Spur Incident

Not sure what his past has to do with it... yeah, a douche and all, but nothing to do with it. I doubt spur had a database of clients who have previously had charges laid against them at the time of siding with the sjws. On that note, any journos digging in to her past? who knows, maybe she yelled at a puppy or something?

Edit, and quite frankly, not sure why this is even an article,
four of the cases against the man were withdrawn and he was found not guilty on one charge of common assault
Click to expand...
Now, anyone from an abusive house knows what the 'withdrawn' cases are about, but fact still is, he hasn't been convicted of anything.

This smacks of trying to promoted the idea that spurs actions were justified
 
Last edited:
Bundu said:
all round nice guy it seems ;-)

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/banned-spur-man-has-string-of-arrests-for-assault-20170702

"Banned Spur man has string of arrests for assault
2017-07-02 14:02
Mpho Raborife, News24


Johannesburg - The man banned from all Spur outlets nationwide following an angry exchange has a string of arrests for assault.

News24 can reveal that the man, a car salesman based in Rustenburg, North West, had five cases against him between June 2005 and November 2011 which allegedly included assaulting his wife in public.

“[The cases] include three of common assault, one of malicious damage to property and one of contravention of domestic violence act,” North West police spokesperson Brigadier Sabata Mokgwabone.

In two of the cases, News24 understands, the man was accused of hitting his wife with his fists at a rugby club. And in another case, the woman opened a common assault case against him after he allegedly hit her at their home.

Mokgwabone said four of the cases against the man were withdrawn and he was found not guilty on one charge of common assault.

Attempts to get comment from the man were unsuccessful despite calls and text messages sent during the week."
Click to expand...

The fact that this guy is a tappet is irrelevant. Spur did not ban him because of his past, they did not even know about it :crylaugh:

Spur can go get fcked, this changes nothing.

Sincerely, the conservative right wing.
 
Not sure what's more disturbing that people are boycotting because some savage got banned and not their garbage food. guess no substitute for common sense.
 
chunk10 said:
Not sure what's more disturbing that people are boycotting because some savage got banned and not their garbage food. guess no substitute for common sense.
Click to expand...

People are boycotting because that woman didn't also get banned, but yeah, I didn't expect you to understand that.
 
Slootvreter said:
People are boycotting because that woman didn't also get banned, but yeah, I didn't expect you to understand that.
Click to expand...

Didn't see her trying to accost a child and be a savage, one doesn't get banned for baiting someone vast difference.
 
supersunbird said:
So I can verbally and emotionally abuse my partner but just not physically? Great news...
Click to expand...
Sticks and stones.. I wonder how many people calling for her banning are also the sort of people who complain about safe spaces and triggering.

And if you are going down that route he was also guilty of verbal abuse (as well as physical), end of the day what he did was a lot more worthy of a ban
 
Last edited:
the people are inconsequential to this whole argument outside of who was punished by Spur. They both should have been banned and it has nothing to do with Gender, Race or past history. Both of their actions put a child at risk and they both deserve punishment.
 
In two of the cases, News24 understands, the man was accused of hitting his wife with his fists at a rugby club. And in another case, the woman opened a common assault case against him after he allegedly hit her at their home
Click to expand...
.

A lowlife and bully, just as many people thought when he was throwing tantrums at Spur, you can never be wrong about his type.
 
C4Cat said:
Banned for defending a child? :wtf:
Click to expand...

He was also defending his child. She did nothing to stop the child she was defending from bullying the other parties child. Just because she is less physical in the altercation, does not free her from taking part of the responsibility for the altercation.
 
C4Cat said:
Banned for defending a child? :wtf:
Click to expand...

From the guy's point of view, he was defending his child against hers. This part always gets missed by the media for some reason.

Most parents would loose their $hit if they saw their kid getting hit by another.
 
konfab said:
From the guy's point of view, he was defending his child against hers. This part always gets missed by the media for some reason.

Most parents would loose their $hit if they saw their kid getting hit by another.
Click to expand...

It he had done what he did while the other kid was hitting his then i completely agree. However you can't defend your kid from something that has already happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X