Nic Dlamini's arm broken by Table Mountain rangers

[Stevief]

 

When he threatened me, I told him to phone for backup because he was going to hospital from here. .[/n b quote]

 

Dude you don’t come across very well. Just saying.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Stevief

[Shebeen]

TMNP is considered one of the top five financially viable national parks along with the Kruger, Tsitsikamma, Addo Elephant National Parks and Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. These national parks have for a number of years been able to achieve a surplus on their budgets but not all of them have been able to achieve this independently of contributions from other sources. TMNP is one of these entities. In the 2003/2004 to 2009/2010 financial year period the national park collected an income of R478,8 million while its overall expenditure was R592 million.

 

Due to contributions of R214,3 million (R118,7 million from the national departments of environmental affairs and tourism, as well as water affairs and forestry for various projects which include park expansion, resource protection, alien vegetation clearing and other operations; R75,9 million from the City of Cape Town for various agreed on projects including crime prevention and damage causing animals control; and R54,5 million from various donors and funders for various interventions including fire management) the national park has been able over the years to show a cumulative surplus of R155,8 million whereas in real terms it has sustained a cumulative deficit of R78,5 million.

 

The income for the national park has been driven by gate collections from Boulders beach and Cape Point, collections for filming and photography in the park and most recently accommodation for trails in the park.

 

"It should be noted that instead of cross subsidising other national parks in the Western Cape or nationally the TMNP cash generating points and activities are used to cross-subsidise the citizens who are able to enter the park free of charge." said Dr Mabunda.

 

 

Article from 2010

http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-e-6-table-mountain-national-park-25283.html

[DieselnDust]

I'm trying to understand why this topic is so polarising.

 

I am clearly in the camp of:

1st aspect = excessive force used, unacceptable

2nd aspect = nobody should be riding rogue

 

Then there is the other camp of

1st aspect = Dlamini acted like a brat, no wonder he got hurt

2nd aspect = he could have avoided it if he had just paid the fee.

 

The 3rd group, which we find in non-cycling forums:

All cyclist are arrogant brats, with their R120k bikes they think they are above the rules.

 

What experiences have lead us to land in these groups, allot of us seem to be dead set to remain in these groups...?

 

I met Nic and got his autograph, did that make me biased towards focusing on the atrocity of the impact of this on his personal life story?

 

 

Camp 1 excessive force and riding rogue.

 

I agree, I don't think anyone should be doing BUT, many many many people do it including the self righteous brigade on BH. Those who knowing and willing break the rules whenever they feel it and feel that being sweet and friendly makes it ok for them to repeat the next time they feel it. Those are the hypocrites..

No I don't ffeel they have any right to hold the moral high ground.

 

Camp2 ; those promoting he acted like a brat and deserved what he got.

Ya well they live among us don't they. They are the same as those Fortuna drivers that cut you off deliberately, or play games with your health and safety from the safety of their own cage.

 

You won't change these peoples minds around this incident because they clearly view themselves on a higher level than the rest of us.

as far as the facts goes, the statement released by SANParks is essentially rubbish and should be disregarded by the moral high grounders will build on that statement because of whatever their vested interest is. That interest is clearly not Nics' or anyone else's well being. I take pity of those souls.

 

Chatted with a mate from the Mountain Club, and the amount of letters/emails/whatsapps describing events that the public has had with SANparks rangers in TMNP builds a very very clear case against SANparks. 

How did we get here? Several reasons all of them human problems relating to bad attitude.

 

Was Nic a brat in the lead up to the incident? I don't know but it would certainly be outside of his character to act in an entitled manner.

Did he get annoyed when pulled off his bike? Well who would'nt...?

Did he know he was riding rogue? Maybe, maybe not. I doubt he was fully aware of his obligations as many many many people don't know what's required. The amount of questions on this forum alone is a clear indicator that many do not understand the SANparks entry requiremets. (many also flout the requirements - I've been invited to go on many rides and told to "get to the gate before the Rangers get there so we don't need to sow our permits...". - fortunately I'm not a morning person

 

Should a pro rider know more about SANParks entry requirements than us mere mortals? Why? They spend more than half their year away from home riding in other countries where all the legal requirements are addressed by team management. They just ride their bikes, and follow their program. (cue Ken Allies and co.)

 

Permit nopermit, this is just a POV thsts being used to skew the picture. What should have been done differently doesn't lie with Nic. As many have been stating that they've rogued and been asked to not do it again or been fined. The fact that this ranger made a different decision wrt to how to behave is clearly his decision. And that's the crux of it with smoke and mirrors removed

[SwissVan]

I'm trying to understand why this topic is so polarising.

 

 

I am clearly in the camp of:

1st aspect = excessive force used, unacceptable

2nd aspect = nobody should be riding rogue

Then there is the other camp of

1st aspect = Dlamini acted like a brat, no wonder he got hurt

2nd aspect = he could have avoided it if he had just paid the fee.

The 3rd group, which we find in non-cycling forums:

All cyclist are arrogant brats, with their R120k bikes they think they are above the rules.

What experiences have lead us to land in these groups, allot of us seem to be dead set to remain in these groups...?

I met Nic and got his autograph, did that make me biased towards focusing on the atrocity of the impact of this on his personal life story?

Maybe because people generally don’t take ownership and rather find a reason to deflect and blame someone else?

 

My camp......

1st aspect = he could have avoided it if he had just paid the fee.

2nd aspect = excessive force used, unacceptable

[Stretch]

I wonder if you will feel the same way about the lawyers if you are paralyzed in a car accident?

Easy there.. I'm not talking about all lawyers.. I'm talking about ones like the aforementioned that took the RAF for all it had.... You notice you don't see his adverts around much anymore.. That's because the RAF has no money

[IceCreamMan]

Easy there.. I'm not talking about all lawyers.. I'm talking about ones like the aforementioned that took the RAF for all it had.... You notice you don't see his adverts around much anymore.. That's because the RAF has no money

 

 

They are still going strong. di Broglio attorneys just exercised the legal rights of citizens.

 

Blame the ineptness of the administrators for the RAF's demise, not the attorneys, Same as SAA, Eskom, Denel and any other SOE that can be thought of.

[eddy]

.. I'm talking about ones like the aforementioned that took the RAF for all it had.... You notice you don't see his adverts around much anymore.. That's because the RAF has no money

Don't worry, the ambulance chasers aren't going hungry. They have moved on to medical malpractice and you and I are paying for it in our medical bills and Discovery contributions.

Edited January 1, 2020 by eddy

[DieselnDust]

Maybe because people generally don’t take ownership and rather find a reason to deflect and blame someone else?

My camp......

1st aspect = he could have avoided it if he had just paid the fee.

2nd aspect = excessive force used, unacceptable

Aspect 1 is pure speculation on your part. There is no way to know he could have avoided the run in with the rangers.

the manner in which it was reported that he had been brought down suggests that he was targeted. If he was trying to escape then surely he would be skilled enough to spot the ambush since when you know you're in the wrong you are on the lookout for those who want to bring you to book.

 

It stands to reason then that the eyewitness account suggests that he was

1. Taken by surprise

2. In shock which is normal for an accident

3. Then gets boytjied for whatever reason.

4. Gets robustly assaulted and arm broken.

5. Eyewitness gets intimidated and threatened.

 

At each juncture the rangers had more opportunity to engineer a different outcome but didn't..... All for R90 single use permit for access to a public park.

[Zub]

Aspect 1 is pure speculation on your part. There is no way to know he could have avoided the run in with the rangers.

the manner in which it was reported that he had been brought down suggests that he was targeted. If he was trying to escape then surely he would be skilled enough to spot the ambush since when you know you're in the wrong you are on the lookout for those who want to bring you to book.

 

It stands to reason then that the eyewitness account suggests that he was

1. Taken by surprise

2. In shock which is normal for an accident

3. Then gets boytjied for whatever reason.

4. Gets robustly assaulted and arm broken.

5. Eyewitness gets intimidated and threatened.

 

At each juncture the rangers had more opportunity to engineer a different outcome but didn't..... All for R90 single use permit for access to a public park.

Speaks out on Speculation,then proceeds to Speculate... ????

[Rudi33]

Why discuss other countries? We don’t live there.

 

Always someone who says BUT in USAor China blah blah. I don’t care about them atm. I care about MY country and what we can do here to make things better

you're right.. but what country do we even have anymore. 

[LeoKnight]

I'm trying to understand why this topic is so polarising.

 

I am clearly in the camp of:

1st aspect = excessive force used, unacceptable

2nd aspect = nobody should be riding rogue

 

Then there is the other camp of

1st aspect = Dlamini acted like a brat, no wonder he got hurt

2nd aspect = he could have avoided it if he had just paid the fee.

 

The 3rd group, which we find in non-cycling forums:

All cyclist are arrogant brats, with their R120k bikes they think they are above the rules.

 

What experiences have lead us to land in these groups, allot of us seem to be dead set to remain in these groups...?

 

I met Nic and got his autograph, did that make me biased towards focusing on the atrocity of the impact of this on his personal life story?

 

Actually felt to me there was even a 4th group..

1st aspect = excessive force used, unacceptable

2nd aspect = not a serious issue, as there are other more serious matters that officials should be focusing on than permits (alternatively, due to the seriousness of the 1st aspect, 2nd aspect does not need to be considered as it clouds the 1st matter)

Edited January 2, 2020 by LeoKnight

[Andymann]

I've sat in a few CCMA cases in the last year and one particular one comes to mind where one of our operators had been trained to operate a machine, and had been doing so for the last two years.

 

He recycled some dirty water though the Chiller, blocked the passages and we lost 4 days of production and a huge order. We had a hearing, found him guilty (with camera evidence) and dismissed him.  It went to the CCMA where he claimed he had never been trained not to do what he did.  The catch was that even though he knew what he did was wrong, and had been operating the machine correctly for the last two years, because we had no signed training document stating that you may not recycle water into the chiller we lost the case and had to reinstate him.

 

Crazy as it sounds, but I suspect if SANParks does not have a signed Training document with these Rangers specifically stating you are not allowed to use violence then a smart Lawyer will get these guys off, and SANParks will have to shoulder the blame.

[Tim Brink]

I've sat in a few CCMA cases in the last year and one particular one comes to mind where one of our operators had been trained to operate a machine, and had been doing so for the last two years.

 

He recycled some dirty water though the Chiller, blocked the passages and we lost 4 days of production and a huge order. We had a hearing, found him guilty (with camera evidence) and dismissed him.  It went to the CCMA where he claimed he had never been trained not to do what he did.  The catch was that even though he knew what he did was wrong, and had been operating the machine correctly for the last two years, because we had no signed training document stating that you may not recycle water into the chiller we lost the case and had to reinstate him.

 

Crazy as it sounds, but I suspect if SANParks does not have a signed Training document with these Rangers specifically stating you are not allowed to use violence then a smart Lawyer will get these guys off, and SANParks will have to shoulder the blame.

Dismissals for misconduct

 

(4)     Generally, it is not appropriate to dismiss an employee for a first offense, except if the misconduct is serious and of such gravity that it makes a continued employment relationship intolerable. Examples of serious misconduct, subject to the rule that each case should be judged on its merits, are gross dishonesty or willful damage to the property of the employer, willful endangering of the safety of others physical assault on the employer, a fellow employee, client or customer and gross insubordination.

[River Rat]

I've sat in a few CCMA cases in the last year and one particular one comes to mind where one of our operators had been trained to operate a machine, and had been doing so for the last two years.

 

He recycled some dirty water though the Chiller, blocked the passages and we lost 4 days of production and a huge order. We had a hearing, found him guilty (with camera evidence) and dismissed him. It went to the CCMA where he claimed he had never been trained not to do what he did. The catch was that even though he knew what he did was wrong, and had been operating the machine correctly for the last two years, because we had no signed training document stating that you may not recycle water into the chiller we lost the case and had to reinstate him.

 

Crazy as it sounds, but I suspect if SANParks does not have a signed Training document with these Rangers specifically stating you are not allowed to use violence then a smart Lawyer will get these guys off, and SANParks will have to shoulder the blame.

If the rangers involved are found guilty of GBH that would amount to committing a crime whilst on duty. That would equate to an immediate dismissal and if I was SANPARKS I might be tempted to charge them accordingly.

[Grease_Monkey]

I've sat in a few CCMA cases in the last year and one particular one comes to mind where one of our operators had been trained to operate a machine, and had been doing so for the last two years.

 

He recycled some dirty water though the Chiller, blocked the passages and we lost 4 days of production and a huge order. We had a hearing, found him guilty (with camera evidence) and dismissed him. It went to the CCMA where he claimed he had never been trained not to do what he did. The catch was that even though he knew what he did was wrong, and had been operating the machine correctly for the last two years, because we had no signed training document stating that you may not recycle water into the chiller we lost the case and had to reinstate him.

 

Crazy as it sounds, but I suspect if SANParks does not have a signed Training document with these Rangers specifically stating you are not allowed to use violence then a smart Lawyer will get these guys off, and SANParks will have to shoulder the blame.

Dismissing someone for poor performance is a mission - it's a whole process that needs to be followed strictly and be documented to avoid it being overturned. I chair disciplinary enquiries quite often and it's scary how many I overturn just because due process is not followed. The next most common reason I overturn dismissals is exactly what you just described above - no training. Document everything!

 

On the other hand, dismissal for misconduct is relatively easy if there is proof of said misconduct, even easier if there is a disciplinary code in place. If I was Sanparks I would be going the misconduct route in this case, won't be hard to argue that. And in the case of misconduct the ranger won't be able to use lack of training as an excuse because that applies to poor performance.

 

But, I assume you are clued up on the above seeing as you sit in on CCMA cases anyway...

Edited January 2, 2020 by Grease_Monkey

[IceCreamMan]

^{Dismissal is always fraught with pitfalls under ZA law. Nothing is a given and every case is judged on its own merits.}

 

^{Take one Old Mutual vs Peter Moyo as a prime example.}

 

^{In this case, it seems anecdotal evidence points to the fact that even with a permit one runs the risk of running foul of this cretin ranger.}