Year from hell for Eskom CEO Andre de Ruyter

richjdavies said:
Because they dont have the power on to help other people at other times. So when people are dying because their ventilators ran out of power.

It just goes to show the priorities of those in power. Would rather spend R20m on letting people watch a funeral than fix pit latrines and stop kids dying horrible death falling in them.
Click to expand...
So you have a problem with the power being on because of the Kings funeral, even though you and everyone also benefited from this?

You would rather have had the loadshedding to save the R20m?

Since we are already burning diesel at a huge cost anyway to keep the lights on would you rather we save that money as well and have more loadshedding?
 
TheChamp said:
But it's not the first time Eskom has spent money burning diesel to keep the lights on? They have done this before to stave off load shedding, why are we only complaining now, because they dared to mention that they are doing it for the King?

Would we have complained if they just spent the money to keep the lights on if they didn't mention the King? I just don't understand if we have a problem with the power being on or if we have a problem with the power being on because of the King's funeral.
Click to expand...

I complain because the decision was irrational as it was not within the scope as announced in the earlier announcement as Eskom was already using emergency generation resources at the time. Where they had to trim, they allocated additional emergency generation resources to allow an exception to the rule.

Yes, I understand the context as to why it was done, yes, there is a cultural and traditional bequest, even I who don’t agree with kingships in today’s time can sympathise with the matter concerning the memorial even though it was politically capitalised on.

With the above being said, then why do people then slay into de Ruyter like he enabled this special exception? This is a state order, an order most likely given after the first announcement of Wednesday otherwise there wouldn’t have been a second power alert.

If this was to be accommodated earlier we should have moved to a higher stage of load shedding to optimise the cost of this provision.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
I complain because the decision was irrational as it was not within the scope as announced in the earlier announcement as Eskom was already using emergency generation resources at the time. Where they had to trim, they allocated additional emergency generation resources to allow an exception to the rule.

Yes, I understand the context as to why it was done, yes, there is a cultural and traditional bequest, even I who don’t agree with kingships in today’s time can sympathise with the matter concerning the memorial even though it was politically capitalised on.

With the above being said, then why do people then slay into de Ruyter like he enabled this special exception? This is a state order, an order most likely given after the first announcement of Wednesday otherwise there wouldn’t have been a second power alert.

If this was to be accommodated earlier we should have moved to a higher stage of load shedding to optimise the cost of this provision.
Click to expand...
That's the usual foolishness on this forum.
 
grok said:
Oh now suddenly the president has no say, but to know why the previous CEOs before de Ruyter weren't held to the same standard, the champs answers is to go speak to Zuma.

We are being swirled in a toilet of hypocrisy, they will never let go of race, it's has consumed their minds like Hani warned.
Click to expand...

The champ is a troll. Why take him seriously.
 
BBSA said:
He is not really a troll, just an naive individual who feels it is his duty to defend fellow comrades no matter what.
Click to expand...
Nobody can be that naive. He doesn't even really defend fellow comrades he just questions/critique criticism of fellow comrades vaguely without offering his opinion or standing for anything.

It's fine. And there's a place for it. I find it funny and somewhat entertaining especially how people fall for it over and over again.
 
TheChamp said:
But it's not the first time Eskom has spent money burning diesel to keep the lights on? They have done this before to stave off load shedding, why are we only complaining now, because they dared to mention that they are doing it for the King?

Would we have complained if they just spent the money to keep the lights on if they didn't mention the King? I just don't understand if we have a problem with the power being on or if we have a problem with the power being on because of the King's funeral.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect Thechamp post. I love it.

Everything is posted as a question. No position is taken on anything. There's just nothing to argue against. It seems like he is defending the king and eskom, but is he really? No. His questions are factual enough. Without taking a side about whether it is right or wrong.
It's a complete strawman/false equivalence.

Yes eskom should ideally always keep the lights on. It's their job.
No eskom should not specifically do it just for any one person's funeral. No single person is more important than any other and if eskom can change their schedule around for the Zulus then they now also need to do it if someone else wants to have a funeral tomorrow. As long as we can have funerals we can put a end to load shedding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X