Saturday, February 13, 2010

FIFA Johannesburg Communications Centre Robbed: MSM Ominously Silent


ILSA distances itself from this story, which was originally reported by PRAAG, and then later redistributed by various news feeds and websites.

It seems that THE STORY IS FALSE, according to Beeld. You can view the Beeld article here. We have a responsibility to uphold the truth, and for this reason I have elected to leave the original story posted, and print a retraction at the same time.

Which makes me wonder what the hell has got into PRAAG. Their credibility really is in tatters. This isn't the first time they have tried to pass off false stories as being factual. You might recall the saga surrounding the false murder pictures, which PRAAG insisted were legitimate, despite ILSA and others proving they were false.

ILSA also fully endorses the White Refugees retraction.

I became aware of this story through my friend, ally and fellow blogger, Andrea Muhrrteyn. She does a sterling job over at White Refugees, and this story appeared on our news feed. The incident, and the implications, are so stunning that it deserves to be shouted from the rooftops. 

The following news report (below) was published by PRAAG, on Friday, 12 February 2010, at 11:48 hours detailing how 20 - 25 armed robbers, conducted a massive armed robbery of FIFA's Communication Center in Johannesburg at approximately 09:00 hrs.

The FIFA Communication Center is is being setup for 900 journalists to report from, during the 2010 World Cup. Millions of Rands of communication equipment was stolen by 20 to 25 armed robbers, with military style tactics, precision and planning.

Irrespective of the explosive nature of this news report, neither News 24, nor Independent Newspapers have filed any reports on the issue. It is as if News 24 and IOL have decided that the massive armed robbery of FIFA's communication equipment never occurred.

In response to comment questions from PRAAG readers of the article, who could find no corroboration of the article in other South African media corporations, such as News 24 and Independent News; Dan Roodt, editor for Praag, stated that:

Apparently, the big media groups have all signed legal agreements with FIFA that in return for being allowed direct access to FIFA news report during the 2010 World Cup, they would not report "anything negative" about the World Cup. Presumably, this is being interpreted as such a "negative" event which they are accordingly burying as if it never occurred.

Source: Why We Are White Refugees

17 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Well done for reporting on this. Makes one wonder what else is being "omitted" by the MSM.

Dachshund said...

A big thank you to Andrea for passing this on.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

VI et al,

Maybe I am incorrect.. but the silence about this in the mainstream media is shocking.

Has anyone heard anything else?

Just consider if such a news blackout had happened during apartheid. Then you would have seen newspapers who printed blocks of 'black scrubbed out news'. Everybody would know that the news was being censored.

Now???? The people are clueless?

Sorry.. but i think this is extremely dangerous..


Anonymous said...

Fifa does not even HAVE a communication centre in Braamfontein!!!

And the one near Nasrec, has NOT been robbed.
Your "reporting" is a joke.

You should print a retraction.

But I know you wont, just as you wont publish this comment, will you?

Beause that would mean having to ADMIT YOU MADE A MISTAKE and didnt VERIFY your claims.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1.16. Don't come here and blackmail us to print your comments. Behave like that in the future and you are outta here. I imagine you are the same MSM piss ant that commented on the PRAAG site. If the story turns out to be incorrect, we will retract, until then fuck off.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...


There is someone at PRAAG saying the PRAAG article is not true. But PRAAG have not removed the article.

It will be interesting to see where this leads to.


You may be correct; however, neither ILSA, nor White Refugees reported the story, as our story. We are only reporting that PRAAG has reported this event; and Dan Roodts response to the media silence.

Is Dan Roodt and PRAAG lying; its possible. Is the media lying and being silent. Also possible.

If you are so convinced that PRAAG are lying, what was Dan Roodts response to you, when you informed him and PRAAG that their article was a lie, and not based upon fact?

Exzanian said...

Publishing a spurious article like this will be far more damaging to the credibility of Praag, or any website publishing it, than they would stand to gain.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...


just read your response now! thats very funny! ;-)

Anonymous said...

So about that retraction...


"There is no FIFA Communication Centre planned in Braamfontein.

The FIFA Communications activities such as daily press media briefings, etc will happen during the 2010 FIFA World Cup at the SoccerCity Stadium.

FIFA's Headquarter during the FIFA World Cup will be in Sandton next to Nelson Mandela Square.

In addition, we can confirm that the old YMCA building is not part at all of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

Kind regards,
FIFA Media SA Team"

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...


No disrespect, but: If that is indeed an original FIFA Media SA Team statement in response to PRAAG's article (PDF):

1. Where is the link to the original 'FIFA Media SA Team' statement, on the 'FIFA Media SA Team' website?

2. If so provided; I've been to an old YMCA building in Durban; I am sure there are old YMCA buildings in every major city in the country; no doubt perhaps maybe even half a dozen in Jhb. The YMCA building the PRAAG article refers to (whether it exists or not, I don't know) is stated as being in Smitstreet Braamfontein.

3. If FIFA are denying that any of the events in the PRAAG article ever occured, and are all a lie; why not say so, in clear and succinct language?

Exzanian said...

Why would Fifa deny something that never happened :)

fuechs said...

7th-Dan Roodt seemst to be a credible source of disinformation as always. Very entertaining!

doob said...

I see that you are siding with Beeld on this one eh?

Don't know if you've seen the update on this, but PRAAG actually has a case number. Quite a retaliation in response to Beeld's article.

Isn't it strange that they (Beeld) have not ripped them to shreds if it is indeed false?

In the same article by Beeld they admit that FIFA would only grant conditional accreditation to journalists reporting on the World cup.

Any journalist whose actions or behaviour affects the reputation of FIFA or the organising committee in a negative way, would be denied access to the stadiums.

Apparently Media24 challenged this via the law firm Webber Wentzel, who requested "small" changes to these conditions. They are still waiting for an answer.

Consider this then:
Beeld says it is false....BECAUSE FIFA SAYS IT IS.

Not because they have evidence to the contrary.

Your retraction was a bit premature don't you think?

Looks like MSM piss ant got his way?

Anonymous said...

@doob. I get your insinuation. This is how the facts played out. PRAAG published, BEELD disputed. PRAAG hesitated and even questioned the validity of their own article. Then PRAAG published a new article. I have erred on the side of caution, given PRAAG's hesitance and their previous track record.

doob said...


I understand your dillema.

Being a credible source for information is and should be paramount.

Then again, the credibilty of a story can only be determined once all the information is on the table and the evidence for and against it have been weighed against eachother.

In this case, what evidence has been brought against PRAAG's story?

A statement by FIFA.

The evidence in favour of PRAAG's story?

Capt. Bheki Mavundla confirmed that a robbery had taken place.

PRAAG has provided a case number verifying the incident.

A source which has affirmed his testimony not once, but twice.

The only thing that is in dispute is whether FIFA can be linked to the robbery or not.

If PRAAG can prove this link exists then it should make headlines. If not, you would be fully justified in printing a retraction.

My point was that there is not enough evidence at the moment to do either.

It does make sense though based on "their previous track record" that you would gravitate towards the latter.

The facts actually played out like this:PRAAG published, BEELD disputed 3 days later. PRAAG published a new article on the very same day affirming their original story and providing more evidence.

Anonymous said...

@doob. Unless PRAAG has amended their site, they printed an article advising their readers that the article may be false. What am I to assume when there is self-doubt. I will, however, review our position if more evidence comes to light.

doob said...


I was unaware that there was "an article advising their readers that the article may be false"

The only one I have seen is the one making their readers aware of Beeld's dispute. There was no statement on PRAAG's behalf only direct quotes from the Beeld article.

In the end, it is your prerogative to publish or retract any article you want.

It would not make sense to restore the article right now. At least not until new evidence comes to light.

I was merely questioning the basis on which it was retracted in the first place.