Skywalker42
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 901
- Reaction score
- 0
I had this thought a few months ago and dismissed it but after reading another OUTA article telling us just how bad Sanral is and how the e-tolling system can never work because of "overburdened court rolls" and all kinds of "administrative problems". It is the REASONS that Outa always gives that makes me suspicious, because they are the WRONG reasons.
Ask yourself this: What is the real problem and what is OUTA really doing. Are they even addressing the real problem or are they perhaps just distracting us so we don't ever look at the real problem, namely SANRAL. Not what Sanral does, what Sanral IS.
15 Years ago, when no one was looking The South African National Roads Agency Limited was created and properly registered as a company with registration number 1998009584/06. No big deal. Its National, its South African, created by our government to manage OUR roads for us. Those were OUR roads because they built and paid for with OUR money. At that stage nobody really cared or read the act of parliament that created this beast.
If you actually read the act you might also wonder why OUTA opposes what Sanral does and NOT what Sanral IS. Sanral does absolutely nothing wrong ( legally speaking of course ). I think if people really know and understand what Sanral is, they would be 10 times more angry what they are now, and the "opposition" would not be so "controlled" anymore.
Here are a few points from the act ( shortened to make it more readable )
Definitions:
"national road" - means any road or route declared a national road.
There is really nothing "national" about those, when declared "national" it means they become the private property of the company. No, they don't pay for it, they also don't pay any transfer fees or anything at all. This is all stipulated in the act. Section 40.
"public road" - means a road which the public has the right to use;
Just so you know your "rights". These public roads are converted to "national roads" on a weekly basis way by notices in the Gov Gazette. Last time I checked was in Feb, they were "doing" the North Western Province at that time.
Section 26.
The Agency is competent -
... to perform any work in connection with any road (national or municipal), ...for the account of that municipality or province. The Agency may charge a fee for any service rendered under this paragraph;.
So, your municipality/province (YOU) pay for the maintenance and gets charged a fee for the privilege to do so And you thought that was what the e-toll money was for.
Section 27
Any person liable for toll who..refuses or fails to pay—
(a) is guilty...punishable...imprisonment not longer than six months
(b) is liable, in addition, to pay...civil fine of R1 000. This amount
may be increased in 1999 and annually...as published in the Gazette.
Their own private army, funded by you.
s29.2(b)In addition to or instead of a civil penalty, any one of the following sanctions may
be imposed on offenders...:
(ii) suspension of the offender’s right to use the toll road concerned.
Wouldn't you also ban someone from you newly acquired property if they keep crossing without paying ?
For those of you that thought that the petrol levy can pay for the roads, it probably can, but it first goes to Sanral. They will decide whats best for you.
Section 34. Funding of Agency
34.(1) The Agency is funded and provided with capital from—
(a) the capital invested in or lent to the Agency <-- overseas investors
(b) the levies on petrol and distillate fuel to be paid to the Agency <-- you already paid
(c) loans granted to or raised by the Agency <-- which you will pay for in (k)
(d) interest on the Agency’s cash balances or on moneys invested by it;
(e) income earned from the Agency’s participation in joint ventures
(f) income derived from the sale of the Agency’s assets; <-- they can sell what used to be yours...
(g) all toll payable to the Agency <-- payable by you of course
(h) fines payable...conviction of offences created by this Act <-- in case you didn't pay (g)
(i) income generated through developing, leasing out assets ...
(j) any levies,fees, rentals charged by and payable to the Agency
(k) moneys appropriated by Parliament to supplement the Agency’s funds <-- you pay again
(l) moneys received by way of grant, donation or inheritance from any source,
whether inside or outside the Republic. <-- general category where bribes can fit in
Section 54. Law enforcement on national roads
54.(2) ...authorised employee will have the powers of arrest and detention
conferred on a peace officer
They don't need police, they are police...
So, the Sanral act was obviously legalised theft on a grand scale, but Outa seems to be ok with that because they never mention this. I do not for one moment believe that they are not aware of this. The Court Cases are just the necessary cosmetics to convince the public that Outa is "on their side" and if we stand together "we" will win. Sanral has already won, back in 1998, with all those god-like powers bestowed on the company.
The only way to get rid of tolling is to get rid of Sanral, by repealing the 1998 act.
Politics is a dirty power game by definition and governments always create their own controlled opposition when they are up to something. If OUTA didn't magically appear at precisely the right the government would have to face millions of angry people. OUTA is just the buffer between the people and the government while Sanral gets their "business plans" in place.
In their latest article Outa complains:
"All meetings are being held behind closed doors, despite one of the most fundamental criticisms of e-tolling being a lack of public consultation."
What public consultation? The public has no LEGAL say or share in Sanral. Sanral has no legal obligation to "consult with the public". The deal was sealed 15 years ago, and we did nothing then. Sanral is legally untouchable, by design. Why is Outa trying to create the impression that this is not the case.
And then there is Duvenhage leaving his successful career to help the people...yeah right.
And the public donation millions in a few days for the court case. I'm not so sure if all that money came from the public only. Was a bit of "too good to be true".
There is really just one question to answer:
IF OUTA WAS NOT CONTROLLED OPPOSITION, WHY DO THEY AVOID PINPOINTING THE REAL PROBLEM ?
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. - Lenin.
Ask yourself this: What is the real problem and what is OUTA really doing. Are they even addressing the real problem or are they perhaps just distracting us so we don't ever look at the real problem, namely SANRAL. Not what Sanral does, what Sanral IS.
15 Years ago, when no one was looking The South African National Roads Agency Limited was created and properly registered as a company with registration number 1998009584/06. No big deal. Its National, its South African, created by our government to manage OUR roads for us. Those were OUR roads because they built and paid for with OUR money. At that stage nobody really cared or read the act of parliament that created this beast.
If you actually read the act you might also wonder why OUTA opposes what Sanral does and NOT what Sanral IS. Sanral does absolutely nothing wrong ( legally speaking of course ). I think if people really know and understand what Sanral is, they would be 10 times more angry what they are now, and the "opposition" would not be so "controlled" anymore.
Here are a few points from the act ( shortened to make it more readable )
Definitions:
"national road" - means any road or route declared a national road.
There is really nothing "national" about those, when declared "national" it means they become the private property of the company. No, they don't pay for it, they also don't pay any transfer fees or anything at all. This is all stipulated in the act. Section 40.
"public road" - means a road which the public has the right to use;
Just so you know your "rights". These public roads are converted to "national roads" on a weekly basis way by notices in the Gov Gazette. Last time I checked was in Feb, they were "doing" the North Western Province at that time.
Section 26.
The Agency is competent -
... to perform any work in connection with any road (national or municipal), ...for the account of that municipality or province. The Agency may charge a fee for any service rendered under this paragraph;.
So, your municipality/province (YOU) pay for the maintenance and gets charged a fee for the privilege to do so And you thought that was what the e-toll money was for.
Section 27
Any person liable for toll who..refuses or fails to pay—
(a) is guilty...punishable...imprisonment not longer than six months
(b) is liable, in addition, to pay...civil fine of R1 000. This amount
may be increased in 1999 and annually...as published in the Gazette.
Their own private army, funded by you.
s29.2(b)In addition to or instead of a civil penalty, any one of the following sanctions may
be imposed on offenders...:
(ii) suspension of the offender’s right to use the toll road concerned.
Wouldn't you also ban someone from you newly acquired property if they keep crossing without paying ?
For those of you that thought that the petrol levy can pay for the roads, it probably can, but it first goes to Sanral. They will decide whats best for you.
Section 34. Funding of Agency
34.(1) The Agency is funded and provided with capital from—
(a) the capital invested in or lent to the Agency <-- overseas investors
(b) the levies on petrol and distillate fuel to be paid to the Agency <-- you already paid
(c) loans granted to or raised by the Agency <-- which you will pay for in (k)
(d) interest on the Agency’s cash balances or on moneys invested by it;
(e) income earned from the Agency’s participation in joint ventures
(f) income derived from the sale of the Agency’s assets; <-- they can sell what used to be yours...
(g) all toll payable to the Agency <-- payable by you of course
(h) fines payable...conviction of offences created by this Act <-- in case you didn't pay (g)
(i) income generated through developing, leasing out assets ...
(j) any levies,fees, rentals charged by and payable to the Agency
(k) moneys appropriated by Parliament to supplement the Agency’s funds <-- you pay again
(l) moneys received by way of grant, donation or inheritance from any source,
whether inside or outside the Republic. <-- general category where bribes can fit in
Section 54. Law enforcement on national roads
54.(2) ...authorised employee will have the powers of arrest and detention
conferred on a peace officer
They don't need police, they are police...
So, the Sanral act was obviously legalised theft on a grand scale, but Outa seems to be ok with that because they never mention this. I do not for one moment believe that they are not aware of this. The Court Cases are just the necessary cosmetics to convince the public that Outa is "on their side" and if we stand together "we" will win. Sanral has already won, back in 1998, with all those god-like powers bestowed on the company.
The only way to get rid of tolling is to get rid of Sanral, by repealing the 1998 act.
Politics is a dirty power game by definition and governments always create their own controlled opposition when they are up to something. If OUTA didn't magically appear at precisely the right the government would have to face millions of angry people. OUTA is just the buffer between the people and the government while Sanral gets their "business plans" in place.
In their latest article Outa complains:
"All meetings are being held behind closed doors, despite one of the most fundamental criticisms of e-tolling being a lack of public consultation."
What public consultation? The public has no LEGAL say or share in Sanral. Sanral has no legal obligation to "consult with the public". The deal was sealed 15 years ago, and we did nothing then. Sanral is legally untouchable, by design. Why is Outa trying to create the impression that this is not the case.
And then there is Duvenhage leaving his successful career to help the people...yeah right.
And the public donation millions in a few days for the court case. I'm not so sure if all that money came from the public only. Was a bit of "too good to be true".
There is really just one question to answer:
IF OUTA WAS NOT CONTROLLED OPPOSITION, WHY DO THEY AVOID PINPOINTING THE REAL PROBLEM ?
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. - Lenin.
