The notion that one should resign when one has made a pig's breakfast of something is not one that is ingrained deeply in the psyche of many of us.

There are those of us, not many of us, who on finding themselves in circumstances in which the perception of them by those around them is compromised, fairly or unfairly (more poignantly when it is unfairly) come to the conclusion that their interests, and those of their organisation's, whatever it is, are best served by their going rather than by their staying.

It is easy to climb onto a high horse and pontificate, of course, that he should be off with himself or that she would be well advised to remove herself from the scene. It is sometimes easy to take the decision for one's self, if the post from which one is thinking of leaving does not form the very foundation of one's earnings or if it is not one of enormous prestige, but the fact is that it is never easy to take the decision.

One chap who had taken the decision to fall on his sword, to the best of my recollection, was Charles Mangion, during Alfred Sant's blip-in-power, when a pardon was granted (again, if memory serves) which did not meet with universal approval.

Whether or not Dr Mangion was set up and for what reason, in which regard I have some suspicions, I do not know. It's very handy to have someone do the honourable thing, when you've been bleating about people not doing just that little thing, especially when that someone is, perhaps, a bit of a challenge.

The fact remains that he decided to do what many see as the honourable thing in such circumstances. If there were others who deserve the back-handed compliment of recognition for resigning after doing something, the comments section at the bottom of the electronic version of this oeuvre will serve for accolades being granted. Alternatively, you can send me an e-mail and, if I remember to, I'll include it next week.

Falling on to his sword, is not a step that it seems to have occurred to Mr Jason Micallef to take. Now recall, if you please, that this column is written on Wednesday and sees the light of day on Saturday, unlike my blog, which is more immediate, so things may have changed. I doubt it, though, given his performance on Xarabank last Friday but one.

Incidentally, I'm trying to work out a schedule which will give some continuity and provide you with entertainment on an on-going basis at the moment and the best I can come up with is trying to have a new blog up for you on Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning and then something else for late Thursday/early Friday, meaning I have to write this and then think of something fresh quite quickly after that.

And the wise guy at the back who said "don't bother, thanks anyway" can stick it in his pipe and smoke it, if smoking is still allowed anywhere.

But to get back to the chap with the big, big smile, as of Wednesday he hadn't done the decent thing and told us that he was leaving.

Now, for those of us who viewed the prospect of the MLP in government with something less than unmitigated joy, the longer Mr Micallef remains in harness the longer we like it, of course. His contribution to the PN tally at the end of the day was inestimable if unwitting. He and people like him appear to have been too intellectually challenged by the narrow view they have of the country's aspirations to develop a message and, more importantly, a style of delivering that message that would appeal to voters.

Not only that, he doesn't seem to have taken on board the idea that he was one of the main people behind the MLP's strategy and tactics and as such has to pay the price with his head. There are no two ways about it: Dr Sant, for the moment anyway, has taken an irrevocable decision, while his chief executive (Mr Micallef's description, not mine) seems to be washing his hands of the whole thing. According to Mr Micallef, "you win some, you lose some and, hey, why should that mean I lose my job?"

He'll chuck in a big smile - some might think it's more in the way of rictus than smile - and the more people like Anna Mallia tell him it's time for him to "exit, stage left, and do not stand upon the ceremony of your leaving", the more he seems determined to cling to his job. All I can say, mate, is "baby, please don't go", once we're into pretty puerile punning on song titles. We like you just the way you are.

Or should I go?

Now that we're on the subject of honourable resignations and their mirrors, less than honourable permanencies, it is time to consider, again with the caveat that this is Saturday in real life but Wednesday when I'm writing and, as we saw during the campaign, a day or so is an eternity in politics, the case of one Pullicino Orlando, Jeffrey of that ilk, being referred to for convenience as "JPO" in the blogs and other manifestations of public indignation.

For those of you whose short-term memory may have been erased by the ingestion of celebratory bottles of the liquid that cheers, the gentleman in question owns a tract of land in Mistra Valley, whereupon it was proposed to erect a platform and related amenities for the convenience of the younger set and their penchant for shaking a leg. This was not the niftiest of nifty ideas, given that the valley in question is environmentally sensitive and happily the kibosh has been put on it.

JPO, we were told by him, after a skip-load and a half of mud was lobbed in his direction by Dr Sant (remember him?) during the campaign, was not directly involved in the application process, during which process Mepa and its assorted minions appear to have made a dog's dinner of the whole thing, to the extent that its auditor came up with a report in the last couple of days that makes it pretty darn clear that if the DCC members hadn't scampered away as soon as the effluent started flying, things would have to have been done to them.

While on the subject of pigs' dinners and dogs' breakfasts, one has to remark, purely from the academic point of view, about the utter mess Dr Sant made about the encounter he had with JPO during that now-infamous not-to-be televised press conference. It would, later events proved, have won Labour the election if instead of doing the "run away, run away" scene out of "Monty Python & the Holy Grail", he had stood up to the fellow. But that's by the by and water under the bridge, and I, for one, have no regrets.

The thing is, it now appears that JPO's protestations of ignorance (that is to say that he did not know about the application and was simply the landlord) do not seem to be fully supported by the facts.

If I were Lawrence Gonzi I might be forgiven for feeling a bit hard done by, as might the people who, given the facts they had at the time, not least of which was the fact that the PN was fighting to win an election that was going to be close (now there's an understatement of cosmic proportions) fought tooth and nail to divert the mud that was flying hither and thither. And as might the many thousands who voted for JPO, who might also think that by appearing to have leaned unceremoniously on the relevant functionaries within Mepa, JPO was not doing the cause of open government any favours.

And it would also seem that these feelings of mild resentment (another cosmically understated phrase) are exacerbated by the fact that by his involvement in this affair, JPO might have lost the PN the election.

As it was, a look at the relevant graphs shows that when the story broke, PN support took a dip, bringing about a situation where instead of a clear and early win on 1987 lines, they scraped through on a wing and a prayer.

The facts are - at the time of writing - not all in and far be it from me to condemn a man before the evidence is unequivocal. JPO has to bear in mind, however, that we're not in a court of law here: We're in the court of public opinion and perception, which is not a court in which the rules of evidence are particularly relevant.

He also has to bear in mind that the votes he got were got with the help of a Prime Minister who stood by him loyally in circumstances which indicated that loyalty was required. The fact that, as things turned out, the Prime Minister who stood by him did not end up being the outgoing Prime Minister makes it all the more incumbent on Dr Pullicino Orlando to consider his present position very, very carefully indeed.

He might, on mature reflection perhaps, come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate in the circumstances to dedicate more time to the practise of his profession or to establishing his innocence or to spending more time with his loved ones or whatever the current euphemisms are for taking one's leave and allowing the governance of the country to continue on the lines already set out by the Prime Minister.

And you must go

It's that time of the year again, when BJ's put on the fund-raising marathon for the good causes they support. It's on Monday and it's up to you to go and give them a hand.

Just do it.

imbocca@gmail.com, www.timesofmalta.com/blogs