So Ozone what you’re saying is that the law is confused balderdash, if I can get to the bottom of our somewhat contradictory (in terms of english) statement?

Right on Garg. That brilliantly argued mishmash of convoluted and confused balderdash succinctly summarizes what PdV and the anti-ANC bloggers here are trying to say.

In other words, he’d be more guilty if he knew about the half a million a year and the fact that the money came from tenders who weren’t meant to get the tender but now suddenly appeared on the short list. He’s already guilty of being bribed, but he might be less guilty if the courts found that he did not act the way Shaik wanted him to, for instance.

Is my interpretation correct?

I guess you didn’t read my line of reasoning in context of Anonymouse // Jan 28, 2009 at 2:01 pm then.

I’m trying to speculate on what the judges meant by Zuma’s “state of mind”. All I get back on this thread is reactionary, politically motivated rubbish since everybody has apparently already made up their minds that Zuma is guilty of corruption.

As for the ‘we’ being the bitter minority who have enriched themselves through apartheid. I was never one of those who were enriched. Neither were those who at the time, even today, after three spells of ANC rule, did or do not have the luxury of running water. But the leaders who went to gaol, they, well they’re something else, they need interest free loans to foot their private bills, but the poor beggar in the townships, who ave to steal for a living, must wonder where he will get his next bite to eat. And that, you call morality!