Uncalled for and I think this comment should be deleted.mac_mac74 said:would your friend by any chance be God
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
Uncalled for and I think this comment should be deleted.mac_mac74 said:would your friend by any chance be God
The judiciary is an independent authority, and in no way or form will ever take popular sentiment into consideration.mac_mac74 said:ZUMA NOT GUILTY - Government's way of preventing an uprising
Zuma was found not-guilty. Whether he was indeed innocent or not is now a matter of speculation (as it always was). Zuma is not a rapist, as difficult as that may be to accept. I wil say this, once again (as in the Laundry murders), we do have a situation where massive flaws in the investigative process are being highlighted time and again. The State appears to be going to court with immensely weak cases. These two cases (including the laundry case) both had major portions of the prosecution team's evidence thrown out or ruled as inadmissable. As the Judge also correctly pointed out in this case, one where all the evidence is circumstantial, it is always going to be difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge was excellent in his analysis, and in the end delivery of his verdict.craigsa said:He is a criminal and hopefully the truth will come out in the future. Believe what you want to but only 6% of rape cases are prosecuted succesfully. Go figure. I do belive he raped her and i am entitled to my belief. I know how words are manipulated in a court trial. Just sends out a strong message to rapists and complainants.
Your sentence makes no sense: if he is "innocent or not" - then it is as likely he was guilty of rape - just not found so in terms of the evidence presented. So - yes - can say he is a rapist - even if found not guilty of rape. You can't say "Zuma is not a rapist" - only "Zuma was not found guilty of rape" - big difference.Zuma was found not-guilty. Whether he was indeed innocent or not is now a matter of speculation (as it always was). Zuma is not a rapist, as difficult as that may be to accept.
Yes, he was acquitted of the charge and may not be legally called a rapist. Some people, as we have found on this very forum, will persist in their belief that he is indeed a rapist. But legally, he may not be called a rapist. The point I was stressing is that he was found innocent of the charge ("based on the evidence" is obviously not required as this goes without saying?), and as such, may not be labelled or called a rapist. Zuma is not a rapist - in full terms of the law in South Africa, this is completely corrrect. In any event, Judge Willem van der Merwe's findings were that consensual sex took place. This implies there was no rape, which means: "Zuma is not a rapist".kilo39 said:Your sentence makes no sense: if he is "innocent or not" - then it is as likely he was guilty of rape - just not found so in terms of the evidence presented. So - yes - can say he is a rapist - even if found not guilty of rape. You can't say "Zuma is not a rapist" - only "Zuma was not found guilty of rape" - big difference.
... and yup - country is a farce - was it ever any different.In as far as his corruption trial is concerned, I expect that trial to be adjourned until final word about Shaik's appeal is released. If Shaik's appeal is successful, then Zuma's legal team will move aggressively towards dismissal, and almost certainly will achieve this, as the charges were pressed after revelations from the Initial Shaik trial. I sincerely hope that this time round, the State will actually do some proper investigation, and ensure that all evidence presented to the court is actually admissible. Failing that, we indeed have a problem in the Justice system in this country, but the problem does not lie with the Judge.
pupa said:Also the fact the he is found not guilty but slept while married with an old friends daughter, lack of respect? it should show clearly show that he does not have the credibility or the ethics to be in any GVT even in any other African country, let alone in the civilised world.!
But Clinton was nearly impeached for putting a cigar in his intern's ... errr.. holiest of holies....tibby.dude said:John Prescott ... the married Deputy Premier of the UK recently admitted to having an affair with his diary secretary ... she even told juicy tales to the Sun tabloid of her getting pomped in his office during lunch.
He has not resigned or been fired yet.
John Prescott ... the married Deputy Premier of the UK recently admitted to having an affair with his diary secretary ... she even told juicy tales to the Sun tabloid of her getting pomped in his office during lunch.
He has not resigned or been fired yet
The difference is - over there they actually DO something about something - unlike here - where only thing ever happens is talk about it (while they fill their pockets.)Labour yesterday promised that John Prescott would be given new responsibilities as deputy prime minister as fallout from Friday's dramatic cabinet reshuffle continued and Tory critics claimed he was being given a ÂŁ130,000 salary simply to chair a few cabinet committees. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1769804,00.html
kingmonty said:But Clinton was nearly impeached for putting a cigar in his intern's ... errr.. holiest of holies....
V. good point, prehaps from now on Judges names are changed and they sit inside a little box were no-one else can see them so no-one knows their race ... that way there can be no more issuesHighflyer_GP said:My question is where are all the big mouth Zuma supporters who had a lot to say about a white judge being appointed after the Shaik trial ended? Now that judge Willem vd Merwe ruled not-guilty, do they still think that the juciary is racially motivated? I for one would like them to issue a public apology as their comments were rather insulting.
kingmonty said:Yes, he was acquitted of the charge and may not be legally called a rapist. Some people, as we have found on this very forum, will persist in their belief that he is indeed a rapist. But legally, he may not be called a rapist. The point I was stressing is that he was found innocent of the charge ("based on the evidence" is obviously not required as this goes without saying?), and as such, may not be labelled or called a rapist. Zuma is not a rapist - in full terms of the law in South Africa, this is completely corrrect. In any event, Judge Willem van der Merwe's findings were that consensual sex took place. This implies there was no rape, which means: "Zuma is not a rapist".
If Zuma becomes pres. then we all better leave this country as he has some scores to settle. Biiiig Time. Maybe the virus will get him first. Oh no wait he had a shower......feo said:This morning one of the ANC people said on 702 that Zuma's political future was still intact...if he becomes president I'm leaving this country!