The topic that was on the agenda this Thursday was the sharing of data from Russian anti-Putin activists by the Lisbon City Council with the Russian Embassy in Portugal. A controversy that motivated a public apology from Fernando Medina.
As such, this controversy was addressed by Manuela Ferreira Leite, on TVI24, who understood the apology of the mayor’s office “to a natural and normal procedure” and not to an isolated error.
I heard the Mayor’s intervention and I got the idea that he seemed to be apologizing for a mistake that had been made by the Chamber’s services. I think that this is not an error, because an error is a procedure that is established by law and that later by mistake, that regulation is not complied with and that was not the case.”, said.
Everything he said corresponded to a natural and normal procedure in the Chamber, which had been carried out for many years”, reinforced.
For the commentator, the socialist made it clear that this method has been working like this for a long time, which he considered to be “very serious”, especially after it was understood that it would not be a unique case.
It means that innovation and new laws have not entered the Chamber and that the Chamber continues to function with laws that are no longer in force.”
if it is in effect [os regulamentos] and it is not fulfilled, then it is very serious. If it is not in force, it is very serious, because then the Chamber still functions in a way that has nothing to do with today’s world.”
In this sense, he alerted to the fact that companies that violate this type of data protection laws, suffer heavy penalties, such as “heavy fines”.
Regarding Fernando Medina’s resignation, Ferreira Leite said that “it depends a lot on the consequences of this”. In other words, if it turns out that this case is not an isolated act and if there are consequences for the safety of the activists concerned, then Medina must resign.
At the very least, those very heavy fines that are applied to companies cannot fail to be applied to the City of Lisbon” , at the most it would be the dismissal: “political responsibility is something that cannot be left out.”
In a final note on this topic, the commentator considered “dangerous” the statements that this would be a political advantage because we are in a year of municipal authorities.
It is evident that this is a case of a seriousness that we cannot minimize. And I don’t think we should try to minimize it by saying it’s an electoral campaign. It is an electoral campaign and an electoral campaign must be clarified.”
Adão e Silva: “It is unacceptable” for the Government to take a decision without talking to the other parties
the choice of Pedro Adam e Silva for executive commissioner of the commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the 25th of April has been shrouded in great controversy. For Manuela Ferreira Leite it is a shame that the socialist is involved in this mess, for which he is “not to blame”.
Pedro Adão e Silva is a person I consider, who I think is competent, serious and, therefore, I have nothing to say about the profile or the person. I even think it’s regrettable and I’m sorry he’s involved in this controversy.”, he stated.
He safeguarded, however, that the socialist is not to blame for this controversy, which would arise whoever was appointed to the position. The big issue, which he considered to be “unacceptable”, was the fact that the Government made a choice without consulting any party.
It is truly unacceptable and incomprehensible for a government to take a decision on this matter without consulting, without speaking, without asking for an opinion and without trying to reach a consensus among the various parties.”
We all have the feeling that the Socialist Party rules everything, decides everything and everything that is not socialist is an intruder”, reinforced.
As for the appointment of Ana Paula Vitorino, to chair the Mobility and Transport Authority (AMT), Ferreira Leite was quick and concise: “It should be she herself who shouldn’t accept the position. Because as competent as it is, and I don’t question that, the problem is that this place is a place of control, independent of a Government, because it not only controls the activity of the Government, but also controls the activity of the private sector.”.