What's your point? I have no direct experience of Hillbrow, but from everything I've read it was the very defiance of the Group Areas Act that made it a thriving, cosmopilitan, Bohemian neighbourhood. The exodus of whites following the council's effective abandonment of the area (not unrelated to the fact of colonisation by non-whites) that led to its downfall. Are you saying everything was better under apartheid when the government could arbitrarily decide who was allowed to live where, based on the colour of their skin? I trust not, but your post does rather come across that way.

Rightly or wrongly the fact is that Hillbrow was a relatively safe and vibrant place to live before Blacks were allowed to live there, there is not getting away from the fact it has become a very dangerous and a terrible place to live where no white person would walk easy. .
I applaud the ending of Apartheid and the end of the Afrikaaners running the Country (although they still hold great power) but it is not a rosy picture in SA.

Pretty much. Though I'm afraid that sugar coated racism has now infected this thread and not much more sense will be had from it.

Perhaps a threat of a repeat showing of Death of a Princess.

Sugar coated? Where? Seems pretty unadulterated to me.

We can at least be thankful that nobody has posted explicitly that those darkies can't rule themselves, they need white people to govern them. You are right though, you'd have to be blind not to pick that message up from some of the posts in this thread.

I don't remember much about economic sanctions against SA, Iraq is fresher though and the already hurting civilians seemed to bear the brunt. When you can be sure a country is up to no good is when they shut down the media access to their trouble spot. In the news from SA we saw police with big rubber whips clashing with protesters and really leaning into it, and the next day no news at all - no reporters allowed. In Israel a soldier was filmed breaking a boy's hands with bricks for throwing rocks and right after that no more news. You'd assume whatever they do when there's no coverage is att least as bad as when the world is watching. Even governments formed out of popular revolutions can fall when caught trying to muzzle the press (I'm thinking of Nicaragua here). Basically, if you're going to appear legitimate you can't hide your activities, especially when they contravene the law. In Saudi Arabia sharia law isn't just the law, it's the constitution of the country and they're right upfront about it. I read the wiki page when they sent troops into Bahrain to guard the oilfields and even though it's a tough place, Saudi is the big stabilizer in that part of the world as well as the seat of Islam. Abdullah was the most 'western' king they've had but hardcore clerics still have a lot of say. Who is in line to follow Abdullah? He's 81 now......... They'll cut the hands off the odd thief, whip a few people, stone a few..... and foreigners who get in trouble will cause international incidents. A blonde with big hair in a bikini driving a convertable with a beer in her hand could be in real trouble. The Arab Spring likely won't be a violent thing in Saudia Arabia because Abdullah's spent loads on improving infrasture to forestall unrest and it seems to be working but his successor may be different.

Back on subject, lashing is revoked, apparently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15102190

hmmm, no backbone these people it seems, bit of world news and they revoke it.

The original sentence was probably just a ploy to make the king look good when he steps in to prevent it.

In a separate news, still in Saudi Arabia

So maybe they can be influenced by external opinion on some matters after all.

Looks like my thread helped.

How about starting one on NB's crazy idea to stop free flu shots for chronically ill people between 18 and 64?

interesting that none of the lady posters have any comments.