SONA 2015

Mila said:
Just show me the fashion, I need to see some pigs in froks. I need some comedy. Please tell me someone out done last year's yellow worm.
Click to expand...

I must say that I was irritated by the public protector tweeting on about her awful dress rather than a comment about the goings on last night.

I think she writes a good report but she stops there.
 
Sinbad said:
And they dressed in black as a deliberate contrast to the fashion excess that normally accompanies the SONA event, as they believe we're a nation in crisis and the fashion crap is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Actually the black signified the death of democracy.
 
Paul Hjul said:
depends on which ejectment rule was used - the normal disruption one would certainly allow them in as the Speaker needs to hold a disciplinary hearing to suspend a member beyond a session in progress

And here again would be the point:
Lets assume a member of the House is intoxicated and stands and sings the little weavel song or something of the sort. The Speaker should caution the member that the behaviour is disruptive and may require adjournment and disciplinary action, if it is clear that it is an intoxication matter she should insist that the Chief Whip of that member's party attend to the matter and adjourn the House for 15 minutes they (the party members) can then take him (or her) to the showers and return and the Chief Whip can raise to a point of order and report to the speaker that the matter will be handled by the party caucus and apologise for the inconvenience - which would mean that disciplinary proceedings seeing the suspension of the member should not be necessary.
On the other hand if a member stands and has a gun in their hand and threatens suicide the Speaker should try to bring calm to the situation and adjourn the proceedings while armed people do in fact enter the assembly.
Click to expand...

Weasel. It's a song about a weasel.
 
Paul Hjul said:
depends on which ejectment rule was used - the normal disruption one would certainly allow them in as the Speaker needs to hold a disciplinary hearing to suspend a member beyond a session in progress

And here again would be the point:
Lets assume a member of the House is intoxicated and stands and sings the little weavel song or something of the sort. The Speaker should caution the member that the behaviour is disruptive and may require adjournment and disciplinary action, if it is clear that it is an intoxication matter she should insist that the Chief Whip of that member's party attend to the matter and adjourn the House for 15 minutes they (the party members) can then take him (or her) to the showers and return and the Chief Whip can raise to a point of order and report to the speaker that the matter will be handled by the party caucus and apologise for the inconvenience - which would mean that disciplinary proceedings seeing the suspension of the member should not be necessary.
On the other hand if a member stands and has a gun in their hand and threatens suicide the Speaker should try to bring calm to the situation and adjourn the proceedings while armed people do in fact enter the assembly.
Click to expand...

My point is actually that if she adjourned the assembly and they resumed again x minutes later, the EFF could just have done the same thing again. Then you are back where you were before the adjournment.
 
ghoti said:
IwnYh6I.jpg


Cool picture of the DA at SANO. Few parties have so much diversity in their leadership.
Click to expand...

here come the men in black + helen zille:D
 
[video=youtube;MrCh0FfX1kg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCh0FfX1kg[/video]

This was aired on e-TV at the end. Lol @ 2:08
 
blunomore said:
My point is actually that if she adjourned the assembly and they resumed again x minutes later, the EFF could just have done the same thing again. Then you are back where you were before the adjournment.
Click to expand...

except that if she had ordered the member to vacate the House an adjournment would not preclude such a member from being obliged to leave the precinct. I'd have to double check the NA rules but the Act certainly empowers the speaker to detain a person (de Vos has a look at whether person includes MPs) and detention would run over an adjournment. Generally though yes if you adjourn the House to deal with a disruptive member that person could well restart with the disruption on reconvening but objectively there was no "disruption" only the successive lawful raising of questions of privilege
 
ANC CONDEMNS PARLY SIGNAL JAMMING

The African National Congress on Friday condemned the jamming of the cellphone signal in Parliament during President Jacob Zuma's state-of-the-nation address on Thursday evening.

"[The] ANC condemns the jamming of the signal last night in Parliament. [The] ANC supports the free flow of information and media freedom," national spokesman Zizi Kodwa said.

The Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa) said only the country's security cluster departments were permitted to use jamming devices.

"The national security cluster departments may, where supported by relevant security legislation, deploy the use of jammers in relation to, among others, state security functions," spokesman Paseka Maleka said in a statement.

Around 25 journalists launched a protest in the press gallery of the National Assembly on Thursday evening because they did not have cellphone reception to file their stories.

"Bring back the signal, bring back the signal," they chanted, waving their cellphones at an electronic black box which was believed to be a jamming device.

Democratic Alliance and Economic Freedom Fighters MPs joined in the chanting from their seats below, also holding up their cellphones.

DA chief whip John Steenhuisen rose on a "rule of order" to submit that the jamming was "in direct violation of the... Constitution".

The DA was supported by the EFF and the Freedom Front Plus.

National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete said she would make sure the secretary of Parliament looked into the issue.

Icasa welcomed this. Maleka said Icasa would liaise with Parliament on the outcome of the investigation.

"Should it deem it necessary, the authority may also institute its own investigation into the matter."

Media houses were considering not reporting on the address unless the signal was restored.

Two Sapa correspondents had to hang out of a second storey window in Parliament to file copy. Male correspondents queued for a spot in the men's toilet, where a signal could briefly be found.

The SA National Editors' Forum (Sanef) also condemned the jamming.

"This disrupts the functioning of the media particularly as journalists are filing using cellphone signal for digital platforms, sending pictures back to their main offices and updating Facebook and Twitter accounts for various publications," said Sanef executive director Mthatha Tsedu.

Many journalists complained on Twitter that once they had entered the House they could no longer use their cellphones.

Tsedu said if Parliament refused to unjam the signal it would amount to censorship. The signal was restored before President Jacob Zuma presented his address.


Source : Sapa /mr/cls/jk/ks
Date : 13 Feb 2015 12:33
 
Garyvdh said:
ANC CONDEMNS PARLY SIGNAL JAMMING

The African National Congress on Friday condemned the jamming of the cellphone signal in Parliament during President Jacob Zuma's state-of-the-nation address on Thursday evening.

"[The] ANC condemns the jamming of the signal last night in Parliament. [The] ANC supports the free flow of information and media freedom," national spokesman Zizi Kodwa said.

The Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa) said only the country's security cluster departments were permitted to use jamming devices.

"The national security cluster departments may, where supported by relevant security legislation, deploy the use of jammers in relation to, among others, state security functions," spokesman Paseka Maleka said in a statement.

Around 25 journalists launched a protest in the press gallery of the National Assembly on Thursday evening because they did not have cellphone reception to file their stories.

"Bring back the signal, bring back the signal," they chanted, waving their cellphones at an electronic black box which was believed to be a jamming device.

Democratic Alliance and Economic Freedom Fighters MPs joined in the chanting from their seats below, also holding up their cellphones.

DA chief whip John Steenhuisen rose on a "rule of order" to submit that the jamming was "in direct violation of the... Constitution".

The DA was supported by the EFF and the Freedom Front Plus.

National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete said she would make sure the secretary of Parliament looked into the issue.

Icasa welcomed this. Maleka said Icasa would liaise with Parliament on the outcome of the investigation.

"Should it deem it necessary, the authority may also institute its own investigation into the matter."

Media houses were considering not reporting on the address unless the signal was restored.

Two Sapa correspondents had to hang out of a second storey window in Parliament to file copy. Male correspondents queued for a spot in the men's toilet, where a signal could briefly be found.

The SA National Editors' Forum (Sanef) also condemned the jamming.

"This disrupts the functioning of the media particularly as journalists are filing using cellphone signal for digital platforms, sending pictures back to their main offices and updating Facebook and Twitter accounts for various publications," said Sanef executive director Mthatha Tsedu.

Many journalists complained on Twitter that once they had entered the House they could no longer use their cellphones.

Tsedu said if Parliament refused to unjam the signal it would amount to censorship. The signal was restored before President Jacob Zuma presented his address.


Source : Sapa /mr/cls/jk/ks
Date : 13 Feb 2015 12:33
Click to expand...

LOL, now nobody knew nothing about the jamming. Just LOL!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X