Or maybe, just maybe he's a con artist!
Hufflepuff - Part 2
- Thread starter fbb1964
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hufflepuff
And the monkey is still farting.
So what about that slap chips airfyer recipe? Care to share???
I wouldn't make fun of them, they are known to send their dogs after you.
I found a death threat and name calling session in my Facebook inbox last week XD
But thats not all folks!, for a limited time only we will include a full set of syringes and a hardly used foam cup to do the mixing with.
Act fast, this is a never to be repeated once in a lifetime offer.
Regards
Act fast, this is a never to be repeated once in a lifetime offer.
Regards
We should all make offers on the business. Try outbid each other and make promises.
Lemme kick off with a high bid. $1. I've got a feeling I might win...
I raise you two zim dollar
Damnit! I was hoping nobody would figure out my plan! Okay, too rich for my blood and too much for the place anyway.
I see you're talking from the grave!
I raise you two Monkey Farts and a camel's burp!
He must be the BIG BAD WOLF FROM RED RIDING HOOD> I HUFFLE AND I PUFFLE, AND I BLOW MY BULL SHIT ANY WHICH WAY
I know we have at least one law professional in this group, and maybe they would like to chime in here? ....
In S.A we enjoy the right to freedom of expression, but it is important to remember that this right is limited. When one oversteps the limitations, it can lead to the defamation of another person’s name and reputation, and I'd like to issue a caution here;
Defamation is a part of the law of delict and can be defined as ANY damaging statements made publicly with the intention to harm or do damage to someone’s name and or reputation. In order for a person to succeed in a delictual claim of defamation, there are certain elements that must be present. The elements include wrongfulness, intention and the publication of a defamatory statement, or behaviour towards another. Note that the law DOES NOT require the statement to be false in any way!
These three elements that must be present;
Wrongfulness, as an element of defamation, is the infringement of a person’s right to his good name and reputation. It is irrelevant whether the person involved has suffered damages once the element of wrongfulness has been established. The appropriate test for wrongfulness will be the objective “reasonable man test".
In South African law, the onus of proof is on the person claiming that an act of defamation has occurred and he or she must submit proof that the violation was indeed wrongful. It is NOT one of the requirements of defamation for the statements or actions to be false. Defamatory words that are true can also be actionable.
The person making the defamatory statements must have had an intentional focus or will to damage another person’s reputation. Be it by statements or comments, he or she must have known at the time that what they were doing would be harmful to another person’s good name. The defendant in a defamation claim must raise a defence which proves that the element of unlawfulness or intention was never present.
Generally, the good name, respect or status of a person depends on the opinion others have of him or her and the core of defamation is the infringement of one’s good name. When defamatory statements or behaviour have been published or a third party has been informed of the information, defamation arises. When a third party isn’t made aware of the defamatory statements or actions relating to a person, his or her reputation cannot suffer damages. Therefore, publication is an important element of defamation.
Generally, this requirement is met if the statements or actions are made known to at least one other person other than the plaintiff himself/herself. Once the element of publication is established, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was responsible for the publication of such statement(s). Any person who repeats or merely confirms these defamatory statements can indirectly be held responsible for the publication thereof. It is not only the person who initially made the defamatory statements public, but also any other person who repeats or confirms it, who can be held responsible for the damage to a person’s reputation.
If the matter is heard in court, the two conflicting constitutional rights of dignity and privacy with that of the right to freedom of expression will be weighed up considering the facts, nonetheless ... Is important thing to remember is that even though we enjoy the right to freedom of expression, this right is not absolute, and we must be mindful when exercising this right!
In S.A we enjoy the right to freedom of expression, but it is important to remember that this right is limited. When one oversteps the limitations, it can lead to the defamation of another person’s name and reputation, and I'd like to issue a caution here;
Defamation is a part of the law of delict and can be defined as ANY damaging statements made publicly with the intention to harm or do damage to someone’s name and or reputation. In order for a person to succeed in a delictual claim of defamation, there are certain elements that must be present. The elements include wrongfulness, intention and the publication of a defamatory statement, or behaviour towards another. Note that the law DOES NOT require the statement to be false in any way!
These three elements that must be present;
Wrongfulness, as an element of defamation, is the infringement of a person’s right to his good name and reputation. It is irrelevant whether the person involved has suffered damages once the element of wrongfulness has been established. The appropriate test for wrongfulness will be the objective “reasonable man test".
In South African law, the onus of proof is on the person claiming that an act of defamation has occurred and he or she must submit proof that the violation was indeed wrongful. It is NOT one of the requirements of defamation for the statements or actions to be false. Defamatory words that are true can also be actionable.
The person making the defamatory statements must have had an intentional focus or will to damage another person’s reputation. Be it by statements or comments, he or she must have known at the time that what they were doing would be harmful to another person’s good name. The defendant in a defamation claim must raise a defence which proves that the element of unlawfulness or intention was never present.
Generally, the good name, respect or status of a person depends on the opinion others have of him or her and the core of defamation is the infringement of one’s good name. When defamatory statements or behaviour have been published or a third party has been informed of the information, defamation arises. When a third party isn’t made aware of the defamatory statements or actions relating to a person, his or her reputation cannot suffer damages. Therefore, publication is an important element of defamation.
Generally, this requirement is met if the statements or actions are made known to at least one other person other than the plaintiff himself/herself. Once the element of publication is established, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was responsible for the publication of such statement(s). Any person who repeats or merely confirms these defamatory statements can indirectly be held responsible for the publication thereof. It is not only the person who initially made the defamatory statements public, but also any other person who repeats or confirms it, who can be held responsible for the damage to a person’s reputation.
If the matter is heard in court, the two conflicting constitutional rights of dignity and privacy with that of the right to freedom of expression will be weighed up considering the facts, nonetheless ... Is important thing to remember is that even though we enjoy the right to freedom of expression, this right is not absolute, and we must be mindful when exercising this right!
Agree, hug the bastards of the world!
The guy sold prohibited items in direct contravention of the law, at highly inflated prices (Profiteering) and issued death threats and threats of GBH left right and center. He must come with whatever suite he wants to, there is enough proof. I personally think, and nothing will change my mind, that he is an utter knobsack and all-round bad person.
One must first have character if it is to be defamed.
Whilst on a personal level I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that one must have character if it is to be defamed, however the law specifically states;
"It is NOT one of the requirements of defamation for the statements or actions to be false. Defamatory words that are true can also be actionable".
I am simply suggesting we minimize any risk(s) here ... Let's keep it clean and play the game, not the player
Just one simple question if I may. Why has this scammer mob that has been unmasked ages ago not been prosecuted or investigated by now? By saps, SARS. Carte Blanche etc..Who is speaking up for the victims of this scam? It's still happening in fact the scam just got a lot bigger. The complete scam was exposed a long time ago in part 1 of this topic that can be accessed and read in it's entirety by clicking on the link provided in the first post in this specific thread. The bigger picture of exactly what was discussed and said, including by the CEO of this scam ring, is more than enough evidence required to warrant an investigation.
Last edited:
The SAP, as I understand the status quo, seem to prefer a charge being laid by members of the public, as then they don't need to investigate.
They can rely on the evidence provided by the complainant, along with the public prosecutors yay or nay, (which is dependent upon the evidence provided), to which they then simply arrest and deliver to court.
don’t be mean to knobsacks
A straightjacket would provide an all-embracing hug.
Similar threads
