What ever happened to...

timgaul said:
According to South African law, he already has been found guilty. In an earlier corruption trial (not involving Zuma) the judge declared that in all corruption cases there are two parties, the giver and the receiver. He declared both are guilty. Judge Squire found Shubir Shaik (the giver) guilty of corruption in his dealings with Jacob Zuma (the receiver). As such precedent has already dictated that Jacob Zuma, was guilty by mere association, of participating in corruption.
Click to expand...
Don't lie now. South African law cannot find you guilty unless you are charged. And to be found implies a resulting criminal record which Zuma doesn't have from the Shaik trial.
And if you know what corruption you would not go around making statements like the bolded part - if someone gives you something with a corrupt intention they are guilty of corruption.
 
Bizkit87 said:
shouldn't the bold part be "alleged racist". We've discussed this sometime last year as well, whenever whites wronged blacks, they are immediately guilty, but when blacks wrong whites, it doesn't even get mentioned?
Click to expand...

Goodness. Whinge, whinge and moan.

Here are some handy links if you would *really* like to complain about the article:

Press Council of South Africa:
http://www.presscouncil.org.za/

Complaints Procedures:
http://www.presscouncil.org.za/pages/south-african-press-code/complaints-procedures.php


Now go! Go man, go! Get out there and tell the media that you will not stand for their evil, mischievous, dastardly tricks!
 
lol... cant believe this story... 84 year old with a dildo taunting a black man... uhm, is it me or uhm,..... gay-dominatrix isssues.... wanting to relive something he couldn't do before when he was younger....

maybe he wanted to black dude... ROFL....
 
R13... said:
Don't lie now. South African law cannot find you guilty unless you are charged. And to be found implies a resulting criminal record which Zuma doesn't have from the Shaik trial.
And if you know what corruption you would not go around making statements like the bolded part - if someone gives you something with a corrupt intention they are guilty of corruption.
Click to expand...

Both are guilty, but since generally only one party is on trial only that one party can be convicted, since the judge does not have jurisdiction of the second party. Based on the precedent there is still a very real case against Jacob Zuma, in that a judge has already deemed him to be guilty by association (though not legally so) because the two are inseparable. As such, he is guilty and not allegedly so.

However, my little friend, the bolded part is entirely true (and obvious to all but those who choose not to understand), I've been trying to find the case again - I've read it thoroughly, I assure you. I will have to ask my sister she's the one that drew my attention to it. You cannot give with the intention of committing corruption without a willing accomplice to receive, by law.
 
Fudzy said:
Reporters aren't courts of law, they can say what they want unfortuantely.
Click to expand...

no they can't ......

Heita_Hola said:
So do you blame the media or the black people?
Click to expand...

just the media, i think they are so excited when some sort of alleged racial injustice happens to a black person, that they can't wait to print it, regardless of what the fact were... if the court found him guilty, then great, call him a racist, show pics, whatever.... but till then , wait it out...

JustAsk said:
no suprises there...guilty as charged.Why should i need evidence for something that comes natural to those that like to be called africans.

pathetic thread.
Click to expand...

pathetic response, just stfu k?

grayston said:
Goodness. Whinge, whinge and moan.

Here are some handy links if you would *really* like to complain about the article:

Press Council of South Africa:
http://www.presscouncil.org.za/

Complaints Procedures:
http://www.presscouncil.org.za/pages/south-african-press-code/complaints-procedures.php


Now go! Go man, go! Get out there and tell the media that you will not stand for their evil, mischievous, dastardly tricks!
Click to expand...

fail at sarcasm, but keep trying, and you know what, i might just lodge a complaint.....
 
Bizkit87 said:
fail at sarcasm, but keep trying, and you know what, i might just lodge a complaint.....
Click to expand...

Ah well. The target of the sarcasm never usually gets it, so that's understandable.

Please DO file a complaint. At least you will be doing something "constructive" instead inciting another pointless us-vs-them racism thread.
 
JustAsk said:
no suprises there...guilty as charged.Why should i need evidence for something that comes natural to those that like to be called africans.

pathetic thread.
Click to expand...

It must be difficult to walk with the giant Pringle's tin on you shoulder! :eek::p
 
timgaul said:
Both are guilty, but since generally only one party is on trial only that one party can be convicted, since the judge does not have jurisdiction of the second party. Based on the precedent there is still a very real case against Jacob Zuma, in that a judge has already deemed him to be guilty by association (though not legally so) because the two are inseparable. As such, he is guilty and not allegedly so.

However, my little friend, the bolded part is entirely true (and obvious to all but those who choose not to understand), I've been trying to find the case again - I've read it thoroughly, I assure you. I will have to ask my sister she's the one that drew my attention to it. You cannot give with the intention of committing corruption without a willing accomplice to receive, by law.
Click to expand...
Where in the world can a judge find a person guilty of corruption without putting charges to that person? Even if there are 2 parties - the absent party cannot be found guilty without a chance to defend themselves unless in absentia. All that's proven is that the person standing in court is guilty of corrupt intent in their dealing with the absent party. The absent party cannot be found either way. Get a grip timmy boy - you beginning to slip!
 
R13... said:
Where in the world can a judge find a person guilty of corruption without putting charges to that person? Even if there are 2 parties - the absent party cannot be found guilty without a chance to defend themselves unless in absentia. All that's proven is that the person standing in court is guilty of corrupt intent in their dealing with the absent party. The absent party cannot be found either way. Get a grip timmy boy - you beginning to slip!
Click to expand...

I never said they were found guilty, I said they are guilty of having a corrupt relationship - whether another judge deems that a criminal offence worthy of prosecution is another matter. Or would you like me to use smaller words?
 
timgaul said:
I never said they were found guilty, I said they are guilty of having a corrupt relationship - whether another judge deems that a criminal offence worthy of prosecution is another matter. Or would you like me to use smaller words?
Click to expand...
How can you be guilty without being found guilty? This is a new level of understanding beyond us mere mortals I would think. Laughable logic there timmy.
 
R13... said:
How can you be guilty without being found guilty? This is a new level of understanding beyond us mere mortals I would think. Laughable logic there timmy.
Click to expand...

IIRC that judge said something along the lines of "Mr Shaik and Mr Zuma had a generally corrupt relationship...

sound pretty much like he thought Zuma was guilty, but that case in point had only to do with Shaik....
 
Bizkit87 said:
IIRC that judge said something along the lines of "Mr Shaik and Mr Zuma had a generally corrupt relationship...

sound pretty much like he thought Zuma was guilty, but that case in point had only to do with Shaik....
Click to expand...

And that is why there should be a second trial, according to the precedent set out in law there is a second criminal in these proceedings and he needs to be found guilt or corruption (not of having a generally corrupt relationship).
 
Bizkit87 said:
IIRC that judge said something along the lines of "Mr Shaik and Mr Zuma had a generally corrupt relationship...

sound pretty much like he thought Zuma was guilty, but that case in point had only to do with Shaik....
Click to expand...

Hahaha...which he never said.It was heavily reported like that yet he personally denied that AND its nowhere on record...leaving all those "reporters" in shame.

Geezuz...you pwnd yourself...ain't that a biatch.
 
Last edited:
JustAsk said:
Hahaha...which he never said.It was heavily reported like that yet he personally denied that AND its nowhere on record...leaving all those "reporters" in shame.

Geezuz...you pwnd yourself...ain't that a biatch.
Click to expand...

i couldn't find a report/transcript from that verdict, nor did i have time, but thats how i remember the judged said something ALONG THE LINES OF what was said my me above.... how do you know he didn't say it like that, did you find the transcript?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X