#SAP Good news story about South African Police #SouthAfrica

South African Police. Good News story for a change!

+south african police service 

+South African Police Force 

 

Brief intro by Siegfried Walther.

Some good news stories involving the South African Police

In recent times, the SAP have been in the news for the wrong reasons. Dodgy police do the rest of the dedicated police in our country a disservice. So, good news stories like this make a wonderful change.

Here are some Policemen who are a credit to the police force and to the country. Well done gentlemen! This is the third story I've heard in recent times where the Police have impressed with their service and response!!!
Please circulate this story, and remember to pass on good stories about the police or other public officials when they render a good service.
Encouragement and praise often achieves more than pointing out shortcomings!

Constable Sepeng & Ndlovu

 

 

 

Brett Jones

Last night was honestly one of the most unique experiences of my life and I really want to appreciate & give the SA Police Department a digital high five.
Aroun...d 8:10pm our Bryanston Warriors soccer team were finishing up our practise when two men (one with a gun, who fired a shot) broke into the property and robbed all our goods (except my car keys & iPhone).

To cut a long story short, we logged onto @google and located my one soccer mates phone. Then together with Constable Sepeng & Ndlovu, I climbed into the police vehicle & we started tracking the guys down.
About 20 minutes later, we had tracked the guys down & the police stormed the taxi they were in & arrested them with our phones, the gun & more.
Having a first hand experience of the jobs our policemen & women have to do day in & day out gave me a new respect for all of them. Yes, there are issues but let's give credit where credit is due. Thank you Constable Sepeng & Ndlovu. 👊

 

Legal Opinion: Cameron's order to have two British ISIS members executed lawful

LEGAL OPINION: ADVOCATE S.G WALTHER
 Practising Advocate (Barrister) of the High Court of South Africa since August 1999, former Attorney of the High Court of South Africa 1993-1999, former Military Law Officer & Member of the Cape Bar 1999-2015

Questions have been raised in some quarters about the lawfulness of the Order given by British Prime Minister +David Cameron which resulted in the execution of two British born citizens by means of a drone strike in Syria.

A senior British General claimed that the order was unlawful given the vote by Britain's Parliament two years ago which denied David Cameron the right to become involved in the Syrian civil war or to use military force against President's Assad's regime.

The Assad regime, it will be recalled, stood accessed of war crimes - the use of chemical weapons in against the rebel groups fighting against the regime.

In hindsight, the decision turned out to be a good one. Even then, it was known that some rebels groups were Al Qaida linked. The argument then was that, as had been the case in Iraq, any British or US involvement in the Syrian conflict to remove one dilatator could end up paving the way for Assad to be replaced by something even worse.  Alternatively, it could simply all contribute to a long and complicated civil war in Syria. The Russians agreed. The Americans did not.

For once, the Russians, and dare I say, Labour, Britain's opposition, were quite right. The subsequent appearance and conduct of ISIS, (Islamic State) in Syria and Iraq reveals that the entire situation in both countries is extremely complicated. At the root of it all, seems to be the Sunni Shia divide/mistrust which goes back over centuries.

In the light of that order, the General claimed that the British Prime Minister was obliged to seek leave of Parliament before allowing British forces to effectively become involved in the Syrian conflict.

The General's view is incorrect. David Cameron did not order British forces to become involved in the Syrian civil war. He ordered targeted air strikes against a terrorist group which was involved with or had at least sponsored attacks on British citizens (in Tunisia) and which, were clearly planning further such attacks in Britain itself. One of the targets was Her Majesty, the Queen.

I don't need to say much about ISIS which has not already been said. The first I heard of them was that Al Qaida apparently wanted nothing to do with them since they were considered too extreme. That virtually says it all. The extreme barbarism which pervades almost all aspects of their activities should leave no-one in doubt that this terrorist group represents no idle threat to Britain, the West, and indeed, even to any other Muslim group which fails to adhere to its extreme and barbaric version of Islam.

David Cameron did not issue an Order for his forces to become involved in the Syrian conflict. Thus, there can be no question of the Order he issued being unlawful and contrary to the Will of Parliament.

Instead, David Cameron ordered a targeted air-strike against a terrorist group which were declared enemies of the UK, which were involved in the recruitment of UK citizens to join this terrorist movement, and which was planning terrorist attacks on UK targets including on UK soil.

No-one can deny that the British government has the legal right to take all appropriate steps to defend itself against such a terrorist grouping no matter where in the world they are based. If the government of a country harbours terrorist bases or provides sanctuary to them, then it must expect not only that the countries which the terrorist groups are targeting have the right to attack such terrorists in such country, but such government may itself become a legitimate target.

In failed States, or in States where for some or other reason, such as a civil war, the foreign government is unable or unwilling to bring an end to the activities of the terrorists they are harbouring, then the targeted States have the right to intervene and to do so themselves.  The extent to which the targeted State can operate without authority from Parliament or the UN will depend on the circumstances of the case.

The fact that ISIS were based in Syria is irrelevant. The fact that attacking ISIS targets might operate to the benefit of a party the Civil War in Syria is also neither here nor there.

If there is credible information on hand that a terrorist attack is likely or immanent then the British government is entitled to take action to defend against such an attack. In fact, any failure to take such decisive action to defend against the attack or to eliminate or reduce the terrorist's ability to do so would be a serious breach of the Government's duty to protect its people.

For what it is worth, the Article 51 of the UN Charter also recognizes this right, although the full extent of that right is probably not fully set out in the Article.

Article 51 Of the UN Charter

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

That leaves only one question. Can the British Prime Minister in effect order what is in effect the summary execution without trial of British citizens who operate as terrorists abroad. In my view, if there is sufficient and credible evidence / to prove the terrorist group's agenda included attacks on Britain or British citizens, AND to prove that the persons concerned were indeed members of the terrorist group, then the Prime Minister's actions in ordering such executions would be lawful, as indeed they are.

In  the instant case, ISIS has been brazen in its publicity campaign in all forms of media about its agenda and intentions. The two individuals concerned have appeared in video footage confirming their membership of ISIS and in which they appear to be encouraging other British people to come to Syria to join them. Sky news and other British reporters have uncovered even more disturbing information showing that one individual concerned was playing a leading role in planning attacks against the UK in the UK. 

 That which is public seems to be more than enough, in all the circumstances. No doubt British Intelligence has much more evidence it could add.

There may of course be circumstances where the Prime Minister might instead be advised to seek the authority of Parliament or a UN resolution prior to ordering such strikes. In most cases, however, seeking the requisite Parliamentary authority or UN mandate would be too slow, cumbersome or impractical, or it would risk defeating the object of the strike by giving notice to the targets of the impending strike.

Let there be no doubt, the issuing an order to effectively execute a UK citizen abroad without trial is not one which must be issued lightly. The Prime Minister needs to be convinced of the necessity of the said strike, the need for security, that the agenda and intentions of the terrorist group represents a clear and present danger to the UK or its citizens, that the citizens are active members of this terrorist group, and that their elimination /execution overseas by executive order (without oversight) is reasonably necessary to eliminate or  reduce such threat.

In the instant case, ISIS, and the individuals concerned have left no-one in any serious doubt that all the above requirements have been met.

Perhaps, there is room in the above system for consultation with the leader of the opposition and the other main parties, or at the very least for such order to be preceded by some form of judicial oversight before the order is issued ( where time permits) and certainly, and in all cases, to a process of judicial review afterwards. This would go some way to ensuring that the power to issue such an executive order, which indeed equates to execution without a trial, has limitations and is subject to judicial oversight.
 
Siegfried Walther 8 September 2015, Cape Town

+David Cameron

+Springboks - the only true 2-time Rugby World Cup Champions! #RWC2015

+Rugby World Cup 2015  The +Springboks are the only genuine 2-time Rugby World Cup champs.

The Rugby World Cup is due to commence in less than a fortnight. Will the New Zealand +All Blacks , the defending champions and the no. 1 ranked team in the World be the first team to successfully defend their world cup crown?

Despite a recent loss to the Australian +Wallabies in the Southern Hemisphere's 4 nation Rugby Championship, such is New Zealand's class and depth that they certainly warrant their no.1 ranking. If there is one team in World Cup rugby which is capable of winning two world cups in a row, it must be the All Blacks.

Other possible winners are +Australia , South Africa (+the Springboks) England and three time finalists France (1987, 1999 & 2011).

Only four nations have won the World Cup. History records that three teams won twice: New Zealand (1987 / 2011), Australia (1991/1999) and South Africa (1995/2007). The only other team to win the title was England in 2003.

I contend, however, that the only genuine two-time winner of the Rugby World Cup is South Africa. I say this because the Springboks were excluded from the 1987 and 1991 tournaments due to the international sports boycott against South Africa. 

Before I continue, permit me to say that I have no problem with the international sports boycott which applied against South Africa at the time due to its abhorrent policy of apartheid.  

What cannot be denied, however, is that South Africa's exclusion, albeit justified, diminished the value of the 1987 and 1999 World Cup tournaments. The Springboks have arguably been the second most powerful and successful side in World rugby after New Zealand.

If, prior to the advent of the World Cup, one had asked any New Zealand youngster who dreamt of taking to the field as an All Black, who their chosen opponents would be, the Springboks would have been the most likely answer.

South Africa's exclusion from the first two Rugby World Cups is equivalent to having a soccer world cup without Germany, Italy or Argentina. Lets assume, for example, that four times winner, Germany were excluded from a future world cup for legitimate political reasons.  Whichever other team goes on to win such a tournament cannot claim to be real world champions. The victory will be hollow without Germany having been eliminated!

History has shown that just as one cannot have a World War without inviting the Germans, one cannot have a Soccer World Cup Semi-Final without the Germans. The German record of making the last four of almost every Soccer World Cup is unmatched by any other side. Even five time champions, Brazil have not matched Germany's World Cup consistency.

As proof of the point I am making, since readmission to world rugby, South Africa has won two of the five Rugby World Cup tournaments it participated in. Alternatively stated, the only side to win more than one world cup tournament since South Africa's readmission is South Africa. This, on its own, undermines the claims of the 1987 and 1991 rugby world cup champions to being the real world champions.

South Africa's record from 1995 onwards proves this point: Any other team who wish to call themselves the Rugby World Champions can only do so if they win a world cup tournament in which South Africa has been eliminated.

In saying what I do, I don't for one minute wish to suggest that had South Africa fielded a team in the 1987 or 1991 World Cups, New Zealand and Australia, respectively, would not in any event have won. On paper, the 1987 All Blacks and the 1991 Wallabies were arguably better than any side the Springboks would have fielded.

Yet, if New Zealand or Australia had had a choice of facing the Springboks with the kicking abilities of Naas Botha or their actual respective opponents in the 1987 & 1991 finals i.e.  France and England, you can bet that the answer in both cases would not have been the Springboks.

Rugby is not played on paper. In a once-off knockout game, any side wearing the Springbok jersey, be they the best side in the tournament, or a young, inexperienced side, is capable of beating any side in the world.

I freely concede that New Zealand have been the best side in the world, bar none for the past quarter century. During most of this period, the All Blacks were, or ought to have been the legitimate favourites to win most series against South Africa, home or away.

Yet, despite being favourites to win almost every world cup since South Africa's readmission, New Zealand failed to win one tournament after another until they finally won at home in the 2011 World Cup.

Winning a world cup is not about starting the tournament as the best side or as favourites. Instead, its about making it to the quarter-finals, and once there, it is about winning every match. This is something the Springboks have shown themselves capable of doing, and doing well.  They know they don't need to be the best side on offer at any world cup. They also know that any Springbok side always has sufficient talent to beat any side in the world in a once-off knock-out encounter.

Since 1995, South Africa have won two tournaments and they came third once in 1999 (beating New Zealand into fourth in a plate match). This was after South Africa lost narrowly to eventual 1999 champions, Australia, in extra time of their semi-final clash.

Since South Africa's readmission, Australia and New Zealand have each only managed one world cup win.

In the premises, the Springboks are the only true 2-time Rugby World Cup champions!

Siegfried Walther, Cape Town

Free eBook on #MH370 & #AF447 by Siegfried Walther https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/526079 Also at +iBookstore +Kobo Inc. +Barnes & Noble 

+MH370 News 

DJ @SG_Walther Top 100 Playlist  6 Sept 2015  CAPE TOWN

http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/dj-sgwalther-cape-town-top-100-6.html

#DJ @SG_Walther *Cape Town* Top 100 6 September 2015

LINK TO LATEST CHARTS 23 nOV 2015: http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/dj-daddy-cool-of-cape-town-top-125.html Dj@ SG Walther
* Cape Town *
Top 100 Playlist
06 September 2015
Song	Artist
Top 10 Playlist
Can't Feel My Face	The Weeknd	Top_10
Cheerleader (Felix Jaehn Remix Radio Edit)	Omi	Top_10
Drag Me Down	One Direction	Top_10
Fantasy	Alina Baraz & Galimatias	Top_10
Goodbye	Who Is Fancy	Top_10
High By the Beach	Lana Del Rey	Top_10
Hold You Close	Gavin Slate	Top_10
King	Years & Years	Top_10
Lean On (feat. MØ & DJ Snake)	Major Lazer	Top_10
Outlines	Mike Mago & Dragonette	Top_10
Seasons	Olly Murs	Top_10
Stole the Show (feat. Parson James)	Kygo	Top_10
The Party (This Is How We Do It) [ft. M Jordan]	Joe Stone	Top_10
What Do You Mean?	Justin Bieber	Top_10
You Kill Me with Silence	Duran Duran	Top_10
Top 25 Playlist
Body Talk	Foxes	Top_25
Crossfade	Gusgus	Top_25
Daffodils (feat. Kevin Parker)	Mark Ronson	Top_25
Devil Pray	Madonna	Top_25
Faded	ZHU	Top_25
Fire	Majozi	Top_25
Generate (Radio Edit)	Eric Prydz	Top_25
Girls Chase Boys	Ingrid Michaelson	Top_25
Hotline Bling	Drake	Top_25
I Had This Thing	Röyksopp	Top_25
I'm an Albatraoz	AronChupa	Top_25
Marvin Gaye (feat. Meghan Trainor)	Charlie Puth	Top_25
Sunlight (feat. Years and Years) [Radio Edit]	The Magician	Top_25
Wish You Were Mine	Philip George	Top_25
Top 40 Playlist
Are You With Me (Kungs Radio Edit)	Lost Frequencies	Top_40
Benediction	Hot Natured	Top_40
Break the Rules	Charli XCX	Top_40
Brooklyn Baby (Konstantin Sibold Remix)	Lana Del Rey	Top_40
Can't Say No	Conor Maynard	Top_40
Cecilia	Jesse Cook	Top_40
Cold (feat. Fryars)	Rae Morris	Top_40
Crumbler	Jungle	Top_40
Daft Funk (feat. Mr. Talkbox)	Nathan East	Top_40
Ghost Town	Adam Lambert	Top_40
Ghosttown	Madonna	Top_40
Hideaway	Kiesza	Top_40
I Lived	OneRepublic	Top_40
I Will Never Let You Down	Rita Ora	Top_40
It Was Always You	Maroon 5	Top_40
Joan of Arc	Madonna	Top_40
Last Night in the City (feat. Kiesza)	Duran Duran	Top_40
Midnight	Coldplay	Top_40
No Good in Goodbye	The Script	Top_40
Prayer in C (Robin Schulz Remix)	Robin Schulz & LILLYWOOD	Top_40
Say My Name (feat. Zyra)	ODESZA	Top_40
Shine	Years & Years	Top_40
Sordid Affair	Röyksopp	Top_40
Sugar	Maroon 5	Top_40
Talking About	Conor Maynard	Top_40
Time	Jungle	Top_40
Want to Want Me	Jason Derulo	Top_40
Way We Are Extended Mix	Kove / Melissa Steel	Top_40
WILD	Troye Sivan	Top_40
Top 80 Playlist
Ain't Nobody (Loves Me Better) [ft. J Thompson]	Felix Jaehn	Top_80
Animals	Maroon 5	Top_80
Another's Arms	Coldplay	Top_80
ARTPOP	Lady Gaga	Top_80
Chocolate	The 1975	Top_80
Cool Kids	Echosmith	Top_80
Desire	Years & Years	Top_80
Destination	Nickel Creek	Top_80
Drops	Jungle	Top_80
Firestone (feat. Conrad)	Kygo	Top_80
Flares	The Script	Top_80
Got to My Head	WATERS	Top_80
Happy Little Pill	Troye Sivan	Top_80
Here For You (feat. Laura Welsh)	Gorgon City	Top_80
Higher Ground (feat. Charli Taft)	Blonde	Top_80
Hold Tight	Madonna	Top_80
If U Got It (Radio Edit)	Chris Malinchak	Top_80
Imagination (feat. Katy Menditta)	Gorgon City	Top_80
Ink	Coldplay	Top_80
Jachda	Kaz khan	Top_80
Levels	Nick Jonas	Top_80
Lift Off (feat. Pharrell)	Conor Maynard	Top_80
Love Is to Die	Warpaint	Top_80
Love Never Felt So Good	Michael Jackson	Top_80
Maps	Maroon 5	Top_80
My Silver Lining	First Aid Kit	Top_80
Nobody Love	Tori Kelly	Top_80
Omen (feat. Sam Smith)	Disclosure	Top_80
Pressure Off (ft. Janelle Monáe & Nile Rodgers)	Duran Duran	Top_80
Pumped Up Kicks	Foster the People	Top_80
Rather Be (feat. Jess Glynne)	Clean Bandit	Top_80
Say Something	Karen Harding	Top_80
Solo Dancing	Indiana	Top_80
Sunrise	Slaptop	Top_80
Teenage Dirtbag	Mighty Little	Top_80
The Energy Never Dies	The Script	Top_80
Under the Pressure	The War on Drugs	Top_80
Waves (Robin Schulz Radio Edit)	Mr. Probz	Top_80
Welcome To New York	Taylor Swift	Top_80
Wicked Games (feat. Anna Naklab)	Parra for Cuva	Top_80
You’re Not Alone (feat. Britt Nicole)	Owl City	Top_80
Playlists compiled by Siegfried Walther  * Cape Town * Why the Judge in Oscar Pistorius Trial got it right. A trial lawyer's verdict issued before the Actual Judgment. http://siegfriedwalther.blogspot.co.za/2014/10/oscartrial-oscarpistorius-verdict-by.html MH370 - Wanna know what happened. Free eBook by this writer tells all https://www.smashwords.com/about/supportfaq +Duran Duran  +Omi +One Direction +Lana Del Rey +The Weeknd +Who is Fancy +Conor Maynard +Olly Murs +Years & Years