Sorry this might derail the thread. But the rural safety issue is a huge issue. And it is and will always be a very emotional issue too. So I do have a bit of sympathy for the other side of the debate too.
The rural safety thing is one of the reasons that might push me over the edge and let me leave the country.
Nobody in my neighbourhood in town where I live has been murdered - I have been living there for 15 years. But in the same time our neighbours have been murdered on their farm next to our farm.
I’m not afraid when I go to sleep in my house in town. And I dont wake up every few hours worried. When I’m on the farm I am afraid when I go to sleep. And I wake up constantly through the night.
My family’s graves are on our farm from the mid 1800’s - but I dont even go there for weekends anymore. I wish my kids could have the growing up rural experience that I had - but the risk for me is too great. As long as I live in RSA it will be in town…
I also grew up on a farm when it already started to be a dodgy experience, we had multiple break ins (with us in the house), luckily never more than people just trying to steal, but that gave me some PTSD that I am still working through today, I will never ever live on a farm again, just laying in your bed praying for time to pass so that you can see the morning sun is a awful experience.
Yes tell that to France, and to them farmers and look at the murder rates in SA… With a few exceptions, it is mostly a thing we can assign to some cultures and mostly not to others…
Some of my parents friends on a farm in the same area were abducted also a few years ago - amazing that they got through that alive. The point is - I only know a handful of people that live rural and even in that small number the impact has been huge.
It’s like the taxi fiasco in CT, the rule of law does not apply to them. Funny thing is it’s a national Law by guess who, the current Gov…. But no, reasons, lawlessness and the culture of taxi owners and them criminal bosses….
with reference to the “AdR reveals startling details about Medupi” the only line that triggered the “article” is the bottom line. It is an excerpt from chapter 19 of AdR’s book (at least they do mention it is from the book) - and there is NOTHING new in what they posted, so why post months old information titled like new information now? The most innocent interpretation is likely that they are able to serve you advertisements and/or increase their site hits to be able to improve chances of others buying their advertising service.
How the media deals with this is interesting. If you listen to her speak (1, 2, 3 ) there are five things that she seems to repeat as the crux of the matter.
she received a death threat because she is involved with investigations of corruption at Eskom.
the death threat is possibly initiated by a superior at Eskom.
she is not receiving support from Eskom/Hawks.
she is treated different from another case where the COO was threatened and his case resolved in days.
she reported corruption to AdR and he ignored her/took credit for her investigation findings.
Majority of the media headlines mainly appeared to run with 1 and 2. I bet if 4 and 5 made the bulk of the headline it will reduce the chances of many consumers taking an interest in the story. If 4 and 5 are included in the story it might influence how we will judge the credibility of 1-3. Can we believe her on 1+2 because we know there is nothing good in Eskom and at the same time discount 4+5 because we know Jan and AdR were the last remaining true fighters of corruption and incompetence? Maybe the EFF will still pick up on 4 and 5 and take up her cause on 1-3?
So, what is excluded from articles are just as important as what is included. The media heavily informs our perception of the world and the fast turnover of mobile consumption of content means that there is very little time/space to include much detail/analysis which makes it near impossible to have a closer to realistic picture of what is happening and why. There are more avenues to the R400 000 hitman story than 1-5 but by the time that is properly researched the frenzy for new content would have moved somewhere else.
Headlines can be powerful. Case in point: a post with a video title “anti-white racism” leads to basically everyone be blind to TTT saying very clearly:
…and turn the thread somewhere else (that else not being a trivial matter at all).
Electricity minister shares his report card – one year of the energy action plan
On Sunday, Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa updated South Africans on the progress of the energy action plan Cabinet kicked off a year ago. It’s an under-the-hood account of attempts to cut load shedding and to bring new power projects onto the grid. For example, you can see that Eskom’s Marshall Plan with business is slowly bearing fruit. Medupi Unit 4 is set to go live earlier than planned; an audit of power stations is being completed; and unplanned outages are lower now. It’s imperfect, it should never have come to this, and our country still suffers. Still, this is the first time I’ve seen this degree of transparency or regular reporting. Every Sunday morning, come sun, rain or snow, Ramokgopa holds a state-of-the-system briefing. He doesn’t grouch or grumble (like Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe or Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan), he just lays it all out for us, warts and all.
If Eskom must supply power, keep the network up to scratch and fix the transformer or they can be taken to court. One Gov department (Eskom) taken to task by a 2nd Gov Department (Courts), both paid for by the SA Taxpayer, the legal costs, and all that.
It is in the Constitution if memory serves. @plonkster , correct? Right to electricity or whatnot.
Now if the clients/users don’t pay their electricity bills, Eskom is not allowed to cut off their supply. They have no chance to recoup that cost. Find other means … like what, pray tell?
If Eskom can’t recoup costs from non-paying users, then it falls back on the rest of SA Tax Payers to pay for that.
No, I don’t think it is there. Well, it gets complex and I am not a lawyer.
The constitution does outline who does what, so national government does X, local government distribute Y, etc. But electricity is not a human right as outlined in the Bill of Rights.
There was a court case about it a while ago, where the landlord was in arrears but the tenants were paying, but there they very specifically argued that their dignity is being infringed upon, and a right to dignity actually is in the constitution.
I think the same angle would probably work here as well. They had electricity, there lives have come to depend on it, now it has been taken away and it really screws with other things, including a right to education and so forth. They will likely succeed, if previous cases are anything to go by.
No, that would not necessarily follow. In that case, Eskom is not infringing on your dignity. You are (by not paying). A right to something only means that government is not allowed to interfere with the natural access to that resource, and natural access to electricity requires a reasonable expectation of payment for the service.
But by neglecting to fix the transformer, they are (likely) infringing several rights. Ask a lawyer.
In such cases, Eskom sometimes takes over distribution and cuts out the municipality, to get payment PLUS provide the much-needed electricity.
Again, IANAL. My gut feeling is indeed that you should first determine who is guilty (of not doing their job) and then go after them. Which means rate payers should go after their municipality first.
Could also be that this way is just faster. Get a court judgement that forces the thieving middle-man out of the equation. Because that is what this is.
I’ve been guilty of something like this. Not proud to say. Due to a screwup and not understanding the billing of a property I used to co-own, I caused my tenant’s electricity price to go up a lot (because Cape Town takes arrears on property tax from electricity sales). It was my fault, not that of CoCT. In my case, I made right with the tenant. In this case, I would expect the municipality (as the failing middle man) to do the same.
:
