Scott said anyone taking time off should be disciplined or sacked. How could they be? If the person says they're sick then that's that. You don't need a note for under a week. I asked for a day off to attend an interview when I was working. They refused as two others were off that day so I just rang in sick on the day of the interview. The boss had me in his office next day, threatening to suspend me and said I'd gone to the interview. I said "Yes I did but felt ill in the morning too! You prove otherwise" and he was speechless. Never suspended me.

 

If the extent of this "sickness" is gonna be as much as the CBI says, then you're damn right employees should have to PROVE it, because this one day that potentially a couple of million could take off "sick" is gonna end up costing the economy a fortune... Yeah, we can REALLY afford that right now as a country, cant we...? <_<

 

footy itself is nearly bareable, but its the pundits, examining the match, the supporters who are one step up from the missing link ... (god i bet fruit sellers do well on match days)... the package i hate

 

 

I find the likening of football fans to monkeys eating fruits offensive and stereotypical Rob. They're human beings after all and your comparison isn't nice at all. Yes some cause trouble and are loud-mouthed but some are very intelligent and come from all walks of life and professions. :)

Edited June 12, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

I find the likening of football fans to monkeys eating fruits offensive and stereotypical Rob.

 

yep...that was my intention, in this light hearted thread, and is no worse then tip suggesting all soap fans are 'sad'.

Time to get a bit more serious folks....

 

Here's another (and much more important) reason to dislike World Cup 2010...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_...oc_wcup_protest

 

Fukkin' SHAMEFUL treatment of the workers... No way would they have gotten away with doing that sort of sh!t to German WC Stewards in '06...... <_<

 

Shadows of the Apartheid regime anyone....?

Time to get a bit more serious folks....

 

Here's another (and much more important) reason to dislike World Cup 2010...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_...oc_wcup_protest

 

Fukkin' SHAMEFUL treatment of the workers... No way would they have gotten away with doing that sort of sh!t to German WC Stewards in '06...... <_<

 

Shadows of the Apartheid regime anyone....?

 

Thats quite horrific, and by the sounds of it they were peacefully protesting, and protesting for f***ing good reason. I'm going to assume these people are desperate for money, I think they should just not turn up.

 

good enough reason to boycott the world cup imo.

Thats quite horrific, and by the sounds of it they were peacefully protesting, and protesting for f***ing good reason. I'm going to assume these people are desperate for money, I think they should just not turn up.

 

good enough reason to boycott the world cup imo.

 

 

Totally, seeing as how people on BJ boycotted the Chinese Olympics for their abysmal human rights record, and, oh, didn't a similar "Police beating the crap out of peaceful protestors" incident happen in Beijing?? I rather think it did..... <_<

 

Yeah, great, this is (predominately) white SA cops beating up (predominately) poor, Black SA workers who are in LEGITIMATE protest against their employers for totally fukkin' them over wages.. And, the silence from fukkin' FIFA on this whole sorry episode is absolutely DEAFENING..... <_<

 

Also, funny how this story aint exactly making big headlines in the Media over here innit...? :thinking:

Shadows of the Apartheid regime anyone....?

 

 

Yeah, great, this is (predominately) white SA cops beating up (predominately) poor, Black SA workers who are in LEGITIMATE protest against their employers for totally fukkin' them over wages.. And, the silence from fukkin' FIFA on this whole sorry episode is absolutely DEAFENING..... <_<

 

Have you watched the Reuters news video? Go watch it and tell me how many white police officers you can see and next time don't make assumptions.

There's a link on the same page as the news story. I have been trying to find the ethnic make-up of the South African Police Force but I can't find any info.

I would welcome any South African member to correct this impression if it's wrong but it seems as though Grim is making something out of nothing here.

Sure the police have been heavy handed here but you tell me a single police force that has never done that.

Totally, seeing as how people on BJ boycotted the Chinese Olympics for their abysmal human rights record, and, oh, didn't a similar "Police beating the crap out of peaceful protestors" incident happen in Beijing?? I rather think it did..... <_<

 

Yeah, great, this is (predominately) white SA cops beating up (predominately) poor, Black SA workers who are in LEGITIMATE protest against their employers for totally fukkin' them over wages.. And, the silence from fukkin' FIFA on this whole sorry episode is absolutely DEAFENING..... <_<

 

Also, funny how this story aint exactly making big headlines in the Media over here innit...? :thinking:

 

Look we know you fukkin hate football. But making something out of something that is not there is getting a bit annoying. I mean have you seen the VT FFS?

 

Because if you had you would know the police were not white.

 

Besides, are you telling me you have not seen American, British, European, etc police troops not do the same thing?????

They are now getting cops to do security as the security stewards have quite rightly walked away.

 

Grebo, the fact they are mainly black doesnt changed the fact that the actions of the SA police are wrong.

 

TIP, just because American/European/British police would do the same thing, doesnt make it any more right. i'm sorry but that is no excuse for a peaceful protest (due to them being extremely underpaid) to be ending with the riot police with rubber bullets and tear gas, sums up what is wrong with the south african government.

TIP, just because American/European/British police would do the same thing, doesnt make it any more right. i'm sorry but that is no excuse for a peaceful protest (due to them being extremely underpaid) to be ending with the riot police with rubber bullets and tear gas, sums up what is wrong with the south african government.

I can think of other far more prominent things which also happen to be far more wrong with the South African government...like the persistent denial that AIDS has anything to do with HIV, that wearing a condom can do anything to stop it, that it can be cured by eating five fruit and vegetables a day (:mellow:), the continuing economic apartheid, I could go on for DAYS...the ANC really had their hands tied when the whites let them take charge.

I can think of other far more prominent things which also happen to be far more wrong with the South African government...like the persistent denial that AIDS has anything to do with HIV, that wearing a condom can do anything to stop it, that it can be cured by eating five fruit and vegetables a day (:mellow:), the continuing economic apartheid, I could go on for DAYS...the ANC really had their hands tied when the whites let them take charge.

 

i didnt phrase it right really, i guess i more meant 'backs up that the south african government is f***ed up'.

Grebo, the fact they are mainly black doesnt changed the fact that the actions of the SA police are wrong.

I never disputed that, more that Grim was trying to turn this into a race issue.

 

Of course the police were wrong to go in so heavily on what seemed to be a peaceful protest.

i didnt phrase it right really, i guess i more meant 'backs up that the south african government is f***ed up'.

 

Yes, but what do you expect. The World Cup should NEVER have been given to South Africa. But money talks, and bull$h!t walks (especially when it comes to FIFA); just as it will with 2018 when Russia get hosting rights for that World Cup.

 

South Africa has gone rapidly backwards since Mandela relinguished power, not helped by a President with anti Western World views.

 

The irony being I recall arguing this very point with Scott. But I guess Scott wants its both ways instead of blaming the fukking corrupt bully boy Jacob Zuma because he is a self proclaimed socialist (he was the former leader of the ANC Communist Party Youth League) who thinks homosexuals should be imprisoned saying that same-sex marriage was "a disgrace to the nation and to God": "When I was growing up, an ungqingili (a homosexual) would not have stood in front of me. I would knock him out.", and believes that Aids is God's punishment.

 

He was charged with rape in 2005, but was acquitted. In addition, he fought a long legal battle over allegations of racketeering and corruption, resulting from his financial advisor Schabir Shaik's conviction for corruption and fraud. On 6 April 2009, the National Prosecuting Authority decided to drop the charges citing political interference from the USA & the UK.

I dislike football intensely, not so much the game itself but the whole bollocks that surrounds it. The annoying drunk scum, the 'boy' talk about how much such-a-player is, how crap such-a-manager is and then there is the subject of those effing freeloader wags!

 

But that aside, every nation has a favorite sport and ours just happens to be football. $h!t happens eh?

Edited June 14, 201015 yr by ScottyEm

Yes, but what do you expect. The World Cup should NEVER have been given to South Africa. But money talks, and bull$h!t walks (especially when it comes to FIFA); just as it will with 2018 when Russia get hosting rights for that World Cup.

 

South Africa has gone rapidly backwards since Mandela relinguished power, not helped by a President with anti Western World views.

 

The irony being I recall arguing this very point with Scott. But I guess Scott wants its both ways instead of blaming the fukking corrupt bully boy Jacob Zuma because he is a self proclaimed socialist (he was the former leader of the ANC Communist Party Youth League) who thinks homosexuals should be imprisoned saying that same-sex marriage was "a disgrace to the nation and to God": "When I was growing up, an ungqingili (a homosexual) would not have stood in front of me. I would knock him out.", and believes that Aids is God's punishment.

 

He was charged with rape in 2005, but was acquitted. In addition, he fought a long legal battle over allegations of racketeering and corruption, resulting from his financial advisor Schabir Shaik's conviction for corruption and fraud. On 6 April 2009, the National Prosecuting Authority decided to drop the charges citing political interference from the USA & the UK.

I don't think you can really use 'socialist' as a charge against him, given Mandela and Mbeki were as well. Democratic socialism would actually have worked to make South Africa a better place were it not for the IMF and the former white rulers destroying the ANC's mission statement in exchange for giving them power...

I don't think you can really use 'socialist' as a charge against him, given Mandela and Mbeki were as well. Democratic socialism would actually have worked to make South Africa a better place were it not for the IMF and the former white rulers destroying the ANC's mission statement in exchange for giving them power...

 

I think (yet again) you are showing a failure to grasp rudimentary Economics.

 

In very simplistic terms South Africa's Economy was getting better and stronger after the end of Apartheid (1994) & the rise of the ANC, until 2000, when South Africa (clearly inspired by Zimbabwe) introduced in 2000 (against the advice of Nelson Mandela who left office in 1999) Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) program launched by the South African government to redress the inequalities of Apartheid by giving previously disadvantaged groups (black Africans, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese).

 

In 2008 The Economist said "BEE has created a brain drain, where the qualified white expertise is leaving (left the country) for areas where they would not be discriminated against. Since BEE discriminates based on race, it is inherently a racist policy. Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi is a strong critic of BEE and supports this view. He has stated that "the government's reckless implementation of the affirmative action policy is forcing many white people to leave the country, creating a skills shortage crisis". Archbishop Desmond Tutu has warned that South Africa is sitting on a "powder keg" because millions are living in "dehumanising poverty" stating that Black Economic Empowerment only serves an elite few.

 

According to the Economic Indices South Africa ranked 48th in 2008 ......... falling from 25th in 2000. It ranked 43rd in 1994...

The World Cup going to RUSSIA?!?!?! Whaaaat? Really? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think (yet again) you are showing a failure to grasp rudimentary Economics.

 

In very simplistic terms South Africa's Economy was getting better and stronger after the end of Apartheid (1994) & the rise of the ANC, until 2000, when South Africa (clearly inspired by Zimbabwe) introduced in 2000 (against the advice of Nelson Mandela who left office in 1999) Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) program launched by the South African government to redress the inequalities of Apartheid by giving previously disadvantaged groups (black Africans, Coloureds, Indians and Chinese).

 

In 2008 The Economist said "BEE has created a brain drain, where the qualified white expertise is leaving (left the country) for areas where they would not be discriminated against. Since BEE discriminates based on race, it is inherently a racist policy. Inkatha Freedom Party leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi is a strong critic of BEE and supports this view. He has stated that "the government's reckless implementation of the affirmative action policy is forcing many white people to leave the country, creating a skills shortage crisis". Archbishop Desmond Tutu has warned that South Africa is sitting on a "powder keg" because millions are living in "dehumanising poverty" stating that Black Economic Empowerment only serves an elite few.

 

According to the Economic Indices South Africa ranked 48th in 2008 ......... falling from 25th in 2000. It ranked 43rd in 1994...

The BEE is not a socialist policy (you said it yourself. BEE only serves an elite few - therefore how can it be a socialist policy?), but one of affirmative action - one which I don't agree with, but understand the reasoning behind. The ANC were given control under the proviso that they convert to Thatcherite economics, intensifying the economic control into the hands of the overwhelmingly white economy. Put simply, South Africa's economy was getting stronger, but things were getting worse for the average black citizen! Here are just a few facts for you:

• Since 1994, the year the ANC took power, the number of people living on less than $1 a day DOUBLED, from 2 million to 4 million by 2006.
• Between 1991 and 2002, the unemployment rate for black South Africans more than foubled, from 23% to 48%.
• Of South Africa's 35 million black citizens, only five thousand earn more than $60,000 a year. The number of whites in that income bracket is twenty times higher, and many earn far more than that amount. (Makes a mockery of your brain drain and 'oh, we're being SO discriminated against!' argument, eh? :rolleyes:)
• The ANC government built 1.8 million homes. In the meantime, 2 million lost their homes.
• Close to 1 million people have been evicted from farms in the first decade of ANC control.
• Such evictions have led to a 50% increase in the number of shack dwellers. By 2006, more than one in four South Africans lived in shacks located in informal shanty towns, many without running water or electricity.

The fact that the millions are living in dehumanising poverty is a part of my argument that democratic socialism would have been good for South Africa - proper redistributive measures along the lines of those in Venezuela which have vastly improved the quality of life there (although Chavez' international critics seem far too concerned with his 'fascist', er, public vote over whether or not to scrap limited presidential terms), rather than a pitiful affirmative action polic which has had barely any effect and concentrated the economic power of the nation even moreso into the hands of the white elite.

 

This came about because:

• The ANC were forced to give independence to the Central Bank of South Africa during negotiations with the National Party (still strongly influenced by the National Party and run by Chris Stals, who ran it under apartheid)
• The ANC had to keep the white Finance Minister under apartheid, Derek Keyes, in his post
• The ANC had to effectively scrap its Freedom Charter by the IMF which promised: land for the landless; living wages and shorter hours of work; and free and compulsory education blind to colour, race and nationality (amongst other things).
• The negotiators forced clauses into the new constitution which protected all private property, making land reform virtually impossible
• The negotiators forced the ANC to sign to the GATT (the precursor to the WTO) preventing job creation for the unemployed as hundreds of factories had to close due to the GATT's forbidding auto plant and textile factory subsidisation; as a result of the succession to the WTO the new government was virtually powerless to distribute free AIDS drugs to the townships due to the disgraceful intellectual property rights commitment which comes part and parcel with WTO membership
• The apartheid government left the ANC government unable to build more and larger houses for the poor and bring free electricity to the townships by leaving them a massive debt - forcing the government to spend most of the budget serving the debt
• The ANC were unable to quantitatively ease the lost money supply in the 1998 financial crisis, hitting the black population ridiculously hard, as the apartheid-era controlled Central Bank refused to allow them to print money (despite the fact that this isn't an inflationary policy as money had been LOST from the system!)
• The ANC are unable to provide free water for all due to the World Bank's domination of the South African economy with its self-proclaimed 'Knowledge Bank' of in-country economists, researchers and trainers who were making private-sector partnerships the service norm, cutting off the majority of the population from easy water supplies
• The ANC were unable to impose currency controls to guard against speculative attacks on the rand, due to the $850 million IMF deal signed conveniently before their election by the outgoing National Party
• The ANC have been unable to raise the minimum wage to even slightly close the apartheid income gap, as the IMF deal forced them to promise 'wage restraint'

A violation of any of these commitments would have been regarded as 'evidence of a dangerous national untrustworthiness, a lack of commitment to "reform", an absence of a "rules-based system" - all of which [would] lead to currency crashes, aid cuts and capital flight'. Essentially, if this is what passes for 'rudimentary economic knowledge', I would quite like to know what the AIM of economic growth is supposed to be? Because it certainly doesn't seem to be helping many of the 35 million blacks in South Africa.

The World Cup going to RUSSIA?!?!?! Whaaaat? Really? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oil dollars get nation bids quite far these days...contrast that with what will undoubtedly be sold as the 'austerity World Cup' under the new government :lol:

The BEE is not a socialist policy (you said it yourself. BEE only serves an elite few - therefore how can it be a socialist policy?), but one of affirmative action - one which I don't agree with, but understand the reasoning behind. The ANC were given control under the proviso that they convert to Thatcherite economics, intensifying the economic control into the hands of the overwhelmingly white economy. Put simply, South Africa's economy was getting stronger, but things were getting worse for the average black citizen! Here are just a few facts for you:

• Since 1994, the year the ANC took power, the number of people living on less than $1 a day DOUBLED, from 2 million to 4 million by 2006.
• Between 1991 and 2002, the unemployment rate for black South Africans more than foubled, from 23% to 48%.
• Of South Africa's 35 million black citizens, only five thousand earn more than $60,000 a year. The number of whites in that income bracket is twenty times higher, and many earn far more than that amount. (Makes a mockery of your brain drain and 'oh, we're being SO discriminated against!' argument, eh? :rolleyes:)
• The ANC government built 1.8 million homes. In the meantime, 2 million lost their homes.
• Close to 1 million people have been evicted from farms in the first decade of ANC control.
• Such evictions have led to a 50% increase in the number of shack dwellers. By 2006, more than one in four South Africans lived in shacks located in informal shanty towns, many without running water or electricity.

The fact that the millions are living in dehumanising poverty is a part of my argument that democratic socialism would have been good for South Africa - proper redistributive measures along the lines of those in Venezuela which have vastly improved the quality of life there (although Chavez' international critics seem far too concerned with his 'fascist', er, public vote over whether or not to scrap limited presidential terms), rather than a pitiful affirmative action polic which has had barely any effect and concentrated the economic power of the nation even moreso into the hands of the white elite.

 

This came about because:

• The ANC were forced to give independence to the Central Bank of South Africa during negotiations with the National Party (still strongly influenced by the National Party and run by Chris Stals, who ran it under apartheid)
• The ANC had to keep the white Finance Minister under apartheid, Derek Keyes, in his post
• The ANC had to effectively scrap its Freedom Charter by the IMF which promised: land for the landless; living wages and shorter hours of work; and free and compulsory education blind to colour, race and nationality (amongst other things).
• The negotiators forced clauses into the new constitution which protected all private property, making land reform virtually impossible
• The negotiators forced the ANC to sign to the GATT (the precursor to the WTO) preventing job creation for the unemployed as hundreds of factories had to close due to the GATT's forbidding auto plant and textile factory subsidisation; as a result of the succession to the WTO the new government was virtually powerless to distribute free AIDS drugs to the townships due to the disgraceful intellectual property rights commitment which comes part and parcel with WTO membership
• The apartheid government left the ANC government unable to build more and larger houses for the poor and bring free electricity to the townships by leaving them a massive debt - forcing the government to spend most of the budget serving the debt
• The ANC were unable to quantitatively ease the lost money supply in the 1998 financial crisis, hitting the black population ridiculously hard, as the apartheid-era controlled Central Bank refused to allow them to print money (despite the fact that this isn't an inflationary policy as money had been LOST from the system!)
• The ANC are unable to provide free water for all due to the World Bank's domination of the South African economy with its self-proclaimed 'Knowledge Bank' of in-country economists, researchers and trainers who were making private-sector partnerships the service norm, cutting off the majority of the population from easy water supplies
• The ANC were unable to impose currency controls to guard against speculative attacks on the rand, due to the $850 million IMF deal signed conveniently before their election by the outgoing National Party
• The ANC have been unable to raise the minimum wage to even slightly close the apartheid income gap, as the IMF deal forced them to promise 'wage restraint'

A violation of any of these commitments would have been regarded as 'evidence of a dangerous national untrustworthiness, a lack of commitment to "reform", an absence of a "rules-based system" - all of which [would] lead to currency crashes, aid cuts and capital flight'. Essentially, if this is what passes for 'rudimentary economic knowledge', I would quite like to know what the AIM of economic growth is supposed to be? Because it certainly doesn't seem to be helping many of the 35 million blacks in South Africa.

 

Exactly, you can hardly call yourself a "Socialist" if your economic policies only benefit the elite... That's not "Socialism", that's the OTHER kind of "ism", the one with the prefix "Capital" at the beginning... Tyron, I would say your post somewhat shoots Richard down in flames... It's clear to me that the ANC were prevented from putting into place REAL radical Democratic/Socialist change by the IMF and by the former rulers of South Africa... The BEE is very much a blunt instrument to try and solve a problem which needs a more scalpel-like precision... And the facts are, Jacob Zuma is no more a "Socialist" than Robert Maxwell, Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin.... If he ever had Socialist prinicples he almost certainly sold them out long ago....

 

Rich, point to me a post in which I actually support or defend Jacob Zuma, go on, I dare you....