Tuesday, 20 November 2007

The Springbok, his wife and Oeloff.

It seems South Africa's predilection for Moral turpitude finds its apogee within the legal profession. Take this fellow. Oeloff De Meyer. Mr De Meyer represents former Springbok James Dalton. James Dalton's wife, Andrea claims that he has assaulted her on numerous occasions since their marriage in 2003, including a recent drink fueled murder attempt involving a knife, a bathtub, a drowning attempt and a sequence of unsavory assault details.

In light of accusations of serial spousal abuse and the allegation of attempted murder, Dalton's lawyer, Mr. De Meyer has this pronouncement on his clients predicament.

"As far as I'm concerned, discussions will continue to resolve this little problem."

Only in South Africa (or possible Zimbabwe) would a officer of the Court feel it appropriate to describe the serial abuse of a woman (by a hefty rugby player with an established reputation for violent conduct) as 'a little problem.'

My sympathies rest with this gentleman's wife who must surely consider her position in light of this insight into his views on wife battery.

Nice one Oeloff. Conforming to the South African stereotype that we know and love.

Tuesday, 4 September 2007

Stealing the dead

September 2007. Soweto.

Two carjackers see a hearse parked outside a home in the City of Mofolo. They steal the hearse, complete with coffin in the rear. They use the vehicle to drive to a bar where they commence a drinking spree. Later that evening they run out of petrol. They go into the nearest bar to ask the locals to help them push the hearse to a gas station, explaining that the corpse is a relative and that they are on their way to bury him. They do not explain why they are drunk and out of petrol at night in Soweto. They are then arrested.

Is this moral turpitude, or is this a symptom of something even more sinister.

Friday, 17 August 2007

Robert Mugabe backwards reads Trebor Ebagum

Yesterday, 16 August 2007, the Southern African Development community conference met in Lusaka. The leaders of the Southern African Countries were all present. Each leader was introduced to polite applause. One leader, and only one leader was given a standing ovation. Thunderous applause. A leader amongst leaders. The recipient of this ovation smiled benignly at his admirers before taking up his seat next to Thabo Mbeki.

Here in the western world we seek to vilify Mr Mugabe - Uncle Bob as his hungry but affectionate subjects refer to him. We accuse him of all kinds of failings and imply his record in respect of - prejudice, selfishness, megalomania, greed, thuggishness, buffoonery, delusion and above all corruption whose consequences has diminished the lives of millions - is an indication of his unsavory character.
Western press even seek to impugn the reputation of Africa's powerful leader, Thabo MBeki, for his admiration of Mr Mugabe and his achievements.

And yet. The truth is – Mr Mugabe remains a hero to the vast majority of Black Africans. Always has been.

How then did recognition of a man’s achievements become polarised along racial lines?

Are we against Mugabe because he is Black, or because he is an evil man performing evil deeds. And if he is an evil man performing evil deeds, why does he enjoy the unqualified support of the Black African leaders. Either we are wrong, or they are all wrong.

Is Truth subject to a color consideration?

Is the anti Mugabe/Mbeki axis of evil further evidence of the iron bond of racist moral turpitude that runs through the veins of those blinded by their own prejudice.

There is an ocean of difference between the opinions of those leaders clapping Mr Mugabe and the vast majority of Western opinion. One obvious reason for this difference in interpretation is color. How many white folk are Pro Mugabe?

The Mugabe support phenomenon is an illustration of the consequences of mitigating logic by color. His support is delineated entirely by color. Not on a logical interpretation of his policies and conduct.

Mugabe is therefore a paragon of racist logic. An extension of the moral turpitude that is ultimately responsible for allowing Mugabe to continue unchecked and that continues to infuse South Africans with the hazy delusion that reality is what you believe it to be. Irrespective of factual consideration. Truth is after all what you choose to believe.

One truth for Mr Mbeki is that many hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans that were starving outside Uncle Bob's mansions will now be starving in South Africa.

Perhaps Mr Mbeki will ask uncle Bob for advice on how to deal with them.

Tuesday, 3 July 2007

Do they know its Christmas

Here's the story of a Johannesburg romance and how Kotie Pike spent her Christmas.

This romance begins in 2006 in the Northern suburbs of Johannesburg at the ‘Mean Greenies’ stables where Martin Pike, 39, meets Gida Marshall,40. Martin’s wife Kotie introduces them at the stable where their children ride. Martin is a hard drinking two packs a day smoking, commercial lawyer. He is married to Kotie, 41, with whom he has two children, aged 9 and 14. Gida is married to Dayne with whom she has 3 young children.

The affair between Martin and Gida becomes public in early July shortly after Dayne and Gida returned from a family holiday in Kenya. Kotie phoned Dayne to tell him that Gida was 'fucking' her husband. Dayne confronts Gida with this information. Gida admits to the affair, expresses remorse and undertakes to stop seeing Martin. Gida and Dayne agree to try to save their marriage.

In August it becomes apparent to Dayne that the foul stench of deceit is in the air. He confronts Martin at MEAN GREENIES and requests that Martin desist in the matter of copulating with his wife. Martin does not agree. Fisticuffs ensue.

Dayne tries to save his marriage through September and October. On 30th October, Kotie, Martin, Gida and Dayne all meet up to discuss the situation. Martin tells Dayne he will 'back off'. Both marriages it seems are now back on track.

During November it becomes obvious this agreement has ended in failure. Evidently the love struck couple cannot resist each other. It becomes apparent to the two respective rejected spouses that the affair continues. Gida goads Martin towards a choice between her or Kotie. Martin proceeds divorcing Kotie with astonishing haste. He moves out of the matrimonial home, and takes up temporary residence at The Mean Greenies.

By December 15th his divorce is finalized. Kotie is extremely upset, perceiving an injustice in having her man stolen from her. Kotie is awarded the matrimonial home in the settlement where she remains with the children.

Martin in the meanwhile has shown commendable foresight and guile in feeding Kotie information regarding the qualities of his friend, divorce lawyer Terry Fine. Martin has intimated to Kotie that Terry is a terrific lawyer who is going to represent Gida in her divorce and 'take Dayne to the cleaners'. Unwittingly Kotie relays this information to Dayne who promptly hires Terry himself, not knowing of the relationship between Martin and Terry. This feed of misinformation via Kotie illustrates Martins impressive insight into his wife’s mind set.

With one obstacle to their love removed, Gida’s divorce proceedings commence. Gida continues living with Dayne at their matrimonial home with the children and meeting Martin whenever possible. The build up to Christmas is a tense time for all concerned. Dayne meets regularly with his lawyer, Mr Fine, who assures him that he has nothing to worry about in the divorce settlement, and indicates the settlement that he is putting forward is 'virtually certain' of success.

Christmas day dawns. Martin has arranged to take the children away for ten days of holiday, leaving directly after lunch with their Mother.

Martin arrives at Kotie's house for Xmas lunch with Kotie and the children. It is obvious that Martin has experienced an insight bypass at this time, becoming very suddenly completely unaware of how Kotie's mind would be working. How else do we interpret the act of taking the children away from the Mother for a ten day holiday starting right after Christmas lunch.

After Martin and the chldren leave, Kotie, left at home alone becomes increasingly depressed. She calls her maid into the bedroom. She asks the maid to take good care of her children.

Kotie then puts a gun to her head and pulls the trigger. She does not manage a clean shot. It takes 24 hours for her life force to drain completely. Her two children have a Christmas to remember.

This bloody mess on the matrimonial bed does not however dampen the rampant lovers ardor. Ten days after Kotie’s death Martin moves back into the former matrimonial home which belongs to Kotie, forming a part of her estate. Gida, who is following legal advice and remaining in her matrimonial home, is now spending weekends with Martin at his former matrimonial home.

They are consummating their love in the same bed that Kotie shot herself in. We must assume they have responsibly cleared away any sundry brain debris that might otherwise appear at an inopportune moment in the love making process and cast a possible dampener on proceedings.

Clearly Martin must have felt it to be in his children’s best interests to avoid any period of grieving for a lost Mother by replacing her without delay. When Gida moves in with Martin and gives up her car in her own divorce settlement, they agree that Gida should use Koties car. Kotie has no further need for it. And Gida has no problem driving it.

In the contest between Gida and Kotie, it now appears we have a clear winner. Gida has the kids, the house, the car and the man. And she is pretty too. Kotie has..... well. The bullet. 'The gods they rolled a dice with hands as cold as ice.'

Evidently moral turpitude relies on a comprehensive lack of insight into karmic balance.

Months go by, it’s June 2007 and Gida’s divorce hearing takes place. Dayne’s lawyer, Terry Fine, does a stand up job of doing exactly what Martin told Kotie he would do. Take Dayne to the cleaners. In the UK Courts Mr. Fine's conduct might well merit investigation by the Law Society examining any number of ethical offenses associated with this abrogation of professional office, including, it might be alleged, breaching client confidentiality. It remains to be seen whether the moral turpitude that characterizes the participants in this romance extends to the legal process in South Africa. Will Mr Fine be required to explain himself?

All of us here at the Mean Greenies hope that the five children in this tale will not be affected by their parents decisions.

Monday, 25 June 2007

Easy Money

Its like this if you are down and out and looking for easy money. In South Africa they have copper and aluminium buried in the ground. And in China and India they pay good money for this. So all you have to do is go and find these lines where they bury the copper and aluminium and dig them up. Then you strip off that black plastic stuff they wrap around it, and before you know it you have the money from your hard earned mining enterprise.

Another good way is where you knock over these big wooden poles. They carry lots of this stuff. Sometimes though the black cable does a big bite and so people can die from doing this, but mostly its OK if you have the tools to cut away the cable.

Its great work for the unemployed in South Africa, and its catching. Last year SA officials claim over 100 miles of cable was stolen in this way, plunging entire suburbs into darkness.

One mile of cable contains copper and aluminium with a resale scrap value of R10,000. Replacing one mile of electric pylon and cable costs around R5,000,000. And so as this example illustrates, everyones a winner.

Another example of the fruits of good governance. Work for all.

Tuesday, 19 June 2007


Is a cleansing tradition for the widowed. Any woman whose husband dies must submit to sex with one of his male relatives.

In African culture this tradition enables the woman to be free (cleansed) of the spirit of her departed spouse.

Failure to comply prevents the departed’s soul from being released.

Is this not institutionalized rape by any other name?