With a certain degree of seemingly smug satisfaction, a section of the media has reported that the Police have decided that on the basis of the evidence there is no reason to prosecute former EU Commissioner John Dalli.

Not being a criminal law specialist by any stretch of the imagination, I'm not going to comment on this, but IMHO (you gotta love these modern acronyms) that was hardly the point. OLAF and Barroso, from what I recall at the time, had always made it clear that it was the ethical aspects of what - with a paucity of imagination - the media has dubbed Dalligate that led to his downfall.

Mr Dalli's association with the other dramatis personae was what had raised the relevant eyebrows. The concerns raising the eyebrows, it would appear, revolved around the extent to which it was seemly for an occupant of such high European office to meet with these people in his own home, at a restaurant and over the phone for many, many minutes.

It may well be that they were discussing the footy, or planning a holiday or whatever, but the confluence of certain facts and, perhaps, the failure on the part of Mr Dalli to exercise some circumspection in choosing his associates and where to meet them, seem to have resulted in his being seen in a very poor light.

Mr Dalli has made it known that - at least in part - the whole affair was the result of some pretty hefty political machinations in Brussels and in Malta. He seems to want the impression to be gained, from what I can see, that Mr Barroso and unnamed, but quite clearly hinted at, political interests in Malta (perhaps those towards whom Dalli had aimed his not inconsiderable broadsides after he was condemned to his gilt Brussels prison) had connived to contribute to his downfall.

Seriously? Mr Barroso was playing Maltese party-politics, being manipulated by Dalli's enemies in Malta?

This whole distinction between ethics and law is one that has blurred and is indistinguishable in society just at the moment. To save the Lil'elves and Peculiar Pundits the bother, I'll acknowledge that this is not a phenomenon that surfaced when Labour were elected.

Recall, if you will, the furore over - let me be as unimaginative as everyone else - Ticketgate, when Judge Farrugia Sacco was embroiled in allegations of shady dealing and spiv-like ticket touting.

He denies being involved in any wrong-doing and, frankly, I'm quite prepared to take his word for it, since I wasn't with him when he was being led merrily up the garden path by the Sunday Times (of London, another Times for which you have to pay to read the content) but the mere fact that the whole thing blew up as it did was and remains proof positive that the Commission for the Administration of Justice was perfectly correct when, years before, it had made it PDC (pretty damn clear) that Judges shouldn't put themselves in harm's way by occupying certain positions.

Moving on, it was perfectly legal, clearly, for Minister Mawel Mallia to grant amnesty to assorted denizens of the Corradino Hilton. He was - and remains - a criminal lawyer of enormous repute, so he would know the law inside out on this. I suspect that the reaction his magnanimous gesture has got him might however underscore the ethical issues his perfectly legal decree has created.

Fast forward to this morning (I'm writing this on Sunday, having put the chore of correcting some 400 exam scripts behind me) and look at the Sunday Times' (ours, this time) relatively unusual foray into investigative journalism.

PS Franco Mercieca, an opthalmic surgeon of great repute and skill and very popular to boot, is apparently performing eye ops although he occupies public office. Dr Mercieca is not doing anything inherently wrong, far from it, insofar as the operations themselves are concerned, especially since he's been exempted by his PM, but is it fundamentally ethical?

If Mercieca remains so concerned to serve his patients, a laudable trait in any professional, was it ethical for him to accept public office? Again, there's certainly nothing wrong in accepting public office, again, far from it, but that's where ethical behaviour differs from legal behaviour.