Murderer allowed to play rugby

Mikroz said:
I'm not wrong for being White, and you sure as Hell are not 'right' for being Black.
Click to expand...

Whoa, relax on the outrage there. Nobody said you were wrong for being whatever race you are.

We're talking about a convicted murderer being allowed to roam the streets and play rugby here. In a society where crime is a major problem, how and why should that be?

We've had - and have - convicted and not, rapists, murderers, manslaughter[ers] [?], etc. on our sports teams...and yet, no mention is made of race.
Click to expand...

Who?
 
I'm not a sports fan, but off the top of my head...

Makhaya Ntini (Rape allegations[?])

Lucas Radebe (captain! Hijacker)

I believe there was one last month...Soccer or something...not sure which sport.
 
The difference is that Ntini was cleared of rape charges. I didn't know about Radebe and the only confirmation I can find through Google is a single comment on a Leeds FC forum - do you have any more info?
 
Guys

If I'm out on Appeal, am I allowed to eat, Sleep, visit my GF, Swim, play cricket on a Sunday afternoon ?
What is the difference ?

O and since he's playing for a Prov. team IT's HE's JOB!

Are we allowed to work while on appeal ?
 
chiskop said:
The difference is that Ntini was cleared of rape charges. I didn't know about Radebe and the only confirmation I can find through Google is a single comment on a Leeds FC forum - do you have any more info?
Click to expand...

Do u honestly believe our justice system, has any justice ?
Why do u think that scum Ali Bacher was so quick to defend Ntini, but so quick to bury Hansie ?
 
Of you are appealing, does this not mean you are guilty until proven innocent?
 
I for one, and I'm assuming, MANY people are convinced Ntini screwed around. I'm of the opinion that things were overlooked due to his inclusion to the national squad as one ofthe first Blacks. There were way too many discrepancies and avoided issues with the case.

This was years ago, my cricket knowledge sucks, and no, I'm not about to go search for links. www.google.co.za It's what I recall of the situation.

The appeal comment got me thinking, and > I < would probably go with guilty until innocent. With ZA's record of justice, I would go guilty until proven otherwise.
 
Each case on it's own merits, there is now way in hell this guy should be selected to 'represent' a regional side on a national level.

Him and his mates are convicted of brutally murdering a homeless man for no reason other than their own enjoyment.

He has been charged and convicted in a court of law, he is a murderer. Yes the case is on appeal but that should have no bearing at all on his eligibility for selection.

This is just a very poor (and probably true) reflection of the people running that Union and the region as a whole.
Despicable and unthinkable that this can even be considered, let alone defended.
 
Manifesto said:
Of you are appealing, does this not mean you are guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...

Of course you're innocent until proven guilty - this guy has been found guilty. He is a convicted murderer appealing his sentence/conviction (not sure which one).
 
chiskop said:
Of course you're innocent until proven guilty - this guy has been found guilty. He is a convicted murderer appealing his sentence/conviction (not sure which one).
Click to expand...

True.
You are correct.
He is out on bail,pending his appeal to his sentence.
He is guilty of murder.
 
Pitbull said:
O and since he's playing for a Prov. team IT's HE's JOB!
Click to expand...

I agree with you there - it's not his employer's job to decide his innocence or guilt, or his suitability to play based on any other reason than his ability. I guess my problem is with the fact that a convicted murderer is given bail - and the responsibility for that lies with the courts.
 
chiskop said:
I agree with you there - it's not his employer's job to decide his innocence or guilt, or his suitability to play based on any other reason than his ability. I guess my problem is with the fact that a convicted murderer is given bail - and the responsibility for that lies with the courts.
Click to expand...

I cannot agree, the union has a responsibility, the union or province should select players to represent the area/region.

What does it say about your area, your union, or yourself if you select a convicted murderer who has yet to repay a debt to society?
Is the homeless mans life worth less than say a suburban kid or mother?

It might be his job, but perhaps he should have thought about that before beating a homeless man to death 4 on 1?
 
Sneeky said:
I cannot agree, the union has a responsibility, the union or province should select players to represent the area/region.

What does it say about your area, your union, or yourself if you select a convicted murderer who has yet to repay a debt to society?
Is the homeless mans life worth less than say a suburban kid or mother?
Click to expand...

It's tricky and it doesn't reflect well on the union, I agree. However, the guy is out on bail. Let's say they made a legal choice rather than a moral one.

BTW, the coach is this guy's father-in-law - I wonder whether he'd have been selected by another coach?

Sneeky said:
It might be his job, but perhaps he should have thought about that before beating a homeless man to death 4 on 1?
Click to expand...

Oh for sure - no sympathy from me.
 
Yes, I am aware of the family ties.

The whole thing is crazy really. As a society how can we condone such rubbish?

This is not a legal stand or position being taken by the union, far from it, they are not legally obligated to select anyone they don't want too.
It just shows they have no respect for the victim.
 
What I meant by legal choice is that legally they're entitled to pick players out on bail - not that they're obligated. So they can do this and say "But there's no law against it" and they'd be correct - but IMO morally wrong.

But rugby unions aren't in business to make moral decisions. This guy should never have got bail after being convicted - the rugby union shouldn't be in a position like this.

Completely agree though, that it shows a lack of respect, and that we shouldn't condone this.
 
Last edited:
Give the guy a break, he's just there to practise his crotch-grabbing technique for prison!
 
chiskop said:
What I meant by legal choice is that legally they're entitled to pick players out on bail - not that they're obligated. So they can do this and say "But there's no law against it" and they'd be correct - but IMO morally wrong.

But rugby unions aren't in business to make moral decisions. This guy should never have got bail after being convicted - the rugby union shouldn't be in a position like this.

Completely agree though, that it shows a lack of respect, and that we shouldn't condone this.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But then what of Tony Yengeni?
While the crimes are different - and by some margin - so are the roles they have been chosen for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X