The Pickering Post
Friday, 19th October 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.


After having lived in South Africa I left fearing for its future. Affirmative action was ripping the heart from a tough nation of builders, the ANC was corrupted by its newfound power and white rule had started to appear the lesser of two evils. But the transition from Apartheid is finally working and no better indication of that was the performance of Judge Masipa and her handling of the Pistorius case.

M’lady has done the SA judiciary proud and history will treat her well.

I watched every minute of this difficult trial without preconception or prejudice. It was a showcase of horror and M’lady shouldered the responsibility of unpicking the truth from shrewd white advocates and dozens of witnesses. 

She sat alone without the help of accompanying judges or a jury. What a mammoth task this unassuming little black lady was set.

The State’s case appeared to have been irreparably damaged by claiming murder 1 and M’Lady gave it the short shrift it deserved. 

A murder 1 conviction was extremely remote given the circumstances and culpable homicide (manslaughter) was the only possible finding apart from acquittal.

After having heard all the evidence and studied the body language I had come to the conclusion Oscar Pistorius had not meant to kill his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. 

I know the majority disagrees, and I understand why, but there was one nagging piece of evidence the defence ignored; why, if he had really meant to kill Reeva, didn’t he shoot toward the toilet? An intruder would not have been sitting on the toilet and the direction of the shots gave weight to Pistorius’s thinking of where an “intruder” might be standing.

Surely it is inconceivable that Pistorius would get up from the bed at 3am on his stumps, shift the fans and draw the curtains prior to intentionally shooting his girlfriend through a toilet door and then screaming for help. 

Pistorius said it was a “mistake” because his counsel instructed him to say that rather than an “accident”. An accident would have implied negligence and an admission of negligence would have made culpable homicide a certainty.

That instruction caused the defence apparent damage, but M’lady saw through it... she saw through many things. 

Was it really just a horrible set of circumstances that led to the brutal death of a beautiful woman? M’lady thinks so. If she is right then what an awful life Pistorius will now face. An image of horror imprinted on his mind forever, nursing his beautiful partner shot in the thigh, the hand and head, taking her downstairs, pleading with someone to put her back together again. 

But it was too late, she had stopped bleeding and part of her brain was on the floor.

Pistorius is not guilty of murder but he will likely be found guilty of culpable homicide. If negligence is found to be a contributing factor in Reeva’s death then he must be found guilty of the lesser charge. It will be difficult to dismiss an element of negligence.

M’lady holds the fate of Oscar Pistorius in her tiny fingers and in her heart it will be difficult to jail him if she truly believes it was a horrible accident, and she does believe that.

Whatever the decision, today there will be no winners. Except for M’lady who managed a most difficult judicial process alone, with a quiet dignity, firm control and a supreme intellect, while the world watched. 

This trial will become part of South African folklore and Judge Masipa (Zulu for happy) will stand as a permanent monument to black achievement. Her decision should not be appealed.

Take a bow, M’lady, you are an exceptional woman.


So, you don't call out "WHO'S IN THERE", before you start shooting??? Come on Larry, if it had been Joe Blow instead of Pistorius he would have been convicted for sure. The judge is probably a secret fan, just like half of the jury was in the O J Simpson trial. What a farce!

SA: Afrikaner police superintendent Erika Heunis, beaten to death, Graaff Reinet

Date Posted: Thursday 24-Jan-2008
Police senior superintendent Erika Heunis, who was found beaten to death in Graaff Reinet in the western Cape:

Graaff Reinet - Residents of this historical town were shocked by the cruel murder of an Afrikaner police instructor.

Senior superintendent Erika Heunis, 36, was apparently also gang-raped before she was beaten to death with stones. She was married and has two teenaged daughters.

There were supposedly three attackers, but by late on Tuesday police still refused to reveal any facts.

According to a source at the police academy where she worked, she was running as usual with police students along Mountain Avenue, a well-known hiking trail outside the town. Local residents say other women have also been attacked along that trail.

She was attacked and murdered about 3km from the turn-off to the road.
It's not known why the students did not protect her. Apparently they had returned to the academy without her. Her attackers apparently laid in wait for her.

FOCUS-Eight dead in S.Africa soldier killing spree 1999

(Changes dateline, additional quotes) By Ellis Mnyandu
BLOEMFONTEIN, South Africa, Sept 16 (Reuters)

A black officer went on a killing rampage at a South African
military base on Thursday, shooting dead six white soldiers
and a white civilian before he was gunned down by colleagues.

The lieutenant opened fire with an assault rifle as a
group of soldiers of the First South Africa Infantry
Battalion was on its way to a shooting practice.

A major, a captain and four other soldiers died in the shooting.
Five other white soldiers were injured, one critically,
and were being treated in hospital................................

'But the transition from Apartheid is finally working'???? Have you totally lost your mind? How can you be so sensible and brave on some issues and so left-wing-pathetic on other?

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Gerrie Nel have a reputation as an "attack dog?" Not what I would consider an upstanding 'Officer of the Court' but more like an inquisitor who has no regard for the witnesses or the accused's civil rights! Reducing a Defendant to a blubbering wreck by badgering, berating and belittling does not come across to me as a proper prosecution but I suppose if you have a horrific reputation as an 'attack dog' and you have no evidence to support the charge of pre-meditated murder, it is most difficult to perform for the media circus like a trained seal! Pistorius held his ground, admitted to the shooting with mitigating circumstances and the mongrel attack dog had nowhere to go! The Judge did well to see through the circus performance.

That's right sandy, only 'his' side of the story.

Like mine ?

A lot of those African women have bald imitation hair styles.

Many of Our Judges and Magistrates should take lessons from Judge Masipa.

That's a point Waldo

Oh I get it - Mr Walker returns in another guise.

Larry you are 100% correct as I said in a previous post. The prosecutors could never prove beyond doubt that Pistorius acted with premeditated malice aforethought that resulted in the charge of murder. As hammy as his fake tears and antics were concerned as long as he never wavered from his story he could never be convicted of murder.

Ooh, you are naughty Jack, but I like you. Bwaahaaahaa.

Maybe she did, we only have his word for everything that occurred in that room.

Larry I can only imagine you are stirring here. You tell me a normal person would fire through a door, not knowing where his other half was? A burglar stopped for a whiz before he attacked anyone, what would it have been a nervous pee. No thinking person can imagine this guy innocent, only a judge, we all know the common sense they show. I hope he gets all they can dish out, if he goes down for manslaughter.

The South African Judiciary wanted Obama arrested , for war crimes, (In Africa) when he went there. It didn't happen, so the SA Govt is not the equal of the country's Judiciary. While it is unlikely , he would ever be arrested, money accepted is still a bribe .

In response to Paisley re Gillard. Too many "I can't recalls" yet able to precisely reply, "Absolutely not" to various other less significant questions. Any woman as close to Wilson as she was during commissioning of the AWU-WRA and central to rumours swirling around her at the time would "recall" preparing the Power of Attorney and where she was when it was signed. Most of us would remember the time, day, place of witnessing, and even what outfit we were wearing. So why does Julia Gillard continue refusing to answer the question, yes or no? Stock standard reply remains:- "I witnessed all documents appropriately." This is an avoidance mechanism and may yet be her undoing.

Pistorius Judge was Wrong
What if there were armed intruders in the bathroom?

The following article in the Australian Newspaper covers what I said recently that Gillard was the person behind the slush fund as she called it. As I have said previously the most important incriminating offence was when the first application was rejected, and she wrote and argued the case and therefore showing deep involvement, and not just giving casual advice as she claimed. It was this act that made Julie Bishop as a top lawyer say Gillard was in breach of sections 170,409 and 558 of the WA criminal code, and section 43 of the Associations Incorporation Act.

Blewitt and Wilson did not have the skills to set up this fund, and only a lawyer with experience could do this, and this is borne out by her having to argue the case in writing when the first application was rejected. The mere fact she typed in AWU in her letter would mean she would be aware that the AWU was not informed about what they were up to. i.e this was not a union authorised fund. It was the correspondence after the rejection that exposed Gillard to having broken the law.

“Third, Gillard is accused of improperly setting up an association that Wilson used to enact his alleged fraud. Gillard helped apply to set it up and when the application was rejected she wrote to the authorities arguing the case.

As a result the application was approved. This allegation is the one the Coalition was referring to in late 2012, when Julie Bishop spoke out. “She appears to be in breach of sections 170, 409 and 558 of the WA criminal code and she appears to be in breach of section 43 of the Associations Incor­poration Act,” she was reported in The Australian Financial Review as saying. “They are indictable ­offences.”

George Brandis was reported by Fairfax as saying Gillard “materially misled” the authorities in the application process and Tony Abbott accused Gillard of “unethical conduct and possibly unlawful behaviour”.

People who say Gillard did nothing wrong rely on the premise that she did not know what the association was used for and therefore cannot be blamed.

That may be true, but it entirely misses the point. The allegation is simply that it was wrong of Gillard to help set the association up in the first place. This allegation relies on significant documentation for its basis. Now Gillard’s statement has added to that evidence.

In my opinion, this allegation presents a risk for Gillard, both in terms of an adverse finding and possible charges.”

In due course, this sorry chapter in our history will draw to a close. Findings will be made, or not, and charges will be laid, or not. No amount of public barracking by ignorant commentators (and there are many) will change that.

In the meantime, those wishing to stamp out union corruption can turn their minds to how they can achieve the single most important reform we must have, that is to make it illegal for employers to ever give money to union officials in the first place.

Saudi Arabia is the principal source of terrorist funding in the world, and is the location of Mecca which all mosques must face. It is home base for the Moslem religion, just as Rome is the home base for the Catholic Religion and Salt Lake City is the home base for the Mormon religion. There are mosques in Rome and Salt Lake City, and in fact the Mosque of Rome is the largest mosque in Italy. However there is not one single Christian or other non-Moslem church structure in Saudi Arabia, and Christians must meet in private there and are liable to arrest. Why are we and the rest of the non-Moslem world taking it up the arse to placate the Moslems? Surely, until freedom of religion is permitted in Saudi Arabia and Christian and other churches are permitted to be freely built, the compliment should be returned and all mosques should be banned in Australia, including the new proposed ones on the Gold Coast and in Bendigo.