Category: Mediawatch

Categories
Mediawatch

Kalkara '94

Picked off youtube (seen on facebook … so it must be getting viral). From the little I get it seems to be a very public bust up on a public Maltese bus. Again, if I understood part of the argument well it was all triggered off by an accusation of “pogguta ” “ghandha t-tifla pogguta” but I cannot really be sure. What is impressive is the attitude of all those not involved in the argument – passive observers with grins. I could not believe my eyes when I noticed that the bus is actually moving and picking up more customers as though a haranguing match between two commuters is the most normal thing under the sun. Baffling and mind-boggling. The title of this post is simply the number of the video (not a year) plus the name of the presumed destination (Kalkara) – again from the conversation. The battle is between two alpha females while the very omega male sits back in submission on the side. This too is Malta today. Xarabank… oh eeeh oh!

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Ad Maiorem Partiti Comoditatem

First we had a hopeless car-free day with some ministers and MPs going through the whole charade of forgoing their favourite mode of transport (and status symbol) once a year and now we have this. It speaks volumes about the sincerity of certain political messages by both parties. Bollocks to Car free Days. You know what – bollocks to the whole business of environmental conscience. Bollocks to it all so long as I can park my car as lazily close to the Parliament as possible.

Part of Merchants Street in Valletta, which has been turned into a pedestrian zone, has become a car park for Members of Parliament and ministers. The decision was taken last week following consultation between the whips of the two sides of the House and the Valletta local council, which agreed with the proposal since it would free up other parking spaces that could be used by shoppers and residents.

The icing on the cake must be “since it would free up other parking spaces that could be used by shoppers and residents”. Here are a few J’accuse off the cuff notes:

1) All the drilling into the spanking new Merchant Street lava stones (how long ago since the inauguration for the greater comfort and pleasure of the people?) for what in practice amounts to a temporary parking spot. Upon completion of the new house of parliament (Pace Piano) the Ministers and MPs on both sides of the plagued house will surely want the parking bays to be shifted closer for their greater convenience. What short-brained bulldozering of any kind of sensitivity could come up with this sort of mass cock up in PR? The kind that reasons that “if we do this together – both sides of the house agreeing – then we risk losing an equal number of votes – and we both know that we won’t coz people are people you see.

2) Then there’s this very Maltese thing of having to have the cars PARKED as close as possible to the parliament. To set an example, and if they really have to drive to and fro their meetings of mass hand clapping (see yesterday’s sitting reserved for eulogies before they adjourned for the long weekend)  why not have a Parliamentary Park & Ride? Identify/block a parking area within reasonable distance from Valletta and then just drop off your car there. Use the 1€ electric cabs for christssakes! Naaah. That would not work would it? Better block off the entrance to the Market with a parade of ego-heavy MP cars and show the people that their representatives cannot be bothered to make the effort.

The whole issue just falls in line with the myriad others that demonstrate the facility with which faux eco-policies of the PLPN kind are unmasked. After the “lilliputian” discoveries in Sliema – you know “we serve our MPs and Labour councillors serve their MPs” – I am still wondering what more will it take before the people open their eyes the next time they vote.

Government for the people by the people… now that’s becoming one hell of a joke.

Addendum (with a nod to a Mr. P. Galea) – listen out at 1.30

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
iTech Mediawatch

Legal Blackmail

More on the world of copyright infringement and threats to consumers. On January 26th 2010 Hansard records show a lively debate in the House of Lords concerning the Digital Economy Bill amendments. One of the hot issues in that was the bullying methods of copyright holders vis-à-vis internet consumers. Here is what Lord Lucas had to say about the practice of sending threatening letters to consumers asking them to cough up a payment in lieu of facing exorbitant charges in court defending themselves:

I had a very helpful letter this morning from ACS:Law Solicitors which, combined with what the Ministers were saying on the last occasion we discussed this, leads me to a greater understanding of their reluctance to deal with the practices that ACS:Law Solicitors is pursuing. They expect these practices to become standard. They expect this to be the way that our citizens will be treated. If people fall foul of this Bill, they will have a couple of warning letters, but after that they will get a typical ACS:Law Solicitors standard letter saying, “Pay us £500 or we will take you to court”. If they do not pay the £500, they will end up in court, there will be technical evidence against them, and they will have no ability to provide a technical defence. That is the difficulty that people faced with ACS:Law Solicitors have at the moment. There is this inequality of arms. They are in a civil court, with a 50:50 balance-of-probability judgment, and must contemplate risking thousands of pounds in mounting a defence when it is not easy to do that.

The problem in the UK was, for a long time that law firms like ACS:Law would offer their services to rightsholders who believed that they were victims of internet piracy and then would proceed to send letters to persons identified by their IP in which they threatened to take them to court unless they paid a sum of money up front.

You can read more about the “legal blackmail” here in Ars Tecnica. The constant pressure in Malta on dreambox owners is not far from this kind of reality. In this case private companies are building up the pressure on law enforcers to turn practically one third of the tv viewing public into instant criminals. They hope to get most of the satellite viewers to desist from their “illegal activity” by creating an atmosphere of worry and terror.  We look forward to see how far up the path they are willing to go.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Labour's Redprint

From Ed to Joseph with love (inhobbok)… Here’s a summary of the main parts of Ed Miliband‘s new vision for New New Labour. It is advisable to familiarise oneself with these visions and terminology for you can expect Joseph Muscat and his Merry Band of Progressives to pilfer them like there is no tomorrow. (A bit like GonziPN and Sarkozy’s slogans). Not that the borrowing of a good idea is wrong – if it is a good idea that is – but that JM and his Merry Men will have no idea of whether or not the vision will work for Malta. They will just be happy to find something that sounds serious, looks marketable and contains the kind of populist promises to win over the ever so enigmatic “middle class“.

From today’s Independent here is Ed Miliband’s vision all set out for Muscat and his idea banks to clone:

New leader’s policy vision

Spending cuts

“I am serious about reducing our deficit… I won’t oppose every cut the Coalition proposes… But what we should not do is make a bad situation worse by embarking on deficit reduction at a pace that endangers our economic recovery.” This formulation is designed to help win back Labour’s credibility on the economy while giving Mr Miliband some wriggle room to amend Alistair Darling’s policy to halve the deficit over four years. Critics will accuse him of trying to have it both ways.

Low pay

“I believe not just in a minimum wage but the foundation of our economy in future must be a living wage.” A future Labour government could force employers to pay a “living wage” of about £7.60 an hour, rather than the minimum wage of £5.80 an hour. The move would be opposed by employers, but Mr Miliband will point out that their warnings about huge job losses before the minimum wage was introduced proved unfounded.

High pay

“The gap between rich and poor does matter. What does it say about the values of our society, what have we become, that a banker can earn in day what the care worker can earn in a year? Responsibility in this country shouldn’t just be about what you can get away with.” Mr Miliband supports a High Pay Commission to investigate the gap between top and bottom pay levels in the private and public sector.

Welfare

“There are those for whom the benefits system has become a trap.” Mr Miliband will oppose “arbitrary” benefit cuts proposed by the Coalition. But he is sympathetic to “tough and tender” reforms drawn up by James Purnell, the former work and pensions secretary, which were not supported by Gordon Brown.

Crime

“When Ken Clarke [the Justice Secretary] says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high re-offending rates, I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime.” Mr Miliband’s support for Mr Clarke’s “prison isn’t working” approach marks a break with New Labour’s tough stance on crime.

So the living wage risks becoming a battleground for the next three years as Joseph Muscat will continue to harp on about the notion. Where will the money for the “living wage” adjustment come from Joseph? Will the taxpayer subsidise the employers to pay the employees? Or will the employers be expected to magicke the extra dosh out of thin air in order to pay for the years of abuse of the impoverished middle-class workers?

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch

The Times, the Dreambox and the Partitioning of a Market

Yesterday’s Times of Malta once again gave priority to a news item related to the Dreambox and satellite TV usage. According to the latest figures one third of Maltese TV viewers watch TV via satellite. The Times distinguishes between satellite and “internet based TV connections like Dreambox” but in actual fact a Dreambox based connection is still satellite dependent – the dreambox is a different form of decoder (that is as far as my limited level of technological knowledge can go) that uses internet to access certain channels. The article also highlighted a commendable campaign by nationalist MP David Agius for better access for football on television by consumers.

Although the article was a presentation of statistics, the title left little space for doubt since it combined the mention of satellite TV viewing with copyright issues. Here at J’accuse we have no doubt that the combined forces of Melita and Go – providers of cable tv – are busy stirring the waters in this regard by making sure that the Times carries such kind of headlines as instil doubt as to the legality of certain consumer choices. All’s fair in love and war they say and MelitaGO are entitled to use any legal means to win over their customers – and they will always find a ready ear among the very investigative journalists of the day. Unfortunately while they attempt to draw the attention to consumers and their purchases – and question the borderline legality of the use of dreambox (in actual fact it might be challenged only in certain circumstances – the dreambox is per se as illegal as a washing machine) – they engage in a bit of borderline legality themselves that is really begging for some answers.

True, consumers are given a choice between “packages” of Melita and Go at the beginning of a sports season. True, consumers can no longer consider access to all football games as a fundamental human right (although we are bloody close to achieving that status for the world cup matches). But what if the performance of the two service providers on the market is such that it does not allow for a normal, informed decision at the beginning of the footballing season? What if that performance includes the switching of packages between service providers within three year periods that drives the consumers crazy thanks to the inconvenience of having to keep up with the administrative side (costs and penalties as well as having to spend time dealing with the respective companies)?What if the virtual duopoly is substituting ransom and blackmail for customer loyalty.

What if… when all is accounted for… we are actually witnessing a virtual duopoly that obliges the consumer to buy ALL of its products if he is to satisfy his demand? It is up to the Competition Office to determine the answers to that question I guess.

Back to the Dreambox. It is not just useful for football actually. What happens, I ask, to a consumer who is willing to pay for a set of channels via satellite – let us say a UK based movie satellite channel – and that package is not legally available for purchase in Malta? What happens if that consumer can buy a decoder from the UK but not from Malta? I have my concerns about the application of EU law in this regard because what you have there is a service being denied to a legitimate customer in another member state. That is just the tip of the iceberg but surely consumers who avail themselves of alternative methods to gain access to programming when no legal method is available cannot suddenly become criminals overnight?

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Mediawatch Politics

PerjuryGate – Justine's Dilemma

There’s one more thing that’s been at the back of my mind in this Chris Said saga. It took Justine Caruana quite some time to distance herself from the perjury challenge that was made by her client. We then got Roberto Montalto explaining to the press that “his client’s decision was not a personal vendetta against Dr Said but simply a necessary step in his battle to gain custody of his only child”. It is not that easy to separate the political from the legal in this matter given the position held by Chris Said and given the way the Labour leader tried to gain whatever political mileage could be had from the issue at the first opportunity.

The nagging thought I have had relates to both the legal and the political side of the matter. I need to give you a hypothetical case for you to see this clearer. Imagine (just imagine) we were talking about theft or (heaven forbid) a more grievous crime such as murder. Imagine (just imagine) that we had a similar case but instead of perjury, a Parliamentary Secretary is being accused of theft or murder. Now imagine you were a lawyer whose client is claiming that the PS is guilty of one of these crimes and that you also happened to be a member of parliament for the opposition party.

You’d have two options available:

(1) In the first option you would be the one to strongly pursue the allegation because (a) you believe it and (b) it is your duty both towards your client as well as towards society to uncover the criminal acts of a representative of the people currently entrusted with governmental responsibilities.

(2) On the other hand you may feel that the accusation is actually not well-grounded and that being identified as the initiator of such an accusation would not have very good repercussions on your political career in the long term – so you make sure that you are not identified with such an accusation.

Legally this argument is not relevant since it is a lawyer’s duty to inform the client of his options and repercussions of such options but in the end he will take whatever action (within the boundaries of ethics) that the client requires.

Politically though the argument is important. In tis cynical age, there is much mileage to be made by a politician who actually uncovers the misdeeds of another politician. The graver the accusation the greater the duty of the politician to uncover it if he or she believes that this is the truth.  Even without the cynicism though there is much to be said in favour of the politician uncovering this kind of truth as a duty towards society. Politically this is the work of the servants of the people, ensuring that anybody else posing as as servant of the people is not tainted with a criminal record that could put into question his ability to handle his public duties.

So the nagging thought I have is this. We have Joseph Muscat trying to gain short-term brownie points BEFORE the actual case is decided by tut-tutting at Gonzi’s rashness to back his PS. At the same time though, we have Justine Caruana who is extremely eager to create an ocean between herself and the case in question – we are led to presume that this is because she is not entirely convinced that Said is actually in the business of the crime of perjury.

Can we presume that she believes that his was a genuine mistake that opened a window of opportunity for Mr Xuereb and his new lawyer to try their luck with a very wide interpretation of the law? Incidentally, the luck starts and ends with the right to institute proceedings for perjury – i.e. no need of very high level of proof at that stage pace the Criminal Court – once the actual perjury proceedings start Mr Xuereb’s lawyer might find that judges will require stronger arguments than “this is not a vendetta”.

The nagging thought is that if Justine were certain that the perjury proceedings would be successful (having been Mr Xuereb’s lawyer throughout the civil side of proceedings) she would be squarely behind her client in that step too – if not legally as his representative (for whatever reasons she may have) then politically. There is nothing wrong with Justine Caruana the politician distancing herself from the proceedings – nothing at all. She is fully entitled to do so. In doing so though, the political message she sends to many (and that she should have insisted upon with her dear leader) is that behind this cloud of smoke there lies nothing much. At least nothing that a politician acting in good faith would deem worth pursuing in the courts of law and taking up in the political forum.

There. Now we wait for the courts to get moving on Tuesday.