Judge’s shock Aids ruling

Despicable to reveal the contents of a Divorce Agreement.

“I am not, I am really not interested in her medical status. She has admitted that she is a carrier of Aids. That is all that is, as far as I am concerned, relevant,” Judge Smit said.
Click to expand...

Section 12 of the Divorce Act seems to have been completely abused by the media.
Section 12 of the Divorce Act prohibits the media from covering details of divorce matters, but the Sunday Times obtained a transcript of the proceedings and is publishing in view of the judge’s comments.
Click to expand...

A case of media hype IMHO.
This must be a high profile person to have gained this much attention?
I think it is despicable that the contents of the Divorce Agreement have been exposed to the General Public and The Sunday Times may still get a slap in the face when they get sued, and rightly so IMHO.

The Sunday Times has created the wrong impression.
For all intense and purposes the father may be the more suitable parent for the children and that is the court needs to be concerned about. End of Story.
 
Last edited:
“Well, what evidence do I have that she will not transmit the HIV to the children?”
Click to expand...

What ever other reasons the judge may have had for taking this womans children away from her, it would seem that her HIV status was at least one of the reasons.

To me that is relevant and news worthy.
 
I think that judge is an arsehole and should be shot, wonder what his connection to the husband is. I hope his judgement gets overturned, how the hell can he say a thing like that, may the aids action groups f#ck him up.
 
ajak said:
I think that judge is an arsehole and should be shot, wonder what his connection to the husband is. I hope his judgement gets overturned, how the hell can he say a thing like that, may the aids action groups f#ck him up.
Click to expand...

Yes. In fact if there were other good reasons for denying this woman custody, all involved would have steered well clear of the HIV/AIDS issue.

I think the husband in this case must have contributed significantly to the judges unofficial early retirement fund to get him to behave so stupidly.
 
That ruling is just shocking. Lets hope they can come up with the $$ to appeal or go to the ConCourt.
 
She's getting what she deserves for f#cking around.
 
supersunbird said:
All this sympathy for a women that tried to kill (though there is no law against that form of murder yet) her husband?
Click to expand...

No - the only issue I have is "she is HIV-positive and may “transmit” the virus to her children". Which in itself seems terribly unfair.
 
How would she transmit the virus to her kids? Is the judge insinuating that she's gonna fck them?
 
If she indeed try to infect the ex on purpose, she is a wicked woman. That is all I can say. As for the rest, well, the media is known for not always presenting the full set of facts and statements like those taken out of context are extremely dangerous. I am skipping this one until further news comes to light. I think we might be surprised at the true facts.
 
"He gave the 42-year-old businessman interim custody of the couple’s two sons pending a report from the Family Advocate."
 
Very good judgement ... she was stupid for getting Aids for sleeping around ... she does not deserve to be their mother.
 
tibby.dude said:
Very good judgement ... she was stupid for getting Aids for sleeping around ... she does not deserve to be their mother.
Click to expand...

Koff...koff. Of what would Jake Zuma then be deserving?
 
jabulani said:
Koff...koff. Of what would Jake Zuma then be deserving?
Click to expand...

10 years of life remaining .... a few minutes of pleasure ... stupid bargain.
 
Well, that's assuming he wasn't already infected, which imo isn't a safe assumption to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X