Vrotappel
Bulls fan
Who will protect SA from the public protector?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: At what point do you sell your car?
"Zille violated Constitution", Public Protector
- Thread starter dlk001
- Start date
Mila
Honorary Master
Mila
Honorary Master
The Squirrel.....
not
Mephisto_Helix
Resident Postwhore
Sideshow Bob
Honorary Master
Looks like someone has already complained against 702 based on this..
http://bccsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/case-number-18-2017-1.pdf
"A complaint was received that the dignity of the Public Protector was impaired during an interview with her spokesperson on the Eusebius McKaiser show when the host exclaimed (about the PP) “ … or is she just useless?”
Sideshow Bob
Honorary Master
I think it is a good thing. PP should be given enough rope. The more PP loses credibility (that is if she keeps on losing cases in court), the better because "the Public Protector may be removed from office by the President, but only on the grounds of misbehaviour, incapacity or incompetence, determined by a joint committee of the Houses of Parliament, composed as provided in subsection (2) (a) "
grok
Honorary Master
Best to try the captured angle the ANC never acts on incompetence.
Sideshow Bob
Honorary Master
That is changing though, your mileage will vary of course.
porchrat
Honorary Master
No, hence me asking. So please answer.
TheChamp
Honorary Master
I refuse.
porchrat
Honorary Master
Seems rather petty to refuse. Why do so?
You've already said it's obvious. Clearly I've failed to grasp what you mean. I'm simply asking that you explain it.
If you're not here to communicate your thoughts effectively why bother being on this forum at all. You're just wasting people's time otherwise.
Guys, guys, guys... this is a good thing don't you see.
She mixed professional (premier) and personal (son), the reason and result is irrelevant. It's just bad and violates the constitution. It's is good, because now she has de facto found that all the ANC scum that got family jobs / tenders etc either directly or the companies their family work far are also now in violation of the constitution. WIN!
/s
She mixed professional (premier) and personal (son), the reason and result is irrelevant. It's just bad and violates the constitution. It's is good, because now she has de facto found that all the ANC scum that got family jobs / tenders etc either directly or the companies their family work far are also now in violation of the constitution. WIN!
/s
You are under the impression that he owes you an explanation, no one does.
TheChamp
Honorary Master
I would give him an answer if it was a genuine question, but I have been here long enough to tell the difference.
Indeed don't fall for the trap
Mephisto_Helix
Resident Postwhore
Porchrat is probably one of the more sincere / level headed person in these debates, so 'refusing' like a fool only makes you look more like one .... not that you need it though
porchrat
Honorary Master
I'm under the impression that we're in a discussion forum.
If he's not here to engage in discussion there's really no point in being here at all.
porchrat
Honorary Master
I don't believe I've ever been anything but genuine with you.
I haven't been following the thread so I genuinely don't know what you meant. I simply requested an explanation and you've assumed malice and refused to engage in conversation.
That is your right of course, it's just not very conducive to a constructive discussion.
True but you can decide your level of engagement.
porchrat
Honorary Master
He decided on refusing to engage completely. In a forum for discussions. Why bother being here at that point.
When have I ever been dishonest in my engagements with you. You know me by this point. You're defending the indefensible.