The South African Magistrate

While I’ve been trawling the Pollard Review I’ve also been listening to the South African Magistrate in the Oscar Pistorius case.

What a windbag!

He’s charged with deciding whether to grant bail or not.

And yet he sounds like he’s summing up at the end of a trial.

I guess he’s milking his moment in the international limelight.

If I was a South African I’d be embarrassed by that Magistrate.

He’s still going…………What a prat!

Edit: 2 hours after he began, we finally find out the Pistorius has been granted bail. 1 million Rand (£73,500)

82 Comments

Filed under News

82 responses to “The South African Magistrate

  1. annie

    Sabre said: You don’t seem to know your arse from your elbow :-)

    Ditto :-)

    • Hey Annie, thanks for the kind comments, you’re very welcome to comment over at Chez Incubus anytime! Take care over in Greece, avoid the fascist Golden Dawn scum and their allies the Police if you can, or alternatively, ‘introduce them to the pavement’ in solidarity with some Greek comrades.;]

  2. annie

    Sabre said: Going for a cheap Greek holiday? taking advantage of the pulverised Greek economy?Perhaps you are going to rescue the Greeks from the banksters?

    Guess!

    And don’t you worry your pretty little head, I know my anarchist from my Marxist :-)

  3. annie

    Sabre said: Annie, a typical twendy webel enthusiastically following the herd without bothering to enquire as to the route let alone the destination.

    Sabre, you know nothing about me…

    • Annie ‘get you (metaphorical Gramscian) gun!
      I find it surprising that CJD is tolerated here at all, given the obvious similarities in his ‘Weltanschauung’ to Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian fascist mass-murderer- in terms of his prolific spew of ‘objective ideas’ (largely subjectively arrived at, and at odds with the entire body of modern thought in the Western world), his paranoid horror of ‘Cultural Marxism’ (Feminism, anti-racism, gay rights) and his quest to protect his ‘precious bodily fluids’ from contamination by the ‘irrational’ sub-humanity that is the rest of us. It’s self-evident that this somewhat fragile ego seeks to create a utopian ‘clean white world’, purified of any of the ‘problems’ he alone has determined exists. Should he fail to persuade us of his ‘global mission’ to save us from ‘poofterisation’, women’s rights and multi-culturalism, his isolated, bloated and compensatory intellect may just go into meltdown…

      One day I fear that we might hear of him making the news headlines-

      ‘And this button-down, Oxford-cloth psycho might just snap, and then stalk from office to office with an Armalite AR-10 carbine gas-powered semi-automatic weapon, pumping round after round into colleagues and co-workers.’

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        You really are a delusional stool-peddler.

        So very much that’s wrong with your logic and propensity to veer off into abstract divergences at a rate of knots, I don’t know where to begin.

        What is most concerning is that the propaganda has been so effective on you, the politically correct reengineering of society, that you’re utterly unaware that the vast majority of people on the planet are either opposed to what you consider a ‘beneficial’ revision of social or cultural order, and/or totally unaffected by them, facing far bigger issues. Given the choice between changing society to allow a hundred people out of a hundred to have freedom of thought seems far more reasonable than spending millions legislating so that 60 out of 100 people can be actively offended because the highest aim of democracy is that 2 out of 100 people who wanted to be totally different to the 98 others want society and culture rebuilt so that they can feel like they’re just like everyone else. The latter is an exercise in futility and the sowing of social discord, utterly worthless, and the smartest gays are the ones who realise that its just fine for the majority of people to find them perverse because most people will leave them alone regardless, until they start forcibly thrusting their lifestyle and agenda in defiance and disregard of the prevailing order, and then people get pissed. You have an unsupportable assumption of mass support for the agendic jiggery pokery of social engineering, where the international evidence suggests rising impatience and simmering unrest on a massive scale, and the crumbling power of political correctness to make ordinary people afraid to say what they really think.

        You then exacerbate the simmering cauldron by mindlessly tossing rhetoric so as to label people who think far more carefully about their views than you do as ‘nazis’ or ‘fascists’ or drawing comparisons between them and mass murderers. Not intelligent. True to form. Predictable. But obtuse.

        Fortunately there are still some people who can tell the difference between equality and preferential elevation of politicised minority agendas, between social empowerment and social engineering, between politically active and politically correct, between personal liberty and militant agendism, between women’s rights and man-hating activism, between necessity and bloody-mindedness, between need and exploitation, between reasonable and unreasonable, between truth and fiction.

        That you think I’m alone in this is laughable. That you think that endless social engineering and continual activist agendism on the part of minority collectives of fringe deviants and insidious lobbies is good for society is frighteningly myopic, and I suspect you’re in for a rude awakening. The rise of conservatism always follows the revelation of the destructiveness of the licence of liberalism, socially and culturally speaking.

      • annie

        Hello Inc :-)

        You really do make me smile and I adore your blog. I’m on the road right now, travelling to Greece (eventually) and so don’t really have the time to contribute to comments, but I will keep READING your blog – please don’t ever stop!

        Vive La Revolution ;-)

        Annie

      • Sabre

        Annie,
        Going for a cheap Greek holiday? taking advantage of the pulverised Greek economy?

        Perhaps you are going to rescue the Greeks from the banksters?

        Which is it, hypocrite or self deluded revolutionary who can’t distinguish Marx from Chomsky or Gramsci, at least you seem to have a vague idea as to who Che was ” a revolutionary of a certain time and place “.

        With friends like you the Greeks don’t need any more enemies.

      • Meh! ‘Actually the rise of conservatism always follows a financial crisis brought about by those very same forces, the same conservatism that masquerades as the ‘Natural Order’ and abuses children beneath the cloak of power- the very same power you fully embrace, the same power that if it could, would abolish democracy, just as it tried to resist its rise in the first place because it went against the ‘Natural Order’.

        You think you are a rationalist, yet you take the fruit of the Enlightenment into your rotten hands and try to put it in the service of a reactionary Militant Conservatism – not unlike Breivik the killer- “I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, morality, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now)’.

        In essence you reject the democratic choices of the majority of people in the Western World- for Gay marriage, equal rights, anti-racism. Fundamentally you are an anti-democrat, and justify your authoritarian position by explaining that all of this is the product of ‘social engineering’ – your code for ‘brain-washing’ (not the product of common sense, human decency, history and dignity) and can therefore be dismissed within the perfect closed system that is your ‘thought’.

        I suspect that you hail from the US, judging by your syntax, and like most Americans have only a shallow understanding of European history or political development (America having gone ‘from barbarism to decadence, without the intermediary stage of civilisation’) – but you belong to that breed of rightist that would deny the Holocaust in order to rehabilitate the ideologies of the extreme right, that blames victims for their own persecution, that women are only good for ‘church, kitchen and children’ and that has a tin drum in place of a heart. You and your sort are the ones who want ‘thrust your lifestyle and agenda’ on to the rest of us- by force if necessary. You may not be an ideological nazi, or a fascist, but you are certainly heir to the Freikorps, Action Francaise, Ezra Pound, Evola, Schmitt, Junger, the Black Hundreds and all those other bottom-feeding conservative fantasist scum that celebrate destruction and genocidal murder as the epitome of the ‘natural order’ and a ‘healthy, red-blooded masculinity’- and probably all because you have a tiny weiner and don’t know how to enjoy it- except perhaps, to spray your poisonous effluence over the rest of us, hoping we’ll see the light and join in your merry dance of death…

        Incidentally:
        ‘stool-peddler’- Having read a great deal of history, I can testify that this term of abuse would have sat very comfortably within the vocabulary of Adolf Hitler- antiquated, vulgar, with a hint of smug, self-satisfied amusement at your own ‘cleverness’ in word-play.Very Sad indeed.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        The rise of conservatism follows… Waffle… Financial crisis… Waffle… Very same forces… You support then… Hysteria… You’ll end democracy.

        Oh horseshizzle, Cyber Twat. I’m not talking a couple of centuries of the socialist/capitalist dialectic. I’m talking anthropology, sociology, ideology, history. To put it bluntly the demise of all the major civilisations came when they got so relatively wealthy, so relaxed, so lulled into a false sense of security and so corrupt – with gross immorality being a hallmark of their corruption – that the ‘enlightened’ and the ruling class had nothing to do except wonder what to f##k and how often. They became degenerate. And then they violently demised. Macrocosm, microcosm, the same story repeats itself.

        When a large society faces large problems and the country can waste time and money on reengineering society so that deviants with friends up… Sorry… In high places can feel normal… Sorry… Force everyone who naturally disapproves and rejects them to be affronted and then intimidated by law, so that they can place the issue of their fu#kery selection as a celebrated milestone in the culture, there are major issues not far behind. Its nothing more than a grossly indulgent, grossly irrelevant, perversity manifesting “let them eat cake.”

        Incidentally, unless you’re obsessing over manufactured social darwinism, natural order is a reference to biology. Homosexuality is a biological non-starter, a perversion, a deviance, an unsustainable nonsense, a side show waiting to die out, not be elevated and promoted pointlessly in social groups as a pinnacle of enlightenment or achievement of civilisation. You’d do well to stop trying to masquerade homosexuality as a social class instead of deviant pastime.

        And I don’t think I am ‘a rationalist’, since most rationalist are the peddlars of wholly irrational quasi-religious philosophical prepositions. I think I’m rational, and value objectivity, and information carefully considered in an intelligent fashion.

        Our ongoing references to ‘Breivik’ are infantile and idiotic, much like yourself. Ditto for Hitler.

        You accuse me of being anti-democracy. You are a lying oik of the most insidious variety. I have proved the opposite. You claim that I reject the democratic choices of the majority of people in the Western world. You lie. In making that statement you deviously and illegitimately attribute gay marriage with ‘equal rights’ and ‘anti-racism.’ Pure deceit and propaganda. The majority of the western world have never once taken a vote on gay marriage. But even worse, the majority of the western world have not been properly advised on how depraved, dangerous and deceptive the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ is. They’ve been presented a whitewash. Democracy does not exist if two conditions are in operation: (i) the public vote has been denied and the public is given what it is told is good for it by leaders whose complicity in anti-democratic agendism cannot be ruled out and (ii) issues presented for public vote are fabricated, propagandised and lied about in order to illegitimately contrive favour. Equal right have been voted for and fought for by the majority… Based on natural states of humanity being equal… Male and female, black and white, all genetically determined. A psychological defect giving rise to an impassioned affection for biologically deviant sexuality is not the same as a biological gender or a genetic race, any more than zoophiles can claim extraordinary rights for bestiality, or sado-masochists can claim tax rebates for acts of body mutilation. To reorganise society around sexual deviancy based entirely on carefully devised propaganda is nothing short of lunacy.

        You then attempt a deft switch in the argument by shifting from thenclaim that the democratic majority want to promote the gay agenda, to appealing to the idea that giving in to the gay agenda is the right thing to do for the sake of humanity and kindness. You dishonest toerag. You claim to be for democracy, yet you change your arguments to try to manipulate your way around a prevailing objection. You support democracy-defying agendas based on utterly fringe miniscule demographics of committed sexual deviants of a broad spectrum of psychological and moral perversion, you support politically corrupt leaders telling democratic majorities that they know best and functioning independently of the people, and you support and promote massive efforts at propaganda devised to deceive and disarm society as a whole from resisting an irrelevent agenda which possesses inordinate power.

        In this country there is not a single gay person who is not free to be gay. Personal liberty is paramount. But those people make choices in the culture, the society, the social order and need to learn to function in the context of the consequences of those choices. Being personally free to f##k whatever does not translate into group rights to promote the possibilities of f##king whatever, to sell it in schools, to alter ages of consent, to legislate for what others can think or say, to cover up for criminal deviants, to commit gross indecency on the streets every time ‘Pride’ comes through town, to reengineer the language, the culture or the law. Demographically speaking Hindus have more rights to reengineering British society and culture and law than the entire collective of sexual deviants.

        As for the ‘you’re clearly American’, you’re clearly a f##kwit.

        Holocaust denier? F##kwit!

        Women are only…? You’re a f##kwit!

        You know absolutely jack all. You’re trying to impress by drumming up all kinds of lying slurs and associations. You’re dangerously dishonest. And propagandically deceptive. A mindlessly laughable shadow of a social revolutionary in a chaotic Quixotic delusional parody of intelligent life.

        Oh and stool-peddler, my Hitler-obsessed little social parasite, was simply a polite way of saying you’ve been writing little else than unadulterated, factually impoverished, subjectivised, irrational and materially unsupportable shyte.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        I suspect that Incubus would have a complete brain meltdown if it were to step out from behind mindless rhetoric and bandied insinuations, and paused to consider the scale and hypocrisy of sexual deviance liberally scattered around the highest levels of leadership in the third reich. Perhaps then he’d stop using the Nazi leadership as examples of the repression of poor ‘normal’ gays and instead as the epitome of the kind of ruthless psycopathy inherent within the ranks of the sexually perverse.

      • Ha ha ho ho! Who rattled your cage eh!? Ah, the historical fall and rise of empires and civilisations…all very ‘Myth of the Twentieth Century’- all very nineteenth century thinking, but who is to blame for this terminal decline of Great Civilisations? Is it perchance a particular ethnic group? Or has there been a centuries-long secret Gay Cabal at work, from Ancient Babylon, all the way up til today? Perhaps, Clamidia J Bollocker, the decline and fall of your precious ideal through ‘buggery’ is all part of the ‘Natural Order’ eh? Ever consider that? and are you, like the Valiant White Knight, going to stem this terrible cyclical decline of decadence and depravity?
        I think you’re part of it, with all that dirty, filthy effing and blinding- ‘Objective’ or just plain objectionable?- most readers here know the answer to that!
        What I particularly enjoy is how much of your squalid mind and your time you waste replying to me, and that you’re sooo easy to wind-up, like a lickle-ickle tin-soldier, click, click and off you go! Highly entertaining, you slimy gobbet of reactionary superciliousness! Lolz!!!

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      And yet…

  4. annie

    Sabre said: Cyber Che? Are you implying that Incubus agrees with Clarence re Homosexuality, or merely displaying your ignorance of Che Guevara’s views on Homosexuality which he viewed as a manifestation of western liberal capitalist decadence.

    No, from what I’ve read on Inc’s blog, I doubt very much he finds anything agreeable about Clarence. As far as my liking for Clarence’s sarcastic, equally ignorant, Cyber Che dig, it was the implication of the ‘cyber revolutionary’ that made me smile. Which, I believe, is the whole point of blogs such as his, set up to expose and dismantle the institutions that are collaborating, explicitly or not, the abuse of innocents and protecting their abusers ie the BBC, biased newspapers, government, church etc.

    However, you are correct, I haven’t studied Che Guevara who was, quite obviously, a revolutionary of a certain time and place – I’m more an Antonio Gramsci kinda gal.

    • Sabre

      The Cultural Hegemony still rests with the bourgeoisie.
      Abortion, legalisation of homosexuality, reduction of the age of consent to 16 for homosexuals and legalisation of buggery of 16 year old girls, mass immigration and all the other progress, has been delivered by the capitalist neo liberal globalists of the LibLabCon party.
      All three factions of the aforementioned party are the servants and place men of the press barons and the banksters.

      All of the ‘progressive’ policies are designed to fragment and immobilise the proles as well as drive down the cost of the labour.

      The bourgeoisie have out-Gramscied the Gramscians.

  5. Legion

    This should explain everything, Clarence; Your criticisms are like a raindrop in the ocean of my bliss.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Then you won’t be slightly bothered by my complete ignorance of your YouTube link. I can’t be bothered with people too intellectually lazy to be anything more than abstract, glib or slapstick in their responses, never presenting arguments and reason, only YouTube comedy or music clips, or bleeding Lolcatz.

  6. annie

    intellectual midgets! intellectual midgets! Now you are belittling the midgets!? How VERY dare you!

    You really do enjoy this. Bye, Bye :-)

    • Sabre

      He was actually describing you, your assumption that achondroplasiacs of superior intelligence were the target rather illustrates the original point.

      How does one belittle a midget, they are little :-)

      • annie

        Yes, I’m aware of who he was describing. It was my feeble attempt at humour and irony. Sorry it went over your head :-(

  7. Clarence J Boddicker

    And more topical informational fraud from the BBC today who’ve been dishonestly and suggestively working wonders for the embarrassed and vengeful SA police force by linking the suspicious and inexplicable resurrection of nearly three year old insinuations involving a Pistorius, and the unprosecuted charges over an RTA which resulted in a fatality, with the case in hand… In spite of having interviews with parties in SA who rebuked Auntie for wrongfully attempting to connect nonexistent dots. Certainly seems like a Pistorius pissed offius someone with some serious power. This is turning into farce.

  8. paul

    Clarence or whatever your real name is I bet you thought o j Simpson and lance Armstrong were also telling the truth.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Not remotely. So what? Yet again you are judging a not especially complex matter on the basis of gossip and hearsay at an early stage, and you’ve contributed to a hysterical throng of uninformed bandwagon critics who’ve profiled a man and written a narrative which thus far doesn’t match the publicly available evidence. More stereotypes for the sake of intrigue.

      • Legion

        We want you to benefit from our love since we have virtually met, Clarence. We have lots to give and you should bring your blunt sidearm, Sabre, so we can demonstrate our love in the form of vigorous dance and play, there shall be more arms and legs than Vishnu. Lots of Love, Clarence, lots of love.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        If you ever feel like translating that abstract bollocks into meaningful English, do let me know. I’m gripped with anticipation.

    • Sabre

      Oscar Pretorius may be guilty, he may be innocent ( of the charges laid against him). Should he not be presumed innocent? Perhaps he should face a fair trial with the evidence examined and cross examined ?

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        Exactly. In just 24 hours the mainstream media, tabloid and credible, has attempted to not only connect the mysterious resurrection of dismissed charges against Oscar’s brother with the Oscar case, but has also reported that Oscar smashed Reeva’s head in with a cricket bat. If this case had legs, sources in SA judiciary, media and or police would not need to be hemhorraging gossip, rumour and irrelevent association to the world’s media, and the world’s media would not need to run it. Obscura is going on. The question du jour is ‘pourquoi?’

        We have so much going on, which is being relegated to fourth and fifth page on the newsstands, this is the most convenient distraction I’ve ever seen and look…. Oddly… Miraculously… By letting the hysterical left weave a narrative about domestic abuse into this, it is getting more than equal coverage with the most serious serial abuse cases. Coincidence? Or pragmatic over-exploitation to the point of distraction?

  9. annie

    Incubusblog, you make me laugh (although your gravatar is a bit freaky!)

    • Legion

      We like Incubus….

      • Legion

        …..and approve.

      • annie

        I like him and his blog too! Hell, I even like Clarence’s pet name for him, ‘Cyber Che’; it’s got a certain revolutionary ring to it ;-) And, man, does this beautiful isle need a cyber revolution to get shot of all these sick dinosaurs!

      • Sabre

        @annie,
        Cyber Che? Are you implying that Incubus agrees with Clarence re Homosexuality, or merely displaying your ignorance of Che Guevara’s views on Homosexuality which he viewed as a manifestation of western liberal capitalist decadence.

      • Sabre

        Annie, a typical twendy webel enthusiastically following the herd without bothering to enquire as to the route let alone the destination.

  10. annie

    Another case of control and dominance in the Catholic Church, and another indication that people who hate gay people are usually repressed gay people:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accused-inappropriate

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      You’re connecting dots with yet more grotesquely manipulated stereotypes.

      On planet earth the most people who hate (gay lobby’s word for ‘dissaprove of, dislike, oppose, reject, criticise’) gays are perfectly straight people who do not believe that homosexuality is normal, healthy, moral or sound. Stop dealing in emotive propaganda.

      • annie

        On planet earth, you are a dinosaur, an old fossil, a dodo… buried beneath your own sad, stereotypical, emotive bunkum – kinda like the hypocrites in the Catholic Church! You need to get out more ;-)

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        Bollocks. Utter bollocks. You’re insincere, brainwashed, unthinking in your recital of agendised propaganda, lazy in your use of patently untrue false generalisms and utterly dishonest. If you represent ‘progress’ with your liberal use of outright falsehood to sell the agendas of deviants and social engineers, then I don’t want it. Your idea of ‘modernity’ is strangely synonymous with complete informational fraud.

  11. annie

    Is your name really Clarence Boddiker? Like from RoboCop?

    “A murderous, weasely criminal with a snidy, nasal voice, an utter disregard for life and a particular hatred for the police, Clarence J. Boddicker is the guy in Old Detroit. He has assembled a capable bunch of thugs for protection and enforcement and has allied himself firmly with many powerful people, including a certain number two guy at OCP. If you need to get hold of something, if you need something taken care of, or if you need something shifted, Clarence is your man. Just make sure your will’s up to date before you make the call.
    His only real weakness is his sense of self preservation, which borders on cowardice. When the odds are stacked against him, Clarence will say anything to spare his life.”

    How unfortunate :-(

    • Clarence IS the Overmind, Clarence IS the future, Clarence knows ALL, bow down to the Clarence, for his logic is unassailable, infallible, nay, divine. All hail Clarence, heil Clarence! Heil Clarence!… “How like a God”.

      Nah, he’s just a social darwinist, who thinks he’s an Hegelian dialectician, whereas in reality he’s actually an online algorythmic persona…Hence the objectivobabble and the uncontrollable verbal diarrhea.

      ‘Open the pod bay doors, please, HAL. Open the pod bay doors, please, HAL. Hello, HAL. Do you read me? Hello, HAL. Do you read me? Do you read me, HAL? ‘

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Yeah, and there you go… You concoct an entire profile based on a pseudonym chosen at random and then believe your own bull.

  12. annie

    “You copy pasted and paraphrased objectively presented statements of mine out of the context”

    Objective? You don’t know the meaning of the word. I copy and pasted from your hysterical rant to point out how you, consciously or unconsciously, dehumanized Reeva by refusing to even mention her by name. I used the link to The Sun to point out how delusional you were for believing she was being portrayed as a “naive, angelic woman who suffered silently at the hands of a monster…”

    “This just reveals the way that we sexualise and objectify women,” says Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism project. “But it’s also about titillation and the pornification of female victims. The portrayal of them as sex objects prevents people from seeing this as a crime against a human being.”
    “The result of such dehumanisation, says John Jewell, of Cardiff University’s school of journalism, media and cultural studies, is that this ceases to be the story of a woman’s death.”
    http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storyCode=6320686#.USkNrqXwmSp

    “I’m surprised so many Sun readers are so surprised by the paper’s portrayal of women.”

    Yeah! Wot are those guys like! (nudge nudge, wink wink)

    I repeated the Steenkamp family statement given after Pistorius’ bail announcement, which stated that all they wanted was ‘truth and justice’. Muted and dignified under the circumstances and the opposite of cheering and whoops of the Pistorius’.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Annie,

      Know exactly what objective means. It means dealing with matters that don’t affect you impartially, honestly, transparently, without emotionalism, without trying to steer arguments by personalisation or projection, being fair-minded and handling evidence with neutral bias and an absence of pre-conceived narratives, ideological aims or sugar-coating.

      I also know the meaning of the word ‘dictionary’… You should buy one. It would be a start.

      Curious. You lambast me for not mentioning Reeva’ s name. Yet it does not bother you that your portrayal of her is entirely out of character with the facts. She was not a feeble downtrodden domestic abuse victim, she was a strong, intelligent, calculating, fame seeking swimsuit model who had no qualms and apparently no deterrent to scream the odds with Oscar, yet could turn up every day as a nearly nude celebrity and show no signs at all of trauma.

      You have also chosen in your argument to overtly humanise her family and dehumanise his family. Double standard, prejudicial, propagandic.

      Regards your posting the Sun link, you posted it abstractly and it doesn’t say what you say it says when read in the context of the hysterical rants like yours that populate the comments.

      There are three ways to portray Reeva in relation to the incident in the public arena. Two are wrong, one is right. First, as an angel, role model for downtrodden women everywhere, posterchild for women murdered by a monstrous calculating domestic abuser. Second, as a self-objectifying frequently barely dressed attention seeking media player killed by a characteristically similar male opposite in a crime of passion, implication being that she cultivated her own demise. Third, as a female celebrity victim of an unexplained and controversial shooting, who did not fit any known profile of an abused and downtrodden victim of systematic abuse at the hands of an undisputed male killer who does not have a credible motive nor proven form, who denies charges of murder and is awaiting due process, subject to a questionable police investigation of a crime scene over which the interpretation of facts is open to debate.

      I submit that the latter is the only intelligent approach. All three could result in aquittal or conviction, but only one stands a chance at arriving at the verdict for the right reasons. Only one belongs in a court. But the problem with celebrity trials is that media attention usually results in the former two being invited to duke it out in court and make a shambles of due process in a media circus. Just ask the dogs who fingered the McConn’s.

      As for the Steenkamp family, they will get their day in court and they can contribute supporting evidence if they want. But their emotional state doesn’t belong swaying a court to make decisions trying to please them. Their daughter will always have been wrongfully killed, and Oscar Pistorius will have always killed her. Everyone has to live with that, both guilt and blame. But why it happened, the question of deliberacy is very much in question. Meanwhile the Pistorius family are also victims, they also have a much loved child, they’re also human, and they too have given their solemn statements of their and Oscar’s sorrow, regret and deep sadness. At this time, in the absence of further evidence, the only right thing to do is accept that at face value.

      • annie

        Clarence,
        “Know exactly what objective means. It means dealing with matters that don’t affect you impartially, honestly, transparently, without emotionalism, without trying to steer arguments by personalisation or projection, being fair-minded and handling evidence with neutral bias and an absence of pre-conceived narratives, ideological aims or sugar-coating.”

        I suggest you go back and read your previous ‘subjective’ hysterical rant re Oscar and the ‘object’ in your initial comments. It’s not new and it’s not clever, and it is THAT I find offensive and despicable.

        If I had the time and the inclination to go through your guff, point by point, I would. Unfortunately, I don’t. And I suspect, anyway, that you thrive on confrontation. So, I’ve decided I’m not gong to feed it. This blog is too important to be sidetracked by prejudiced nit-wits like you. Have a nice life and I mean that sincerely.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        Prejudiced? You really are a delusional piece of work. If attempting fairness in a sea of harpies and their pet handbags screaming hysterical feminist profiling and prejudging a legal case before its been tried based on nothing but presumptions and subjectivised fictional projections, then you’re damn right I’m prejudiced, not to mention down the rabbit hole and squarely in Wonderland, surrounded by redefined words, inverted values and doublespeak.
        Its become quite clear that the most intelligent response you can muster is to abstractly parrot my words back to me and somehow believe they’ll be just as potent in your hands. You’re writing cheques you just can’t cash. No surprise then that you can find time to post meaningless waffle and hysterical indignance but none to actually respond rationally, objectively and meaningfully to perfectly valid points.

        I’m afraid that I’m from a school of thinking which feels that claiming offence and indignance as an excuse for checking out of reasoned debate is for intellectual midgets. You and your demonically-monikered tag-team chum suit each other in that regard. Its not new. Its definitely not clever. But it was bleeding predictable.

  13. Clarence J Boddicker

    Incidentally Annie, what you’ve just done is an example of dishonest manipulation. You copy pasted and paraphrased objectively presented statements of mine out of the context in which I placed them and reinserted them into your own context in order to sell lazy readers on a narrative or implication that you invented which bears little to no resemblence to the original post.

    • cantankerous

      Clarence you are beyond offensive.
      “But the grey areas of provocation and common sense are rarely discussed.” So I must have lacked common sense and provoked him.
      I don’t regard my ex as a monster just a sad idiot with an alcohol problem that I am well rid of.
      I honestly can’t be bothered to argue with the rest, it just doesn’t make any sense to me. Regarding the contamination of the crime scene, this was cited as one of the reasons to move the first investigating officer off the case.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        Fair enough, Cantankerous.

        The reason I can write objectively is because I’m not remotely bothered about accusations of being ‘beyond offensive.’ It’s a purely subjective standard. I rarely argue it in spite of every entitlement to find you equally offensive because it goes nowhere. It becomes a war of who took subjective offence and how strongly they want to react.

        What will remain if we take away the choice to take offence or not, are objective discussions that cut through political correctness (agendised ignorant politeness). I never disputed your experience. But it is yours. It is not a universal rule by which we assume insinuations and allegations to be correct.

        I have a close friend (female) who was the victim of the toxic combination of a violent alcoholic father and a complete dead-loss of a mother, two hugely problematic and misunderstood people whodidn’t belong in rrelationships with anyone. I have another friend (male) who is the victim of a psychologically deranged, spendaholic flake of a money-grabbing wife who is serially spreading provable lies about their relationship in every common court of public opinion she can muster, including scandalous accusations of domestic abuse. She’s a liar. Fact. But according to so many, its very very wrong for me to say that. Another friend of mine, who fits the profile of a testosterone fuelled gym addicted hard man, was arrested for rape. He went through two weeks of hell before police discovered the witnesses and character witnesses who gave them enough information and text messages and voicemails to prove that she set him up because she didn’t feel she was getting enough of his attention.

        See. My experiences are different, and they tell me that black and white simplicity and carefully crafted sexist stereotyped profiles of nasty male offenders is, simply, hogwash.

        Incidentally, a disgraced looking compromised police force claiming that a corrupt officer is being replaced for ‘compromising the crime scene’ is a police force trying to cover its ass and admitting that its case has fallen to bits and proved frivolous, while leaving the implication that it is only a technicality on which the accused will go free.

        If I remember righlty the McConn’s accused ‘PortoPlod’ and Sr Amaral of contaminating the crime scene and it got the perpetrators off… But PortoPlod went along with it too, to cover up police compromise. I still want to know who bribed the dogs… Objective evidence doesn’t lie, but mere speculation, hysterical sterotyping, assumption and attempts to interpret evidence around interesting and unusual narratives delivered by either side ends up overlooking real evidence and obscuring truth.

        Oscar could be guilty. But most people will have been proven right in their presumptions not because of good intelligent detective work, rather because of lazy, ignorant assumptions and erroneous thinking.

    • john carey

      Clarence J Boddicker what happened? what made you the person that you are? what floats your boat?

  14. john carey

    I bet Clarence J Boddiicker argues with his mirror

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      The process is called ‘dialectic’ and it is the means by which we process information, form conclusions and rationalise intelligently.

      • john carey

        Clarence J Boddicker you remind of the chap in VIZ comic called LODGIC – complete c..t

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        JC

        So what?

        You think subjectivised irrationality, thought control, social engineering and informational ignorance are virtuous.

        You quote a cultural reference from VIZ and you think I’m going to be wowed and swayed by your perspective?

  15. annie

    Clarence J Boddicker says:

    “If he wanted rid of the latest, why not dump her…”

    “If he was ‘abusing’ her then why didn’t she tell anyone, why didn’t she leave, and why didn’t shewait till he was asleep”

    “If he was planning her murder for weeks..”

    “If he was ‘abusing’ her then why didn’t she tell anyone,”

    “And if Oscar wants to murder his bird and make it look like an accident, why not shoot her in the head in bed once…”

    “Now… Strong, attractive, famous female model. Successful law student who chose one life over another, one career over another. Who knew how to handle herself around men…”

    “SHE/HER/SOME ATTENTION SEEKING COW”, Mr Boddicker, had a NAME! REEVA STEENKAMP! You never ONCE mention it… talk about ‘social engineering’!

    AND

    “WHat has been painted is a picture of a naive, angelic woman who suffered silently at the hands of a monster…”

    Are you delusional! http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/02/15/suns-front-cover-reporting-reeva-steenkamp-shooting-prompts-angry-response

    REEVA’s family are conducting themselves with dignity, they just want truth and justice. Let’s hope they get it.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Annie, screaming hysterically and over-emphasising appeals to emotion has no place in forming objective evidential conclusions. She does have a name. So does he. You paint her in innocence, and him in guilt. You prove this by invoking her family, appealing emotionally on their behalf, implying that justice for them is condemnation for him. Does ‘he’ not have a family too? Or are they all monsters not worthy of consideration?

      You can happily go back and insert her name in every statement or question, by all means, if you see it as an oversight on my part. It won’t add an iota, change the evidence, or alter the validity of the points raised.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      And what the hell did your ‘delusion’ comment accompanied by an irrelevant link have to do with anything. Talk about abstract. Why do I care if the Sun ran Reeva’s picture in the context she chose most often to publicise herself? I’m surprised so many Sun readers are so surprised by the paper’s portrayal of women. The article told me nothing not already reported – and debated – on the BBC. Other than that yet another British MP is prepared to tweet rash accusations and unproven libels in exchange for the opportunity to showboat on a bandwagon.

  16. cantankerous

    Clarence you’re forgetting that his personal charisma and fairytale life somewhat clouds the issue. Celebrity changes everything he has been lauded as a superhero when he is a human being with a ruthless streak and a long documented hot temper. It’s not a case of moving onto the next girlfriend it’s about control and dominance.

    • Clarence J Boddicker

      Control and dominance might be the convenient argument used by psychobabblers to explain why rape and child abuse have nothing to do with sexuality or sexual desire, or to downplay the malignant psychological sickness involved in s&m, or to minimise the public impression that the lunatics are alive and well and living outside the asylum…

      But shooting four rounds rapidly through a door in the darkness of night and then calling the paramedics while in a state of extreme distress does not have the vaguest air of ‘control and dominance’ and instead speaks volumes about a man who clearly was fearful that his control and dominance was so diminished as to be incapable of even defending himself. As I said, the prosecution are attempting, in my opinion, to marry elements of two mutually exclusive profiles. The first is of a long planned homicide with breadcrumbs of alibi ddeliberately dropped as cover. The second is at best the profile of a crime of passion or opportunistic impulse. And in the middle of all that is a suspension of reason the effect of which is to attempt a prosecution without demonstrating a credible motive.

      Most of what is circulating about Oscar revolves around the presumptions made in the feminist guidebook ‘101 Evil Things You Can Safely Assume All Men Are Doing To All Women.’ I quote from page 127. “If police attend a domestic disturbance it inevitably means an evil man is violently, near-homicidally, abusing a woman and it is only a matter of time before he kills someone.”

      Yet… We’re told that the most unspoken domestic crime is that of women assaulting men.

      WHat has been painted is a picture of a naive, angelic woman who suffered silently at the hands of a monster. Pistorius may have a chip on his shoulder, but he is a survivor mentality who has fought hard for everything he has. When has he ever had control and dominance. Have you ever watched a legless person try to gain control and dominance? I submit that it would be barely distinguishable from a legless person trying to save his own life in a state of fear… Clumsy, random, unpredictable and with an uncertain outcome against a far more able opponent.

      Now… Strong, attractive, famous female model. Successful law student who chose one life over another, one career over another. Who knew how to handle herself around men. Who had control? Was she fearful and forced to sleep with stumpy? Was he so powerful that she cowered in fear at the thought of telling another soul, or leaving?

      Step out from behind the politically correct bullsheisse that has been fed this country by its social engineers. Police don’t attend domestic disturbances and rule that they are ‘domestic abuse’. They attend domestic disturbances usually at the behest of irked neighbours, who might have a grudge or a dislike, who might be retired professionals who hate their ‘party till dawn’ twentysomething neighbours and the constant stream of groupies into their quiet exclusive estate. It could be partying too loud, a heated argument, her screaming at him… Anything. And suddenly an uninformitive phrase, ‘police previously attended to reports of domestic disturbances’ takes on a life and hangs a man. Where are the myriad gossip columns with the kiss and tell all stories? They must surely be next, since every girl Oscar ever dated seems to be a victim of his abuse yet so reluctant to say so.

      Its just not a reasonable set of thought processes that are casting this judgement in the public arena. Instead they’re based on psychobabble social engineering, presumptive profiling and downright mean-spiritedness.

      • cantankerous

        Clarence I haven’t got time to go through every point of your argument but I am not convinced they were asleep before she was shot. Why are you bringing rape/child abuse into this ? When my pillar of the community teacher ex husband beat the shit out of me it was a vicious attempt to exert control and dominate me. And no neighbours phoned
        the police I had to do it myself , in my experience other people don’t like to get involved.

        It is fair to say that Pistorius is reckless ( previous speed boat accident well documented) , aggressive and ruthless, you don’t succeed at that level in sport without those personality traits. I think the premeditated charge, if it meant a long term plan is obviously silly but he definitely showed a total lack of control. But you can guarantee the police have already fucked the investigation up by contaminating the crime scene so the real truth will never emerge.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        I bring rape & child abuse into the equation because it is always extremes which are used to socially engineer and steer thought and perspective. Even now, you’ve automatically limited the objective scope of this conversation by subjectivising it. It would take a brave man to be cold and objective enough to challenge the idea of domestic abuse being anything more complex than complete monsters predatorially and serially targeting completely innocent victims for no reason. When it suits us we profile such offences simplistically and we do so in such a black and white manner as ‘man=violent/evil, woman=submissive/angelic.’ This is not honest. Whether law has been broken or not is objectively just that black and white. But the grey areas of provocation and common sense are rarely discussed. Society is required to immediately polarise its opinion and attempts at manipulation of thought and rationale take over.

        We do not talk about battered husbands. We do not talk about unfaithful wives, only philandering husbands. We don’t talk about incessantly abusive wives who drive their husbands to cross a line and lash out in order to arrest the dismantling of their self-worth. We don’t talk about women addicted to spending and borrowing. We don’t talk about toxic relationships built on serial attraction to bad boy men. We don’t talk about two completely incompatible people forming relationships based on little more than lust and trying to crowbar each ones hopes and demands into the other’s life. That would be too complicated and too inconvenient.

        Instead we allow militant-activists to redefine social values and direct our thought. Women are always virtuous and innocent. Straight men are always boorish, violent and primitive. Gay men are always everything straight men should have been if they weren’t so defective and if they’d been invented or defined by women. Oh… And every male who sees feminism as a gross perversion of social engineering is a primitive mysogynist who almost certainly beats his wife, and women who see feminism the same way are downtrodden, brow-beaten indoctrinated victims of abuse. There’s no room for shades other than polar opposites, and the indoctrinated response is always to assume that the 1% of violations are the standard around which we legislate and brainwash, and the 99% must be a figure-fudge because we expect much worse.

        If I tell you that I don’t know a single wifebeater even though oft-published statistics tell me that about 40% of men I know in my demographic grouping should be, your answer will almost inevitably be that its all down to secrecy and fear, but psychically and statistically we can state with certainty that we’re surrounded by unreported criminals and dysfunctionals. In the same way the gay lobby will tell me that my lack of significant numbers of homosexual contacts is testimony to massive numbers of terrified queens who are scared to come out and exist in secret. Agendas for social engineering always use the same pattern of informational manipulation. The gay lobby will point out the tiny number of discrimination cases where gays deliberately went to businesses or individuals to promote a moral or cultural conflict. They’ll point out which churches and ministers refuse gay marriage, but when did you last hear of them going after mosques or synagogues? The Asian community point out racist attacks against their members, but not criminal and racist abuse promoted by and among their members. Same with ‘anti-semitism’. We’re allowed to slam ‘gay-bashing’ in the form of violent or verbal assault but not allowed to condemn the lewd and provocative behaviour of some homosexuals. We find it more acceptable to relegate rape to being singularly a crime of control and power, random and detatched from sexuality not least because we dare not say that the increase in the overt sexualisation and objectification of women in the last 40 years courtesy of feminism and social revolution has promoted the increased rate of rape and the social engineering of gender roles has contributed greatly to social disorder, dysfunction and an increase in inter-gender tension and violence and family breakdown.

        Political correctness doesn’t help anyone understand anything, it only masks, obscures, confuses, compounds, aggravates and covers up.

        Now… If police investigated frequent assault by Pistorius… (i) where were the scandalous articles during the Olympics. (ii) where are the victims, the charges and the convictions. It isn’t enough to assume that their absence indicates a certainty of guilt either covered up or with intimidated witnesses who later left but stayed silent.

        I’m somewhat concerned that a murder trial is being prosecuted in the public arena in which the hearsay of an undisclosed number of neighbours in a compound of elite (large) detatched homes is seemingly the sole source of a narrative of a confused amalgam of impulsive murder utilising a long-planned and deployed alibi. The evidence is being made to fit the narrative, it is not revealing a narrative organically.

        The same methodology of overlooking objective evidence in favour of evolving and continually adapting narratives which satisfy public demand for intrigue is reminiscent of McConn and the debate over who bribed the dogs to lie.

        In your experience neighbours don’t phone the police, only victims. That doesn’t explain the lack of cautions or charges on record, or tell-all gossip mongers. Yet in my experience of a closed neighbourhood the only people who ring the police are the incessant busybodies who ring the police at every irritating noise and cause regular embarrassing interventions into ‘privacy behind closed doors’ situations.

        How ironic that so much sexual abuse goes on behind the protective screen of the rejection of the right of onlookers to pry into or critique certain ‘sacred’ lifestyles, while at the same time we argue that such busybodying is required in order to protect heterosexual women from heterosexual men, and hearsay based on such is taken seriously to the point of conviction.

        With respect to speedboat accidents, I’m not convinced it demonstrates unusual recklessness giving support to accusations of murder, and the general suggestion that his grit and determination to succeed in sports represent sociopathic near psychotic levels of aggressiveness and ruthlessness which routinely support murder charges. I’m afraid I’m of the view that ruthlessness and ‘aggression’ doesn’t play as significant a part in being a great athlete unless you’re claiming he succeeded by intimidating and threatening his competition. I certainly don’t think he was ushered into the Olympics by those admiring his ruthlessness, aggression and sociopathic tendencies in domestic abuse.

        As for the police screwing up the investigation beyond recovery, I don’t think so. There are no accusations of third parties, so very little forensic work to be done, and all investigative work conducted at the scene and on removable objects like a door. One victim, one shooter, no one fled the scene, this is elementary interpretation of evidence and establishing motive beyond a shadow of doubt. The truth of the matter may well be known, and Occam’s Razor may have the answer.

  17. leonard

    There were a lot of reports around that turned out not to be true. Like that he had smashed her head in with a cricket bat.

    • cantankerous

      Well they haven’t taken the reports down they’re still all up. The police stated that they had been called to the property before on domestic violence issues , involving different women. In my experience of domestic violence a leopard doesn’t change it’s spots, he is a hot head and on this occasion it has led to the death of a young woman. The way they cheered in that court when he got bail was obscene.

  18. cantankerous

    http://www.citypress.co.za/news/reeva-shot-through-bathroom-door/
    I don’t think it’s been mentioned but this SA online news claims that police were intially called out at 1am because of their arguing and yet she was shot 2 hours later. Unbelievable.

  19. Next time I blast my partner four times in the head without warning, while she’s taking a late-night piss, I’ll be sure to look him up to cut me some slack too…

    • paul

      He’s not going to skip the country .where would he go? This is just bail not the actual trial.

      • Wealthy, white and famous, he’s a good boy who shoots first through closed doors at those nasty burglars stealing his andrex, and answers questions later- of-course he’d never skip bail, as the skipping motion might dislodge his halo…

    • Sabre

      Fired 4 times, missed with 1 shot, 1 head shot. You haven’t managed to get the available info right and yet you have already prejudged the issue.

      Hope no poor sod ends up with you on their jury.
      He is running a self defence/ tragic mistake defence, you are obviously reading between the lines and deciding that Pistorius is obviously an evil white racist who may have intended to kill a burglar who would probably be black.
      You couldn’t give a toss about his middle class white girlfriend, you don’t give a toss about the kids abused at Elm/North Wales/Dolphin Square etc.
      Crocodile tears over the abused kids likewise for Steenkamp.
      Looking for an excuse to eat the rich.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        Indeed. And playing the scenario fair-mindedly…

        If Oscar has had lots of girlfriends, he clearly doesn’t mind dumping them and moving on…

        If he’s gotten ‘rowdy’ with them in the past, he clearly doesn’t mind them moving on since there’s no shortage of replacements…

        If he wanted rid of the latest, why not dump her…

        If he was ‘abusing’ her then why didn’t she tell anyone, why didn’t she leave, and why didn’t shewait till he was asleep, chuck his legs off the balcony, grab the knife or gun and say ‘now listen here, stumpy…’

        If he was planning her murder for weeks dropping hints in the form of voicing fears about burglars across social media, whyyyyyyy? Nothing to gain, everything to lose. Oh… Apparently he lost his head in a crime of passion… Which kind of nixes the prosecution argument that he planned it and falsely sowed the seeds of a justification for a while…

        Why would Oscar, unless a cold blooded murderer or crazed racist, need to fire first and think later in his permanent nocturnally armed state? Could be something to do with the fact that the fella takes five minutes to strap his legs on, is wealthy and everyone knows where he lives, and burglars in South Africa tend to use violence extremely and as a first resort with weapons like machete’s not to mention the high rate of rape. The gun wasn’t just a defensive weapon, an armamental equaliser… It doubled as a substitute for legs in terms of a sense of control over self defence. Was he meant to fire a warning shot and say ‘now then old chap… Be a good one while I grab my legs, ya? Just pretend I’ m still holding the gun… I’m a mechanically compensated runner, not a stuntman fighter… Give us a fighting chance to detain you while we wait for the police and when you get out of jail please don’t come back, eh?’

        And if Oscar wants to murder his bird and make it look like an accident, why not shoot her in the head in bed once, and claim the gun under the pillow went off? Why fire just four times, blind, through a door and hope she doesn’t wander out clutching her arse saying ‘what the f##k are you doing you sawn off pillock, you shot me in the arse…’ Four shots randomly through a door cannot reasonably expect a dead body as the result. It cannot guarantee complete immobilisation or disarmament. It can reasonably expect a sufficient disadvantaging of the person behind the door to redress a loss of control, or to call police and paramedics to a wounded intruder. Four shots at random through a door could also reasonably expect to have to fire a point blank fifth shot to complete an execution. And police responses to shootings in white districts ain’t exactly slow… The presence of paramedics on the scene significantly in advance suggests the person who made the call really rather wanted resuscitation to take place.

        Too many people digging into assumptions of guilt based on their own desire to see a disabled celebrity heroic icon come a cropper, or invoke images of class or race war. And they switch off rational and objective intelligent process to do so.

      • Clarence J Boddicker

        Had he had a run in with SA police. Had they ‘attended’ his house every time some attention seeking cow made a spurious allegation and had he been the irritating stereotype of the cripplewith a chip on his shoulder shouting ‘f##k off, pig… You’ re discriminating against a disabled dude… I’ll call my lawyer. Go hunt a ghetto gangster. ‘ Did Oscar’ s misadventure give them a golden opportunity to switch off reason and cause him as much pain as possible? The whole thing seems to be about the power over this man’s life.

      • Yeah. Eat the Rich man man.
        You won’t find much else to eat when they’ve taken all your dough !
        The Rich are mostly parasites !They took all their dough from the poor in the first place. Bring back the Guillotine ! You can’t have a rich man without having a poor man. Its common sense.
        Your sycophantic praise for the Rich man makes me puke.
        Oscar is as Guilty as sin. Any fool can see that ! Nobody in his right mind does n’t notice that is girlfriend is out of bed !
        He was alert enough to know where his gun was and had a history of violence. The bloke does nt even look remorseful. He is filty rich and is using his rich friends and contacts to thwart Justice.He is bitter and jelaous because he’s got no legs. He does nt seem to have a brain either !
        Let him see a black Judge, and a black Jury too. He will soon get his cummupance. What goes around comes around.

      • ‘you don’t give a toss about the kids abused at Elm/North Wales/Dolphin Square etc.’-
        Actually, I’ve been abused myself.

  20. leonard

    I thought he did all right really. Comprehensive, fair. Everyone in SA is watching so he didn’t want to screw up.

  21. Pingback: The South African Magistrate » Alternative News Network

  22. john carey

    For a good day out you should visit your local Magistrates Court (its free!!) – Iain Duncan Smith`s `troops` of the failed Work Programme

  23. Bessie B.

    Got the exactly same impression, milking the limelight.

  24. john carey

    All this would never have happened if Oscar had been born without hands not feet (robbed from Frankie Boyle)