Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1514108
sponding statistics for 'fights resulting in bodily harm', dat- ing all the way back to the 1990s (when last I roamed Paceville's streets myself)… but I can assure you that there would NOT have been any- where close to '135, in one year' (41 of which, causing grievous injuries). Simply put – and without wishing to either 'overdrama- tise' the implications of those videos; or even point fingers of blame at any presumed 'per- petrators' – clearly, there has been an intensification of the street-crime associated with Paceville, over the years: both in terms of numbers, and also the severity of the violence it- self. All of which, naturally, brings me back to the question I asked in the headline. One other thing that most – if not all – of those clips also have in common, is that: a) They all caused mas- sive public outcry, at the time; b) They resulted in wide- spread calls for a 'reform' in the licensing system of bounc- ers (including, inter alia, by the nightclubs' own representative body, the Chamber of SMEs); and lastly… c) They were all met by solemn promises, from the government at the time (and Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri, in particular) of a 'new law to regulate bouncers'. In November 2019, for in- stance, the Independent re- ported that: "The drafting of a new law that would see the creation of a regulator on bouncer services in entertain- ment establishments is at an advanced stage, the Home Af- fairs Ministry [said]." In the accompanying inter- view, Camilleri himself even told us that: "A number of meetings were held with per- sons and entities involved ho- listically. It is being estimated that the law will be present- ed in the first months of next year…" In other words: he promised to deliver a whole new law to regulate bouncers (in Paceville, and presumably everywhere else), by February/March 2020, at the earliest… and he did that FOUR YEARS AGO, almost to the day! So, um… what happened, ex- actly? Where are these 'new regulations', that were sup- posed to have been drafted specifically to 'avoid' – or at best, 'minimise' – precisely the sort of lawless mayhem, de- scribed above? Well, your guess is as good as mine, because – as far as I can make out, anyway – that was the last we ever heard of this supposed reform. Which also means, by the way, that the previous regulations con- cerning 'security in nightlife entertainment' – introduced almost 12 years ago, in 2012 – are still the only ones currently in place. And in case you're wonder- ing: they include that "bounc- ers are required to have five years of police, armed forces, prison guard or private securi- ty experience and a specialised licence following training." Now: I imagine you proba- bly already know that one of the two bouncers arrested this week, was later revealed to be 'unlicenced'. And apart from making it abundantly clear, that even these (antiquated) regulations are still not even being enforced, all these years later… this revelation also rais- es some rather bizarre ques- tions, of its own. OK, let's try and work this one out for ourselves. So far, two bouncers have been arrest- ed and charged with violent as- sault – a 21-year-old Albanian, and a 26-year-old Maltese na- tional. Which of those two do you reckon is the least likely to have acquired 'five years of po- lice, armed forces (etc.) expe- rience', followed by a 'special training course'? Is it: a) the Albanian, who – being both foreign (there- by automatically disqualified from service with national se- curity forces), as well as 'barely even an adult' – wouldn't even have had the TIME, to possibly accomplish all of the above? Or is it; b) the 26-year-old Maltese one, who – in theory, at least – potentially COULD have (but evidently didn't)? Yep, folks, you guessed it! It turns out that the 26-year-old Maltese bouncer was actual- ly the 'unlicensed' one, of the two; leading us to inevitably conclude that… … well, one of two possibili- ties, actually. Either the Malta Police Force must have grant- ed a 'special bouncer's license', to someone who clearly (for age-reasons alone) doesn't meet even the most basic re- quirements, for the job at hand… … or else [Note: and I don't want to speculate too much, on what is after all an ongoing case], it may just be another example of the same old 'loop- hole', already identified – by the Chamber of SMEs, no less - way, way back in 2019. Namely, that: "a number of security firms were providing nightclubs with 'bouncers by another name'. These security workers would sign contracts as 'cloakroom attendants', 'hosts' or 'door managers' but would, in fact, be working as security personnel." As always, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. One thing, however, is certain. The 'reform' that Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri once promised us (but never deliv- ered), was all along intend- ed – IN HIS OWN WORDS, please note! – "to address what stakeholders had described as the main obstacle to obtaining a licence." (i.e., the same loop- hole, indicated above). So at the risk of an almost word-for-word repetition, of how I concluded one of my own earlier articles on the sub- ject, back in July 2022: Whose responsibility is it, an- yway, to address Malta's wide- ly-known nightlife security is- sues, through legislation? Is it: a) the Government of Malta (and Home Affairs Min- ister Byron Camilleri, in par- ticular)? Or is it; b) the bouncers of Havana Nightclub, slap-bang in the heart of Paceville itself? I mean, come on. It really isn't all that difficult, you know… maltatoday | SUNDAY • 7 JANUARY 2024 OPINION 11 Clearly, there has been an intensification of the street-crime associated with Paceville, over the years: both in terms of numbers, and also the severity of the violence itself.