
I categorically condemn the spiteful actions by the authorities and media against Norman Lowell. What we allow to happen on others can then be allowed to happen on us. What goes around comes around.
Yes, many countries have problems with Illegal Immigration but Malta is becoming the first tyrannically-led country to not only ignore the citizen's pleas but, worse, threatening his freedom of expression.
The BA's decision is wrong. If a Prime Minister who kept a toe-hold to administration by a mere 1.5k votes is given airtime, a person who obtained 3.5k+ votes should likewise benefit from the same kind of media treatment, irrespective of the views.
Malta can be easily saved from Illegal Immigration, can be easily relieved from the burden and boredom of Illegal Immigrants - once the people regain the right to express themselves. The pompous political pitbulls eyeing an election success will then be forced to do what it takes to attract, just like a prostitute covered in glitters.
The path they currently follow could never attract us. It only attracts our middle fingers, fully stretched.
Alfred Vassallo
Jun 2nd 2010, 08:32
Believe me, folks, Now I really don't know what astonishes me most, whether Norman Lowell himself, or these new 'Norman Lowell’s' mushrooming everywhere.
C.camilleri
Jun 2nd 2010, 06:36
Who exactly will be paying the fine? Where's everybody or PBS ?
Martin Cassar
Jun 2nd 2010, 03:17
I don’t mind what Norman Lowell says as long as he does not make it past the ballot boxes. Actually I see his unique phraseology quite amusing!
The gentleman presents himself as a prophet, a savior and also sells himself as an artist. I would leave the latter to professional artists such as Kenneth Zammit Tabona to evaluate but here I ask, does Norman Lowell constitute a good politician? A leader? Certainly not.
Despite his banking background he miserably failed to mention one single word or offers any suggestion in connection with the current financial earth quake jolting ‘WHITE, SUPERIOR AND OLD EUROPE’!
The hardest thing to do in politics is to create interest in your party. Thanks to illegal immigrants, they proved this right. If we do not have illegal immigrants, what else Norman Lowell could talk about? Practically zilch!
Creating fear of all what is not white, and then selling yourself as the best person to handle this ‘danger’ has been an effective way for politicians to mobilize voters but not to give solutions.
My prophecy is that Norman Lowell will be prosecuted before presenting Malta in Brussels or even stepping his feet in Kastilja
George Debono
Jun 2nd 2010, 00:30
Lou Bondi made a serious and stupid error to give this man attention which he does not deserve. Such people as Lowell should be denied the "oxygen of publicity" on which they thrive.
To Joseph Calleja
RE "…Lou Bondi was doing what he does best and that is to present a controversial subject and then work on it.
Rubbish! - Lou couldn't handle Lowell's perverted logic . He just twisted Lou round his little finger. Such men are dangerous to the uninitiated and gullible.
To Sue Cachia
Enlightening ? I am glad that BA fined PBS for allowing such disgusting perversity on a public channel.
Out of respect for the jews who were killed by the Nazis anybody who denies the Holocaust in Germany is liable to prosecution. Good idea.
G
E.Schembri
Jun 2nd 2010, 12:49
Well said!
Ironically, the people commenting in favour of freedom of expression and the Maltese rights, are at the same time supporting a man who has publicly stated that he will annihilate democracy, destroy respect & tolerance and kill or sterilise any Maltese person with a disability or low IQ!
I can assure you that freedom of speech will be the least of our worries under a government of Norman Lowell and his likes.
In the name of democracy and to ensure freedom of speech, this man must be prohibited from all public view time and severely fined for his vulgar offensive policies that he is trying to stuff down our throats.
Joseph Galea
Jun 1st 2010, 23:11
Norman Lowell has every right to his views. However, why anyone in his right senses would give him the time of day, let alone give him a public platform on national TV to air his offensive philosophies, is beyond me!
Vella Charlie
Jun 1st 2010, 22:42
I don't agree with Norman Lowell but I dont agree with BA either. I agree with Lou Bondi for doing such programmes. It is up to me to decide what is right and what is wrong for me. Hiding someone's expression to me, does not necessary mean protecting me.
L. Dimech
Jun 2nd 2010, 12:48
Charlie Vella - totally agree. The only platform Lowell can stand on is illegal immigration.
Very clearly however the man is a megalomaniac. THE BOOK THAT CHANGED THE WORLD - (in what?) - taking the world singlehanded is no mean feat :(
it's like watching Il-Farfett during elections, just for a buzz - I too have an elderly mother and a Down's Syndrome sister, very dearly loved. And we all had a good laugh without being offended in the least. My beloved mum, mother to 8 children, is held like a queen, my sister is adored by everyone. Why should I be offended, it's hardly likely I'm going to exterminate them on his say-so!!!!
Nobody asks why when he's on TV, very few do not watch him - it's not about any message he delivers, but because of being assured a good laugh. How many times has the video on YouTube Norman Lowell - Presente been hit?? Go on have a look and if that doesn't kill you laughing nothing will!!
Charles Grixti
Jun 3rd 2010, 03:31
In my opinion the mistake was not having Normal Lowell express his opinions - I think that in a free society he has the right to speak his mind. The mistake was that Lowell should have be pitted against an intelligent panel who would expertly dismantle every one of his theories with logic, reason and empirically evidence. Would Norman be up to facing such a public debate with properly qualified intellectuals? I wonder.
Kenneth C. Pullicino
Jun 1st 2010, 22:36
For the sake of clarity, I do not post comments under the name 'K. Pullicino' and I would appreciate if henceforth the person that does so would kindly use his/her name in full.
M.Cachia
Jun 1st 2010, 22:07
Funny this how a lot of people misuse the 'freedom of speech' warcry. You see there is freedom of speech and then there is the propagation of hatred, intolerence and fear, anyone with half a brain cell can see the difference; if we do not control the latter it can lead to disterous effects - ever heard of the hutu & tutsi massacres? the the ethnic cleansing of albanians in kosovo, the war in bosnia-hertzegovenia - and I'm just cherry picking events in the last 20 years. People like Norman Lowell do not have a right of freedom of speech, they gave up that right ages ago when they started spewing filth to the public.
Oh and one last thing - holocaust denial is a very serious crime and so is racism; you can't really expect the BA to allow that to be aired on public tv without any repercussion. Lou Bondi should thank his lucky stars he's not in France, the Netherlands, Belgium or Germany - he would have been arrested within the hour of letting someone air those views.
T.gauci
Jun 1st 2010, 21:54
Welcome to soviet malta, this is also where the whole europe is heading. germany, uk, france and other countries forbid criticizing religions and races for example in some countries you can't deny the holocaust and you can't draw muhammed cartoons, even worse than that, hijabs are allowed but crucifixions are banned in european schools.
Joseph Micallef
Jun 2nd 2010, 10:34
Thank god that crucifixions are banned from schools! Maybe you meant crucifixes or crosses - not sure though! Having said that - your logic is called a twisted logic. Let me explain - denying the holocoust means denying a historical fact that the Nazis killed so many Jews in the second world war. Don't you think that denying such a fact is a crime? Don't you believe that denying such a fact means making the Nazis look nice!
Victor Vella
Jun 1st 2010, 20:57
To quote Lou Bondi himself , the programm only tried to show what a kind of person Norman Lowell is,I accepted his apology and also believe that he didnt mean tot anyone least of all handicapped persons.Shouldn't the authority fine Norman Lowell for being such an ass, for using his half hour of glory to hurt people, most especially people with special needs and people who went to hell and back to have a family? I hope that this comment is allowed to go on the page so that I would be able to condemm Norman Lowell without any reserve.I will tell this so called man that there are people who spent thier entire life careing for thier handicapped child with love.
Joseph Micallef
Jun 1st 2010, 22:38
I totally agree with you. Lowell should be paying the fine. When the person who wrote things about the Pope on Facebook was sentenced, it was he who was given a suspended prison sentence not Facebook!
Jesmond Micallef
Jun 2nd 2010, 00:53
They will continue to do so, Mr. Victor Vella. Handicapped Children are God's creations. Sometimes I just wonder who is the "normal" human being !! Who has inflicted so much harm on fellow humans ? God bless these angels.
MGrech
Jun 1st 2010, 20:10
I think I just read a repetition of Lowell's most offensive words here! Who's to blame this time, the PBS for releasing them once again or the The Times? Funny indeed.
Charles Sammut
Jun 1st 2010, 23:06
It is the BA that is to blame.
Without its ridiculous decision, this would be in the past. But now it is bound to go on echoing for a long time. Cannot the hidden hands behind the BA understand that unless the illegal immigrants problem is solved, Lowell will not go away? And the longer it festers, the more people will agree with him. Can you blame them?
BTW, best €1164 ever spent!
A Cardona
Jun 1st 2010, 19:40
The definition of Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history.
Please refer to http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/
Using Wikipedia :
Humans : commonly refers to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man").Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving.
No need to comment more guess everyone got the message.
Joseph Micallef
Jun 1st 2010, 22:36
Mr. A Cardona - I assure you that I already know a couple of so called very rational, intellectual and educated persons who sympathise with Lowell and think he is right! Doesn't that put your definitions in doubt?
Steve Borg
Jun 1st 2010, 19:19
Here we go again - Racist Malta sticking up for an obnoxious black/woman/disabled hater who thinks he can impress with his ludicrous theories.
Do all the critics here realise that in several countries around Europe you are fined for denying the holocaust? Norman Lowell is doing worse than that - and he gets away with it!
So think before you scribble rubbish on this forum.
P.Scicluna
Jun 1st 2010, 19:13
Whats €1,164 for PBS and WEB consider the ratings they have.
That programm was an insult to the Maltese people, it was a programme to over shadow other issues. We did not se a Xarabank programm on power station or the loss of EU funds. But for Eurovision we saw 2 and likely now the third one. This is all planned, mostpropable on that day was a survay day
c.caruana
Jun 1st 2010, 19:09
@Christopher Formosa
Importanti li l-massa ma taqbilx ma lowell.
Christopher Formosa
Jun 1st 2010, 22:36
Dik haga ovvja !! Tahsibnix li qed niddefendih bl ebda mod. Dak estremist li jin l estremismu mhu ha naqbel mijaw qatt u f xejn. Imma trid tifhem il punt tiji,jin persuna li nemmen li kullhadd jista jahseb u jghix kif jrid,basta mhux b deteriment al haddiehor ovvjament ax kieku jkun aw anarkija shiha, imma is socjeta illum timponilek hafna x tahseb hi u iggalek temmen hafna affarijiet li fil verita jkun jaqbel lila u mhux lilek.
B Sant
Jun 1st 2010, 18:57
irrispective of whether he sould have been there or not on pms prime time - if this was a good programm then i rest my case
but i cannot understand how an unprepared presenter will come to challenge a controversial person armed with outrageous ideologies with music comaprisons.
Many a times Lou was caught unprepared for the arguments Lowell had and if Lou intended to bring forward Norman's dark side i think he failed miserably!
d. borg
Jun 1st 2010, 18:57
Is ours a democratic country or not? Do we have freedom of speech or not? I very much doubt it. Sejrin mill-hazin ghall-aghar.
Patrick Sacco
Jun 2nd 2010, 18:44
I strongly urge you to read George Orwell's book '1984'. Period.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 1st 2010, 18:45
Norman Lowell must be having a great day!!!!
PBS sueing the BA and vice versa! What a hoot! While Lou Bondi carries the can, Norman Lowell can sit back and watch it all as these entities squabble it out and the Archbishop and the Attorney General are deafening by their silence.............
What a country of moral jellyfish!
Alan Abela
Jun 1st 2010, 18:38
Pajjiz tal-MICKEY MOUSE....Jien ma nafx meta t-televizjoni taghna ha jkun ftit iktar bis-sena u iktar maghtur...tara l-italia uno hlief cazzo, merda, buttana ma tismax u ahna lanqas haq ma tista tghid....Nissaponi l-istazzjon tal vatikan huwa aktar passiv milli huwa it television MALTI....Norman Lowell...Teletubi....issa xi jmiss?
Robert Callus
Jun 1st 2010, 18:23
I believe freedom of speech should be unrestricted the least possible. This includes the right to offend. However, this right should be limited to ideas, ideologies, public figures etc. People who just watch TV at home living a low profile life because they chose to should not be insulted and told they should have been killed (people with a disability) or expelled from their citizenship (adoptive parents)
To be fair however, I don't really blame Lou Bondi, who also managed to show what a person Lowell is. I think every individual should be responsible for what he says not the medium.
Having said that, if Bondi sells the painting Lowell gave him for some €100,000 he definitely has enough money to pay the fine.
Joseph Micallef
Jun 1st 2010, 19:27
Just to remind you that only a couple of weeks ago a person was fined and I believe even given a prison sentence for, jokingly, saying that the pope should be shot in his hands and feet etc on Facebook. What Mr. Lowell said was far more serious and dangerous. Yes we need to have freedom of speech but may I also point out that such people sow the seed of hatred which sometimes even finds fertile land in supposedly wise individuals, even with a high standard of education! People like Lowell are dangerous and should be derided and banned from the media!
George Pace
Jun 1st 2010, 23:27
'' ... this right should be limited to ideas, ideologies, public figures.....''
Says who? Who are you to set the limits? Who are you to dictate?
Most leftists are against censorship..... now they want to be conservative!
.
,
GiovDeMartino
Jun 1st 2010, 18:19
Dawk li jidhru fuq it-TV u jiktbu fil-gazzetti u jzebilhu r-religjon, jiftahru li huma atei ecc ecc...dawk ma joffendux is-sentimenti ta' hafna? Imma l-knosja u r-religjon ma jimpurtax halli ma nkunux Talebani!
Charlene Giordimaina
Jun 1st 2010, 21:21
Robert, and how do you plan to manage who is considered as public figures or as high profile? I could be a no-one and influence more people than a public figure could ever do. Don't you think that in this way we are perpetuating the on-going system that just only those people who are in power control all the rest? (Which is not such a good thing) Obviously public figures, especially refering to politicians, quote what their party believes in.
You know that I don't agree with unlimited freedom of speech, but I disagree with the part that influencial people should be more restricted than those with a low profile.
Joseph, I can assure you that that (about the Pope) was no joke. If you laughed at it, I'm sorry, but you really have got no sense of good humour! I think that what that thoughtless man said was far more serious than what Norman Lowell said!! Lowell is a politician who what he says is what he gets votes for. If the people disagree with him he'll just won't get the votes and that's it!! He wasn't making any "joke".
Mark Zerafa
Jun 1st 2010, 21:57
Likewise, shouldn't your religious talk be offensive to us, wretched non-believers?
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 2nd 2010, 07:08
Ghaziz Giov DeMartino: Li tikkritika u tiddibatti r-religjon hu dritt fundamentali. Li tkun razzist u tippromwovi l-qtil ta' min tqis li hu inferjuri, mhux.
Jekk ma tgharafx id-differenza, ghandek problema kbira.
Joseph Micallef
Jun 2nd 2010, 10:31
Charlene - I just quoted what the accused had said ie that he intended it as a joke. For me both are wrong though I must assure you that what Mr. Lowell said had more impact for the simple reason that more people saw the program than those who visit facebook to read what that person had to say re the Pope. Moreover, what happend on facebook was a one-off incident but we have been hearing Lowell on TV for some time already now! Plus - the person who wrote on facebook was given a suspended sentence - lowell was not (not for the particular program at least) - and actually its him who should be fined not PBS!
Ray Buttigieg
Jun 1st 2010, 18:19
since PBS is effectively a state owned institution, the fine at the end of the day will be paid by the tax payers, who might have been offended by Mr. Lowells comments. So we have to pay for being offended. Vera pajjiz tal micky mouse. Why were not 'where is everybody' fined? Why not suspend the pogram for a couple of weeks and make this company pay by forgoing advertising revenue instead. That would have been more just on the 'offended' tax payer
Patrick Sacco
Jun 2nd 2010, 19:04
If the rule of law was respected to the letter, as you seem to wish, we would have around four or five politicians in Parliament and no MEPs.
Joseph Calleja
Jun 1st 2010, 17:47
I think Lou Bondi was doing what he does best and that is to present a controversial subject and then work on it. Norman Lowell is a very controversial person and believe it or not he is entitled to his opinion, as a matter of fact he also has followers agreeing with his ideas. If people are so dead against this man, they could easily have changed the channel or turned the TV off. But no, we watch and see how far he is willing to go and that makes us as guilty as he is, it stimulates our adrenaline and we sit there waiting for the next line. I am not crazy about Norman Lowell and some of his ideas, but yet I sat through the whole show. Lou Bondi cannot have ideal people on the show all the time and that is what makes the Lou Bondi show so interesting. How do you define "manifestly offensive"? Some people think divorce, cohabitation,gays/lesbians, abortions, drugs,illegal immigration and so on are "manifestly offensive" but these subjects have to be brought out in the open just as well. Don't kill the messenger.
Christopher Formosa
Jun 1st 2010, 18:01
Proset siehbi,ma stajtx tghid ahjar milli ghedt,nkompli ma l argument tieghek,dak biex tara kemm ahna nies ipokriti, l ewwel narawh lil lowell, biex noqoghodu nidhku mbad nikkundannawh, u bhall m ghedt int, fil verita kulhadd ghandu dritt al opinjoni tijaw, imma mhux kulhadd jista jesprimija, laktar meta il massa ma taqbilx mieghek.
E Vella
Jun 1st 2010, 18:41
cannot agree more!!! mela nies favur l-abort ma nikundannawhomx imma lil Norman Lowell nikkundanawh. nies sinjuri li jafordjaw imorru l-Ingilterra jaghmlu abort ma nikundanawhomx, imma Norman Lowell (li ma qatel lil hadd), nikkundanawh!!
prosit alikom. Ipokrezija fl-aqwa taghha. kulhadd ihokk fejn jieklu.
Joseph Micallef
Jun 1st 2010, 19:30
Dear Mr. Calleja I don't think parents of children with special needs or those who adopted, think the same as you do - don't you think? How can Mr. Lowell's words not be offensive towards these people - to say the least!
Patrick Sacco
Jun 2nd 2010, 19:18
Bravo! Well said! Those who do not like BONDIPLUS or Mr. Norman Lowell could have easily changed channel. After all, that is precisely the purpose of a TV remote control! If you 'know' what Mr. Lowell represents, why did you watch the programme to the very end?! What a bunch of hypocrites! On the other hand, can Maltese children be adopted?
Joe Fenech
Jun 1st 2010, 17:47
All the reminds me of the Fantozzi movies. OBDI, AGHLAQ HALQEK, TICCAQLAQX - GAHAN !!!
Joseph Micallef
Jun 1st 2010, 19:21
Excuse me but if we were to talk about Gahan and Fantozzi, Mr. Lowell reminds me of the two not anyone else! His ridiculous ideas of shooting embrios into space to populate it for example or his denial of the holocoust, while boasting of getting drunk in order to get his artistic muse - are only some of the examples which would make a gahan or fantozzi proud!
Joe Fenech
Jun 1st 2010, 17:44
Il-Gahan Malti hekk irridu nhalluh injurant!
Malta is a sad, totalitarian country and its future will be a very dark one.
Neville Arpa
Jun 1st 2010, 21:14
In a totolitarian country you would not be able to say that. Have you ever been in a totalitarian country?
Jimmy Magro
Jun 1st 2010, 17:42
There is no doubt that Where's Everybody has a de facto monopoly on state tv. The organisation preached good governance and transparency and then fails to publish its financial statements.
The programme Bondi Plus is challenging the Broadcasting Act when it broadscasts programmes having a single person, whether this is Gonzi, Muscat or Lowell. The programme cannot achieve balance through the questions of the programme presenter. The balance must be achieved by those taking part and have a difference in their opinion, strategies and policies.
When the programme discussed the gender equally conference organised in China (I think in 2000) and the LP was not invited to participate I had won a complain that the same fact that the LP was not invited constituted broadcasting imbalance as the LP was made in a position that had nothing to offer in the discussion; when this of course was not true.
It's a shame that people don't offer their services to PBS as they know that their submission will not be accepted. It would make interesting reading to know how much WE takes in from the Broadcasting Community Fund and whether WE has received any funds from the Good Causes Fund.
Christopher Formosa
Jun 1st 2010, 18:04
Issa jitla il labour Jim ta,tghamlu witchunt tal beati pawli mal wheres everybody, u jista jghalaq ix xandi, imbghad jigu dawk il hafna li jridu jghamlu programm u jghamluh, ax bhal dak li qallu aw xi hadd jista jikkompeti mal WE ta !!
Jimmy Magro
Jun 1st 2010, 18:57
@Christopher Falzon
Although your name is Christopher it does not give you the power to forecast the future. The difference between you and me is very simple: i spoke on facts and you spoke of the future that is unknown and there are no models that enable you to make you know the future.
If you want to reply to my blogs, bring out solid arguments and not blogging for the sake of it only.
Anthony Farrugia
Jun 2nd 2010, 09:25
Why should Where's Everybody publish its accounts when it it is not a public company quoted on the Stock Exchange but a commercial enterprise trying to make a profit ? Following this line of arguement, why do not the political parties publish their accounts (including those of their subsidiaries) and, more important, the names of donors say above Euro 15,000 ?
Jesmar Cremona
Jun 1st 2010, 17:33
il-BA jafu li qeghdin nghixu Malta fl 2010 u mhux l-Iran jew fi zmien l-Inkwizizzjoni ?
Dawn x affarijiet huma... Mela haddiehor jista'jghid li jrid li hu favur multikulturaliezmu etc u dan il-bniedem ghax qieghed jiftah ghajnejn in-nies ( ghalkemm kultant xi ftit esagerat) naghlqulu halqu...
prosit eh
Patrick Sacco
Jun 2nd 2010, 19:24
Proset Jesmar!
E Vella
Jun 1st 2010, 17:32
why do we still talk and discuss wars?
aren't they part of the hatred society that countries such as US and other countries such as Iraq have brought about during the past years?
shall we ban WAR discussions from prime time TV discussions then? shall we ban Barak Obama from talking about the US involvement in wars? thousands of people were killed INNOCENTLY in the last few years in wars. but we don't ban them from appearing in the news and in talk shows. however we do ban a particular politician on Bondi+.
However, we never banned a politician who offended PN's DNA, or someone saying "ghajn ghal ghajn, sinna ghal sinna". are these hatred comments as well?
Patrick Sacco
Jun 2nd 2010, 19:25
Bravo E. Vella.
gaffarena joseph
Jun 1st 2010, 17:32
The taxpayer will benefit if the Broadcasting Authority will be scraped.
Why we are paying thousands of euros to these people that are still
very far in doing their job well.This is not the first time that we had such
a verdict by these people.
It is time for us the taxpayers to review such authorities that their only aim is only
to take their monthly wages.This is all true,most of these authorities do not cater
for our needs,when you will be wanting them they are all attending meetings and
all these excuses.
There are enough intelligent graduates that are capable of running such management.
Enough is enough,it is not fair that we have to forge money to persons that are not
suitable in occupying such a job.
Silvan Mifsud
Jun 1st 2010, 17:29
As a Maltese Tax paying citizen, who thus also funds the national broadcaster, I have every right not to be insulted on prime time. While Norman Lowell has every right to voice his opinion, that right those not mean that he then has any right to hurt the general sentiment of the Maltese nation. The point is simple to understand. I have very right to play the radio, but that does not mean I have the right to have it on a high sound level that bothers all my neighbourhood. This is the same principle exactly. Norman Lowell insulted the general Maltese sentiment in a number of statements he said on Bondi+, like for example when saying that we have been feed 2,000 years of poison, clearly meaning that the Christian faith and its teachings are poison. This is not to mention the racial hatred he incites at proposing to send back adoped children originating from different racial backgrounds like African children. The world has already gone through the horrids of an evil dictator who led the world through massive horrors and disasters, when similiar teachings and ideologies where not nipped in the bud immediately. We cannot afford a repeat!
Christopher Formosa
Jun 1st 2010, 18:06
Paroli fil vojt dan, ghandek ir remote tat T.V., missek qlibtlu u ma kontx tigi insulted, halluwna nghixu.
IBorg
Jun 1st 2010, 18:07
You do not have every right not to be offended. It is not enshrined in law, and it is not a universal right.
People get offended for tons of reasons. If we sue just for being offended, everybody would be in jail. One's opinion may be completely different to traditional values, customs, and traditionally held beliefs. Anyone who expresses these opinions is bound to shock and offend. Most of them are almost crazy and laughable (lowell for example). Others have changed the world.
So yes you can be offended.
Joseph Schembri
Jun 1st 2010, 17:26
Who will pay the fine, PBS or Lou Bondi?
Was a survey of programmes watched being carried out around the date that this programme was aired?
E Vella
Jun 1st 2010, 17:23
and why are stupid soap operas dealing with drugs, sexually related and women working as escorts not banned from TV prime time? aren't they offending my morals perhaps?
I do not need BA to decide for me what to see and not see on TV.
Please grow up!! we are living in a democratic society.
lgalea
Jun 1st 2010, 17:21
Why should BA decide what I should see or hear? This is modern big-brother dictatorship.
J. J. Borg
Jun 1st 2010, 17:27
Yeah we know very well what you like to hear, Lawrence Galea.
lgalea
Jun 1st 2010, 17:48
J. J. Borg Don't be so narrow minded Borg I hear a lot of things and not only what you think. why should the BA decide what I and others see and hear? This is a modern dictatorship censoring whatever they want and do not like. That is exactly what it is Borg.
J. J. Borg
Jun 1st 2010, 18:37
Maybe you need to go to your Wikipedia and look up some information on what a dictatorship looks like.
lgalea
Jun 1st 2010, 22:01
J. J. Borg Only dictatorships control people from reading, listening, viewing and expressing themselves. This is exactly what is happening in Malta with the BA.
David Buttigieg
Jun 2nd 2010, 09:29
Yes Laurence Galea,
Remember the foreign interference act by your beloved labour?
And you speak of censorship!
D Farrugia
Jun 1st 2010, 17:17
Well done Lou Bondi & PBS for your excellent talk shows. I dont need no big brother telling me what i should or shouldnt watch. Everybody knows Lowell points of view so whoever might feel offended simply dont watch it. What is this? China!? oops BA might fine me for that comment.....
EURO 1,164 was totally worthed!
L Fenech
Jun 1st 2010, 17:16
U dan Bondi hadd ma jiccensurah qabel il-programm qiesu jista jghamel li-irid fuq xandir pubbliku imhallas mill kpubbliku. Gharukaza programm kollu skandli u hazin ghat-tfal li jkunu qed jarawh. Programm dejjem lest biex jaghti palati.
K. Pullicino
Jun 1st 2010, 17:16
So, to get invited to air by opinions on TV I have to be "well known for my racial hatred and offensive opinions, a person who had been convicted of racial hatred by the courts and handed a suspended sentence"?
Aren't the champions of freedom worried that they're giving this so-called Freedom of Expression to the wrong people? Shouldn't we be encouraging people, those that seek to unite the Maltese, to make themselves heard rather than Normal Lowells?
Ian Fenech
Jun 1st 2010, 17:14
Hahahahahaha well said Malcolm we should sue the BA for insuting our intelligence.
To be honest I was actually was expecting more from the programme, but they were very careful. Many things Lowell said were not very new . After all the basis for his idea of 2000 Euopits controlling Euope is not a new idea - all you have to do is read Plato - The Republic. And if he wants to believe that the holoculst did not happen its his problem. After all we all know what really happened. But why censor the programme? I don't know. This is something I would have expected back in the 50 and 60's when everything was controlled by the church........
After all are we a FREE country or not? Do we realy have freedom of expression in Malta? After following the university case and this I start to wonder...........
Martin Cassar
Jun 2nd 2010, 03:21
I sometimes fail to comprehend people’s appreciation of democracy and freedom of expression. Absolute democracy and absolute freedom of expression never existed anywhere in the world at any given point of time. All democracies have fangs [laws] for self-protection and to protect that entire society. If anybody think otherwise then dwelling in illusion I am afraid! Having said that, I ask, why do we have laws that prohibit circulation of pornography materials? Or why do we have Anti-Semitic laws? Can some peoples chose to be treacherousness to their country and be left Scot free?
Perhaps our comment too passes thought the editor for scrutiny and censorship if necessary. We have spent many years smoking any where and now we have no-smoking areas across many place
Again what’s wrong with this?
J.Borg
Jun 1st 2010, 17:13
What about yesterday's programme........wasn't that a politically motivated one. Where was the bias on such a programme....with the Prime Minister insinuating things about the leador of the opposition and sometimes aided by the presenter of the programme.
Christopher Formosa
Jun 1st 2010, 18:11
Bis serjita !!!! Taf kemm jghajru Muscat taghkom lil Prim ministru ?? Korrot,giddieb,ipokrita,bla sinsla. U x insinwa l bierah? Qallu biex jmur ghand il pulizija jekk jrid, SFIDAH !!! mar xi wiehed mill pupi tghakom daloghodu jkellmuh lil kummissarju???? Ma nahsibx hux, biex tparlaw l ewwel tiehdu. PAROLI SI FATTI NO !!!! is soltu ghalekk qedin fejn qedin lajf !
Robert Agius
Jun 1st 2010, 17:11
Quite a different story to what was on yesterday's news. Net and Super one exerting some influence or what?
Even so, this still pretty amusing to me. So you can only publicly say what you want as long as the 'moral police' agree with it. They have another name for that - Thought control. Wake up Malta.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Voltaire
Now, I want to make it clear that I do NOT agree with anything that Norman Lowell says, well, except when he talks about most people fighting for freedom of speech are hypocrites. Sadly, he is right there. It seems very clear to me that people generally want to defend their own beliefs rather than that freedom.
And I thought TV was entertainment not propaganda.... silly me :P
Sue Cachia
Jun 1st 2010, 17:11
Talk about 'freedom of speech'... what a laugh to fine a broadcasting authority for the views of a man who is not scared to voice opinions, it's ridiculous! I must say it was one of the most enlightening programs ever aired on TVM and it seems like the Maltese population need to wake up to the reality of life! Prosit Lowell, €1k was worth it!
Richard w Curmi
Jun 1st 2010, 18:47
@ Sue Cachia,
Now do not get me wrong, I`ll all for freedom and what have you, however there is a limit what a person can say in public. People like you show that you are still young. There is a border line that cannot be crossed even in a democratic country. What will you say if I start offending you ,calling you all kind of things, threating you etc? What will be your reaction??? . will you then say it`s freedom of speech ? do you get the drift? i tend to agree with some things he says, however on the whole, the person is dangerous, sometimes he reminds me of H....R
Andrea Axisa
Jun 2nd 2010, 13:52
@ Richard w Curmi
It is up to you to agree with him or not. What he is saying is irrelevant. If we continue like this..where is our so called Freedom of Speech?
I personally do not agree with him on many aspects. I admire his determination and that's all.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire
If you do not agree with him, just don't vote for him.
Neil Sant
Jun 1st 2010, 17:01
Aren't you glad that you can rest safely in your home knowing that there's an authority which protects your fragile mind from the dangers of offensive programs as a dinosaur would protect its young?
malcolm seychell
Jun 1st 2010, 16:55
BA = Dictatorship.
It is not the first time people are guests on their own and I find nothing bad about it.
About abortion all europe has it, and many couple use it in the cases which norman mentioned. That doesn't mean I agree with it, but surely everyone has a right to say what he believes in.
Can I sue the BA because they are offending my intelligence, because I do not think they should decide what I can here or not.
R. Gauci
Jun 1st 2010, 16:52
€1,164 to listen to the great Norman Lowell was worth it.
mary Pace
Jun 1st 2010, 17:15
R Gauci
you wouldn't say ''it was worth it.'' if you have a DISABLE CHILD, & you hear what Norman Lowell said!!! I Have a disable child & I was very Offended by his remark!!
J. J. Borg
Jun 1st 2010, 18:39
If you love Lowell's views so much why don't you repeat them in public to show us how brave and committed to the cause you are.
Nmc Mangion
Jun 1st 2010, 16:49
We should elect Lowell in parliament so he could call the other MP's kabocci u imbecilli.
Qeed tiiifem Mr speaker
Jason Attard
Jun 1st 2010, 16:46
I agree with PBS... 100%
This man is boarderline dangerous. I watched the interview and couldn't figure out whether I should cry or laugh.
In any case well done Bondi+ it was the most entertaining program on TVM that I watched for a long time.
J Farrugia
Jun 1st 2010, 16:40
stupid and irrelevant Broadcasting authority administered by incompetent persons.
Kenneth Cassar
Jun 2nd 2010, 09:58
How is it irrelevant? A Broadcasting Authority, by definition, is an authority on broadcasting.