I have followed the ins-and-outs of planning manoeuvres for years. I cannot recall any other instance when a public consultation was extended a second time, in order to conduct a lengthy series of one-to-one meetings.

Yet this is the latest strategy for the disastrous Paceville master plan. Divide et impera – weaken the resistance by carving it up into small pieces.

It is highly unusual for the Planning Authority to hold so many individual hearings in this way. I trust that every single one will be duly recorded and published with the rest of the written and verbal proceedings of the consultation.

These numerous meetings must be a huge drain on resources. They require the presence and attention of key planning officers, who are generally swamped in heavy workloads of applications, assessments, plans and policies. In normal circumstances this level of staff can hardly devote so much time to one issue.

Some people out there appear determined to ensure that this dubious master plan is salvaged. They will throw in as much time, energy and resources as they can, resolute that the proposed nine major developments (or some of them) will get the green light.

Why is this master plan so very important that government top dogs can shove other big, pressing planning matters aside, with all hands on deck to save the Paceville proposals? What are the interests at stake? Who stands to benefit?

■ A change in weather, some quiet evenings, and for me it is back to crime stories for entertainment. Films and books about how the police (or maverick detectives) uncover the truth, catch the guilty and uphold law and order are a thriving genre.

In real life, crimes and mysteries do not always get solved and too often justice is not served. Investigations and audits may be launched, peering into Panama accounts and other fascinating places, but they are not concluded until after social, collective amnesia has set in.

A popular historical crime series is by Italian author Maurizio de Giovanni, set in Naples in the 1930s. This is an intriguing setting, since the fascist regime actually wanted to deny crime altogether. In the early 1930s the reporting of crime or ‘cronaca nera’ (black news) was discouraged. In the years before the war, Mussolini presented himself as a strong-man hero who could save Italy from crisis and assert law and order.

Do not be complacent or passively complicit in wrongdoing, until it grows too big to control

In its desire to erase crime the fascist government was concerned about the rising popularity of detective novels, known as ‘romanzi gialli’ (yellow novels). They were seen to weaken the moral fibre of the nation. Many were translations of American or British authors.

In 1937 the Italian ministry for popular culture ruled that it was forbidden to write detective stories with an Italian assassin. The crime must be committed by a foreigner. By 1941, even this was too much. Crime was alien to the Italian people. Crime novels were outlawed and Mondadori had to shut down its ‘I gialli’ book series.

■ Law and order featured in president-elect Donald Trump’s campaign. He promoted, for example, ‘stop-and-frisk’ policing, even though this was ruled unconstitutional. He said crime rates were soaring, while official statistics stated otherwise.

Pre-electoral fact-checking media diligently showed that these claims were false or misleading. Distinctions were made between ‘fact-based’ media and others. Yet people still voted for Trump. Now everyone is panicking about facts, lies and post-facts. We are facing a post-factual world, whatever that means.

Among the latest ‘post-factual’ ideas are worries about reviving fascism. It is evident that some extreme right-wingers hope for wind in their sails from the new US presidency, but there are also glaring differences between contemporary politics and 20th-century fascism.

Superficial parallels with fascism are implausible, but on the other hand it is true that a headstrong leader with misguided values or direction can take a country to a bad place. Democratic leaders must be held to account, and to good governance with all its safeguards. Let’s hope that Trump and his new team will face adequate checks and balances to keep the ship steady, for all of us.

While direct comparisons may be fashionably post-factual, still there are always general lessons to be learned from history. Take this line from historian Denis Mack Smith, explaining how people in Italy gradually accepted the extremes of fascism: “Consciences were gradually dulled as people were driven from one small connivance to another… once the first surrender had been made, there was… no unviolated principle worth a battle, until the means of opposition no longer existed.”

This sounds like the familiar fable of the frog. Throw a frog into a dish of hot water and it will jump straight back out. But place it in cold water, heat the water up slowly, and the frog will not notice the big change until it is too hot, and it can no longer move and escape.

The frog’s message is to be vigilant and to speak out when necessary. Do not be complacent or passively complicit in wrongdoing, until it grows too big to control. This does not only apply to journalists or politicians, but to everyone.

petracdingli@gmail.com