# Social Category > South African Politics Forum >  Minimum force being used.....the more things change the more they stay the same...

## adrianh

http://www.news24.com/Multimedia/Sou...otage-20120816

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1345136218

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

So what are you tying to say Adrian? Have you been in a riot, have you experiences what thousands of people are capable of doing, do you know what they do, do you onow if they got firearms? Have you considered the fact taht more than 500 policeman were killed in the line of duty last year alone? I'm a police reservist and unlike you I have been in these situations, I have been shot at, attacked an what not! When you experience that I'm sure you will remove your snotty opinion! It is very easy to judge for you, but I'd love to see you in their shoes, I guarantee that your underwear will change colors, so please next time think before you amake such comments especially when you haven't got a clue of what's going on!

----------


## adrianh

What I am trying to say is that the police murdered those people. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. I am sick and tired of people justifying blatant stupidity, the whole lot of them should be locked up. 

And by the way; I couldn't care less whether you are a police reservest or whether you are Jesus Christ himself, you have no right to call my opinion 'snotty'. I have the right to express my opinion without being personally attacked by you. I have zero regard for the judgement of the police force and their cohorts especially when they overreact and make sh1t and then justify their terrible actions while sitting right up on their high horse.

If you think that insulting me is going to make me have more respect for the police or police reservests then you are sadly mistaken. Your insults only add to the disgust that I feel for those who are supposed to protect us. 

Let me just state my opinion clearly for the record; the police put themselves in a position where they got cornered, they were threatned and overreacted and ended up shooting a number of men to death. The shooting occured due to their INCOMPETENCE




> so please next time think before you amake such comments especially when you haven't got a clue of what's going on!


My friend, let me spell it out for you  I - N - C  - O - M - P -  E - T - E - N - C - E

....please let me know if I should make it bold and put it in a bigger size....

----------


## Dave A

Kinda alone with my thoughts right now. Absolutely shocked.

----------

ChrisNG53 (20-Aug-12)

----------


## Blurock

This is sickening! I have to agree with Adrian that the police were incompetent in the way that they have handled the matter, which has dragged on for a week at least. However, Nikolai also has a point. You have to be in that situation to appreciate what happened. An uncontrolled mob is very hard to stop, especially when they are armed (where did they get the guns from?) and determined to kill. 

They were not demonstrating, they were out to kill. They have already killed 2 policemen and 8 of their co-workers earlier in the week. It is very hard to reason or negotiate with people who do not want to listen and then resort to violence to get their way.

This is once again a reflection on our leadership, political and business leaders should take a hard look at themselves. :No:

----------

ChrisNG53 (20-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

There is no excuse. They are supposed to protect all citizens, even if those citizens become unruly. The only term that rolls around in my head when looking at that footage is this: "It was like shooting fish in a barrel"

----------


## BusFact

> There is no excuse. They are supposed to protect all citizens, even if those citizens become unruly. The only term that rolls around in my head when looking at that footage is this: "It was like shooting fish in a barrel"


I don't yet know all the facts in this case but a charging mob of armed strikers doesn't leave you with too many options. There is a limit to this protection. An example would be a shoot out with armed robbers. 

I'm going to save my opinion for when the sequence of events becomes clearer, but there are many instances where there can indeed be excuses.

----------


## adrianh

There is no excuse, they got themselves ia a corner and they shot their way out of it, yes maybe that was the only way out but they should not have put themselves in that position in the first place. It's like exposing your queen during a chess game and then overturning the entire table when your opponent tries to take the piece.

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

Again incompetent opinion Adrian. Here's a situation, were received an arrmed robbery complaint on the police radio, we raced to the scene as soon as we stopped few houses before and got on foot the two occupants of the getaway vehicle started shooting at us, so what happened we retaliated and killed them both, if they had respect for the police they wouldn't have shot at us. You feel that the police is useless but let me tell you there are many capable and honest people in the force that you don't give credit to because you can't look further than your own selfish self. In this case of mob where there are thousands of people armed with pangas, firearms, shambocks and what not and you expect the police to do nothing, two policeman died yesterday and why because they put their lives on the line and you know for who, for some selfish, unthankful people like you! You obviously have never experienced what an angry mob is! 

And just by the way it's a free country and let me remind you one of the constitutional rights we all have is freedom of speech and just like you I make use of it so yes it is a snotty opinion you have and that will be the case until you look further than your backside.

----------


## ChrisNG53

People riot. They do this all over the World. They riot violently. 
There are certain rules that bind the State in these situations. They do NOT include a "kill or be killed" culture/approach, as bad as things might be. The Sate is NEVER AT WAR with rioters. It has to bring the riot under control -- not win a war.  This is because the State is obliged to protect a citizen's right to life, even if that citizen is a criminal --- serial murderer ....

It is this simple (if matters involving death can be simple): ---
1. killing is only justified if unavoidable;
2. Killing is NOT a form of riot control.

Looking at the video footage where a whole group are mowed down with gunfire these sacred tests are obviously NOT met in that -
a) the police are not in formation to meet a charge by rioters; (charging is pretty standard for rioters)
b) apart from some head protection they are not in full riot gear;
c) in particular they are NOT equipped with anti-riot shields, absolutely essential for dealing with armed rioters;
d) when the rioters charge it is met instantly with "deadly force";
e) e.g, the first volley of gun fire should have been directed ahead of the rioters so as to force them to desist;
f) even when the rioters where fired on a question arises as to whether or not fire was directed so as to wound, and not kill, i.e, directed at lower parts of the body?

It is pertinent to point out that the police had already fatally disadvantaged themselves when a policy decision was taken before, NOT to use rubber bullets. 
This mind boggling decision means that the ONLY bullets that then could be used were lead bullets that are designed to KILL NOT STOP/WOUND!!!!

Presumably the new Police Commissioner reviewed and approved of this idiotic policy decision.

What happened is the culmination of a long saga of incompetence and very bad macro management culture.  I had protested the appointment of Bheke Cele; i had protested his "shoot to kill" culture; I had protested the militarization" of the police force; I had protested Phiyega being appointed on a "cadre deployed" basis.  I was condemned by just about everyone as a ranting fool.

----------


## Blurock

> There is no excuse. They are supposed to protect all citizens, even if those citizens become unruly. The only term that rolls around in my head when looking at that footage is this: "It was like shooting fish in a barrel"


In a perfect and civilised society this statement would be true. Unfortunately and sadly, these events have once more confirmed that we live in a 3rd world country. It has also put our country in such a bad light in the international forum. It is really sad that conflict have to be settled with violence.

I also agree to police incompetence in that the training provided to new police recruits is not what it used to be. The quality of leadership is also not what it used to be. There is however two sides to the coin. Until you have faced a mindless, barbaric mob out to kill and destroy everything in their path, it is hard to put yourself in their position. 

Maybe the mine management was also to blame in how they conducted negotiations and HR in general. The strikers definitely had an agenda, but I will reserve judgement until all the facts have been investigated.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> In a perfect and civilised society this statement would be true. Unfortunately and sadly, these events have once more confirmed that we live in a 3rd world country. It has also put our country in such a bad light in the international forum. It is really sad that conflict have to be settled with violence.
> 
> I also agree to police incompetence in that the training provided to new police recruits is not what it used to be. The quality of leadership is also not what it used to be. There is however two sides to the coin. Until you have faced a mindless, barbaric mob out to kill and destroy everything in their path, it is hard to put yourself in their position. 
> 
> Maybe the mine management was also to blame in how they conducted negotiations and HR in general. The strikers definitely had an agenda, but I will reserve judgement until all the facts have been investigated.


I think you are on point...   However the law is that the Sate must PROTECT NOT TAKE LIFE *unless this is unavoidable* .. even if the swine involved is a serial killer.
So the State is obliged, with its considerable resources, that we pay for, to gear itself up for such situations --- including situations of extreme violence.
As I have posted just the fact that the police had divested themselves of rubber bullets means that the whole operation was fatally flawed -- from the moment they arrived.

----------


## adrianh

@Nickolai Naydenov : ag sorry man, now I see why you are so upset...ok I'll quickly fix it for you. My opinion on the matter must have been a tad unclear. Those trigger happy chappies suffer from a severe case of:

...wait for it...

...ta da...

_I - N - C - O - M - P - E - T -E - N - C - E_

----------


## vieome

<rant>
<conspiracy>
The police and rioters mere pawns in the game of power. When they start calling for your head take off their heads.

But the end result, the true genius of the plan, is the fear. Fear becomes the ultimate tool of corrupt third world governments. In this society where people are willing to protest for anything, what better way to show people before an election that they can march against a picture of the spear, but they can not march against the spear. 
</conspiracy>
</rant>

----------


## vieome

The police simply took a few extra dolphin kicks.

----------


## adrianh

@vieome 10/10

----------


## Blurock

The state is also obliged to protect its citizens and their homes. Reality is that it is failing in each and every obligation it has. I am not 100% certain, but the basics are to protect, to educate and to rule (please help me out here), but none of this is happening. That is why we have a duplicate service for each and every service or function of state.  :Frown:

----------


## ChrisNG53

> The police simply took a few extra dolphin kicks.


Lol ,, lol , ,with deadly results ......

----------


## ChrisNG53

> @Nickolai Naydenov : ag sorry man, now I see why you are so upset...ok I'll quickly fix it for you. My opinion on the matter must have been a tad unclear. Those trigger happy chappies suffer from a severe case of:
> 
> ...wait for it...
> 
> ...ta da...
> 
> _I - N - C - O - M - P - E - T -E - N - C - E_


i agree . on account of the incompetence of leadership .. right from the top.

----------


## ChrisNG53

Guys --- when you watch the video clip this is what is also striking ---- 
1. a tear gas canister is thrown at the group;
2. this was obviously done to get them to move;
3. they did move -- and this should have been anticipated;
4. they move/charge in the direction of a group of police;
5. however it is a group of police to the right of the police being charged that start shooting;
6. the rioters are immediately mowed down by automatic gun fire and they fall like skittles;
7. some police officers start shouting "cease fire, cease fire";
8. the call goes unheeded, as some police officers next to a vehicle NOT UNDER ANY THREAT WHATSOEVER continue to fire at the rioters now on the ground!!!????

A. On these facts it is clear that there was no predetermined plan, other than that if the rioters moved in the direction of the police, in reaction to the teargas, IMMEDIATE DEADLY FORCE WOULD BE USED TO KILL THEM.

B. No rubber bullets were used - -which should have been the first option .. NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER. The fact that this was not the option speaks volumes.

C. Of extreme significance is the fact that there was no IMMEDIATE response to the "Cease FIRE" call. This IS A VERY BAD indicator. It is indicative of a badly trained, very jumpy force ... AND proves that there was no plan in place as to the "command regime in combat".

D. It was also notable that some police officers nearer to the charge did not fire at all, while others further away did. This makes nonsense of any police officer being in a situation of "HAVING TO KILL", because if this was so, the ones in the front would also fire.

----------


## Dave A

I'm going to go with my first response to the news first.

This is a national tragedy.

It is a stain on every citizen of South Africa that we have a society where such an event can happen. We should all hang our heads in shame.

It is unacceptable in a democratic society that so values individual human rights, that claims to be a humane, peace loving and compassionate society, that we should even get *close* to such an event happening, let alone have it *actually* happen.

This morning I cried.

I cried for the people who died.
I cried for the people who were injured.
I cried for the people who pulled the triggers and the leaders who led these people to this tragic moment - they will have to live with this consequence of what they have done for the rest of their lives.

I cried for their families.
And I cried for our country.

This blood should not have been spilled. And as a member of this South African society that would be so great, I feel hurt and partly responsible.

----------

Blurock (17-Aug-12), wynn (18-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> I'm going to go with my first response to the news first.
> 
> This is a national tragedy.
> 
> It is a stain on every citizen of South Africa that we have a society where such an event can happen. We should all hang our heads in shame.
> 
> It is unacceptable in a democratic society that so values individual human rights, that claims to be a humane, peace loving and compassionate society, that we should even get *close* to such an event happening, let alone have it *actually* happen.
> 
> This morning I cried.
> ...


There are no words that can improve on this expression of the true realities of this "our" national tragedy.

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

I think many of you just see what you want to see, well let me give you some pointers:
1. You can clearly see shots fired at the police by the dust on the right side by the polceman
2. The crowd was charing towards the police with shambocks and sticks besides the 2 firearms which we can see the police removed from the group
3. From close distance pangas, knives, shambocks and etc can do much more damage than you can imagine and as per section 49 of the firearms control act that allows you to justify the use of deadly force
4. Police is oly doing their job and protecting their lives as well as your lives
5. Don't underestimate the power of 3000 people crowd
6. Someone made a point that when there was cease fire command not everyone stopped, but from these omments I can say that none of ou has been in this situation and none of you don't realize that the policeman were on edge and that if one of the people moves they can kill someone so it's a matter of who's faster, I've been in the situation and trust me when you experience it then you will change your thinking very quick.

Bottom line is you can talk so much how crap the police is, the leadirship and what not, yet none of you can see or appreciate what the police does for you, I'm not saying everything is perfect in the police but if there was no police ypu wouldn't be here. You chose not to see all the good things they are doing and putting their lives on the line for you and your families, all you can do is bitch and moan in which case instead of compalning go and fix it yourself then if you think it's that simple! Stop blaming people, look at ypurself first, try and get into their shoes before you judge!

Besides everything else can noody see that this whole situation arised because of the unions that created the tention, these same unions that are supposed to stand up for their members, they are very good at getting membership fees every month, drive in fancy cars and etc while they don't give a crap what hapens to their members, they are obsessed with power and that's why this happened. They are bringing down tne economy, wasting government resources and so on but yet they are endorsed by the government itself.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> I think many of you just see what you want to see, well let me give you some pointers:
> 1. You can clearly see shots fired at the police by the dust on the right side by the polceman
> 2. The crowd was charing towards the police with shambocks and sticks besides the 2 firearms which we can see the police removed from the group
> 3. From close distance pangas, knives, shambocks and etc can do much more damage than you can imagine and as per section 49 of the firearms control act that allows you to justify the use of deadly force
> 4. Police is oly doing their job and protecting their lives as well as your lives
> 5. Don't underestimate the power of 3000 people crowd
> 6. Someone made a point that when there was cease fire command not everyone stopped, but from these omments I can say that none of ou has been in this situation and none of you don't realize that the policeman were on edge and that if one of the people moves they can kill someone so it's a matter of who's faster, I've been in the situation and trust me when you experience it then you will change your thinking very quick.
> 
> Bottom line is you can talk so much how crap the police is, the leadirship and what not, yet none of you can see or appreciate what the police does for you, I'm not saying everything is perfect in the police but if there was no police ypu wouldn't be here. You chose not to see all the good things they are doing and putting their lives on the line for you and your families, all you can do is bitch and moan in which case instead of compalning go and fix it yourself then if you think it's that simple! Stop blaming people, look at ypurself first, try and get into their shoes before you judge!
> ...


With the greatest respect, having a concern about the loss of so many lives is not to "bitch and moan". It is the most legitimate of concerns.  The reality is -
1.  the police are accountable for their actions, like everybody else;'
2.  the State has a constitutional responsibility to PRESERVE NOT TAKE HUMAN LIFE ... EVEN THAT OF A SERIAL KILLER.
3.  life can only be taken if that is UNAVOIDABLE.
4.  it is pertinent to point out that just that morning a female police "General" predicted that "to day we are going to end this thing .. "  How did she know that?   When you are dealing with belligerent rioters and/or terrorists you have no way of knowing when the thing will end UNLESS YOU ARE INTENDING TO END IT WITH LETHAL FORCE. 
5.  the video footage comes no where near showing that that any police officer was in actual danger of immediate death or serious injury --- only that a group split in their direction after being teargassed.  Even if it is accepted that this was an armed charge the first option should have been rubber bullets and stun grenades .. then a line of fire ahead of the charge ....   But, of course, you won't have such a pre-planned, practiced course of action if you don't understand point 2 above.
6.  what speaks volumes is that calls to "cease fire" go unheeded .. and officers that are actually behind front line officers, who are Not firing, continue firing at people on the ground, having been mowed down by machine gun fire. Apart from showing these bright sparks up as "jumpy" it means that even the "chain of command under fire" had not been set and drilled.

7.  I can not be expected to be grateful that the police otherwise do the good job of protecting me and you. That is their job. That is what they are paid to do.

8. I can accept that the video footage gives a limited view of things.  However, as a person who was trained in the use of lethal force, it is blindingly obvious to me that it cannot be said that *killing was unavoidable*.  

To conclude, the Sate can never be at war with its own citizens, regardless of haw bad they are.  It cannot have a mode of "kill or be killed".  The duty of the police in this situation was to bring it to a safe conclusion without avoidable loss of life.   It failed.

----------


## adrianh

Interesting but the fact remains that the police should not have put themselves in that position. Members of the police choose their vocation, nobody forces them to do the job so there is no excuse for doing a bad job. They are paid to uphold the law and they are paid, by their own choice, to put their lives at risk. If you go to a restaurant and the service is crap then you compain, not so, you expect to be served properly. The same goes for the police, we expect to be served properly, if they can't do the work then they should seek a vocation better suited to themselves. I have no sympathy for them or for any other person doing any other job, you choose to do it so you must do it properly or not do it at all.

----------

ChrisNG53 (19-Aug-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Interesting but the fact remains that the police should not have put themselves in that position. Members of the police choose their vocation, nobody forces them to do the job so there is no excuse for doing a bad job. They are paid to uphold the law and they are paid, by their own choice, to put their lives at risk. If you go to a restaurant and the service is crap then you compain, not so, you expect to be served properly. The same goes for the police, we expect to be served properly, if they can't do the work then they should seek a vocation better suited to themselves. I have no sympathy for them or for any other person doing any other job, you choose to do it so you must do it properly or not do it at all.


Eloquently put eminent Counsel ... and just to add .. we pay them . .and they take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

----------


## adrianh

I can think of a perfect analogy for the situation. Aircraft pilots stall a trans-continental jet over the ocean due to bad judgement (let's say they airspeed indicators fail - aka Air France flight 447). They execute recovery maneuvers and end up ditching the plane. All aboard are killed. The pilots union then claim that all they could do was to ditch the plane because they were under so much stress from having to deal with multiple system failures...

These are the issues:
1. The pilots chose their vocation and they accepted their wings as proof of their ability to cope with all situations that may arise in the cockpit.
2. The pilots did not follow procedure when the air speed indicators failed.
3. The pilots took the wrong course of action to rectify their mistake.

Does everybody now say that one shouldn't blame the pilots because their jobs are very stressfull and that we should also be thankfull that they are willing to fly the aircraft?
.
...I think not...

I think that this matter ties in perfectly with the discussion on choosing to overlook mistakes and transgressions of "those who are like us"

----------


## desA

Pre Mandela's release  : Apartheid & unlawful government
Post Mandela's release : Not our fault.

In reality, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

It is time that SA citizens, of all persuasions, cultures, creeds - take stock of the low that SA has moved into. Something has to be done. The current 'government' is abysmal & clearly incapable of maintaining law-&-order in a civilised manner. 

A terrible tragedy any way it is looked at.

----------

Blurock (19-Aug-12)

----------


## ians

I have been in a similar situation, held up in a police station which was stormed by a mob, during the apartheid era. Daves post #21 sums it up pretty well, how i feel.

I am not saying anyone is right or wrong, just that i would like to see your reaction in a situation like this.

I am assuming that most of you sit with the cutain pulled slightly open to watch, but dont actually go out and help when you hear your neighbour screaming for help, because you dont want to be put in that situation that you might be killed or kill someone.

----------

Nickolai Naydenov (19-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

It is not about what we, the average man in the street will do in the situation. It is about what 'trained' police members did.

Apples & pears......

----------


## ians

Police are human just like you and i, trained or not.

Human and human, or am i missing something?


7 pm news tonight, 2 policemen shot dead before they could even draw their firearms.

----------


## adrianh

Yes you are missing something. An airline pilot is trained to fly a plane and cope with emergency situations. They spend countless hours practicing to handle such situations. They should not panic and lose their cool when the engine falls off the wing, they are expected to respond without fear and to land the plane safely....yes?

A paramedic s trained not to vomit or faint when he is at the scene of a horrific accident, a plumber is trained to deal with the nasty stuff that they have to deal with.

You cannot compare trained and untrained people to one another where both those people are expected to react procedurally to a situation that is within the scope of the training of one of those people. It would be like asking: what you would do (Adrian the layman - if your 737's engine falls off on take-off aka Nationwide Cape Town). The point is that I am not trained to deal with the situation, the pilot is and should deal with it in accordance with his training without putting the lives of the crew or passengers at risk.

The same goes for the police. They cannot claim that they were panicked or that it was in the heat of the moment or that they were scared or that they didn't hear the ceasefire command. They are paid professionals who should not fold under pressure. Imagine if the brain surgeon says three quaters of the way through an operation that he got so stressed that he slipped and cut the patients brain to pieces.

See what I am saying....

----------

ChrisNG53 (20-Aug-12)

----------


## ians

Maybe you can explain why the strikers where armed and used a "muti" if their intentions were peaceful.

I noted that none of your comparisons included a police officer being shot at.

Maybe you could give us a comparison, of what a police officer should do if they are shot at, or attacked by a group with guns, spears and pangas.

Dont forget to mention in your comaprison, the part where 2 police officers had already been killed before they attacked.

At what point they should have stopped, i could agree it looks like they were shooting just to empty mags.

----------

Nickolai Naydenov (20-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

Judge Greenland already covered that.





> Guys --- when you watch the video clip this is what is also striking ---- 
> 1. a tear gas canister is thrown at the group;
> 2. this was obviously done to get them to move;
> 3. they did move -- and this should have been anticipated;
> 4. they move/charge in the direction of a group of police;
> 5. however it is a group of police to the right of the police being charged that start shooting;
> 6. the rioters are immediately mowed down by automatic gun fire and they fall like skittles;
> 7. some police officers start shouting "cease fire, cease fire";
> 8. the call goes unheeded, as some police officers next to a vehicle NOT UNDER ANY THREAT WHATSOEVER continue to fire at the rioters now on the ground!!!????
> ...

----------

ChrisNG53 (20-Aug-12)

----------


## ians

Something i did note while watching the yotube clip, some of the police officers where wearing a beret, like they were from a special unit of sorts.

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

Did any of you watch interface tonight? If you did then you would have understood that the whole situation was created by the two rival mine unions in fight for control and money, don't you guys think that that's where you should start from?

From what I gather specifically from Adrian and Chris if 40 policeman died it would have been better than 40 miners because the logic is that's what jobs they chose? You need to stop being so selfish and put yourself in their shoes, what do you do when they shoot at you? Duck and hope you don't get shot or do you retaliate? There was also commnts on why they didn't use rubber bullets, simple answer to that, when they are shooting at you with live rounds do you think rubber is the correct rounds to use so that they can get up an attempt to shoot you again? It's very easy to talk, judge, complain and moan with light hand when it's not a about you! All your examples about the pilots, sergeons and what not are very shallow Adrian. Why didn't you use a real life example like the one of when a captain shouted at a robber "drop the gun" a few times and eventually he got killed because he didn't shoot the suspect, he did what you suggesting and he died even thou he would have been justified for using lethal force and this is the reality. With regards to the inconsiderate comments of they chose ther jobs I will tell you that not everyone is as fortunate as some of you to have a choice of a job, many people in this country will apply for any job as long as they can feed themselves and their families! So if you care so much open your eyes, open your mind, stop with the stupid comments, we've all got brains so use it!

The guys with the berets are special forces, the military was also called to the scene, all of that shows that crowd control unit was obviously not efficient and therefore they escalated it with brining in the army and special forces, bit no let's listen to some of the specialists here that think they know everything and they have it all figured out

----------

tec0 (20-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

I am unfortunately unable to agree with your point of view regarding this matter eventhough you make an emotive case for us to accept a mediocre police force.

----------

ChrisNG53 (20-Aug-12)

----------


## ians

This is just my thought on the little info i have on the whole situation, it is a sad day for South Africa any way you look at this incident. We can all point fingers and blame the police, the strikers or the unions. The bottom line is we have a situation, what is the goverment going to do about it.

If i understand what adrianh is saying, "the police are not well equipped or adequately trained" i would tend to agree. Maybe they just dont have enough resources (i am sure Nickolai Naydenov would agree)

One of the question we should be asking is why were the strikers armed, to defend themselves from the police or take the law into their own hands?

I cannot comment on why the police kept shooting, only the police on the ground will be able to answer that question, i am sure it is going to be the first question in the enquiry.

Something else to consider, if the strikers shot the first shot, nobody would have been able to hear if the strikers had stop shooting, because of the noise from all the firearms. I am sure if you have ever shot a firearm without ear protection you can imagine how loud this whole ordeal must have been.

The other point i noticed people are commenting about, how far the police were away from the strikers and still shooting. You can kill a person from a 100 m + with a firearm, this wasnt a "stick fight". I did notice in the yotube clip that there was a firearm recovered during this "gun battle".

----------


## adrianh

> If i understand what adrianh is saying, "the police are not well equipped or adequately trained" i would tend to agree. Maybe they just dont have enough resources (i am sure Nickolai Naydenov would agree)


Well put...

----------


## vieome

The mob was not charging at the police, they were simply trying to get away from the tear gas. The police simply smoked them out, like smoking up a bee hive, and then calling the dizzy bees a threat. In the video you can clearly see a police man standing 6 feet away and firing at will, in no way was this policeman feeling threatend, this was a well planned masacre, they simply tear-gased them and forced them into a bottle neck between the two cars. Image belongs to reuters

----------


## vieome

Worst yet, the Goverment says they will not assist with state burials, how can they call it a national tragedy and refuse to assist?

----------


## wynn

And of course this has nothing to do with the government of the day (read cANCer) telling the general population to stop protesting or we will cut off your ears for not listening.
A week of mourning?? more like a week to digest and listen before we cut more ears off.

It started with one Andries Tatane in Ficksburg six months ago and has now escalated to 30 something (are we sure of the number???)
Next time it will be hundreds.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Did any of you watch interface tonight? If you did then you would have understood that the whole situation was created by the two rival mine unions in fight for control and money, don't you guys think that that's where you should start from?
> 
> From what I gather specifically from Adrian and Chris if 40 policeman died it would have been better than 40 miners because the logic is that's what jobs they chose? You need to stop being so selfish and put yourself in their shoes, what do you do when they shoot at you? Duck and hope you don't get shot or do you retaliate? There was also commnts on why they didn't use rubber bullets, simple answer to that, when they are shooting at you with live rounds do you think rubber is the correct rounds to use so that they can get up an attempt to shoot you again? It's very easy to talk, judge, complain and moan with light hand when it's not a about you! All your examples about the pilots, sergeons and what not are very shallow Adrian. Why didn't you use a real life example like the one of when a captain shouted at a robber "drop the gun" a few times and eventually he got killed because he didn't shoot the suspect, he did what you suggesting and he died even thou he would have been justified for using lethal force and this is the reality. With regards to the inconsiderate comments of they chose ther jobs I will tell you that not everyone is as fortunate as some of you to have a choice of a job, many people in this country will apply for any job as long as they can feed themselves and their families! So if you care so much open your eyes, open your mind, stop with the stupid comments, we've all got brains so use it!
> 
> The guys with the berets are special forces, the military was also called to the scene, all of that shows that crowd control unit was obviously not efficient and therefore they escalated it with brining in the army and special forces, bit no let's listen to some of the specialists here that think they know everything and they have it all figured out


With respect it is very easy to get lost in a minefield of preferent, emotive and rationalized statements that are very difficult to unpack.
That is why I have set out my post in point format. 
You need to take each statement and say what it that you disagree with.  That way we will know what is disputable.

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

> Worst yet, the Goverment says they will not assist with state burials, how can they call it a national tragedy and refuse to assist?


Mac Maharaj said yesterday on 702 that the government is helping with funerals and money for their families, not sure where you got your "facts" from. Besides the government I'm not sure if you are aware but the unions where the miners a members have got provident funds which should pay their families and cover thir funerals however this is not done, on fact on Interace yesterday it became clear that there are member's families who haven't been paid for more than 8 years from the union's provident funds. Unions in SA are the mafia, they take monthly contributions from their members who have no clue what is going on, the government has made it compolsory for specific workers to be members of different unions and whomsuffers at the end? The hard working members who earn their daily bread honestly, yet there are millions of rands missing from these funds, hundreds of thousands of people are not paid or are crooked by the system that is good only for a few!
I'll give you a great example, I signed over a company's provident fund that belonged to an union, they were sick and tired of problems, accauntability issues, them not paying out and etc, it was a long process as the law states that every single person in the company has to sign a concent to move to another fund, after so much heard work, presentations and etc we were ready to go until the next day when the managing director of the company was threatened that if they continued with the change people will lose lives and the business will be at stand still!

----------

tec0 (21-Aug-12)

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

> The mob was not charging at the police, they were simply trying to get away from the tear gas. The police simply smoked them out, like smoking up a bee hive, and then calling the dizzy bees a threat. In the video you can clearly see a police man standing 6 feet away and firing at will, in no way was this policeman feeling threatend, this was a well planned masacre, they simply tear-gased them and forced them into a bottle neck between the two cars. Image belongs to reuters Attachment 2779


If that was such a peaceful process why did they strike illegally, why did they go to the sangomas to get muti that no bullets can kill them, why did policeman and security guards die??? What you are missing is that first the two policeman died before anybody else, how about the other 6 or 8 policeman that were injured, was that as a result of a peaceful protest and if this is not enough how about the security guards that died???

When you watch a video such as the ones here you should get the full footage and not what someone has cut and edited and then stop seeing what you want to see even thou this is human nature, but rather open your mind, try to understand what's really happening, stop with this eyes shut I know everything mentality!

----------


## adrianh

Now how is it that the entire world has their eyes shut except you?

Do you astral travel by any chance?

----------

vieome (21-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

> Now how is it that the entire world has their eyes shut except you?
> Do you astral travel by any chance?


I think you are being unfair adrianh… I think you need to look at what is happening on the other side of the coin.

----------

Nickolai Naydenov (21-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

I don't think I'm being unfair, and anyway, there is no place for fair or unfair in this debate. A statement was made that some people have thier eyes closed so I can only assume that the people that made the statement have better vision than the rest of us.




> stop with this eyes shut I know everything mentality!


ok, so you tell me what is on the other side of the coin; is it that we should simply accept mediocrity where those that are supposed to protect life simply lash out and shoot 34 people. No my friend, there is no other side to this coin, the police were in charge of the entire situation and the fffed it up. They created the situation by themselves and they shot their way out of the situation.

So you want me to say say 'ag shame, the poor policeman had to empty his entire R4 magazine because he got spooked by a sangoma brewing muti on th hill!'

----------

ChrisNG53 (21-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

> I don't think I'm being unfair, and anyway, there is no place for fair or unfair in this debate. A statement was made that some people have thier eyes closed so I can only assume that the people that made the statement have better vision than the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> ok, so you tell me what is on the other side of the coin; is it that we should simply accept mediocrity where those that are supposed to protect life simply lash out and shoot 34 people. No my friend, there is no other side to this coin, the police were in charge of the entire situation and the fffed it up. They created the situation by themselves and they shot their way out of the situation.
> 
> So you want me to say say 'ag shame, the poor policeman had to empty his entire R4 magazine because he got spooked by a sangoma brewing muti on th hill!'


I am sorry to say this adrianh but you tried to be provocative about this from the get go. I will keep my views for myself for now. 

Your judgment is clouded...

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

> ok, so you tell me what is on the other side of the coin; is it that we should simply accept mediocrity where those that are supposed to protect life simply lash out and shoot 34 people. No my friend, there is no other side to this coin, the police were in charge of the entire situation and the fffed it up. They created the situation by themselves and they shot their way out of the situation


Again you are so ignorant Adrian, you refuse to aknowledge the fact that there were 44 people killed which includes the policeman and security guards, according to you the other 10 people are irrelevant, you disgust me!

----------


## ChrisNG53

Can someone please explain to me why we are having 6 days of national mourning?
If those who have been killed were murderous would be killers, why would they deserve to be mourned?
Right there the State is caught in the trap of its own lies.
Facts are very awkward things!

----------


## adrianh

You cannot justify one incident by quoting statistics from other incidents. Each incident has to stand up to scrutiny.

And as for your insults; as my 11 year old daughter says 'sticks and stones'

----------

ChrisNG53 (21-Aug-12)

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

> why did they go to the sangomas to get muti that no bullets can kill them,


As one does...of course

Clearly that was an epic fail, wonder if the Sangoma is in hiding?

----------


## adrianh

@Nigel  :Whistling:

----------


## vieome

@Nickolai Naydenov, to protect and serve the public is the job of the police, and perhaps you having faced angry mobs in your time, the police now feel their job is to serve and protect the police. There were angry riots in Egypt and the police and Army simply refused to attack the rioters, and the rioters in turn did not take out their anger on the police and army. it takes two to tango, and sometimes humans what ever uniform they wear need to have compassion, we need to look at why they rioted, and not simply they are rioting now, we the force are in danger so shoot to kill. Why wait for the situation to get to that level. Bullets cannot be recalled. " They cannot be uninvented. But they can be taken out of the gun. - by Amis, Martin."  Goverments control their subjects by fear, and in order to do this need men who they can program to blindly follow orders. 

The police were not acting out of fear they were acting on orders, what will this evolve into is a of state oppression, the seed is planted, how ever abused you are, you can not stand up for your rights, because we will shoot you down. 

Ponder these quotes

People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.
― Alan Moore, (the police action changes that and gives power to the oppressors)

And finally ponder this (extract from Alan Moore altered for South Africa) 

 Good Day, south africa. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a period of morning, I thought we could mark this day of the many deaths, a day that will sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? Guns, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, ???????. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night some miners sought to end that silence. They took to protest, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. Their hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the horror of police brutaliity to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to always take a stand against the PIGS that intend to continue to silence and oppress us, while lining their pockets with more gold then they will need in a life time.

----------

ChrisNG53 (21-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

vieome/adrianh I recommend that you do a "search/news search" on the subject before you judge. Have a look at how many lost their lives before the event. You would be surprised at what you will read.

----------


## vieome

tec0, I have done many a search on the subject, my point is in any society today we are planting the seeds for tomorrow. If you justify this kind of control over the nation, soon you will be living in the hell of Zimbabwe. Attend to the problems of the masses before they feel there is a need to pick up arms. Yesterday the miners were killed for fighting for a better standard of living, and they the miners will be kept in sub conditions so that eventually they will be the tool used when some politician needs to hold on to power and crys nationalize the mines. My advice to you, search beyond just the story that unfolded, and look at the bigger picture.  Read about the social construct theory. Stop just looking at what happened, and look to understand the 'why' . Why is the source of power and truth. Read about causality. Not how many lost their lifes before the event, but what led to the first loss of life, why did the whole event start.

----------

Blurock (21-Aug-12), ChrisNG53 (21-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

> If you justify this kind of control over the nation, soon you will be living in the hell of Zimbabwe.


Why was the protest not peaceful to begin with? 
Why are there photos of people holding weapons in the news?  
Why where there fellow workers intimidated by other workers? 
Why did some of those workers had to die at all?

So where is the control here?

Can you answer these questions?

----------


## vieome

@Nickolai Naydenov @tec0 thanks for your insight I have decided I agree with you both

----------

tec0 (21-Aug-12)

----------


## tec0

> @Nickolai Naydenov @tec0 thanks for your insight I have decided I agree with you both


I thank you, 

@adrianh> Please do understand when a life is lost it is sad and must not happen at all. But the fact is if the protest was peaceful then none of this would have happened. That was always my opinion…

----------


## Blurock

> Can someone please explain to me why we are having 6 days of national mourning?
> If those who have been killed were murderous would be killers, why would they deserve to be mourned?
> Right there the State is caught in the trap of its own lies.
> Fact are very awkward things!


The state, by this action may be trying to make up for their incompetence. Sadly, it is not only the state and the police who are to blame. Here we are calling each other names and emotionally defending our own points of view. The reality is that the system has failed. There is blame not only on two sides, the police and the strikers, but on the system that allows for a dispute to escalate to this level and then to be resolved by violence.

Lets start with the mine management. What did they do to resolve the dispute? Are their HR policies correct? Did they put profits before their workers? Did they exploit the workers? What are the working conditions? What does management earn in relation to the workers? Did they engage with the workers (unions) or did they just send in the HR guys? Is there a faceless management that hide behind HR and PR people and who are not prepared to face the problem other that discuss it in the boardroom? If that is so, we will see a new CEO and top management within the next month.

What did the unions do to resolve the problem? The violent reaction of Cosatu to a peaceful DA march on their offices is still clear in our memory. Did they escalate the problem due to their rivalry and canvassing for members? Did they fuel the militancy? Have they done enough by engaging with management to prevent this situation from starting in the first place? It is reported that NUM (who is closely aligned with the ANC) has lost members from 66% - 49% to AMCU. There was an illegal six week mineworkers strike that occurred in January 2012, when workers rioted, looted and burned property, resulting in three deaths. Prior to the massacre, there was killing and looting and open aggression and barbarism displayed by the strikers. They clearly did not want to negotiate, but was ready to fight and to kill. (How many of these people are South African citizens?)

The police were instructed by their top management to use maximum force. This is in keeping with the ongoing stance by their leaders who advocated to fight fire with fire and that the police will shoot to kill. Obviously the police officers have not been sufficiently trained in conflict resolution and crowd control. Why did the police have to fire on its own people to protect the interests of a mining group? To resort to violence in my book is the solution of a coward.

It all boils down to incompetence and lack of leadership in all areas.  Now the politicians are climbing on the band wagon to score political points. Finger pointing by Mal enema, Holomisa, the DA, prayers by the ACDC, 6 days of mourning by Zuma, commissions of enquiry 

This is something that should never have happened in a free democracy with opportunities for every citizen. Where life is precious and peoples rights are respected. Maybe we are not a democracy and maybe we are not free :No:

----------

ChrisNG53 (21-Aug-12), Dave A (21-Aug-12), tec0 (21-Aug-12)

----------


## Dave A

Chris asks that his points are argued. So let's have a look:




> a) the police are not in formation to meet a charge by rioters; (charging is pretty standard for rioters)


Their formation was one of the things that struck me.  They were in a *very* tight formation.

Tight formations are fine for unarmed rioters, but I'd suggest they were too tightly formed up to meet an armed assault.

Why was that group there?
Why were they formed up that way?
Bearing in mind that this was just one part of the total deployment, what was the overall strategic plan?




> c) in particular they are NOT equipped with anti-riot shields, absolutely essential for dealing with *armed* rioters;


 :Confused:  Anti-riot shields are not bullet proof.




> d) when the rioters charge it is met instantly with "deadly force";
> e) e.g, the first volley of gun fire should have been directed ahead of the rioters so as to force them to desist;
> f) even when the rioters where fired on a question arises as to whether or not fire was directed so as to wound, and not kill, i.e, directed at lower parts of the body?


If you look closely, there is a heck of a lot of fire going to the ground before the charging rioters. Possibly even the majority of fire. The bad news is bullets don't just stop when they hit the ground at that sort of shallow angle.




> It is pertinent to point out that the police had already fatally disadvantaged themselves when a policy decision was taken before, NOT to use rubber bullets.


Apparently the first shots fired by the police were rubber bullets, so some portion of the line was armed with rubber bullets. What I find extraordinary was just how few were armed with rubber bullets - quite clearly the vast majority of the police line was armed with sharp point ammunition.




> What happened is the culmination of a long saga of incompetence and very bad macro management culture.


On that you'll get no argument from me - provided you're prepared to look beyond just the police force in saying that.

My current view is:

When it comes to the police action, while it's safe to say things went wrong (one sincerely hopes the police did not intend a massacre) and probably should have been done better, I suggest it's far too early to point fingers as to what *exactly* went wrong. Viewed in total isolation and without context, if you go on the original first video evidence I'd even suggest the only conclusion you could come to was justifiable self defence! 

Of course the incident did not happen in isolation - it is absolutely loaded with context.

We just haven't seen all the evidence and at this point we should be asking questions, lots and lots of questions - not leaping to premature conclusions.

----------

BusFact (21-Aug-12), ChrisNG53 (21-Aug-12), tec0 (21-Aug-12)

----------


## wynn

Other questions that are also unanswered

Where was the minister of mines and mineral affairs? there was more than a week of violence before Thursday, why did she not ask questions? it is not enough to say we had meetings behind closed doors, it should have been way out in front in public.

Where were the national intelligence services? this is what they are supposed to do, they should have been on the ground months before as soon as the breakaway union started operating, reporting on NUM and AMACU and evaluating the threat, reporting to affected government departments. They should have had more agents deployed a week previously anticipating the reaction. no excuses about top positions being vacant the top brass don't gather information or digest and distribute it. I ask were they too busy playing politics? spying on other politicians and not keeping their eye on the ball?

Where was police intelligence? were they, like Mdluli, also playing politics and as a result completely missed the ball? they should have known months before that this would escalate. Of course Mdluli's relatives would not know of impending violence if it rose up and bit them, they would also be saying 'What the hell was that about'

Where was the minister of labor? intervention should have happened starting months before, the department should have received reports from national intelligence and police intelligence, at the very least started asking questions a lot earlier before the violence, also no excuse there had been violence on another platinum mine a short while ago, or was that another missed heads up.

This is not the last, it is going to happen again soon, what are the various departments doing about it, are they going to miss further clues? or do they want to shoot a thousand next time?

----------

Dave A (21-Aug-12)

----------


## vieome

True Dave sometimes we have a picture of something and that picture is never clear, so we tend to put blame based on our emotions or past experience , and sometimes while a picture is not that clear if one stares at the small black mark and then looks at the white space next to it the picture becomes clearer. Who is to blame here no one knows and we will never know.

I think this is a subject that we have to agree that disagreement is inevitable, but it was a good debate while it lasted.

----------


## ians

Dave just for the record, it no longer regarded as the police force, it is the police services.

The old apartheid goverment had a police force.

The new goverment offers a police service.

----------


## Dave A

> Dave just for the record, it no longer regarded as the police force, it is the police services.


I stand corrected  :Smile:

----------


## Blurock

I think in summary we can say; "Some people make things happen. Some people just watch things happening.  ...and others don't know what the hell had happened!  :Blushing:

----------


## Petrichor

New evidence shows miners shot first...

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cour...irst-1.1366853

This will still be debated for a while as I believe we have only just seen but a small portion of all that transpired.

----------


## Citizen X

:Offtopic:  In recent times we've being heraing more and more of fellow South African's saying that they'll make certain areas such as Cape Town ungovernable! Now, I'm sure that if these same characters were to say that they intend to make the USA ungovernable, the States will respond in kind, they will treat that as an act of war!!! How can you even think about making your very own country ungovernable!!!
 :Devil2: Section 49 of the criminal procedure act regulates the use of force, it must not only be reasonably necessary and proportional but all circumstances under which police force is used must be considered.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Dave just for the record, it no longer regarded as the police force, it is the police services.
> 
> The old apartheid goverment had a police force.
> 
> The new goverment offers a police service.


And Lekota has just pointed out, very hard hitting and eloquently, with detailed reasons, in a special debate on the massacre, that the 
Police Service" was made to revert to a "Police Force" through an admixture of incompetence and arrogance, including their"militarization" and "shoot to kill" culture.

----------


## desA

Would an army intervention perhaps not be a better solution, going forwards?

The last number of pages display a range of emotions, depending on the personal view-points of the respective members. The fact is that the whole situation was grossly mismanaged by the 'protectors' & 'enforcers'. Very little regard for human life was given.

Under no circumstances can the police actions be justified. The intentions of the militant miners was clear; a plan of action was set in place to manage the situation; it failed; 34 people are now dead, with many others injured. Lack of competence ruled the day. 

In Thailand, the strategic plans allow for sniper squads to take out key militant leaders, as required. Tough call, but effective in minimising additional loss of life.

----------


## Citizen X

There's no justification for what the Apartheid forces done at Sharpville. The justification at that time was this, they didn't have sufficient riot control equiptment. We can't use this excuse today. Even a sonic sound boom canon, though expensive, and yes, it will burst your eardrums. You will heal in about 2 weeks, but it will disperse the crowd. Water cannons and tear gas within reason should be able to suffice. Naturally, if police are fired upon, they are well within their rights to return fire....

----------

ChrisNG53 (26-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

Watch 3rd degree on ETV at 21:30 tonight and see how 'effective and law abiding' the police special forces really are. The ones who were running around wearing berets. The are known in the townships as the Ama-berete.

I agree 100% with DesA, there is no excuse whatsoever; they police created the situation and they lost control of the situation.

----------

ChrisNG53 (26-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

Ok so Vanash & co, so how many policemen were wounded by gunfire from those 34 men?

Oh, I forgot, that terrible sangoma on the hill not only messed up the bulletproofing muti, he also messed up the aiming muti.

I just had another thought; Hey Vanash, what happened to 'Thou shalt not kill'....or is just another sort of guideline that you can follow if you feel like it? Don't you think mowing down 34 people is just a tad extreme considering that all the cops seem perfectly fine.

Now they say that there was one striker who fired a pistol at them. Ok, so lets say thats the case; so then its ok for the police to mow the entire group down? So when the cops raid a disco and one peanut brandishes a gun they've just sommer got the right to shoot anybody and everybody in the room...no aiming, no checking to see if the particular person has a gun, just shoot them all dead with machine guns becuase they are also in the group.

Nee ou broer, you can argue it any which way you like, the cops ffed up bigtime.

----------

ChrisNG53 (26-Aug-12)

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

> Dave just for the record, it no longer regarded as the police force, it is the police services.
> 
> The old apartheid goverment had a police force.
> 
> The new goverment offers a police service.


Correction, after 94 the police was called a service and last year they changed it back to force they even brought back the old rank structure as well as the methods of sector policing which have definately shown improvement.

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

> I just had another thought; Hey Vanash, what happened to 'Thou shalt not kill'....or is just another sort of guideline that you can follow if you feel like it? Don't you think mowing down 34 people is just a tad extreme considering that all the cops seem perfectly fine.


Adrian you are forgeting about the other people that were killed by the miners or do you have a problem with memory loss? I refuse to argue with you anymore, it'd difficult to do that with ignorant people

----------


## Dave A

> it'd difficult to do that with ignorant people


 :No:  let's keep to playing the ball and not the man, please.

Not aimed just at you Nickolai - more of a general reminder that I seem to have to make every now and then. But it really does help keep the debate reasonably intelligent.

----------


## Dave A

> Would an army intervention perhaps not be a better solution, going forwards?


I shudder every time I see someone suggest using the military to control a civilian situation.

There is a fundamental difference between police and military training.
Police are trained to defuse, restrain and arrest.
The military is not - they are trained to eliminate the enemy threat.

Yes - I know it didn't work out too well this time, but at least the police did not do a sweep through the contact zone eliminating any remaining enemy threat. (And those who did military service will know exactly what I mean by that).




> In Thailand, the strategic plans allow for sniper squads to take out key militant leaders, as required.


I rest my case.

It's probably worth pointing out that not only does this strategy possibly "reduce the loss of life", with a little tampering with the definition of "militant" it's a damn fine way of removing *any* contrary leadership. In fact the leadership that endorses such a tactic should probably go to the top of the hit list as militant leaders themselves.

----------


## tec0

Well the truths are written in the News-Papers online-news and seen on Television. In almost every picture you see, you see people armed proudly displaying their weapons. Workers were intimidated by other workers and it escalated where lives was lost. After witch the police was asked to get involved. Sadly the fatalities escalated when two officers where murdered. There was no reason to intimidate and kill people to start with yet it happened.  

Now the fact remained if there were no violence in the beginning and no lives were lost then already the outcome would have been different.  

It is easy to judge the outcome but it is worth mentioning that one must look at where the problems began.

----------


## adrianh

I just watched the documentary on ETV regarding the Ama-berete...Seems they are a law onto themselves....

The thing that I find disconcetring about the event and the justification thereof is that the police are held to be above the law. I understand that the police have a difficult task and that their lives are at risk but....they themselves have to abide by the law whilst they uphold the law. How can one be expected to respect a force that has no qualms about acting as judge, jury and executioner. I must be perfectly honest, I will call ADT before I call the police because I know that the members of ADT will be very careful before they shoot becuase they will be held accountable for their actions.

tec0 - the only thing that is relevant is this; the police shot 34 people to death. The only question is this; were they justified, beyond any reasonable doubt, to do so? As trained memeber of a police force who's duty it is to uphold the law and protect life they have to prove that they had no other option. A policeman should not shoot people to death on the outside chance that he may get hurt. If 5 people come into my house and one has a gun, do I have the right to empty 6 Glock 17 magazines into all 5 of them. Are the police just going to say that its ok, one guy had a gun so you could just assume that the other 4 also had guns...I think not...

----------


## tec0

> I just watched the documentary on ETV regarding the Ama-berete...Seems they are a law onto themselves....
> 
> The thing that I find disconcetring about the event and the justification thereof is that the police is held to be above the law. I understand that the police have a difficult task and that their lives are at risk but....they themselves have to abide by the law whilst they uphold the law. How can one be expected to respect a force that has no qualms about acting as judge, jury and executioner. I must be perfectly honest, I will call ADT before I call the police because I know that the members of ADT will be very careful before they shoot becuase they will be held accountable for their actions.


Being dismissive of some aspects and blinded by others results in a pointless argument of ego and not a debate. As such it became a testament to inflated egos colliding thus there is no room left for reason and or debate.  :No: 

Thereby I will no longer participate in this thread.

----------


## adrianh

The police must simpy answer this question; Did they, beyond any reasonable doubt, uphold the law and have not other option but to shoot those people?

Its that simple, no emotion, no ego, no nothing.....

If a person is killed then the killer must defend his actions....

You know, no matter how this pans out, whether the police are held responsible or not, a line has been drawn in the sand. I think that the line that has been drawn is that the ecstacy of democracy and freedom for all has come to an end and that the new government is just as intolerant of nonsense as the old government. This lot doesn't bode well for the country as a whole because the government has inadvertently turned their diehard followers into diehard enemies. There is simply no way that the general population are simply going to forgive and forget. A government can ffup and and be corrupt and get away with it but when they shoot 'for whatever reason' a bunch of workers I think that the general public take it very personally.

----------


## tec0

@adrianh You edited your previous post... That said why are you still ignoring other important facts? These facts are very important and must be subjected to scrutiny...  Unfortunately the debate ended up being about who can insult and who has the bigger ego? 

But the truth remains if the gathering was peaceful it would have remained peaceful and the outcome would have been without incident.

as stated above I will no longer participate in this thread.

----------


## AndyD

I made up my mind when I first saw this thread that I wasn't going to jump in until more facts were known. It's very entertaining to read with all the emotional highs and lows but all I can see at the end of it is 83 posts of often conflicting opinions which, for the most part, were made based only on a couple of youtube clips.

Is it a tragedy?....yes
Are the miners to blame?...possibly
Are the police to blame?....maybe
Are the government to blame?....possibly
Are the upper echelons of the SAPS to blame?....could be
Are the unions to blame?.......perhaps
Is the employer to blame?.....possibly
Is the legacy of apartheid to blame?......maybe
Are the sangomas to blame?.....possibly

For me the jury is still out on most of the burning questions, not enough evidence to hang an opinion on yet.

----------

Blurock (22-Aug-12), BusFact (22-Aug-12), Martinco (10-Sep-12), tec0 (22-Aug-12)

----------


## ians

i was waiting for it, Malema to charge police with Lonmin murders

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2012/08/2...graphic-video/

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

Rock drill operators at Lonmin said they were demanding a R12 500 monthly salary, but Lonmin had insisted that it had not received any formal memorandum of demand from the workers. 

Lonmin told Sapa that rock drill operators earned R10 000 per month without bonuses and over R11 000 including bonuses.

http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Minin...hikes-20120822

I am not so sure how true this is, but if it is, why would they go on strike, if they haven't even put forward a proposal?

----------


## IMHO

> Is the legacy of apartheid to blame?......maybe


Can someone explain this to me? I do not understand this 'legacy' story. What does it mean and how is it to be blamed? 

For instance, the burning of schools. Under apartheid schools was burned due to grievances relating to apartheid. Apartheid was abolished 18 years ago, but schools is still being burned down and vandalised. It is blamed now on the 'legacy' of apartheid. The original reason is gone, so how can you still blame the reason that is gone? It has now become a habit to burn down schools if you are not happy. This habit has been formed by 'apartheid'. Therefore it is acceptable to carry on according to your habit? Is that what is meant by the term?

Now take the latest incident. Police intolerance and using of maximum power. It is blamed on the legacy of apartheid. How is that? Because of the Sharpeville massacre in 1960? So police/state caused a habit of intolerance and shooting citizens? But that government and police force is gone and replaced. How can the new government and police force suffer from that habit?

It is also argued that the 'legacy of apartheid' is the reason why people is not educated and therefore resort to this type of behavior. But Sharpville happened because of a revolt against education and people did not want to study and get educated?

Or is it the 'legacy' that caused a habit of violent protest? Protest with traditional weapons? Was these traditional weapons adopted during apartheid and became tradition under apartheid? Surely not, so how is it a legacy of apartheid?

Why do we never hear of 'the legacy of King Shaka Zulu' is to be blamed? I mean, under his rule whole tribes was murdered and wiped out of existence, creating a culture/habit of intolerance, violence, murder, racism, suppression of minorities, barbarism and so I can continue.

Then also, for how long can a 'legacy' be blamed and used as an excuse? 

Also, is this excuse of 'the legacy of apartheid' going to become the 'legacy of the ANC', where future governments will also blame apartheid because of the habit that was created during ANC rule?

I am asking all this, because I need to understand 'the other side of the coin'.

----------

ChrisNG53 (26-Aug-12), Martinco (10-Sep-12)

----------


## Citizen X

> Can someone explain this to me? I do not understand this 'legacy' story. What does it mean and how is it to be blamed? 
> 
> For instance, the burning of schools. Under apartheid schools was burned due to grievances relating to apartheid. Apartheid was abolished 18 years ago, but schools is still being burned down and vandalised. It is blamed now on the 'legacy' of apartheid. The original reason is gone, so how can you still blame the reason that is gone? It has now become a habit to burn down schools if you are not happy. This habit has been formed by 'apartheid'. Therefore it is acceptable to carry on according to your habit? Is that what is meant by the term?
> 
> Now take the latest incident. Police intolerance and using of maximum power. It is blamed on the legacy of apartheid. How is that? Because of the Sharpeville massacre in 1960? So police/state caused a habit of intolerance and shooting citizens? But that government and police force is gone and replaced. How can the new government and police force suffer from that habit?
> 
> It is also argued that the 'legacy of apartheid' is the reason why people is not educated and therefore resort to this type of behavior. But Sharpville happened because of a revolt against education and people did not want to study and get educated?
> 
> Or is it the 'legacy' that caused a habit of violent protest? Protest with traditional weapons? Was these traditional weapons adopted during apartheid and became tradition under apartheid? Surely not, so how is it a legacy of apartheid?
> ...


I doubt that anyone can reasonably justify these recent killing on any apartheid legacy. Apartheid can never be justified anyway. I do however know that one of the justifications used for the sharpville shooting included that the policeman were young and that they did not have adequate riot control equiptment. Naturally the international community of that day and any human being with a sense of right and wrong condemmed it. It was a different circumstance.
After the brutal murder of Andries Tstane, one would thing that riot control training would have been revisted. Apparently not!
In a Constitutional democracy human rights are held in high regard. Such encounters should have very senior policemen at the scene to give the order to open fire if needs be. We also can't have a situation where people regardless of who they are or what their gripe is, start shooting at police. The police would have to return fire. We need to invest in proper riot control equiptment that doesn't kill...

----------

ChrisNG53 (26-Aug-12)

----------


## adrianh

> We need to invest in proper riot control equiptment that doesn't kill...



You'e joking right....

How about the police leave the live ammo at home and take along all the riot gear that they already have. You know, the shields, batons, water canons, and why don't they add dagga bombs (I'm actually being serious - its a good way to mellow the people out) Its not as if they have never had to deal with riots before....

----------


## IMHO

In the case of Andries Tatane, it had nothing to do with 'riot control'. Police surrounded him, about 7 of them, with batons, they started hitting him and he fought back bare handed. He got out of the circle and they surrounded him again. Then some police officer shot him a single shot in the chest, from outside of this circle. It was said that it was a rubber bullet, but never confirmed and the autopsy never revealed. On the video it looked like sharp point ammo wound. As far as I know rubber bullets is only fired from shotgun. This entry wound was very small and either an R rifle or handgun. In any case, rubber or not, it was never necessary to fire at him. He was totally outnumbered, knew it and just wanted the police to focus on him so the older people could escape the water canon. A very sad story really. Caused by a trigger happy policeman. Nothing happened to him... Probably been excused due to lack of training.

The video is on this page
http://takebacksa.wordpress.com/

Scroll down to the bottom.

----------


## wynn

Steve Friedman had this to say in BD
http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/colu...s-for-marikana

Now there is more trouble at Royal Bafokeng, don't say I didn't tell you so!

"OUTRAGE at the Marikana killings is justified. The usual attempts to turn them into a crude morality play with only one villain are not. Much of the reaction has taken two forms, both of which lead away from solutions. The first treats the tragedy as a ghastly error so out of keeping with the norms of our society that an inquiry must be held to find someone to blame. The other does not need an inquiry  it has already found only the governing party and its president guilty, absolving everyone else from responsibility.

Marikana was not an aberration. It was an accident waiting to happen because it was a symptom of longstanding problems about which our mainstream debate has been in denial. And, while the government must take responsibility, the killings should prompt some serious reflection from others too.

The first cause of the tragedy is that police were not trained to deal with the situation. Violence on police and by police did not begin at Marikana  it has been a constant feature of our society for years. Ten people died in the Lonmin dispute in the week before the tragedy alone. And this surely speaks to the reality that our police are not trained to deal with the violence endemic in our society.

Researcher Janine Rauch points out that, in the first few years of democracy, police knew how to prevent demonstrations becoming violent because public-order police were specially trained to do this. But they were considered too costly and were too rarely used. So they were closed down and demonstrations are now handled by ordinary police who are not trained for the task.

But why, after eight years of protests, were the public-order police not revived a long time ago? Because voices calling for humane and democratic policing have been drowned out by those demanding more force. If we think this is a problem only in the government, in how many of our suburbs are residents demanding measures that see most South Africans as a security threat?

Our police will be trained to prevent rather than cause violence when the voices recognising that we need police trained to respect democratic rules become louder than those that we can rely on police powers.

Second, the tragedy was triggered when the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) lost touch with its members, signing agreements that fell short of their demands. This opened the door to a breakaway union, which promised workers it could get for them what NUM could not. The lesson is clear: trade unions that look after their members do not cause conflict, they prevent it.

The NUM must take responsibility for its failings just as its rival must take responsibility for its demagoguery. But if the NUM had stayed in touch with its members and engaged in tough bargaining on their behalf, we would not be mourning now.

Part of the problem is the way in which unionism developed on the mines.

Because mines were sealed off to outsiders, union organisers could not gain access until employers agreed to allow unions. And so, unlike unions in other industries, mining unions did not build their organised strength in order to win recognition from employers. Links between unions and workers have therefore often been weaker.

This is important in the light of the campaign to weaken unions and their bargaining rights. The platinum industry today  and Marikana  show in stark terms what would happen if the union-bashers had their way. Preventing strong unions from bargaining hard on behalf of workers will not create jobs, it will create chaos because worker demands will lead to more Impalas and Lonmins.

Third, we need to look at why labour disputes seem more violent on the mines. Much of the reason surely lies in the nature of mining here  in most cases, ore deposits are deep under the ground, making mining them tougher and more dangerous.

One miner said last week that he did not fear police bullets because he risked his life by working underground every day.

We have made some progress in turning our mines into safer, healthier, more humane places, but Marikana suggests that we need to do more.

Finally, one reason union rivalries are so heated here is that so much is at stake. Unionism has become a way for people who win elections to live middle-class lifestyles: bitter union rivalries are thus a symptom of the glass ceilings that face ambitious people in business. The mines cannot be expected to solve this wider problem alone, but they could look at ways in which opportunities for advancement can be created that offer options other than union leadership, making battles for union control less desperate.

Marikana did not pop out of thin air. It is a symptom of problems that go much deeper than the search for scapegoats suggests.

And it requires a debate on our failings that goes well beyond the desire to find someone else to blame."

----------

ChrisNG53 (27-Aug-12)

----------


## Dave A

> Second, the tragedy was triggered when the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) lost touch with its members, signing agreements that fell short of their demands.


Now *that* is what I call creative writing  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## vieome

Interesting Article from mindhacks.com written on the riots in England but no doubt should shed some light on how these things go wrong. 

_But what we do know about is the interaction between large crowds and the police and you could do much worse than check out the work of psychologist Clifford Stott who researches how crowds react to policing and what triggers violence.

In his 2009 report on the scientific evidence behind ‘Crowd Psychology and Public Order Policing,’ commissioned by the UK constabulary, he summarises what we know about public disorder and how the authorities can best manage it (you can download it as a pdf).

He notes that the old ideas about the ‘mob mentality’, deindividuation and the loss of individual responsibility are still popular, but completely unsupported by what we know about how crowds react.

People don’t become irrational and they do keep thinking for themselves, but that doesn’t mean that the influence of the crowd has no effect.

In terms of policing, one of the clearest effects to emerge from studies of riots and crowd control is that an indiscriminate kicking from riot police can massively increase the number of people in the crowd who become violent.

This is probably because the social identity of people in a group is fluid and changes according to the relationship with other groups.

For those into academic jargon, this is known as the Elaborated Social Identity Model of crowd behaviour – a well-supported theory with an overly complicated name but which is surprisingly easy to understand.

Imagine you’ve just got on a bus. It’s full of people and you have to jam into an uncomfortable seat at the back. There are people going to work, some vacant students heading home after a night on the beers, some annoying teenagers playing dance music through their tinny mobile phone speakers and some old folks heading off to buy their groceries.

You’re late and you missed your train. You feel nothing in common with anyone on the bus and, to be honest, those teenagers are really pissing you off.

Suddenly, two of the windows smash and you realise that a group of people are attacking the bus and trying to steal bags through the broken windows.

Equally as quickly, you begin to feel like one of a group. A make-shift social identity is formed (‘the passengers’) and you all begin to work together to fend off the thieves and keep each other safe.

You didn’t lose your identity, you gained a new one in reaction to a threat.

The problem police face is that in most large threatening crowds only a minority of people are engaging in anti-social acts. Lots of people ‘go along for the ride’ but aren’t the hardcore that kick-off without provocation.

If the police wade in with batons indiscriminately, lots of these riot wannabes suddenly start to feel like they’re part of the bigger group and feel justified in ripping the place apart, mostly to throw at the coppers.

Suddenly, it’s ‘them’ against ‘us’ and a small policing problem just got much much bigger – like attacking a beehive because you just got stung.

The trick for the police is to make sure they’re perceived as a legitimate force. When they have to charge in, they’re doing so for a reason – to target specific criminals. The ‘them and us’ feeling doesn’t kick in because most individuals don’t feel that the police are targeting them. It’s the other idiots the police are after.

And herein lies the problem. The psychology of crowd control is largely based on the policing of demonstrations and sports events where the majority of people will give the police the benefit of the doubt and assume their status as a legitimate force._

----------


## adrianh

In honour of the miners that were shot and killed by Police Forces a few days ago the suggestion is that next years OppiKoppi weekend be held on die Lonmin Koppie, in honour of them, with the theme being Guns &  Roses...featuring FokkofPolisieKar as the main band.

----------


## ians

Listening to the news a short while ago, the news reader indicated that people say that police should never be allowed to use live ammo for crowd control, i would agree, if this was the UK for exmple, where the crowds dont have spears and guns.

How would the police protect themselves from the crowd, if the people in the crowd start shooting at the police, or the crowd attacks the police with spears?

----------


## Citizen X

> You'e joking right....
> 
> How about the police leave the live ammo at home and take along all the riot gear that they already have. You know, the shields, batons, water canons, and why don't they add dagga bombs (I'm actually being serious - its a good way to mellow the people out) Its not as if they have never had to deal with riots before....


Adrian, tear gas, water cannons and stun grenades are non lethal but very effective. It's a simple case of not wanting to buy the appropriate equipment. A sonic sound truck is very effective, it bursts the ear drums but doesn't kill, it will disperse a crowd in minutes! Yes, if police are fired upon, they well with the criminal procedure act to return fire. Our protestors must also learn that in a Constitutional democracry your manner of protest must also change from the way it was during apartheid. You don't damage property, you don't intimidate, assualt or kill non striking members. You can protest but do it peacefully. I can't see police shooting at a  peaceful demonstration!

----------

ChrisNG53 (27-Aug-12)

----------


## Blurock

> If that is so, we will see a new CEO and top management within the next month. :


http://business.iafrica.com/news/812988.html

So Lonmin has appointed a new CEO. Now we are still waiting for the resignation of the Ministers of Police and Mining. What about JZ? I suppose they are too callous to admit any wrongdoing and to resign.

----------


## Dave A

Just temporary - due to the health problems of the CEO rather than recent operational events.

----------


## ians

Why is he worried he might end up in jail, seems to be the trend. Get in trouble, get sick and get out of jail free card.

----------


## Dave A

Now here's a new twist - Detained miners charged with murder. 

 :Crazy:

----------


## adrianh

....and we were saying what about the that stupidity can't be taught...the police kills the people and the strikers get the blame.....now if that isn't teaching stupidity then I don't know what is....

----------

ChrisNG53 (01-Sep-12)

----------


## Dave A

> the police kills the people and the strikers get the blame.....


Even if you place some level of culpability on some of the strikers (or their leaders), could you call it murder?
At worst culpable homicide, I'd have thought. More likely something down the lines of incitement...

I'm looking forward to the explanation as to how the NPA cooked this one up. This is what they've said so far.

Or will they just drop the charge down the line?  :Whistling: 

Lots of wierd shyte happening in the NPA nowadays  :Crazy:

----------

ChrisNG53 (01-Sep-12)

----------


## IMHO

Looks like it is just a counter sue and an attempt to make the charges more serious, to deny bail. Seems like the police do not want them to get bail, as the media will then have a field day, questioning these people and find out how things really happened.

----------

ChrisNG53 (01-Sep-12)

----------


## tec0

So what you are saying is that if you kill people during a strike it is not murder? FACT is that security, police and other workers did die at the hands of the strikers. Now if justice is not perused in this matter then what is the point in having laws?

----------

Nickolai Naydenov (01-Sep-12)

----------


## adrianh

They just make it up as they go along. Remember, they also charged 2 stoned Soweto Mini racing drivers with Murder....the problem is that if you use serious crime "titles" such as murder to prosecute lesser offences it serves to devalue the "title" ... I do'nt know the right terminology... If you call every action a murder then when a real murder occurs it is seen as just another overrated prosecution.

----------


## IMHO

> FACT is that security, police and other workers did die at the hands of the strikers.


Fact is that is not part of the murder case. 

The case is about the 34 killed by police. The argument is, if they did not behave like that, the police would not have killed those people. The police would then not have gone after them, shot them in the back, shot them in hiding places and crushed them with their vehicles. Well, that is the stories going around...

----------


## adrianh

Ah,ok, I think it was Eve's fault because her bewitching Adam led him to eating the apple which of course stuffed it all up for everybody....I bet Eve was white...

----------


## ChrisNG53

Compatriots  -- if you go to this link you will find a judgement that is very useful in understanding how a court will approach the issue at hand,
It is a judgement by a very good judge .. whatever our good friend Kevinb might think ... lol.

I have shortened it by taking out issues that are not directly in point.

Link  === https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...-R8/edit?pli=1

----------


## Dave A

Chris, I think there's a permission problem with the URL you posted.

----------


## IMHO

> Chris, I think there's a permission problem with the URL you posted.


Jip, you can log in with your Google account, but then have to request permission from the owner to view the doc. You can do so right on the login page, but it is a slept.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Jip, you can log in with your Google account, but then have to request permission from the owner to view the doc. You can do so right on the login page, but it is a slept.


Have given perimission.. Please try again.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Jip, you can log in with your Google account, but then have to request permission from the owner to view the doc. You can do so right on the login page, but it is a slept.


Have sorted it. Please try again.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris, I think there's a permission problem with the URL you posted.


Have sorted it.

----------


## IMHO

ChrisNG53, the case demonstrate that police must prove self defense like any other citizen, but does not illustrate how police can bring a case of murder against the 270 people in jail.

I do not understand the point you are making. The current discussion is not whether the police acted in self defense, but rather if they can bring a murder charge against the 270 in custody. But, you refer to "our good friend Kevinb", who did not make a single post in this thread? Did he somewhere made a claim that police acted in self defense and you are now reacting on it here, at this stage?

----------


## Dave A

> ChrisNG53, the case demonstrate that police must prove self defense like any other citizen,


And beyond, and in pretty plain language I thought (at least for a judgement).

The glaring aspect of lawful shooting that I saw missing was defending the life of another citizen under imminent threat - but that was not relevant to that particular case.




> but does not illustrate how police can bring a case of murder against the 270 people in jail.


True - but the judgement remains relevant to earlier discusion and I found the insights instructive.

----------

ChrisNG53 (02-Sep-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> ChrisNG53, the case demonstrate that police must prove self defense like any other citizen, but does not illustrate how police can bring a case of murder against the 270 people in jail.
> 
> I do not understand the point you are making. The current discussion is not whether the police acted in self defense, but rather if they can bring a murder charge against the 270 in custody. But, you refer to "our good friend Kevinb", who did not make a single post in this thread? Did he somewhere made a claim that police acted in self defense and you are now reacting on it here, at this stage?


IMHO -- never mind about Kevin.   I think the judgement is useful because it is cioncerned with a situation in which:-
1.  a man is belligerant;
2.  he is violent;
3.  he is armed;
4.  he uses a dangerous weapong to actually seriously injure another human being;
5.  the police are called to intervene;
6.  he continues to be belligerent, uncooperative and threatening;
7.  a police officer shoots him dead;
8.  claiming that he was being attacked;
9.  and that he was therefor acting in self defence.

There are obvious parallels with the Marikana situation.   If one declines to see them and glean some learning on what our law is in this type of situation, from this judgement, that becomes a matter of personal choice.

----------


## tec0

The law is clear if a person is armed with a weapon "any weapon" and attacks another person that person has the legal right to protect her/his own life.


Source

You need only do a simple net search on the subject and you will find more examples like the one above. People where armed now there reasons may be innocent enough but that doesn’t change the fact.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> The law is clear if a person is armed with a weapon "any weapon" and attacks another person that person has the legal right to protect her/his own life.
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> You need only do a simple net search on the subject and you will find more examples like the one above. People where armed now there reasons may be innocent enough but that doesnt change the fact.


tecoO - -with great respect, it is not that straight forward, ONCE killing is involved, and it is claimed that this was done in self defence.
That is why I posted my judgment which I contend is useful in promoting understanding on the matter. 
Note that this "an Appeal Court" judgement in which the State itself was seeking to contend that the killing by the police officer was justified because the officer was under attack by an armed, dangerous, belligerent man who had already seriously injured another human being. 
The State lost the argument.  The judgement represents the law on the issue. 
It binds all our High Courts until and if my (our) approach is reversed by a higher court.

It follows that, as regards Marikana, the State is going to have its work cut out, in order to prove "justifiable homicide". 
On what I have seen on the video footage my "educated guess" is that it will fail!!!

----------


## adrianh

Chris - what about these situations?

Scenario 1:
I get home and find 5 guys in my house stealing my stuff and one points a gun at me:

Do I have the right to wound him?
Do I have the right to kill him?
Do I have the right to kill all 5 of them?
Do I have the right to kill the one with the gun outright and the others while they are laying on the floor ducking my bullets?

Scenario 2:
I get home and find 5 guys in my house stealing my stuff (no weapons):

Do I have the right to shoot at all 5 of them?
Do I have the right to kill all 5 of them?

----------

ChrisNG53 (02-Sep-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris - what about these situations?
> 
> Scenario 1:
> I get home and find 5 guys in my house stealing my stuff and one points a gun at me:
> 
> Do I have the right to wound him?
> Do I have the right to kill him?
> Do I have the right to kill all 5 of them?
> Do I have the right to kill the one with the gun outright and the others while they are laying on the floor ducking my bullets?
> ...


Scenario 1:
I get home and find 5 guys in my house stealing my stuff and one points a gun at me:
Do I have the right to wound him? =  Yes.
Do I have the right to kill him?  =  Yes.
Do I have the right to kill all 5 of them? = Not until the other four evince an intention to put you at risk.
Do I have the right to kill the one with the gun outright and the others while they are laying on the floor ducking my bullets? ---- the gunman = Yes.  The other 4. not until they evince an intention to put you at risk.

Very simply, you are already at considerable risk of injury or death with a gun man pointing a gun at you.  The threat of serious injury or death is already present as regards this intruder ---- shoot him dead,i.e, "a kill shot", as a "wounding shot will not rid you of his means to injure or kill you.

As regards the other 4 everything depends on what they then do. If they lie still on the ground "and submit" -- you cannot shoot any of them. However if one or any jump up and evinces an intention to attack -- kill the bastard(s).

----------


## tec0

> my "educated guess" is that it will fail!!!


Let's be clear people died before the police got involved, but there deaths is not important enough to be pursued in court? 

The police acted in self-defence and again this is unacceptable? 

Now or I am missing something or your moral compass is just spinning isn't it  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  

Maybe I am just an idiot thinking everything has a cause and effect  :Embarrassment:

----------


## IMHO

Chris, something that caught my eye in the sample case. The policeman claimed he fired a warning shot first. My understanding is that warning shots is not allowed anymore and that you can get into trouble for doing it. What is the law about that now? Is the law different on that for police vs citizen?

----------

ChrisNG53 (03-Sep-12)

----------


## adrianh

tec0 - What Chris is pointing out is that it doesn't make sense to charge 237 people with the MURDER of 34 people that were shot by the police. 

Think about it this way: 50 people get pissed at a disco and start throwing chairs around. The police rock up and corner 5 of them. 2 of those 5 pull out guns and the police shoot all 5 of them. Now the police go forth and charge all 45 people with the murder of those 5 people. The POLICE pulled the trigger, not the 45 pissed chair throwers. 

The problem with cause and effect is that the cause and the effect cannot always be directly correlated. The police were supposed to be in control of the situation and the police were the ones who did the shooting. They made a choice to shoot (be it out of fear or fright or whatever - the choice was in their hands) - they could have run away or jumped in their vehicles or whatever but they chose to shoot.

Be very careful of allocating effect to cause. The fact that actions follow on one another does not mean that they are directly correlated and can be said to be the cause.

Think about this: You are driving your car and a kid runs across the road and you kill the kid. Direct cause and effect linking would say that the kid caused the accident therefore the kid is to blame. Well, no, it doesn't work that way. You should have been aware of our surroundings and you should have anticipated that a kid might run out. Maybe you were fiddling with the CD player, lighting a cigarette, daydreaming or whatever. So, one can say that an event took place and that an accident occured but now one needs to consider the training and expected skill of the driver. The driver is expected to anticipate the situation and to act accordingly. The same goes for the police, they are supposed to be skilled in handling such tough situations without resorting to killing the protesters. In the car anology what the police did was this: they saw the kid runnnig towards them and they panicked, they put the pedal to the metal and droves over the kid with the front, rear and trailer tyres. And now they have the audacity to charge the mother for murder because she allowed the child to slip free from her grip.

----------

ChrisNG53 (03-Sep-12)

----------


## ians

Lucky they didnt kill all 237, they were all armed, or am i looking at different footage?

Lets say 5 people jump over your fence, smash the front door and security gate completely out the wall and enter the house, You and your family are locked in a room, they are busy breaking down the door. This is becoming a common type of breakin.

what can you do, 

shoot until the banging stops?
wait till they have knocked down the door completely and enter the room, then see who is armed and only shoot the person who is armed, taking into consideration that it is dark?
What if only one has a hammer?
and lastly the one who manages to get hold of you wife or kid is unarmed but is strangling your wife or kid, but they are all unarmed because they left the hammer in the passage can you shoot any of them?

----------

ChrisNG53 (03-Sep-12)

----------


## ians

This actually happened,

A guy walks up to you and tells you that he and his mates are armed and they are about to rob you and your customers, they dont expose any firearms but indicate that if you stay calm and just give them what they want nobody will get hurt. You have a loaded firearm in a place where they are about to take you, which you can draw and shoot faster than the person will be able to draw his firearm if he actually has one, can you shoot him?

----------

ChrisNG53 (03-Sep-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> This actually happened,
> 
> A guy walks up to you and tells you that he and his mates are armed and they are about to rob you and your customers, they dont expose any firearms but indicate that if you stay calm and just give them what they want nobody will get hurt. You have a loaded firearm in a place where they are about to take you, which you can draw and shoot faster than the person will be able to draw his firearm if he actually has one, can you shoot him?


On those simple facts, shooting and killing the intruder(s) is justifiable under the sub category of "in defence of property", i.e, killing in order to stop robbery is justifiable, under long established common law.
I would however add this qualification --- since you say you can draw faster than any of the intruders - -that is what you must do, calling on them to submit, e.g, "hands up or I will shoot you". 
Any threatening move thereafter by any of them would justify you shooting to kill that member of the gang. Conversely if they all raise their arms in submission you cannot "execute" the buggers.

----------

ians (03-Sep-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Lucky they didnt kill all 237, they were all armed, or am i looking at different footage?
> 
> Lets say 5 people jump over your fence, smash the front door and security gate completely out the wall and enter the house, You and your family are locked in a room, they are busy breaking down the door. This is becoming a common type of breakin.
> 
> what can you do, 
> 
> shoot until the banging stops? === Yes! .. if a warning called out by you that this is what you will do in u heeded.
> wait till they have knocked down the door completely and enter the room, then see who is armed and only shoot the person who is armed, taking into consideration that it is dark? == No.. start shooting, if a warning by you is unheeded.
> What if only one has a hammer? === how do you know this? -- If you do know this fire warning shot and warn that if they do not desist you will shoot to kill.
> and lastly the one who manages to get hold of you wife or kid is unarmed but is strangling your wife or kid, but they are all unarmed because they left the hammer in the passage can you shoot any of them? ===  call out a warning that unless he releases your wife you will shoot to kill.  If he does not - start shooting.



shoot until the banging stops? === Yes! .. if a warning called out by you that this is what you will do in u heeded.
wait till they have knocked down the door completely and enter the room, then see who is armed and only shoot the person who is armed, taking into consideration that it is dark? == No.. start shooting, if a warning by you is unheeded.
What if only one has a hammer? === how do you know this? -- If you do know this fire warning shot and warn that if they do not desist you will shoot to kill.
and lastly the one who manages to get hold of you wife or kid is unarmed but is strangling your wife or kid, but they are all unarmed because they left the hammer in the passage can you shoot any of them? ===  call out a warning that unless he releases your wife you will shoot to kill.  If he does not - start shooting.

----------

ians (03-Sep-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> tec0 - What Chris is pointing out is that it doesn't make sense to charge 237 people with the MURDER of 34 people that were shot by the police. 
> 
> Think about it this way: 50 people get pissed at a disco and start throwing chairs around. The police rock up and corner 5 of them. 2 of those 5 pull out guns and the police shoot all 5 of them. Now the police go forth and charge all 45 people with the murder of those 5 people. The POLICE pulled the trigger, not the 45 pissed chair throwers. 
> 
> The problem with cause and effect is that the cause and the effect cannot always be directly correlated. The police were supposed to be in control of the situation and the police were the ones who did the shooting. They made a choice to shoot (be it out of fear or fright or whatever - the choice was in their hands) - they could have run away or jumped in their vehicles or whatever but they chose to shoot.
> 
> Be very careful of allocating effect to cause. The fact that actions follow on one another does not mean that they are directly correlated and can be said to be the cause.
> 
> Think about this: You are driving your car and a kid runs across the road and you kill the kid. Direct cause and effect linking would say that the kid caused the accident therefore the kid is to blame. Well, no, it doesn't work that way. You should have been aware of our surroundings and you should have anticipated that a kid might run out. Maybe you were fiddling with the CD player, lighting a cigarette, daydreaming or whatever. So, one can say that an event took place and that an accident occured but now one needs to consider the training and expected skill of the driver. The driver is expected to anticipate the situation and to act accordingly. The same goes for the police, they are supposed to be skilled in handling such tough situations without resorting to killing the protesters. In the car anology what the police did was this: they saw the kid runnnig towards them and they panicked, they put the pedal to the metal and droves over the kid with the front, rear and trailer tyres. And now they have the audacity to charge the mother for murder because she allowed the child to slip free from her grip.



Eloquently put eminent Counsel.  
In law these are situations exotically called _dolus directus_ and _dolus eventualis_
_Dolus directus_ is when the end result is perfectly foreseeable and a direct consequence of your joint actions,e.g, we both are aramed on a robbery and one of us shoots someone.
_Dolus eventualis_ is when I am not armed, but know that you are armed, and you shoot someone.  The law says that I foresee that shooting as a probability or reasonable possibility, so I have "common purpose" with you in that result, even though I might have not intended the result.
So there are situations where the "non-shooter" can be found guilty of what the shooter did because he has associated, linked or identified with the actions of the shooter in a way which makes the shooting "foreseeable" by a "reasonable man" in his position.

Where I think DPP Smit is dead wrong is that he has missed the point that in all these situations the "linking" has to be between you and the perpetrator, who must commit a crime to which you can be linked by your association ..etc.
By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the miners are "linked by association" with the action of the police, who did the killing.  

In addition, the police are not admitting that they committed murder.  So there is no crime that the miners can be linked to, other than any murder, assault ..etc that members of their group, to which they undoubtedly were linked, committed.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris, something that caught my eye in the sample case. The policeman claimed he fired a warning shot first. My understanding is that warning shots is not allowed anymore and that you can get into trouble for doing it. What is the law about that now? Is the law different on that for police vs citizen?



?????   I don't know where you might have got this impression.  ANYTHING done to avoid killing is not only allowed, it is an IMPERATIVE!.
Simply put, killing must be the last and unavoidable result.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Let's be clear people died before the police got involved, but there deaths is not important enough to be pursued in court? 
> 
> The police acted in self-defence and again this is unacceptable?  --- ???  That they acted in self defence is the very issue that has to be now determined. It is in issue.  Seeing the video footage I am by no means convinced, not by a very long way.  Bit is awaits adjudication, accordance with law.
> 
> Now or I am missing something or your moral compass is just spinning isn't it…  ??? 
> Maybe I am just an idiot thinking everything has a cause and effect…


The police acted in self-defence and again this is unacceptable?   ==== That they acted in self defence is the very issue that has to be now determined. It is in issue.  Seeing the video footage I am by no means convinced, not by a very long way.  Bit is awaits adjudication, accordance with law.

Now or I am missing something or your moral compass is just spinning isn't it…  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):     === I am concerned with the imperatives of law.

Maybe I am just an idiot thinking everything has a cause and effect… :   === Everything does.  It is part of the law of physics.

----------


## tec0

In reality it is about being overpowered, if any person is outnumbered by their unarmed attackers "more than one" they "the person being attacked" still has the right to defend themselves. ChrisNG53 may well give more details about this. 

The fact stands if your life is in danger you have the legal right to protect yourself. 

If you ever had to deal with drug users before you would know they get very violent and trying to suppress them with only verbal warnings will not be effective. If they are more than one they will still attack regardless if they are unarmed or not.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> In reality it is about being overpowered, if any person is outnumbered by their unarmed attackers "more than one" they "the person being attacked" still has the right to defend themselves. ChrisNG53 may well give more details about this. 
> 
> The fact stands if your life is in danger you have the legal right to protect yourself. 
> 
> If you ever had to deal with drug users before you would know they get very violent and trying to suppress them with only verbal warnings will not be effective. If they are more than one they will still attack regardless if they are unarmed or not.


tecO-- - 
1.  there must be a threat of serious injury or death;
2.  it must be imminent; 
3.  your action must be to defend yourself, another person or property;
4.  your action must be reasonable;
5.  it must be commensurate with the threat you are facing;
6.  killing must be the last and only resort,

So I cannot shoot a woman/child threatening me with a panga, as I can easily outrun such attackers.  I must issue a warning if this does not expose me to immediate attack.  So if I find a burglar in my house and he does not have a gun in his hand I should first order him "hands up, or I will shoot you".
Unarmed drug dealers can not be shot to death unless you have first warned them and you simply cannot get away and they attack.

----------


## IMHO

Chris, I will ask around about the warning shot issue. I will appreciate it if you will check up as well and maybe give a case as example. A case after the new gun laws came into effect. I think it has to do with you are not allowed to discharge a firearm in a public or build up area. Obviously the constitution is higher than a gun law, but I think you may still be in trouble or stand a chance to loose your license, or something to that effect.

Something else I want to ask. Does insurance exist to cover legal cost if heaven forbid you shoot someone and you need to defend your actions in a court of law. We all know that you will have to make use of very senior councilors that specialise in this type of thing and that that can ruin you financially. You might even loose your case because you cannot afford the legal bill.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Chris, I will ask around about the warning shot issue. I will appreciate it if you will check up as well and maybe give a case as example. A case after the new gun laws came into effect. I think it has to do with you are not allowed to discharge a firearm in a public or build up area. Obviously the constitution is higher than a gun law, but I think you may still be in trouble or stand a chance to loose your license, or something to that effect.
> 
> Something else I want to ask. Does insurance exist to cover legal cost if heaven forbid you shoot someone and you need to defend your actions in a court of law. We all know that you will have to make use of very senior councilors that specialise in this type of thing and that that can ruin you financially. You might even loose your case because you cannot afford the legal bill.


1. Warning shot.   You are perfectly entitled to fire a warning shot to deter an intruder if the circumstances warrant this, i.e, it is the dead of night and the bugger has broken in.  Gratuitous firing of shots in a built up area is obviously illegal. 

2. There are companies that advertise on TV everyday to provide legal insurance.  One of them is called "Scorpions".

----------


## Dave A

> Where I think DPP Smit is dead wrong is that he has missed the point that in all these situations the "linking" has to be between you and the perpetrator, who must commit a crime to which you can be linked by your association ..etc.
> By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the miners are "linked by association" with the action of the police, who did the killing.


Perhaps the murder charge may be in relation to some of the other murders committed in the run-up to the massacre and not the massacre itself.

----------

tec0 (03-Sep-12)

----------


## tec0

> 4.  your action must be reasonable;


YES… Finally some practical LAW!!! Thank you! 

Your actions must be within reason at all times. If you are a female and 5 people "unarmed" corner you and their intentions is to harm she has the right to protect herself. 

Was there enough time to give a warning?
Was there enough time to scream for help?
Are you physically able to run away? 

These questions becomes very difficult to answer when you are alone and afraid. Thus the human factor must be considered by the court.

Nothing is ever simple, you need to individualize every person's actions and place that action under scrutiny otherwise you end up with a half truth.  :Wink:

----------


## Dave A

I was going to raise this in a new thread, but this one has evolved to a point where it probably fits in here just fine.

South Africa is credited with one of the most progressive constitutions in the world.
We also have one of the more violent societies in the world.
Are we asking too much of the folk we expect to protect ordinary citizens from the folk inclined to violence to navigate between the two?

We expect our police force to maintain law and order.
We expect our security companies to protect us from criminals.
These expectations seem universal and fair enough. 

What I am struggling with is the massive differences in our expectations as to *how* they are supposed to achieve this when what they are tackling is so often aggressive, violent adversaries.

Let's be honest - there are three reactions to imminent danger, fight, freeze or flight. In order for people to willfully put themselves in potential harms way, they have to be prepared to fight. And for the police to do what we expect of them, freeze and flight isn't typically the option we expect from them either. We want them to deal with the problem - arrest that criminal / mugger / *add your own here*

But it seems our constitution demands that our defenders may not be aggressive in carrying out our expectations of them.

Just how can a person do the job without being inclined to aggression themselves?

----------

BusFact (03-Sep-12), ChrisNG53 (03-Sep-12), tec0 (03-Sep-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Perhaps the murder charge may be in relation to some of the other murders committed in the run-up to the massacre and not the massacre itself.


No, he made it clear that he was charging them with the 34-5 murders ... without saying that they would also be charged with some 74 attempted murders.
Now he insists that "the evidence was there" to support his stance -- BUT he has been overruled by his boss who, in law, CANNOT overrule him IF the evidence was there, as that would be a purely ARBITRARY exercise of discretion/power. 
It is a sick pantomine.
It is buffoonery!!!

----------

Dave A (03-Sep-12)

----------


## tec0

How powerful is human emotion? There is countless TV shows exploiting the fact that people will do anything for love, lust and greed. The fundamental human dynamic is the fact that we are not perfect. We will overreact and we will make mistakes. 

Now the facts in this case were clear. There where murders that had occurred. Now these murders was done in an aggressive and in a horrific way. One can argue and say that these horrific murders were done to intimidate the security, other workers and the police. 

The second fact as it was shown on TV was that the strikers where armed with hand weapons. Second fact is simple there where many more armed strikers then police. Now some argue that the police must not react and rather drove away… 

Second argument is the police must stay and defend the public…  

The truth is however we expect the police to protect us thus running away and allowing the violence that already claimed lives to escalate wasn’t an option. They used rubber ammunitions and teargas to suppress the strikers. 

Then shots were fired by the strikers with loaded guns. This prompted the police to fire back at the stickers with lethal force. Now the argument as it stands; why where any of the strikers armed in the first place? Secondly why where shots fired at the police? Thirdly why where workers, security and police murdered to begin with? These questions cannot be easily explained and will not go away. 

But everyone wants to get angry after the fact the truth is that we need to understand that the police didn’t have a lot of choices. At that moment things happened as they happen. Upon review, hindsight would suggest you could have done "this" or "that" *but* remember these strategies remains after the fact...     

Now I stand to be corrected but the prisoners in question stand to be charged for the murders on the employees, security and police right? This part is still unclear to me?

----------

dfsa (03-Sep-12)

----------


## dfsa

I have been monitoring this thread and stayed out of it for various reasons, but here is my 2 cent.

I would just about always support the employee depending on the situation.

To the forum members that show purely one sided uncalled for bashing of the police force that was present, sorry I don't think you actually live in this country or you are so blind sided because you live in a cocoon.

Firstly the situation at the mine was out of hand Days before the police had to defend them self. The miners broke away from their union and was following some creative instigators. They killed other miners and mine security personnel in the days before included 2 police officers.

The day when the mass shooting happened, the miners got together on the one side away from the compound, there the instigators was hard at work on the crowd, there was also sangomas that put the crowd through rituals and they received muti ( You are immune to bullets, nothing can kill you, so go and kill everybody that is against us. Go kill the police) THIS IS FACT and the striking miners actually believed they are invincible.

They crowd proceeded around the barb wire and was marching straight to a group of the police force. Armed Individuals in the crowd started shooting at the police force, even when the police force returned fire in the direction of the crowd, they still came forward shooting. That was when all hell broke loose. Another police group also got involved in the shooting as they had to protect their colleagues.

Even when the crowd realized their muti is not working and when they started running away in panic, there ware individuals hiding within the crowd that were still shooting at the police. The Fact is had the police not return and defend them self with live ammunition, they would have been over run and killed. The crowd had the intend to kill the police and anybody that was linked to the mine.

Now what I actually found quite amusing with most posts in this thread, is the forum members that only saw a few propaganda clips. Unfortunately there is no real clips that show clips off the defending side. Most if not all clips out there was taken with one goal in mind and that was to look for sympathy and discredit the police force and the mine. The real organizers of the strike was not close by and only had one intention and that was purely getting propaganda for their cause, they did not care how many of their group was going to die, they wanted some to die.

To the members that have shown purely on sided arguments directed at the police force,, Please, Please, Please, never ever phone them when you are in need and next time when you feel like bashing the police force, first get your facts right and do not always look at the first news report and twisted clips.

*Sometimes First Look At Who is Going to Benefit Before you Cast Your Stone*

----------

Nickolai Naydenov (03-Sep-12), tec0 (03-Sep-12)

----------


## adrianh

No, I said it before, I'll phone ADT. At least they will get here quickly and look before blasting their way through my house shooting anything that moves.

"A few propaganda clips" - now that is a good one...No, it was actually a single video shot by Al Jazeera who happened to be with the police farce at the time.

I couldn't care less who will benefit. I am of the opinion that the police had no right to shoot those people, that my facts are straight and that the video camera taking that film wasn't "Twisted"

The police overreacted and shot 34 people to death. It is that simple.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> I have been monitoring this thread and stayed out of it for various reasons, but here is my 2 cent.
> 
> I would just about always support the employee depending on the situation.
> 
> To the forum members that show purely one sided uncalled for bashing of the police force that was present, sorry I don't think you actually live in this country or you are so blind sided because you live in a cocoon.
> 
> Firstly the situation at the mine was out of hand Days before the police had to defend them self. The miners broke away from their union and was following some creative instigators. They killed other miners and mine security personnel in the days before included 2 police officers.
> 
> The day when the mass shooting happened, the miners got together on the one side away from the compound, there the instigators was hard at work on the crowd, there was also sangomas that put the crowd through rituals and they received muti ( You are immune to bullets, nothing can kill you, so go and kill everybody that is against us. Go kill the police) THIS IS FACT and the striking miners actually believed they are invincible.
> ...


.... and was even one police officer even so much as scratched???? ??????
The State has an obligation TO PRESERVE NOT TAKE LIFE, EVEN OF A SERIAL KILLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shooting and killing is NOT a form of riot control.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The State is NOT at war with rioters ---- they are NOT an enemy force that must be defeated.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Live ammunition is NOT the first choice when dealing with rioters!!!!!!!
KILLING HAS TO BE THE LAST UNAVOIDABLE ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## ChrisNG53

> YES Finally some practical LAW!!! Thank you! 
> 
> Your actions must be within reason at all times. If you are a female and 5 people "unarmed" corner you and their intentions is to harm she has the right to protect herself. 
> 
> Was there enough time to give a warning?
> Was there enough time to scream for help?
> Are you physically able to run away? 
> 
> These questions becomes very difficult to answer when you are alone and afraid. Thus the human factor must be considered by the court.
> ...



.... and that is why I posted my judgement so as to furnish a good idea how such an issue will be resolved.
What is more that judgement is going to be the one MOST DIRECTLY in point when this thing goes up to the courts!!!

----------


## Dave A

> .... and that is why I posted my judgement so as to furnish a good idea how such an issue will be resolved.
> What is more that judgement is going to be the one MOST DIRECTLY in point when this thing goes up to the courts!!!


I agree with you in terms of the tests. However I'd expect some material differences in the evidence that is led.

----------


## tec0

The court must also consider that the attackers used their fellow workers as shielding while they fired at the police. So in that respect the person that used the other people as a shield did so knowing that he will be well hidden and that his fellow workers will probably end up being the target.

That makes him "the person that shot at the police and hid in the crowed of strikers" guilty of mass murder. He provoked the attack knowing that he will be shielded. What he didn't plan on was being recorded on video camera.

----------


## Blurock

There has been a great deal of blame apportioned to the police and also to the miners involved. Yes, I agree that the police were incompetent and not adequately trained or equipped to do the job. Blame their bosses, the Minister of Police and senior management for that. I sympathise with the ordinary policeman who is expected to do a job under such difficult circumstances and with such incompetent management.

The miners themselves have a lot to answer for. What about the brutal killings prior to the final shooting? Is this how you make a statement?  This violence is the action of a callous, barbaric, murderous mob and there is no justification for their actions. (Also charge the sangomas involved!)

What was the involvement of mine management? Why is there a them/us situation? Why has the grievances that has been brewing for years not been adequately addressed? Maybe the time has come for mines and some other businesses to reconsider the way in which we do business. We can protect ourselves with labour laws and rules and regulations, but good motivation and fair business practices will always win over a contracted or forced negotiation in the long run.

What was the role of government and Cosatu in all of this? How can you be government and trade union at the same time? Are the workers just pawns in their political games and aspirations? Trade unions generally serve their own interests and not the interest of the workers. Why do trade union leaders resort to violence when they fail to negotiate a favourable outcome? 

The Marikana shooting was an unfortunate result of many social and other ills in our country. The reality is that we live in a 3rd world country with a 1st world constitution, which is not even properly understood by the government of the day. The cause of the problem should not be addressed at ground level between the ordinary policemen and workers, but the cause lies with incompetent management and lack of leadership all round.

----------

ChrisNG53 (04-Sep-12), Dave A (04-Sep-12), tec0 (03-Sep-12)

----------


## ChrisNG53

> I agree with you in terms of the tests. However I'd expect some material differences in the evidence that is led.


True.  There are always differences.  Every case stands or falls on its own merits.
However the judgement provides understanding as regards the principles of approach that will determine the issue. 
Those principles of approach will not change whatever the facts.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> The court must also consider that the attackers used their fellow workers as shielding while they fired at the police. So in that respect the person that used the other people as a shield did so knowing that he will be well hidden and that his fellow workers will probably end up being the target.
> 
> That makes him "the person that shot at the police and hid in the crowed of strikers" guilty of mass murder. He provoked the attack knowing that he will be shielded. What he didn't plan on was being recorded on video camera.


... and which police officer was injured .. or even suffered a scratch?>??

----------


## wynn

Just a question from another angle.
If the POIB had been law, would any of this been in the public domain?
Would we be able to view the footage hear the arguments and draw our own conclusions?

I think R2K should be shouting this from the rooftops right now.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Just a question from another angle.
> If the POIB had been law, would any of this been in the public domain?
> Would we be able to view the footage hear the arguments and draw our own conclusions?
> 
> I think R2K should be shouting this from the rooftops right now.



Would have been classified as a "security" issue and that would have been that!!!!!!!

----------


## tec0

> ... and which police officer was injured .. or even suffered a scratch?>??


Now I am sure that you know that it is illegal to shoot at people? Yes it is true that the person shooting at the police might not have hit his target BUT that doesn’t change the fact that his intend was to do bodily harm. It doesn’t change the fact that he used his fellow workers as a human shield. It doesn’t change the fact that he provoked the police and caused a massacre.

The fact that no one was injured "on the police side/general public side" doesn't change the severity of the situation, it remains attempted murder.

----------


## Citizen X

> The patients are running the asylum.


The Doctrine of common purpose: Unpacking a controversial matter1
Firstly, the legal definition of murder is extremely wide. One of the most wide definitions of a crime that actually exists in criminal law!
The definitional elements(which must be proved in court) of murder are:
(1) the causing of the death
(2) of another person,
(3) unlawfully
(4) intentionally[1]
The source of this definition is Prof Snyman.[2] The leading case on the doctrine of common purpose is Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A).
In this case the facts were the following: A crowd of about one hundred people attacked Y, who was in his house, by pelting the house with stones, hurling petrol bombs through the windows, catching him as he was fleeing from his burning house, stoning him, pouring petrol over him and setting him alight. The six appellants formed part of the crowd. The court found that their conduct consisted inter alia of grabbing hold of Y, wrestling with him, throwing stones at him, exhorting the crowd to kill him, forming part of the crowd which attacked
him, making petrol bombs, disarming him and setting his house alight.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Botha JA, the Appellate Division confirmed the six appellants' convictions of murder by applying the doctrine of common purpose, since it was clear that they all had had the common purpose to kill Y. It was argued on behalf of the accused that they could be convicted of murder only if a causal connection had been proved between each individual accused's conduct and Y's death, but the court held that where, as in this case, a common purpose to kill had been proved, each accused could be convicted of
murder without proof of a causal connection between each one's individual
conduct and Y's death. If there is no clear evidence that the participants had agreed beforehand to commit the crime together, the existence of a common purpose between a certain participant and the others may be proven by the fact that he actively associated
himself with the actions of the other members of the group.[3]
The existence of a common purpose between two or more participants is proved
in the following ways:
. On the basis of an express or implied prior agreement to commit an offence.
Since people mostly conspire in secret it is very difficult for the state to prove a
common purpose based on a prior agreement.
. Where no prior agreement can be proved, the liability arises from an active
association and participation in a common criminal design (Thebus 2003 (2)
SACR 319 (CC) 336).[4]
My thoughts, whilst the NPA can still charge anyone with this crime, whether a court finds such an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is quite another situation! The loss of life under any circumstances will always remain tragic. Protestors should learn that in a Constitutional democracy you can’t damage property, assault and intimidate non striking employees, block roads etc. They should protest peacefully. If you shoot at the police, you most certainly not protesting peacefully? Why were some miners armed? This concept of ‘human shield,’ comes to mind, a group of people agree to protest, a few takes guns( presumably unlicensed), the police arrive, they try to control the crowd, a few people in that crowd start shoting at the police, surely the police can’t still use water cannons! They should not return fire indiscriminately, they should ideally have sharp shooters who can take out the criminal elements of this crowd i.e. the ones shooting at police1 Just my 2 cents!


[1]Vide Criminal Law: Specific Crime Study.* Muckleneuk, Pretoria. University of South Africa. 2010.Page 131*

[2]Vide Criminal Law. Cr Snyman. Lexis Nexus Butterworths. 2007. Page 421.

[3]Op Cit n 1. Page 11. Taken verbatim.

[4] Op Cit n 1 Page 9. Taken verbatim

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

All of you that were blaming the police and felt bad for the poor miners, what do you say now that the miners have treathened to kill again??? Should police just go there with water pistols and wait for the miners to kill people AGAIN???

----------


## adrianh

Nobody feels bad for the miners - they are also a bunch of idiots. We simply stated that the police did not react appropriately under the cicumstance.

The police should go there and do the jobs that they are paid to do. They are not paid to murder people. If the police are unable to control a riot without resorting to murdering 34 people then they should rather stay home and play tiddlywinks....if the police are unable to operate weapon loaded with live ammunition then I fully agree with you that they should be issued with water pistols...I commend you on a really good idea...

----------


## Dave A

> All of you that were blaming the police and felt bad for the poor miners, what do you say now that the miners have treathened to kill again???


Certainly grounds for instant dismissal (after due process, of course).

It's time to draw at least one line in the sand - violent intimidation will not be tolerated under any circumstances. (Long overdue, probably). It needs to be emminently clear that when this is all over (whenever that may be) those guilty of intimidation shall *not* be returning.

They may as well start perusing the "staff wanted" ads now.

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

Good point Dave, I recon they should have fired them all anyway and get new staff, there are many people looking for job out there.

----------


## tec0

I can see a lot of bitterness but it is understandable. On the one end we see our Police force behaving like gangs like it was shown again on the news tonight where the reporter was attacked and there equipment illegally confiscated by the police??? 

This must not be tolerated at all and yet it is not new... That said the government must take a legal stand against any group that wants to force violence. The fact is that groups are being formed for the purpose of intimidation and violence then that group's actions can be seen as a "terrorist" actions and thus the need for military intervention rather than police.

The moment these people masses start to plan to attack, intimidate and murder civilians it becomes a matter national security and the government must act accordingly. I agree the military is a blunt instrument and is hardly delicate but thousands of people planning to commit criminal acts it is no longer a matter for the police. It is by all means a "terrorist" act and herein is a danger for massive loss of life by all sides involved.  

Scary stuff

----------


## Blurock

> the government must take a legal stand against any group that wants to force violence. The fact is that groups are being formed for the purpose of intimidation and violence then that group's actions can be seen as a "terrorist" actions and thus the need for military intervention rather than police.
> 
> Scary stuff


Agreed. Scary stuff indeed. Where will we find the military to intervene? A once proud and respected army has been reduced to a bunch of ill disciplined rabble-rousers...  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## tec0

> Agreed. Scary stuff indeed. Where will we find the military to intervene? A once proud and respected army has been reduced to a bunch of ill disciplined rabble-rousers...


Well you can always just arm the general public... Results may vary but overall it a lot harder to intimidate the public if every capable person was armed. 

I have to say this; our police needs to look at their public image or rather what is left of it. The people of this country have no reason to trust the police anymore. How many news reports showed excessive and unlawful intimidation/violence? 

They really need to address this because when the public view shifts from police officer to Criminal armed with a gun then people will need to protect themselves against these criminals... And the moment that happens, all kinds of crap will hit the fan.

----------


## IMHO

The media seems determined to run with this storie. The vid has nothing to do with share prices.

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

And now these comments: why did they only kill blacks? WTF seriously, everything for the ANC is about race, they can't even see why  :Chair: 

http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-08-a...ot-at-marikana

----------


## Blurock

> And now these comments: why did they only kill blacks? WTF seriously, everything for the ANC is about race, they can't even see why 
> 
> http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-08-a...ot-at-marikana


The ancyl is a racist organisation like the AWB and does not warrant a reply. :Crazy:

----------


## ians

In one video you see the white policemen flagging his hand to stop the police shooting, the black cop with the automatic rifle just to the left is empying his rounds like there was no tomorrow. So i would if they are going to investigate who actually shot the black miners.

----------


## Dave A

> And now these comments: why did they only kill blacks? WTF seriously, everything for the ANC is about race, they can't even see why 
> 
> http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-08-a...ot-at-marikana


 :Hmmm:  Before you write off Ronald Lamola:




> He told guests that South Africa should be worried that there were "so few" whites and Indians in student movements.
> 
> When Sasco was formed 21 years ago, white and Indian students had participated, he said.
> 
> "Where are those students? In a non racial movement, this should worry us. We must be able to see a rainbow nation everywhere."


He asks a valid question! Where are those students?

What is wrong with these "non racial movements"?

----------


## Blurock

> Before you write off Ronald Lamola:
> 
> 
> He asks a valid question! Where are those students?
> 
> What is wrong with these "non racial movements"?


They were scared away by the racist attitude of the ANCYL, the militancy of SASCO and the politicising of every student movement and initiative. There is (was?) a lot of goodwill in South Africa, but it was spoiled by power hungry politicians and idiots with political aspirations. 

On ground level in sport, charities, business associations and non political organisations there is still a lot of goodwill, but nobody wants to be involved with Neanderthals who come to the negotiation table with stone age weapons and pre-conceived agendas in their hunger for power and money.

Down with politicians. Down!

----------

Dave A (11-Sep-12), Nickolai Naydenov (10-Sep-12)

----------


## Justloadit

> Down with politicians. Down!


More like - get out! get out! you have rubbish in your pants! get out!

----------


## Blurock

Interesting news clip: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...rld-2012-09-10

"Sasol met with all of its trade unions on August 14 *(pre-dating the Aug 16 Marikana shooting) , where discussions were held on the groups strategy and ensuring everyones voice is heard. *(my insert)

The issue of stakeholder engagement had also been elevated to a key priority for the groups 2013 financial year and had been accompanied by a change to one of the groups core company values from customer focused to stakeholder focused. 

I commend Sasol on this brave, but necessary move to also improve communication, which reflects good leadership. Too often corporate companies mention their staff as their biggest asset, but when it comes to reward and remuneration, the executives and shareholders walk away with the cake while staff gets screwed.

Being stakeholder focused will include all stakeholders from staff to suppliers, customers and shareholders. Aligned commitment is necessary in business. Unless there is aligned commitment between all stakeholders, one or more thing will go wrong and one of the stakeholders will overturn the apple cart, as had happened in Marikana.

I have always been a strong believer of the McKinsey 7-S framework as a tool for strategic management. This was developed in the 1980's by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman and is one of the models of organisational effectiveness that has withstood the test of time. 

The basic premise of the model is that there are seven internal aspects of an organization that need to be aligned if it is to be successful.



Placing Shared Values in the middle of the model emphasizes that these values are central to the development of all the other critical elements. The company's structure, strategy, systems, style, staff and skills all stem from why the organization was originally created, and what it stands for. The original vision of the company was formed from the values of the creators. As the values change, so do all the other elements.

----------


## Dave A

I heard a new story this morning that the striking mine workers were prepared for the mine to shut down completely forever if their demands are not met.

Closest online media I could find in this vein http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Ne...ining-20120910

 :No:

----------


## tec0

Well realistically I don’t blame them for striking and asking for R12000. That is actually basic pay. The fact is food water and healthcare is at a premium. The situation exists because the municipalities cannot provide clean water and state hospitals are at best questionable. Not to mention that land reform stopped some farms from producing food. 

To add to the frustration it is fact that the higher management makes more money than all the employees put together. So is R12000 unfeasible? 

Truthfully no it is not. Herein is the next problem. Once they get the R12000 and know that the tactic works, how many more go for broke strikes will occur in the future? More importantly if the mine closes and the shafts blown shut what then?

----------


## Dave A

> To add to the frustration it is fact that the higher management makes more money than all the employees put together.


As higher management are employees, that seems impossible.




> So is R12000 unfeasible?


I've been struggling to get an accurate, current baseline figure for what these guys are earning currently. But even with the most generous numbers I've seen tossed out there, it seems like one *heck* of a big step.  So in short - no, it's probably not feasible - not straight away in one jump.




> Herein is the next problem. Once they get the R12000 and know that the tactic works, how many more go for broke strikes will occur in the future?


It's already happening just on the news so far (which is "no sign of a settlement in sight"). There are unions reneging on wage deals cut just a few months ago already.




> More importantly if the mine closes and the shafts blown shut what then?


Say goodbye to *any* new investment in SA mining for the next few years.

And goodbye lots and lots of jobs for a *very* long time.

----------

tec0 (11-Sep-12)

----------


## IMHO

> Well realistically I don’t blame them for striking and asking for R12000. That is actually basic pay.


I cant believe you think that! Where can we get an up to date report of what percentage of the population is in what pay bracket?

----------


## tec0

> I cant believe you think that! Where can we get an up to date report of what percentage of the population is in what pay bracket?


Simple answer is this; I would love to see you support a family of 4 on that money the R12000. Sorry but no  :No:  

How much does a basic healthcare package cost per month? What about a home, life insurance, Schools, Tax, water and lights, transport and retirement? You cannot do it on R4000! You cannot do it with R10000! I am not even sure you can do it with R12000....

Dont blame the people blame the greedy. Fact is the cheapest thing you can buy in South Africa is labour and that is the truth.

 :Sorry:

----------


## IMHO

tec0, I know people like you. They are friends with my son. He earns R7500 a month, running his own business. He is white and does not have the benefits of the blacks in this country. His friends are laughing at him, asking how can you live on that. Yet he does. Without all the luxuries you are mentioning. He just can not afford it. Then, think of our pensioners. How do they live on the R2000 something they get, if it is that much?

I also know white graduates, working for R12000. Now compare that to the illiterate labor you are referring to. Also remember, we have seen that the R4000 they talk about is take home cash pay. They earn a lot more in fringe benefits. I think you are very lucky to be in the income bracket you are used to, but does not realise it and take it for granted.

----------


## tec0

Basically it is just another form of intimidation... The fact is most employees must just shut up and work. If they step out of line the companies gets angry and move for closure and then as stated above all the jobs goes bye bye along with all the investors. 

The question now is do we need them?  Fact is rare metals are exactly that and if placed under proper local management the mines can stay open.  And jobs can be both sustained and new jobs created. Imagine if we dont export raw materials but refined materials? Fact is our revenue will increase dramatically if we do.

Investors are not problem solvers they create problems because there is not enough money to sustain their greed. Fact is if South Africa can get rid of corruption and introduce proper management we will become a first world country because we do have the wealth.  

Face the facts you cannot sustain a family on R4000 you just cant. Is R10000 enough? No... not even close. Fact is a modern family of 4 basics mostly thanks to the banks you are looking at a minimum living cost of R17000 excluding food and medical

If you do the math on a property loan you will find that the bank makes more than double their money on property. Why must they have such a large income? Where is the justification? You cannot justify it, it is a simple truth.

Second truth is they will make more money if loans become easier to pay off and the durations will also get shorter.  

But you expect these workers to shut up do their jobs and not have a future? Because that is exactly what investors are demanding. They demand!!! That these workers must spend their lives risking their lives while being unable to support their families or make any kind of investment towards retirement!!! 

Now you tell me who is benefiting from what? Because that is not a benefit that is slavery.

----------


## tec0

> *tec0, I know people like you.* They are friends with my son. He earns R7500 a month, running his own business. He is white and does not have the benefits of the blacks in this country. *His friends are laughing at him, asking how can you live on that.* Yet he does. Without all the luxuries you are mentioning. He just can not afford it. Then, think of our pensioners. How do they live on the R2000 something they get, if it is that much?
> 
> I also know white graduates, working for R12000. Now compare that to the illiterate labor you are referring to. Also remember, we have seen that the R4000 they talk about is take home cash pay. They earn a lot more in fringe benefits. I think you are very lucky to be in the income bracket you are used to, but does not realise it and take it for granted.


My income is less then R36000 year.... I am not ashamed to say it out loud.  Why because we get forced out when big companies implement new laws and our qualifications has an expiry date... Hence me doing my second trade.

I also do other work and such to build up the cash flow some months I do, do better but some months not.

Just so that you know I am highly qualified in both IT and my first trade... I do have an NQF level of 9 I cannot go higher because I need a few N subjects and is working on that at the moment.

----------


## adrianh

Tec0 - you said your income is less than R36,000 per year - is that R3,000 per month? Or R360,000 R30,000 per month?

----------


## tec0

> Tec0 - you said your income is less than R36,000 per year - is that R3,000 per month? Or R360,000 R30,000 per month?


Nope that is my basic and also where the wheeling and dealing start. I used to earn much more but the bigger IT corporations zeroed in on our little town and was able to give better support packages then what I could. Also about 9 “large businesses” closed down last year and I took one hell of a hit. 

Other than that I was screwed out of co owning an established business and bla bla bla... 

Now I know you are enjoying this moment  :Wink:  but that is not what I am on about. The basic truth is this how can the high ups earn more than the lower group in its entirety? Now don’t get me wrong I don’t stand for the violence and murders that is just wrong. But the demand for R12000 is reasonable...

----------


## Dave A

I have an employee who started 2 years ago on R10k a month. And he was doing fine on that. About 30% of his income was available for discretionary spending.

Now he is on R12.4k a month. And up to his eyeballs in debt because with all that extra disposable income he has changed his lifestyle. I've been given until the end of this year to make a plan to pay him R20k a month because he can't come out on R12.4k. He's doing the same job as he did two years ago.

Guess what I told him? (answer below).

I have an employee who started three years ago on R2.2k per month, and was delighted with the money. He was previously a taxi driver earning R1.5k a month so he was one happy camper. Now he's on R5.2k per month. He has progressed a little with some extra responsibilities (gone from semi-skilled labour to a driver). He wants more money because his wife has lost her job, his daughter is going into matric and blah blah blah.

Guess what I told him? (answer below).

I have an employee who's struggling to come out on R25k. This one doesn't ask for more - they know what needs to be done - this one's just not doing it.

The majority of my employees are quite happy and coming out on what they're getting. Pay ranges from R2.5 to R25k. Although they would be delighted to get more, they don't "need" more.

The business makes money by providing goods and services to customers at a price point they're prepared to pay. I hire employees to perform tasks needed for the business to provide those goods and services. The employees are paid out of the earnings of the business and in accordance with their contribution (value add) to the functioning of the business.

I *don't* pay employees based on the number of kids they have, the house they live in, where they stay, what TV system they bought, their religion, their race or the fact that their daughter is getting married next week. And for those that think I do, basically...

*Life's a bitch. FIFO.*

Of course I'm more tactful in saying that to them, and where I can I'll point out viable options I can see that might help them resolve their dilemma. Not everyone likes my answers though.

Ultimately a business can only change by degrees while it's doing the same business. Drastic changes need... drastic change. And I'm not going to risk a pretty stable, healthy business to satisfy an individual employee's "need" for drastic change.

If an individual needs drastic change to happen in their life - be my guest. Go off and chase it. The door is wide open. Go make it happen.

In the meantime, I'll get on with my job of making sure all the other folk who rely on this little enterprise can count on me for years to come and we all make steady progress towards improving our position.

Fall in and join the team or get out of our way.

----------

Blurock (12-Sep-12), Chrisjan B (12-Sep-12), tec0 (12-Sep-12)

----------


## tec0

Indeed you cannot expect this from a business. I am not stupid I know there is only so much a business can do. But this mine is making more than enough to pay a hand full of people masses amounts of money. Money that will scare the local lottery. And yet they cannot justify paying the workers responsible for their total income?

It is easy to tell people to f*ck0ff, it can be done because people are expendable and replaceable. But you have to keep in mind the economy and the state it is in. You cannot expect people to be passive anymore. You just cant...

But I do think change is coming... Soon big companies will close their doors and their investments will not be worth more than the paper it is printed on. Because the fact is this you need a healthy working class. Right now we dont have that. But if companies want to continue to force someone to earn a R1000 per month so be it... But it is becoming the same as not working at all Because the person earning the R1000 cannot afford anything at all... They are still dependant on hand outs... And they have work? 

When you take someones dignity and livelihood then they dont have much to lose. And once someone has nothing left to lose then you have a very serious situation developing.

----------


## Blurock

What I do not understand is, if you are not happy with your salary, why don't you go where you can earn more? Also, if you do not like what you are doing, get out. Don't get stuck in a rut and don't do a job just to pass the time.

I have seen this attitude so many times. Very few people are prepared to learn and build a career. Those that do, come out tops.

People who do what they enjoy most, eventually become experts in their field. Experts earn more than oxygen thieves. :Whistling:

----------


## tec0

> What I do not understand is, if you are not happy with your salary, why don't you go where you can earn more? Also, if you do not like what you are doing, get out. Don't get stuck in a rut and don't do a job just to pass the time.
> 
> I have seen this attitude so many times. Very few people are prepared to learn and build a career. Those that do, come out tops.
> 
> People who do what they enjoy most, eventually become experts in their field. Experts earn more than oxygen thieves.


I would love to see you do what those miners do. I happen to know how physically demanding the work is. And 12 hours of that!!! Very few people can handle it. Then you expect them to go home take a taxi go to night classes get home study and go to sleep in the early morning hours knowing that hellish job is waiting for you! That is not even realistic!!! That is pure fantasy I am sorry to say.  

No... I think I see the real problem here you have no idea what it is like to be pushed down all the time. These companies take the *legal maximum* out of your body every day. And jobs are difficult to find as it... 

So what choices do they have exactly? Where are the training programs all that good stuff? I am yet to see it news report.

----------


## Blurock

tec0, admittedly I was generalising and my comments were actually in reply to Dave's post. People working office hours in an office environment. 

I agree that the situation of the miners is different. However, they also have a choice whether to work in a mine or not.

----------

tec0 (12-Sep-12)

----------


## Dave A

The sad truth is we can argue back and forth as to what is reasonable pay for what work. Ultimately we can only change it by degrees or risk collapsing what earnings we've got already.

I'm happy to work towards a society goal of basic minimum pay of R10k a month (or the equivalent of today's value in tomorrow's money). However, I can assure you it's going to be a long, slow crawl in the right direction, not a jump. And right now we're not even crawling in the right direction...

----------


## tec0

The reality is if this country provided proper healthcare, proper services it will be a massive financial relieve. Then we don’t have to spend thousands on transport, private hospitals and other “basics”. Tax is supposed to provide for these things... But we hear constantly how billions just disappear and that is an unacceptable loss. 

When the strike goes national I fear the worst for our economy? But the really scary part... How many people will lose their lives over this? Why is our government allowing an x-government person to create national unrest?

----------


## Blurock

The problems at Marikana appear to be endemic of the mining industry. After 1994, the unions wanted to do away with with the migrant system and hostels which possibly contributed to a society where children grew up without their fathers who often supported 2 families; one at home and one at the mining town.

The miners since then had to find their own accommodation in nearby towns, which was beneficial to local families who had rooms to let. The "good intentions" of unions to do away with hostels did not solve the migrant problem as they did not bring their families with them. It just got worse as cheap hostel accommodation was no longer available. 

These migrant workers, of which a great deal come from neighbouring states, are mostly illiterate with little or no skills and they are obviously being paid accordingly. This may be frustrating to the local unemployed youths with matric who can not find employment at the mine. There may therefore be much merit in the notion to recruit in local towns, to provide local housing and services such as clinics, hospitals, libraries and schools.

I know a young white guy who last year started working as a trainee miner somewhere in the Free State. He was one of only a few white or coloured guys in the trainee group. Everyone started on a very low salary, but was given the opportunity to study various aspects of mining. He soon qualified to drive one of those big tipper trucks, then was trained on a crane and has since moved on to more specialised mining equipment.

Everyone is given the same opportunity and you only progress once you have mastered your current course. Salaries are adjusted accordingly. The youngster is fortunate in that he stays with his parents and he has saved up enough money to buy himself a second hand bakkie earlier in the week.

Obviously this mine has a different HR policy to Marikana, but it appears as if it is working better with less conflict. The whole issue of migrant labour and benefits to the communities around the mine will have to be addressed as this is an old problem that rears its ugly head more often of late.

----------


## IanF

Teco
The big problem with higher salaries is it makes it easier to mechanise. This means less jobs at a higher rate per job. Then what do you tell the employees who lose their jobs? These are ones who can't or don't want to be trained or just not needed. 
This is happening in Australia.
Also Lonmin are looking at this a presentation from a quick google search
On my side there is further mechanisation I can do, and will do when it is feasible as employee do bring lots of unnecessary problems.

----------


## ians

> The sad truth is we can argue back and forth as to what is reasonable pay for what work. Ultimately we can only change it by degrees or risk collapsing what earnings we've got already.
> 
> I'm happy to work towards a society goal of basic minimum pay of R10k a month (or the equivalent of today's value in tomorrow's money). However, I can assure you it's going to be a long, slow crawl in the right direction, not a jump. And right now we're not even crawling in the right direction...


The way i see it, its not the salary that is the problem, its the cost of living, You can increase the salaries to R10k, it doesnt help if the cost of living crawls or jumps at a faster rate. I have increased my rates at a steady amount since year dot, yet, my overheads have overtaken the rate increase by a considerable amount.

At one stage my metro bill. petrol account, school fees etc where figues which i didnt even concern myself with, now my bond is the same amount as my metro bill, and less than my petrol account, just to mention a few, we wont even go into what foods costs.

----------


## Blurock

The USA is bringing manufacturing back on shore after the economic crises. The manufacturing jobs however demand higher skills from workers than before. A number of manufacturing jobs have been replaced by robots e.g. automated welding etc. The robots can do those jobs better than humans, but now they require people to manufacture the robots and to service them.

The days of cheap, illiterate manual labour may be gone. We need a better educated workforce that is trainable so that productivity can be increased. Once productivity increase, your income increases exponentially and wealth is created on a broader base.

An illiterate, migrant workforce is very hard to train. First they do not understand the language and therefore they do not understand the terminology used on the job. They can not read signs or instructions. Everything has to be repeated in fanagalo. Only once they have mastered these very basic training requirements can real on the job training commence. By that time it may be the end of the year and their contract and they go home, maybe to return next year, but often not.

----------


## AndyD

> An illiterate, migrant workforce is very hard to train.


The Chinese industrial areas also use a very high percentage of migrant workers but they seem to have it waxed.

----------


## adrianh

> The USA is bringing manufacturing back on shore after the economic crises. The manufacturing jobs however demand higher skills from workers than before. A number of manufacturing jobs have been replaced by robots e.g. automated welding etc. The robots can do those jobs better than humans, but now they require people to manufacture the robots and to service them.
> 
> The days of cheap, illiterate manual labour may be gone. We need a better educated workforce that is trainable so that productivity can be increased. Once productivity increase, your income increases exponentially and wealth is created on a broader base.


This is not all true. What happens is that robots do the detailed critical work and the humans have to do the mindless work. Look at many factories, there are hundereds of people sitting at stations mindlessly assembling stuff. Robots are not used to do every single thing. Partial assembly and packaging is still done by hand. The problem is that a person needs to behighly skilled or has to be able to sit all day long and perform a mindless task. The problem is that the people who end up doing the mindless tasks (and it has to be done by lots and lots of hands, there is just no way around it) demand as much money as the highly skilled employees.

What people need to understand is that there is simply not enough work for also the people, be it skilled or mindless. What people also need to realize is that if everybody are highly skilled then the mindless work doesn't get done. Somebody still has to seal the box and put it on the truck. The answer does not lie in training everybody to be skilled, the answer lies in training people to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. 

They need to learn that work is an artform. It might sound strange when I use the word 'artform' but that is the way I see it, a person could just do a job or they could do the job with the style derived from inner pride. I love doing what i do, be it fitting a light or digging in the garden, we express our souls through the craft of our hands and minds. Teach people to understand this and we might get somewhere.

----------


## Dave A

> The Chinese industrial areas also use a very high percentage of migrant workers but they seem to have it waxed.


I suspect expectations are relatively low and companies in China don't have to navigate our LRA.

----------


## Blurock

The difference between the Chinese workforce and ours is work ethic and education. It is easier to train someone when there is no language and cultural barriers. The illiteracy of the majority of our workforce is a major stumbling block.

We are not talking of highly skilled workers, we are talking about people who can understand instructions. The demand for unskilled labour is waning and is a burden that we unfortunately still have to bear in an effort to create jobs and address social and political problems.

----------


## Blurock

> The Chinese industrial areas also use a very high percentage of migrant workers but they seem to have it waxed.


The Chinese also use a hostel system provided by the employer. They also do not have the tribal, cultural and language problems that we have.

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

isn't this now an interesting perspective!!

http://www.marikana-truth.com/

----------

wynn (13-Sep-12)

----------


## Blurock

...and this may well be true!

It is common practice in black management circles that you owe me a % of your salary if I get you a job. There are municipalities and other parastatals where secretaries earn upwards of R20k per month, but less than half will reach them, as their managers syphon off their share before the employee is paid.

----------

tec0 (13-Sep-12)

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

> isn't this now an interesting perspective!!
> 
> http://www.marikana-truth.com/


I don't know so much, I watched Interface few weeks back and they confirmed that their salaries with housing, benefits etc is 10 500 or 11 500 I don't remember, so this seems to me like is a bit far fetched, besides the two unions are the ones that have interest in this matter, in fact there's a war between those two unions

----------


## tec0

> ...and this may well be true!
> 
> It is common practice in black management circles that you owe me a % of your salary if I get you a job. There are municipalities and other parastatals where secretaries earn upwards of R20k per month, but less than half will reach them, as their managers syphon off their share before the employee is paid.


The modern face of this strategy is labour broking all they did was to make it legal. 

And as we all know something this strange can only become legal if TAX is paid on it...

----------


## Dave A

:Hmmm:  Let's try to whittle out what's bullsh*t from what's not. The great thing about public companies is they have to disclose all sorts of information. So:

Based on the mandatory transactions with connected parties disclosure, Cyril's been doing rather well. Nothing there about him being connected to labour broking though, and I'd expect that would have to be divulged.

Dealing with the claims that top management makes more than the rest of the employees, the financial reports indicate a total payroll of 700 million USD, with 11 million USD being paid to top key management.

Directors earned a total of 4.2 million GBP in cash for their various responsibilites.

Based on the technical analysis, the company's not really doing that well of late. Looks like a game for people with deep pockets and no rush for returns - unless you're Cyril of course.

----------


## tec0

> Let's try to whittle out what's bullsh*t from what's not. The great thing about public companies is they have to disclose all sorts of information. So:
> 
> Based on the mandatory transactions with connected parties disclosure, Cyril's been doing rather well. Nothing there about him being connected to labour broking though, and I'd expect that would have to be divulged.


No he "Cyril" has nothing to do with labour broking as far as I can tell. I was just pointing out on the other post that it is not uncommon for people to charge other people for getting them a job and how labour broking works along those lines.

----------


## Nigel Hamilton

I remember when Zuma was charged with corruption, and the too's and fro's of that debacle, someone mentioned that he could end up as president! I nearly fell off my chair laughing....well we all know how that went down

Now a new one "ANC will have no choice but to re-instate Malema" 

I think I will sit up and watch this time

http://www.iol.co.za/news/special-fe...drum-1.1382106

----------


## tec0

I am actually surprised to see that he is still a free man. After all not only is he slandering our president he is costing South Africa millions in lost investors and other such formalities. The scary aspect is if he takes control of South Africa and it looks like the ANC will allow it to happen what then?

----------


## tec0

> Striking mineworkers at Lonmin's Marikana are expected to give feedback this morning to their representatives on whether they accept the wage proposal tabled by management last night. 
> 
> The offer follows talks with stakeholders at Mooinooi outside Rustenburg.
> 
> CCMA National Senior Commissioner Afszul Soobedaar says the parties involved in the talks have made good progress. The talks are to continue after a report back to the striking workers. Lonmin refused to disclose the offer it made.  But the miners are demanding a pay rise to R12 500.
> 
> *The illegal strike at the world's third largest platinum producer has been rocked by violence and intimidation. Forty five people have already died; the latest victim is was an NUM shop steward.
> 
> The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) says it is saddened by the death. The victim was hacked to death earlier this week and his body was found dumped near the venue where the striking miners usually gather. The union has identified the man as Dumisani Ntinti.*


Source

What is wrong with this picture?

----------


## IMHO

So now one can start compairing apples with apples.




> Lonmin offers workers R900 increase
> 
> North West - Lonmin has offered striking workers a R900 increase to R5 500 a month for entry-level workers, very far from their demand of R12 500, National Union of Mineworkers general secretary Frans Baleni said on Friday. 
> 
> Lonmin is offering to adjust the rate of entry-level (workers) from R4 600 towards R5 500, an increase of about R900. Then all operators will be upgraded, by one grade up, Baleni told the BBC World Service radio Newsday programme. 
> 
> Baleni said this was far from the worker's demand of R12 500 and he was unsure how they would respond to the company's proposal. 
> 
> It's very far, he said.

----------


## Nickolai Naydenov

That is nonsense, they earn much more than that when you consider all their benefits

----------


## Dave A

Radebe: Mines will settle down - or else

No mention of what "or else" might entail exactly, but it seems government has finally realised there's a lot more than a mine and its workers' future at stake here.

----------


## IanF

> Radebe: Mines will settle down - or else
> 
> No mention of what "or else" might entail exactly, but it seems government has finally realised there's a lot more than a mine and its workers' future at stake here.


And when COSATU have violent strikes what happens?
Is it just who you know?

----------


## tec0

I think for the first time in a long time the public saw how useless unions really are in general. They claim victories but in truth there negotiations lack punch and they hardly ever get what their members demand even on the little things.

----------


## Citizen X

> And when COSATU have violent strikes what happens?
> Is it just who you know?


The rule of law must be maintained! We all have to comply with the law regardless as to how we may feel about a certain law. We can never condone a situation where employees by threat of violence, damage to the employers property, assault and intimidation of non striking employees, preventing the employer from continueing his lawful activities such as trade etc, demand a salary increase. Yes, they can protest, I support freedom of association and the right to strike but in a manner that is respectful of the law. The common criminal makes demands of you, you either give me your cellphone or I'll shoot you! Now where is the similarity: you either give us R12500 or we'll damage your property, prevent your business from going on..as for nationalisation of mines, heaven forbid that happens, the first order of the government would be to probably reduce the Salarly to R3000....what part of peaceful protest don't these guys understand..

----------


## Blurock

> ....what part of peaceful protest don't these guys understand..


The part where you hack 11 people to death and then turn up at negotiations with stone age weapons?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Blurock

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...nce-2012-09-14

Jeff Radebe has announced government's stance against against the instigation of workers and violence . Is it too little too late? As most of these miners are migrants from across our borders, they don't give a s#!t about South Africa's international reputation or government's ability to deliver services to all its citizens.

----------


## tec0

> As most of these miners are* migrants from across our borders*, they don't give a s#!t about South Africa's international reputation or government's ability to deliver services to all its citizens.


So basically they come to our country to do maximum damage. Does this make them terrorists?

----------


## tec0

> Protesting Lonmin mineworkers in Rustenburg plan to defy government's warning and continue with their unprotected strike which has crippled the mining sector. "We have heard  Justice Minister Jeff Radebe is going to send his police here because he says our gatherings are illegal," said a worker addressing the protesters yesterday afternoon.
> 
> "You must know that on Monday you should be ready for Jeff Radebe and his police to come and do what they normally do to us." The man was one of several workers who stood up and addressed a thousand-strong crowd in Marikana at sunset.
> 
> *"When cows are being killed we hear the SPCA complaining about it, but because we are puppies, no one stands for us. He is coming to kill the animals," said the speaker.*
> 
> In response the crowd shouted "bring it on" in IsiZulu and Sotho.
> 
> Workers had gathered near the hill for progress reports on wage negotiations. This is the same hill where 34 of their colleagues were gunned down by police on August 16.
> ...


Source

The next election is going to be an interesting one   :Whistling:

----------


## Dave A

> We can never condone a situation where employees by threat of violence, damage to the employers property, assault and intimidation of non striking employees, preventing the employer from continueing his lawful activities such as trade etc, demand a salary increase.


Government has been condoning it for years already.

----------

ChrisNG53 (17-Sep-12)

----------


## IanF

The irony I would really love to see is a senior COSATU guy get fired and take them to the CCMA and win.

----------


## IanF

This is when I feel for the miners. 



> Lonmin will put its K4 shaft into care and maintenance and terminate a contract with Murray & Roberts, which supplies around 1200 staff, it said on Monday as a strike continued LINK


Then you also see this 



> Platinum miner repays R11690 on R1000 loan Link


So now some of them are without jobs plus they get ripped off by the loan sharks and lawyers. 
Why can't the government help with controlling the loan sharks by stopping garnishee orders. Then the workers would have a lot more take home pay.

----------

Dave A (17-Sep-12), tec0 (17-Sep-12)

----------


## Dave A

I was wondering how Lonmin was going to be able to afford any increases at all in negotiations. The Lonmin balance sheet was already considered fragile before the strike started, with question marks raised as to whether Lonmin could handle even a 1 week loss in production. 

It seems like Lonmin is aiming to solve the problem by canning their expansion plans. Say goodbye to job creation at Lonmin for the forseeable future...

----------


## tec0

> I was wondering how Lonmin was going to be able to afford any increases at all in negotiations. The Lonmin balance sheet was already considered fragile before the strike started, with question marks raised as to whether Lonmin could handle even a 1 week loss in production. 
> 
> It seems like Lonmin is aiming to solve the problem by canning their expansion plans. Say goodbye to job creation at Lonmin for the forseeable future...


The outcome was predictable but I am yet to see the fearless "youthful" x-politician?

----------


## adrianh

If you're talking about Malemmer; he got barred by the police from talking to the strikers. Police 1: Malemmer 0

----------

tec0 (17-Sep-12)

----------


## tec0

> If you're talking about Malemmer; he got barred by the police from talking to the strikers. Police 1: Malemmer 0


Saw that on the news....

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Government has been condoning it for years already.


Like in the Western Cape and when COSATU attacked DA demonstrators recently!!!!!

----------


## tec0

> Police stopped the former ANC Youth League president at the gates of Wonderkop stadium, where the workers had gathered to be briefed.
> 
> After a lengthy discussion, Malema drove off, escorted by about 10 police vans.
> 
> It was not immediately clear whether Malema would be able to visit the family of people who were injured by rubber bullets on Saturday, or if he would leave the area.
> 
> A police helicopter circled above, while police on foot patrol ran to points of entry to stop Malema if he made any turns. Source


I wonder why he wasnt allowed to talk to the strikers  :Confused:

----------


## adrianh

Because he does nothing other than stir $h1t

----------


## dfsa

Give this guy at least some credit. I can tell you guys one thing. Malema do have some guts that nobody else in this country have.

Malema quote of the Day when told he has 10 minutes to leave or get arrested: "You can arrest me, but you can not arrest my mind"

----------


## dfsa

> Because he does nothing other than stir $h1t


A question on this one: Why would you say he just stir !@#$

Anglo American take all South African gold, platinum and other raw minerals, they do not really put anything back into the economy, other than some huge payoffs. To top it all they actually slave labor the work force!!

Not sure how many people in this forum actually did spend some time mining under ground? What I can tell you is that it is shocking to pay the miners only R4500-00 to do this Daily life threatening work 6 Days a week for that miserable wage.

70% - 80% of the profits that are made in our mining industry is not going anywhere in the country, it simply leave our shores. At least they can do is profit share a little with the work force that create the profits.

This all make me think of the previous regime: When South Africa still supplied 80% of the global gold in the 60's-90's the main work force was imported from other African country's. They were payed next to nothing.

----------


## ChrisNG53

> A question on this one: Why would you say he just stir !@#$
> 
> Anglo American take all South African gold, platinum and other raw minerals, they do not really put anything back into the economy, other than some huge payoffs. To top it all they actually slave labor the work force!!
> 
> Not sure how many people in this forum actually did spend some time mining under ground? What I can tell you is that it is shocking to pay the miners only R4500-00 to do this Daily life threatening work 6 Days a week for that miserable wage.
> 
> 70% - 80% of the profits that are made in our mining industry is not going anywhere in the country, it simply leave our shores. At least they can do is profit share a little with the work force that create the profits.
> 
> This all make me think of the previous regime: When South Africa still supplied 80% of the global gold in the 60's-90's the main work force was imported from other African country's. They were payed next to nothing.


The reason is simple.  Malema is, and always has been, part of the problem.   The ANCYL was always part of government -- an alliance partner.  
Whatever is wrong with this country he shares responsibility for.   To now pretend that it is ONLY the fault of ANC leadership is hypocritical in the extreme.   
The guy is an opportunistic populist and will do anything and say anything that can get him power ... that he has now become addicted to.  Just have a look at the guy's belly.
It is a classic case of trying to "fool all of the people all of the time".
It is that simple.

----------


## tec0

> As South Africa's bloody and bitter mining strike drags on for a fifth week, Lonmin platinum mine in Marikana in the North West has announced that it's halting construction of a new shaft, putting 1200 people out of work. The strike that has stopped work at seven gold and platinum mines has spread to the chrome sector.
> 
> Expelled ANC Youth League President, Julius Malema is to hold a media briefing in Johannesburg today after police blocked him from addressing about 3000 strikers that had gathered at a stadium at the mine, yesterday.
> 
> While in Johannesburg, President Jacob Zuma called for a speedy resolution to the mining strikes. He told the 11th Cosatu elective national congress at Gallagher Estate in Midrand yesterday that the strikes had cost South Africa close to R4.4 billion in lost gold and platinum production this year.
> 
> *President Zuma says this year's work stoppages have subtracted nearly R3.1 billion from the national treasury. He has blamed poor living and working conditions of miners on the apartheid past and the failures of mining companies to honour a charter to improve the lives of miners.* 
> 
> Source


So then if this is still a problem then what did the ANC do these past years?

----------


## Dave A

R4.4 billion in lost production = R3.1 billion lost to the national treasury?

Why nationalise? On that basis government is getting most of the money anyway  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------

tec0 (18-Sep-12)

----------


## IMHO

Strike resolved, 22% increase. Do you guys think it is the end of it, or are we going to see n mine closure? Can Lonmin afford it? Can the rest of the industry afford it?

----------


## Blurock

> R4.4 billion in lost production = R3.1 billion lost to the national treasury?
> 
> Why nationalise? On that basis government is getting most of the money anyway


This sounds like easy money paid to government. Is that why they are not concerned in assisting and promoting value add industries and just allowing raw materials to be exported?

Imagine if only 50% of our gold and diamond exports were converted into jewellery before it was exported.  If we could transform 50% of our iron ore exports into products before being exported, the country would have an economic explosion. :Yes:

----------


## Justloadit

I think that Lonmin is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Their only solution was to give in. However, I will not be surprised that with in 2 years, Lonmin will shut operations down. Right now they have a debt to service, and having conceded will allow them to honour it, but it is not sustainable.

There is a large demand for Platinum for the catalytic convertors, however recently an announcement was made that a new low cost abundantly material, was just as effective. This will mean that the demand for platinum will drop, having an adverse effect on Platinum price.

This is not good, as the rest of the working population will expect similar unsustainable increases. At this rate, there will be no manufacturing sector in a a few years.

----------


## tec0

This was a victory for the people not politicians or unions. For years now unions claimed victories and yet there members where anything but happy. I foresee that unions will lose face in the coming months as more people will go for “go for broke strikes”. Win or lose I think the unions have to take a serious look at their capabilities and if the people still value them.

----------


## Blurock

So you kill 11 people (some of your own who tries to stop the mob violence), another 34 gets killed because of a wildcat strike that turned violent, and you get rewarded by a 22% increase.

I am not against the increase, I am against the system that allow these things to happen. Anarchy should never be rewarded, as it will only lead to more anarchy. Yet, the bosses should now also realise just how desperate the people have become and that the era of big bonuses and huge payouts to shareholders are over.

----------


## tec0

> So you kill 11 people (some of your own who tries to stop the mob violence), another 34 gets killed because of a wildcat strike that turned violent, and you get rewarded by a 22% increase.
> 
> I am not against the increase, I am against the system that allow these things to happen. Anarchy should never be rewarded, as it will only lead to more anarchy. Yet, the bosses should now also realise just how desperate the people have become and that the era of big bonuses and huge payouts to shareholders are over.


Ask yourself this question; If the Unions did there jobs and increases where rewarded more frequently would the outcome have been the same? 

I think not... I don't agree with the deaths or violence but there you go...

----------


## Dave A

COSATU and NUM are certainly sweating over the possible consequences.




> The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), the country's largest single trade union, which was not the principle worker representative in the talks that saw the conclusion of the deal, said the wildcat strike at Lonmin's vast facility northwest of Johannesburg and the resulting deal could prompt other miners to act without going through union-approved channels.
> 
> "The normal bargaining processes have been compromised," NUM general secretary Frans Baleni said.
> full story from M&G here


The last thing COSATU and NUM need is for workers to get the notion they don't them.

Lonmin shares have lost 61% of their value over the past year and 5.5% today against yesterday.

Government has authorised military deployment in Marikana and beyond until 31st January 2013.

I'd say the only people who're happy are the miners who got an increase. And who knows how long that will last (for a variety of reasons).

Marikana may yet become remembered for a lot more than a massacre in the years to come.

----------


## Blurock

Now we have more strikes and more demands. Even higher salaries demanded than in Marikana. A precedent has been set and it will be interesting how the government and mining will deal with this.

----------


## Dave A

A couple of weeks ago Carte Blanche had a segment titled Strike Season 2012. It was primarily about the transport and mining sector strikes going on at the time.

What I filed away for another day (and that day came yesterday) was the following snippets - and I ask you to pay close attention to Patrick Craven's views:




> The South African Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO, Neren Rau, says finding funds to pay increased wages will impact on other sectors of the economy.
> 
> Neren: "Businesses no longer have the capacity to absorb these higher costs, so they have no choice but to pass it on to the consumer." 
> 
> Otherwise it would be belly up for small businesses like this one [on screen], managed by Jo'burg-based transport specialist Johan Claassens, whose company has lost millions.
> 
> Johan Claassens (Managing director): "Your rent, electricity accounts, all needs to get paid. And unfortunately there is just no income. It is heartbreaking... that's all I can say."
> 
> Loane: "The four... five... six weeks of income lost during a strike takes three to four years to recove,r, based on the increase that you get. For employers it means lost production."
> ...





> Loane: "The uncurbed nature of our strikes this year is completely unprecedented in South African history. The strikes that we are seeing are seriously reducing the economy's long term growth potential. And, much more than that, just to put that into practical terms, it is reducing opportunities to emerge out of poverty." 
> 
> Neren: "We are rapidly moving towards a point of irreversible damage. Even from international investors, international spectators, we have even seen the credit rating agencies react fairly strongly to what is going on in South Africa right now."
> 
> Loane: "I have been in conference calls with investors in New York. Every one of them is looking at withdrawing investments from our mining sector." 
> 
> Patrick: "South Africa is still a very rich country, and particularly when we're talking about... especially when we're talking about the gold, the platinum and the coal. There will still be huge demands for these goods and if one investor pulls out, another one will step in in his place."
> 
> Loane: "To international investors who are critical suppliers to South Africa, it sends the worst possible message. It is so damaging to see no political leadership in the context of South Africa's biggest economic disaster in 20 years."


So yesterday Lonmin announced it's looking at job cuts. If you read the article, this isn't to try to achieve previous targets - it's a scramble to survive!

And when it comes to all those investors queueing up to plunder our riches, well Lonmin's share price tells the story.

So much for Mr. Craven's dinosaur unionist theories on the economic impact of strikes.

----------

Chrisjan B (01-Nov-12), desA (02-Nov-12)

----------


## IanF

Unionists are destructive once they have power, I remember in the 80s been shown all the closed steel mills along the river in Pittsburgh. There was just one operating. I was told the extreme example where there was an operator whose only job was to push a switch on at the beginning of the shift and then off at end of the shift. They wouldn't allow that to incorporated into another job.
Also the politicians mess it up there, they are making the postal service prefund retirement benifits for future employees! That is crazy

----------


## vieome

I agree that strikes are damaging and that unions can be dangerous, but I think the earnings of CEOs and high level management needs to taken in the question? The CEO of Lonmin earns about 2.5 million rand a month. If he was put on 1 million a month, Lonmin would have a spare 1.5 million that could give 1000 workers and an increase of 1500 a month. And if we look at the rest of high level earners there is no reason that the balance 9000 workers could not be given an increase. 

1500.00 is lunch Money for the CEO, but that is a months food for the lowest paid miner. Yes I agree that strikers can be unreasonable in their demands, 

And the loss that big business talks about, where does that come from? does that include the expense of having to pay the high earners huge amounts for no production? I understand that big business coporations are here to make a profit but at some stage a time has to come to reach a balance between taking and giving.

----------


## Dave A

> The CEO of Lonmin earns about 2.5 million rand a month.


Would you care to share how you arrived at that figure?
Should be easy - the top management's remuneration is public information. (A tip - make sure you read all the notes if you're going to claim it's what Ian Farmer "earned" in 2010/11).




> If he was put on 1 million a month, Lonmin would have a spare 1.5 million that could give 1000 workers and an increase of 1500 a month. And if we look at the rest of high level earners there is no reason that the balance 9000 workers could not be given an increase.


Why stop there? If top management worked for free, the rest of the staff could all get a 1.57% pay increase at no cost to the company. For those paid R12 000.00 per month, that translates to an increase of R188.40 each  :Cool: 




> And the loss that big business talks about, where does that come from? does that include the expense of having to pay the high earners huge amounts for no production?


Probably - along with all the other employees who weren't on strike, the cost of which is staggeringly more expensive than the cost of top management.

Tell you what - you go tell those employees that they're not getting paid while others are on strike. If you're really good maybe you can ask them to work for 14 months for free so that the company doesn't have to raise another 800 million USD from investors. It's probably going to be tough attracting funders when the best return in the past three years has been a staggering R1.68 per annum per R100 invested - (for the record, that's the only year in the last 3 that the company showed a profit, and the reason why the dividend was so high was because the company had the benefit of an accumulated tax loss). No wonder the share price keeps falling.

Yep - just fire the entire top management - replace them with folks who'll do the job for nothing, and I'm sure all the problems will be solved in no time.

Here's a final riddle to solve while we're about it:
You're digging a hole in the ground as efficiently as you can because you make R10 per ton of dirt you get out.
You stop digging for three months and earn nothing.
You then carry on digging the same way as you were before (after all, that's as efficient as you can get it).
How long does it take you to recover the income you lost during the three months you weren't digging the hole and get back to where you would have been if you had just carried on digging instead of taking a break?

----------

AndyD (01-Nov-12), vieome (02-Nov-12)

----------


## AndyD

> ....If top management worked for free, the rest of the staff could all get a 1.57% pay increase at no cost to the company. For those paid R12 000.00 per month, that translates to an increase of R188.40 each



That's R188.40 before tax, they wouldn't take that much home I'm afraid.  :Smile:

----------


## desA

Has anyone more information on the background of this Patrick Craven?

Me-thinks this trouble-maker deserves closer inspection.

----------


## Dave A

I'm not picking on Patrick Craven per se. I merely point to what he says because he is pretty representative of a particular outdated mindset (that unfortunately is very prevalent in the worker union environment).

I've always been impressed by Solidarity which seems to have a much better grip than most on the employer / employee codependancy relationship. And to be honest, I'm starting to get impressed with NUM of late too. There are clear signs that they're well aware that you can push too far and kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

----------


## vieome

All I am simply saying is that there must be some fairness, the fact is without the CEO the company can still mine, but without the team of miners they have ground to a halt. And I think investors should question the CEO as to why the strike was not prevented, when prevention could of avoided such huge loses.
The captain of the ship has to take responsibility for any mutany on his ship, he simply can not say, it is because of the ignorant people at the bottom not understanding the importance of transporting the load. When unions first started companies then introduced Human Resource management(Spies) to find and quell any ill feelings spreading amongst its labour. We have to see both sides of the story to balance the equation.

----------


## vieome

> .


The riddle for the hypothetical scenario
It is costing you 8R to dig the dirt

In Rands
Income             10


Expenses
Salaries              2(2 Managers)   
5R Wages          5(25 diggers @20cents each)
2R Expenses      1

Net profit           2

You stop digging for 3months 

Income  0

Less Expenses
Salaries                    R2
General Expense      R0.5
Net Loss                  2.5

Net Loss for 3 months 7.5

In 5 months you cover losses.
You increase wages and resume mining

In Rands
Income             10


Expenses
Salaries              2(2 Managers)   
5R Wages          5.06(23 diggers @22cents each(2miners killed in strike)
2R Expenses      1

Net profit           1.4

Scenario 2
You decrease Managers Salarie

In Rands
Income             10


Expenses
Salaries              1(2 Managers)   
5R Wages          5.06(23 diggers @22cents each(2miners killed in strike)
2R Expenses      1

Net profit           2.4

Of course these are just figures and we can play with them in anyway to tell the side of the story we want to justify. But the fact remains if the workers strike you run into losses, if the one manager strikes in the short term you increase your profit.  We can further the debate and say said company is already running at a loss and it will take them a longer time to recover and is losing investors. And R180 rand maybe nothing for some, but I know my maid and gardener will be more then grateful if I gave them an extra R180 a month, I understand the situation is more complex when the unions start controlling the herd and asking for unreasonable increases, or when the unions are actually the spark of the strike. But I guess just like how Patrick Craven Turns a blind eye to the losses a company makes during a strike, Companies are guilty too of turning a blind on that most important company asset the human machine.

----------


## Dave A

> All I am simply saying is that there must be some fairness, the fact is without the CEO the company can still mine, but without the team of miners they have ground to a halt. And I think investors should question the CEO as to why the strike was not prevented, when prevention could of avoided such huge loses.
> The captain of the ship has to take responsibility for any mutany on his ship, he simply can not say, it is because of the ignorant people at the bottom not understanding the importance of transporting the load. When unions first started companies then introduced Human Resource management(Spies) to find and quell any ill feelings spreading amongst its labour. We have to see both sides of the story to balance the equation.


I'm confused. Is the leader important or not?




> the fact is without the CEO the company can still mine


For how long?




> but without the team of miners they have ground to a halt.


Only because the company is prevented from taking up a very obvious solution.

Dare I say it? May as well... 
replace them with cheaper labour that is more than willing to work for the pay on offer.

To compare apples for apples - if 2000 workers are absent for one day, then our CEO has to be absent for 2000 days. And to keep this excercise pure let's be clear, you're not allowed to replace the CEO - whatever he/she normally does *simply is not done*.

Which is going to hurt everyone more?

----------

Chrisjan B (02-Nov-12)

----------


## vieome

> I'm confused. Is the leader important or not?


 Very Important, but at times we have to know wether said leader is best for company or not. Freeze the wages of the bottom give leader extra large bonus. If we can blame Presidents for state of country, why not CEO for state of mine. If a president argues that his failure as president is down to his subjects would you accept that? 




> Dare I say it? May as well... 
> replace them with cheaper labour that is more than willing to work for the pay on offer.


not a bad idea, a good CEO should remove the bad apples before they spoil the barrel



> To compare apples for apples - if 2000 workers are absent for one day, then our CEO has to be absent for 2000 days. And to keep this excercise pure let's be clear, you're not allowed to replace the CEO - whatever he/she normally does *simply is not done*.
> 
> Which is going to hurt everyone more?


 I think more an ecomonies of scale issue in the short run companies suffers without 2000 workers but not without CEO, but in the long run company will suffer without CEO.  dare I say it? May as well replace incompetent(company is making a loss) over paid management and with cheaper staff who are willing to do the job.  

The fact is I agree with what you saying, I agree with the fact that unions dont understand the nature of business. All I am saying is there should be some fair play and some of the responsibility for strike has to fall in the companies hands.

----------

Dave A (02-Nov-12)

----------


## Dave A

> dare I say it? May as well replace incompetent(company is making a loss) over paid management and with cheaper staff who are willing to do the job.


Fair comment  :Smile: 
EDIT: At least as long as your cheaper top management are able to turn the company back into profitability. You might actually have to spend *more* money to get the right person who is actually able to do the job. 

Think about it - When you're losing 200 million and your top management is costing you 10 million, the actual *cost* of top management is a very small part of the company's loss problem.

I agree top management's remuneration needs to be fair. The tricky part is defining what fair and unfair might be exactly.

I also agree this is a good example of an unreasonable practice: 



> Freeze the wages of the bottom give leader extra large bonus.


But that's definitely not applicable in the Lonmin case.

----------

vieome (02-Nov-12)

----------


## Blurock

I agree with vieome that CEO's earn far too much. There is the perception that we have to compete with what they could earn abroad. Well, the reality is that they do not live abroad. They live in South Africa where they pay just the same as all of us. Be realistic. It is not as if these jobs are available to pick and choose.

A CEO for a public company is a paid employee. The agency factor applies. It is not his business, so he can abandon ship as soon as the s#!t hits the fan. An entrepreneur puts his balls on the block. He/she will bite the bullet and will risk everything to save the company. The entrepreneur is entitled to be rewarded for risk and effort and earn more. The CEO is just a paid employee and should be rewarded for output, not input. NO CEO is worth R50 -R60 million p.a. They should not earn more than say R3m R4m p.a. (only if it is a really big company) and then earn HUGE bonuses as a % of profit as an incentive, but that kind of incentive should go down to staff level as well.

Too often the remuneration committees of big companies are loaded with directors who also sit on boards of other companies. They vote for massive increases for their pals who will do the same for them. You scratch my back, I scratch yours... 

This den of thieves attitude has filtered through to government owned institutions such as Eskom, Telkom, SAA and also government departments where everyone has an excuse to plunder the treasury. :Nono:

----------


## IMHO

Bit old, but I got this via e-mail today.




> Posted on September 5, 2012 by Arthur Mackay 
> 
> Amidst all the confusion after the shooting of 44 protesting miners at Lonmin’s Marikana platinum mine in South Africa, we should not lose sight of the astonishingly simple underlying issues.
> 
> We are told the workers are demanding that their wage be raised to R12,500 per month (about $1,500) but the workers claim their salary is already at this level. They say they are sub-contracted by a company owned by billionaire South African oligarch Cyril Ramaphosa. He only pays them R5,400 or less and pockets the rest paid out by Lonmin.
> 
> If this is so then agreeing to the workers’ demands would cost Lonmin nothing and the whole dispute is between the workers and Cyril Ramaphosa. Instead of saying this however, Lonmin has placed itself between the two and taken responsibility for negotiating a pay rise which no one has asked for. Doing this, Lonmin is placing Cyril Ramaphosa’s private interests above those of its common stockholders and is neglecting its fiduciary duties. It is also leaving itself open to litigation.
> 
> Cyril Ramaphosa in fact owns 9% of Lonmin but was paid out $304m in cash by the company in 2010 in a deal backed ultimately by Xstrata. By comparison common shareholders have received only $60m in dividends in the last two years and have incurred over $2.5bn of paper losses. What the workers are requesting is that Ramaphosa share with them about $18m which he is taking from their wages.
> ...

----------


## Dave A

That's the content that was on the page Marikana Truth (link was posted here). I see the website is currently just a parked domain with Easyspace.

I tried to help separate fact from questionable fiction here when it comes to some of the allegations.

----------


## IMHO

> I tried to help separate fact from questionable fiction here when it comes to some of the allegations.


I remember but did not go read it again. Just thought since it is Arthur Mackay that he will have his facts straight, as he is an analyst.

----------


## Dave A

The fact that the page/ website originally associated with the "article" has disappeared is a little troubling.

 :Hmmm:  Went on the prowl and found this on Moneyweb.




> There’s also that scurrilous email that’s gone viral – a Goebbels-like hatchet job which mixes the occasional half truth with piles of outrageous lies. Half a dozen emails arrived in my inbox asking me to investigate. Only minutes into fact checking it became obvious one of the few things this “Arthur Mackay” fellow got right was the spelling of Cyril’s surname. It’s largely unadulterated falsehoods.
> 
> ...
> 
> Published below is the hatchet job on Ramaphosa which has gone viral on the Internet. Hardly a single “fact” is true. The author “Arthur Mackay” and the website on which it supposedly appeared “marikana-truth.com” do not actually exist. The garbage is republished here so when some misinformed busy-body regurgitates its contents, you’ll know from whence it comes.


I'm delighted to note that I'd found this "Marikana Truth" article to be less than truthful a full week earlier than Moneyweb  :Big Grin: 

BTW - Who is Arthur Mackay? At the time I also researched Arthur Mackay to establish his credentials - and for a stock analyst... well, I couldn't find an online profile that fitted.

----------


## IMHO

Jip, another lesson learned! Thanks Dave.

----------


## Dave A

Five years ago today...

Has anything improved?

Reflecting back on the last five years, all I see is how abuse by those in power has increased.
And critical voices have become less vocal.
Including my own.

Food for thought.

----------

