Кстати Путин еще раз подтведил, что мэры ответственны за сантехнику унитазов в каждом доме. Вот, очевидно, за это его и любят.
Printable View
Кстати Путин еще раз подтведил, что мэры ответственны за сантехнику унитазов в каждом доме. Вот, очевидно, за это его и любят.
Его любят за то, что он делает свою работу лучше, чем многие другие могли бы сделать на его месте.Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
[quote=Юрка]Его любят за то, что он делает свою работу лучше, чем многие другие могли бы сделать на его месте.[/quote:zxd5ajlm]Quote:
Originally Posted by "mishau_":zxd5ajlm
В смысле, лучше отвечает за сантехнику?
Yeah, selective, I'm not going to argue with you. But several thiefs in jail from thousands who deserves to be thrown there are better when no one. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
While that is true, it's not good for Putin/the government to be locking up just the ones that aren't there friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
Hear, hear.
When Khodorkovsky was arrested, I was in Russia at the time (purely by chance, I assure you). All the Russians I spoke to said nooo it wasn't for political purposes, so I asked why only him? Is he the only one? And they kept saying nooo, you just wait and see, he is only the first one. You gotta start somewhere! Well... I am still waiting...
А это зависит от того, когда Англия Березовского выгонит и Израиль Гусинского. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
ну да... а больше нету? :wink:
А больше и не надо, иначе будет раскулачивание. У все ваучеры назад потребуют. :D
Mr. Khoder made one big mistake - he thought that if he had so much money, he could play dirty games with the Holy Vertical of Power. He is paying now for that.
[quote=mishau_]А это зависит от того, когда Англия Березовского выгонит и Израиль Гусинского. :D[/quote:6tmcg80w]Quote:
Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":6tmcg80w
British courts legally can't extradite anyone to a country where he wouldn't receive a fair trial, or where the judiciary is not independent of central government, so the ball is really in Russia's court (pun intended) on that one.
If British courts were independent of central government, they would extradited such criminals like Berezovsky and Zakaev long time ago. The fact that they don't do that shows that they (the courts) can't do anything against the goverment's policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
[quote=scotcher]British courts legally can't extradite anyone to a country where he wouldn't receive a fair trial, or where the judiciary is not independent of central government, so the ball is really in Russia's court (pun intended) on that one.[/quote:jz0v7wrr]Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
And who would define what that "fair trial" thing means?
And technically (on paper), judiciary is independent of central government in Russia, but who decides whether Russian courts are corrupt or not? And by which criteria?
Or do British courts just rely on the UK's government opinion on the matter? In such case they cannot be defined as independent themselves.
Heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
Even a cursory glance at the battles the Home Office has had with the courts when trying to extradite Islamic extremists such as Abu Hamza, or those Afgans who only got into the UK by hijacking an airliner, would show what nonsense your are talking.
If the government can't extradite those people they really want and need to extradite, for whose extradition there is a great deal of public support, who have been convicted of crimes in the UK and contsitute a genuine threat to public safety, and who are wanted by the government's closest ally (in Hamza's case at least) with whom we have fast-track extradition treaties, then how much luck do you think they'd have pushing the courts to extradite people that no-one in the UK gives a stuff about, who aren't a danger to anybody, and who are wanted on obviously spurious charges by a country with a judicial system as laughable as Russia's?
Get a grip lad.
[quote=Ramil]And who would define what that "fair trial" thing means?Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
And technically (on paper), judiciary is independent of central government in Russia, but who decides whether Russian courts are corrupt or not? And by which criteria?
Or do British courts just rely on the UK's government opinion on the matter? In such case they cannot be defined as independent themselves.[/quote:2fg6x9cs]
That would be for the judge to decide after hearing the legal arguments of both sides. And the arguments would focus soley on whether or not he would receive a fair trial, not on whether or not he is guilty.
I'm not saying that the judgement was correct, just that there is no mechanism by which the UK government could interfere with it.
So it's up to judge then?
And the judge, being a loyal citizen and experienced professional, would never issue a decree that goes wrong against the general policy of the government.
But in reality you need lots of money and to be on good terms with someone like Putin. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Basil77
The general policy of the government is that the judge decides if the person will receive a fair trial in the home country. There is not a general policy of the British government that 'Russian courts are corupt, therefore you can't extradict anyone to Russia'. You will find other people have been extradicted to Russia by British courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Also a judge in the UK can and will go against government policy if he sees fit. It is quite likely his own personal political beliefs differ from that of the current ruling party.
I'm not saying the British courts are free from curruption, but everyone knows that Russian courts are more corrupt, you just won't admit it.
Your clutching-at-straws is ammusing. Read the two links I posted earlier, they'll answer your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Quite apart from the question of judicial independence though, why on Earth do you think the British government would want to block Berezovsky and Zakaev's extradition back to Russia? What possible benefit does Britian, or, more cynically/ realistically, any specific member of the current government, get from providing those two with asylum?
Возможно им удобно держать в Лондоне этих людей из-за того, что когда-то они придут к власти в России и дадут доступ Британцам к русским ресурсам.
Yes, yes, I've read them.
All of that sounds pretty good. I just question judge's impartiality when his decision concerns politics. I can assume that he makes his decisions basing on his own free will but were there any cases in which courts had gone against the government when their decisions could influence the international politics and British interests abroad?
There must have been at least one such case in the history otherwise one can suppose that the British government has always been "holy" and haven't done anything wrong.
The courts regularly go against what the government wishes, but that is because the government's position isn't a factor in the decision. In fact, by convention, the government often doesn't even state its view on any given case until after the verdict is given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
It is of course different when the government itself is either the defendent in a case, or has challenged the legality of a court's decision, or the court's interpretation of a law. In those cases the case would eventually go to the House of Lords (which acts as the highest court), but those cases are rare and are concerned with general points of law rather than specific cases.
Just to clarify. British judges are not appointed by the government, they cannot be dismissed or reprimanded by the government, their pay and conditions are not set by the government. And since any given judge can easily hold his position throughout the tenure of many governments, formed by different political parties, so there's no question of loyalty to one of them either.
Judges cannot make new laws or alter existing ones, they can only implement existing laws. The government, on the other hand, can only make and alter laws, they have no say in how they are implemented.
One such case of what? Your question doesn't mean anything. It is not that they are all honest and squeeky-clean, it is that there is simply no mechanism by which a government can directly influence a court decision in that way.Quote:
There must have been at least one such case in the history otherwise one can suppose that the British government has always been "holy" and haven't done anything wrong.
That does not mean that the government doesn't routinely change laws in response to court decisions it doesn't like. It does that regularly. That is after the fact though, and so cannot be used to influence an individual case.
It also doesn't mean that we have no bad laws. We do, lots of them, and one of them is what Berezovsky's lawyers used to hide behind: the EU Human Rights Act. The government may not like it, even the judge in question may not like it, but so long as it is on the legal books, the courts have to abide by it, end of story. The only way anyone could change it would be to repeal the Act, but that would have consequences way beyond a couple of Russian gangsters.
Or that we have no bad judges who make bad decisions. We do, lots of them. Some of them are so old and out of touch you wouldn't believe some of the nonsense they come out with. It's their own nonsense though, and generally speaking the Bar Council and Law Society (sort of lawyer's and QC's proffessional associations who regulate judges) is pretty good at slapping any of them who do anything too ridiculous.
Yes, the fact is it is a European Union law which is preventing Berezovski's return to Russia, not a British one. What is the political gain Britain has on keeping him here anyway. Just to piss the Kremlin off a bit?
Well I didn't say about mechanism. I thing there bound to be some unofficial methods of influence and persuasion. I'm not talking of the corruption or bribes...say the government's point of view on the matter is not a secret and I really doubt that the government cannot at least try some kind of a trick.Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
Moreover, I think that the labyrinths of the British law system make it possible to issue almost any decision upon any case and lawyers have means of manipulating the court into one decision or another.
This too, among other things. Mainly just not to create a precedent. As far as I know the british immigration law is very tolerant to "political refugees". Berezovsky is not a dissident, whom he pretends to be, but a criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
Yes, independent judiciary in the British (ie common law) system is probably the single hardest element of these societies for a typical ex-Soviet person to comprehend. I did not believe that this were even theoretically possible, lots of people still don't. And one does not even have to go to places Russia for comparisons -- simply getting across the channel would place one in quite a different environment, from what I heard.
It does have many shortcomings, but yet, yes, it works, and yes, it is that independent. Although I do not expect any Russian here to really believe it -- it just runs too much in contrary to our experience. (although, think for a second about why, for example, is the Bush administration in the US taking such great effort to go around it in so many high-profile and reputation-damaging cases related to the "war on terror" -- e.g. would one even need to argue that it is necessary to conduct certain wiretaps without judicial approval if it were that easy to find a judge who would rubberstamp such decisions for the sake of "national security and public benefit"? Can you imagine such a public discussion in Russia?).
In relatively simple cases common law also works much faster than a typical civil law system -- I've seen a paper where they studied how much time common civil cases (like eviction of a non-paying tenant) take to resolve in different countries, and the difference was quite striking. I suspect it gets worse (and much more expensive) as the cases become more complicated though.
What tricks are possible? What do you think they have over the judges? What loyalty do you think the judges owe to the serving government of the day, a government that might be gone tomorrow or next week? Why do you think a judges would give a damn about the government's opinion on anything? You don't mean patriotism surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
At the very most, a senior government official might be able to have a 'quiet word' with a serving judge, but a) this would at least break the ministerial code of conduct, which would be political suicide, at most be actually illegal and so probably not worth it either way, and b) the judge would still have to act within the confines of the law anyway, since his judgement would be torn apart by the defense at the inevitable appeal.
Other than that, the only way the British government can get him extradited is to take the case back to the high court themselves, but unless they could convince the judge that the facts are now somehow different to what they were originally, or unless berezovsky himself had done something in the meantime to breach the conditions under which he was granted asylum in the first place (I think he's come pretty close a couple of times, personally, but I'm not the CPS :) ), or unless the law has been changed in the meantime, it would have the same end result, and they would end up looking stupid.
But in any event, that is looking at things back-to-front. The British government not being willing to interfere in a judicial matter is not the same as the British government deciding the outcome in the first place, which is the charge I keep reading not only here, but on Russian radio stations and in Russian newspapers time and again.
Laberynthine it may be, but there are lawyers on both sides, and you can bet your right arm the one defending Berezovsky earns a lot more than the one acting for the CPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
That is the probably the biggest complaint most people have with the British justice system at present: on balance, it tends to favour the defendent far too much (especially the human rights act), which is what Berezovsky was in this case.
That says more about the state of your government than it says about the British one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Everybody knows that he is a criminal. I bet the judges that sat on his case know that. It doesn't alter the fact that it would be illegal under current British law (any EU law that Britain ratifies automatically becomes British law) to extradite him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
That's what "the rule of law" means. It is above government. You may be used to the law being a bit more maleable to those in power, but them's the facts.
Interestingly, there is one person who does have the power to directly influence the case, or sack/ replace/ instruct a judge, or whatever. The Queen :)
Have they tried blackmail yet? It usually helps. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
We'll have Putin to send her a poscard saying something nice then :)Quote:
Interestingly, there is one person who does have the power to directly influence the case, or sack/ replace/ instruct a judge, or whatever. The Queen :)
анекдот на тему: :)
Референдум.
Вопрос: Не против ли вы того чтобы Путин снова был президентом?
1) Да, не против.
2) Нет, не против.
Thanks Scotcher, TATY and laxxy. I've been trying to tell our honorable forum members that the judges are independent, but they refused to believe me. At least you guys know more about the process than me.
Hopefully the Russians realize that not all judicial systems have to be biased.
Ramil, do you really believe that a random judge in Britian cares whether the government wants Berezovsky extradited or not? Besides, give me a good reason why the government would want to prevent the extridation in the first place... Surely not "to piss off Putin" ?
Мне кажется решения насчет лиц такого масштаба как Березовский принимаются на уровне правительства.
Это здесь от "масштабная фигура", там - очередной чудак на букву М из России.Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
Talking of extraditions, did you know the Russian Constitution forbids the extradition of its citizens from Russia?
Russian citizens. Russia will extradict foreigners. Moreover, as far as I know, the international treaties take precedence over the constitution.
Тебе кажется, но это вовсе не так. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
[quote=kalinka_vinnie]Тебе кажется, но это вовсе не так. :wink:[/quote:1j4fhtlb]Quote:
Originally Posted by "mishau_":1j4fhtlb
Мне кажется, ты работаешь в британском правительстве, коли у тебя такая уверенность, нет? :wink:
нет. но зато у меня здравый ум :wink:
Ну, это у всех у нас ума палаты. :D
"У меня здравый ум" - мне почему-то не нравится это выражение. Но я не уверена, может быть, и можно так сказать.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
"Ума палаты" - тоже не нравится, никогда не слышала это выражение во множественное числе.
Оля!
Я, имярек, находясь в здравом уме и трезвой памяти...
Стандартная формулировка. Часто встречается в завещаниях и других нотариальных документах.
Ума палата.
Есть такое выражение. Напр. "У него ума палата" (he's very clever) но никогда не встречал во множ. числе. Скорее всего, не употребляется.
"Я, имярек, находясь в здравом уме и трезвой памяти..." - в такой форме меня ничего не смущает. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ramil