Mark Anthony Falzon (The Sunday Times of Malta, November 27), who too, I understand, is a lecturer at the University of Malta, seems to be so averse to listening as to qualify as ‘lecturing’ the few words I said on the occasion of the recent swearing-in of a judge and magistrate.

I will desist from qualifying in the same way his much longer contribution on what he understands me to have said; I assume that since he is the source he does not consider it as lecturing but as some more worthy enterprise.

I have no comment to make on his evaluation of the merits or demerits of the appointments in question or on his many asides and allusions which I suppose were intended to be witty. He is perfectly entitled to them. As for the rest of his contribution concerning myself, however, it is just a very long straw man argument which totally misrepresents the substance and the targets of what I said in order to serve as a platform for what he wished to say.

I suppose I would be asking too much to invite him to consider more carefully, and make a genuine effort to understand, what I did say rather than rush to his own conclusions.

It should suffice to point out that I did not make a single reference to journalists and yet his piece is based entirely on the assumption that in my speech I was referring to them. No wonder he concluded I got my envelope wrong.

Perhaps I should not have presumed that my audience, in particular those who report and comment on matters connected with the Maltese courts and judiciary, would be sufficiently well informed on Maltese current affairs so as to understand what I was alluding to.

How much I sympathise with Fr Joe Borg, whose contribution appeared right next to Dr Falzon’s, who expressed surprise that the proposed journalistic code of ethics does not have a dedicated section on accuracy or a dedicated section on truth.