|
3xpert719pro (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
protesting chickens
Juluka69 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
I fully concur erastus, for sure the only way such things will end is when we start seeing people being punished for their evil deeds and I agree with U fully this needs to happen. I just hope it's the last time we witness such pain inflicted on innocent guys.
erastusmovies (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
For once we can agree, I think a lot of people at Ardhi House, and the brokers who sold the land and cleared it ought to be criminally charged, sentenced and fined to the fullest extent of the law, its the only way to bring accountability and end impunity, that report by MP's was useless if it doesn't recommend such actions. Its nice having a mature conversation with someone even though we disagree at times.
Juluka69 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
I quote from my earlier post to respond to you - Point is not how high the buildings were, were they there LEGALLY ? answer is sadly NO and that's why even compensation may be tricky, that's the sad fact my brother regardless of what some "smart lawyer" may tell you, unless someone pays on humanitarian grounds. Like U so rightly observed, Kai Tak(when it was open) and even Chep Lak kok have skyscrapers close to the airport but not on the flight path.
Juluka69 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
@erastusmoviesh, Humanitarian assistance is what the report recommends not COMPENSATION. You can not be compensated for what did not rightfully own legally and that unfortunately was the case with the Syokimau victims. For me the disappointment was that Mutava does not recommend the arrest and charging of the Mlolongo brothers who "sold" the land in the first place. Check out my post 6days ago...
erastusmovies (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
I did some homework, a one or two story building according to international flight regulations cannot be considered to be in a flight path unless build either on the runaway or one km directly infront of the runaway. None of those houses demolished did. By your argument of flight path warehouses and car hire offices at or near the airport should be demolished.
erastusmovies (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
A report tabled in Parliament yesterday by the JPC that investigated the recent demolitions be adopted and implemented by the GOK, then the victims may be compensated for their loss by the state. The report tabled by the chair of the committee, Gachoka MP Musyimi, also recommends that the government gives humanitarian assistance to all those affected. And as Chris Thairu reports, it also notes that majority of those affected may not have known that the title deeds they held were fake.
Juluka69 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Point is not how high the buildings were, were they there LEGALLY ? answer is sadly NO and that's why even compensation may be tricky, that's the sad fact my brother regardless of what some "smart lawyer" may tell you, unless someone pays on humanitarian grounds.
Juluka69 (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
You miss the point as usual, I was just jst giving the Kai Tak exmple. to show how close buildings can be to an airport n yet not in the flight path. How so sure you can be EVERYONE who bought land in Syokimau followed what according 2 u is "due diligence" beats me when it's a case of "res ipsa loquita" . The PS showed us the original title deed of the land and clearly it had not been subdvded. Any simple search at Min of Lands would reveal that, tuache short cuts
erastusmovies (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Bro. I am confused by your reply, first off, Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong CLOSED in 1998, The airport was surrounded by mountains and skyscrapers 5-10k. Syokimau highest buildings were 2 floors, now if a plane is flying that low that far off the runway, we have a problem. According to the parliamentary hearings, the land and home owners followed due diligence when buying the land and followed all the proper avenues to develop it and pay taxes. Wait for report.erastusmovies 1 sec ago |
