Anti-e-toll protest gets physical

Telkom justified its monopoly by falling back on the old excuse that they're just doing what the law says they can.

It's no surprise that yet another parastatal and a monopoly to boot, in this case SCAMRAL, believes that it has rights that override and ride rough-shot over the constitutionally enshrined rights of actual people.

I hope there is video footage of the SCAMRAL employees assaulting protesters and generally behaving badly and that the footage will be up on YouTube for all to see.

Those SCAMRAL employees should be named and shamed and they do not deserve to have jobs if they cannot respect people's constitutional rights.
 
You know? I normally just give them the finger as I drive past. On a particularly stressful day I drive past there on purpose.
Today I think I'm going to stop, wave hello and give them two fingers as I tell them to perform asexual reproduction.
Anyone care to join me?
 
crackersa said:
looks like they are standing on private property.....they could be charged with trespassing.
Click to expand...

Using that logic, all the people that go there to register/pay/query whilst standing should also be charged with trespassing.
 
j4ck455 said:
Using that logic, all the people that go there to register/pay/query whilst standing should also be charged with trespassing.
Click to expand...

ahhh i love your logic. :confused:

the protesters were not there to do business. everything you listed is using the services as intended.
 
Should've burned something for greater effect, preferably the building. We've been told by protesters that's the only time government takes notice.
 
crackersa said:
looks like they are standing on private property.....they could be charged with trespassing.
Click to expand...
Nope political demonstration in an open air space under the Regulation of Gatherings Act

If the property owner indicates that they don't want the people there then a movement of the people needs to take place unless a notice to the municipality was given etc ...

Ask Home Affairs and Kouga LM the "private property" argument doesn't fly very far ;)
 
crackersa said:
ahhh i love your logic. :confused:

the protesters were not there to do business. everything you listed is using the services as intended.
Click to expand...

:confused: are you (really)? Very well then, I think you should be able to follow this more elaborate explanation.

Your original post never mentioned anything about business being conducted, nor did your original post mention anything about the protesters preventing any business from being conducted, you have only now decided to try and defend your original post with this "not there to do business" argument.

Your original post was about the protesters "standing on private property", just merely standing there not even preventing anyone else from doing "business" with the SCAMRAL devil, and so it occurred to me that those schmucks who go there to register/pay/query do so by standing in queues, just standing there.

There is a Youtube video that I watched earlier and while it is rather brief and doesn't capture manhandling of any real significance, the same video shows that the protesters were very few in number (just enough to hold up the banner) and they certainly didn't obstruct any business from being conducted.
 
j4ck455 said:
:confused: are you (really)? Very well then, I think you should be able to follow this more elaborate explanation.

Your original post never mentioned anything about business being conducted, nor did your original post mention anything about the protesters preventing any business from being conducted, you have only now decided to try and defend your original post with this "not there to do business" argument.

Your original post was about the protesters "standing on private property", just merely standing there not even preventing anyone else from doing "business" with the SCAMRAL devil, and so it occurred to me that those schmucks who go there to register/pay/query do so by standing in queues, just standing there.

There is a Youtube video that I watched earlier and while it is rather brief and doesn't capture manhandling of any real significance, the same video shows that the protesters were very few in number (just enough to hold up the banner) and they certainly didn't obstruct any business from being conducted.
Click to expand...

you made to many assumptions without clarifying cause you are to busy looking for an argument.
 
crackersa said:
you made to many assumptions without clarifying cause you are to busy looking for an argument.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: yes whatever you say must be true without backing up your allegations with a list of assumptions you think I made and where I made them.

I question why you are so quick to take the side of SCAMRAL employees that trampled on people's constitutional rights.

It's as if you were one of the SCAMRAL employees that tried to threaten and chase the protesters away. And I didn't say you definitely were one of those SCAMRAL employees in case you think I made an assumption there.
 
I was expecting photos of this "manhandling" and that they would be eager to distribute/show them, since in this day and age everyone has a camera in their pocket. Though I see they went there with the intention of taking photos so maybe noone had a camera on them to preserve these events?

Just saying..
 
This is all that I could find yesterday:

[video=youtube;QFy3VmuHajc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFy3VmuHajc[/video]

It is far too short and appears to have been filmed on the high seas by a drunken sailor, or filmed by a protester being manhandled/womanhandled from behind the lens.

Maybe someone else has posted some better footage of the incident since then.
 
So suddenly all the sanrail are law enforcers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X