Thread: Еще один сторонник Березовского вдруг отравился!

I addressed my answer to Scotcher and whose of Westeners who suffers from White Man's Burden.

Originally Posted by Bisquit

And why do you think my holy country should be reformed.

Because its a complete and total dump, with massive social problems, lammentable social justice, rampant corruption, and an absolutely miserable standard of living for the majority.

I mean, from a purely personal point of view, I couldn't care less, it makes no difference to my life either way if Russians want to wallow in their national martyr/ victim/ inferiority complex for all eternity. I just feel sorry for all those Russians I know who don't want to live like that, and are stuck there trying to make things better for themselves and their families in spite of the efforts of you and your ilk.

Originally Posted by Bisquit

We are used to living with our whims and premonitions towards West. And West did nothing to convince us that we are qrong. Now US plan to deploy messiles and a radar station in Easten Europe and it really poses a serious threat to Russia. We didn't anything like that except Cuba crisis. I think all Westeners remember very well of Cuba crisis. Moreover in 90s West tried to destroy my country by pro US IMF advisers. There is nothing we should love West for.

I don't even know what you are trying to say here, or at whom you are spitting.

Originally Posted by scotcher

But the British police are not directly subordinate to any "interor ministry", that's the whole point. There isn't even a national British police force, there are many regional police forces (of which the Metropolitan Police, aka Scotland Yard, is just one), and they are each partially subordinate to the Home Office (for policy), partially to the Treasury (for funding), partially to local Police Authority made up of magistrates and local councillors (for specifics, such as promotions to senior ranks), and are also answerable to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. There is no direct chain of command ("power vertical!") from anyone in the cabinet to anyone in the police.

Very interesting. So, why don't you guys just fling out to the street the whole central goverment? As far as I see you don't need it at all! And may be the army is independent too? Your forses came to Iraq by their own desision?

Theoretically, he could probably block it, sure, but he could only do that within the law, and the decision would be open to massive scrutiny by a) the press, b) the Opposition, c) those in his own party who don't like him, d) any number of human rights organisations, and e) any number of ambulance-chasing human rights lawyers.

Why would he open up that can of worms over an issue that is, I can assure you, so low down on the list of most voter's priorities as to not even register

Poor Blair, beeing the head of the state (I don't count the toy queeny), he can't make a decision on his own!

In your interpretation the social system in Britain looks more like an anarchy than a constitutional monarchy.

2 Scotcher from the dump
Thank you very much, White Master. Now you have showed your true attitude to my country.

Right. BTW, in the US the police is also funded mostly locally, and the police chiefs are elected -- one result of that of course is the interesting security situation, where areas of high crime rates and areas of very low crime rates are separated by just a city street.
And it's not just communities have their police -- large private companies have theirs too, e.g. hospitals, universities, railroad companies, etc. (and those are police forces with power to arrest criminals, fine violators, etc etc, not some private security companies).

Originally Posted by Basil77

In your interpretation the social system in Britain looks more like an anarchy than a constitutional monarchy.

It's not called anarchy, it's called separation of power. Pretty much the basis of modern society. Quite a hard concept to grasp, I know ))

Originally Posted by Bisquit

2 Scotcher from the dump
Thank you very much, White Master. Now you have showed your true attitude to my country.

My true attitude to Russia?

Do you mean that I wish that Russia, of which both my wife and my child are citizens, and where I have a great many friends, wasn't such a complete armpit? You are damn straight I wish for a better existence for my friends and family, and if that means offending the occassional deluded patriot then I can live with that.

scotcher прав. Мы дерьмо на 90% и это не только мои слова или скотчера, а слова писателя Аксёнова, мнение которого я уважаю. Правда я считал на 70%, но когда услышал реплику Аксенова на 90%, то возможно соглашусь ина 90. А самое страшное это то, что мы хотим оставаться жить в этом дерьме вечно, потому что оно теплое и родное, в то время как на свободе - холодно и чуждо.

Вот, но это никак не связано ни со Скотланд Ярдом ни и Блэром. Просто я допускаю возможность того, что вопрос выдачи Березовского лежит в компетенции британского правительства.

Originally Posted by mishau_

scotcher прав. Мы дерьмо на 90% и это не только мои слова или скотчера, а слова писателя Аксёнова, мнение которого я уважаю. Правда я считал на 70%, но когда услышал реплику Аксенова на 90%, то возможно соглашусь ина 90. А самое страшное это то, что мы хотим оставаться жить в этом дерьме вечно, потому что оно теплое и родное, в то время как на свободе - холодно и чуждо.

Какое самоуничижение! Советую повесить (Edited. L.). А Аксёнов твой - м##ак.

Wow... what a discussion

Originally Posted by laxxy

It's not called anarchy, it's called separation of power. Pretty much the basis of modern society. Quite a hard concept to grasp, I know ))

I always thought that separation of power means that three brunches of power: the legislative, the executive and the judicial can't affect one another in their decisions. But police and goverment are both relate to the executive branch. And if there is a separation even in each department... Did you read the fable about a swan, a crayfish and a pike?

Originally Posted by Basil77

Originally Posted by laxxy

It's not called anarchy, it's called separation of power. Pretty much the basis of modern society. Quite a hard concept to grasp, I know ))

I always thought that separation of power means that three brunches of power: the legislative, the executive and the judicial can't affect one another in their decisions. But police and goverment are both relate to the executive branch. And if there is a separation even in each department... Did you read the fable about a swan, a crayfish and a pike?

Have you anything new to say that actually refutes anything that has been said? Have you uncovered some constitutional loop-hole or secret mechanism in British law that allows a minister to decide the outcome of a court case that we don't know about? And have you divined a motive for Blair to wish to do so in this case, even assuming that such a loop-hole existed?

Basically, do you have anything of any value to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep posting meaningless quips ad ignorantiam until everyone else loses interest, and you don't have to listen to things that don't suit your ridiculous prejudices any more?

Originally Posted by Basil77

Originally Posted by mishau_

scotcher прав. ...

Какое самоуничижение! Советую повесить (Edited. L.). А Аксёнов твой - м##ак.

Каждый имеет право на своё мнение, и не нужно переходить на личности.

Lots of heat but not too much light in this discussion. It does reveal lots of prejudice and ignorance.
I guess a Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy which evolved over centuries without written constitution must be confusing to those whose nation developed in a very different way.
In fact the UK continues to evolve and change, more rapidly under the present Government, to the extent that most of the population have lost track of the "modernisation", devolution, changes to the House of Lords, changes to all the complex and interlinked checks and balances that have worked reasonably well for so long.
And Basil, the Prime Minister is just that, not a dictator. He needs to take his Cabinet of Ministers with him and they need to carry the support of the House of Commons in many respects.
As for the "Seperation of Powers" part of the debate. Is it not well known how many times the Courts have ruled against the Government? How many times Judicial interpretation of the all powerful Human Rights Act has frusrated even newly enacted Legislation?
Even when such moves run counter to public opinion - eg in respect of failure to deport cases, or failure to detain uncharged terrorist suspects for public safety, people can appreciate that the Law checks unfettered Political Power.
Control of Police Forces is also complex being shared between appointed Chief Constables (Commisioner in the case of the Metropolitan Police), the Home Office ie Covernment, and Police Authorities, which include in their membership local politicians and lay people The present Government has taken a step to imposing more central control through issuing performance targets, threatening dismissal of Chief Constables etc but Forces still retain a large degree of independence from the Government of the day and resist attempts to politicise them. Surely the dilligence of the Metropolitan Police in pursuing the allegations of corruption in Government - "Cash for Honours Enquiry" illustrates the independence of the Police and willingness to act "without fear or favour". Could anyone in Russia imagine a Police Officer applying to a Judge for authority to search the Kremlin whilst investigating a corruption allegation against President Putin? I suspect not! That is nearly the state of play in the UK though. I personally prefer this sort of mess to the thought of a "strong" Government which/ President who controls all without check or balance, and stamps on all who disagree. I am led to believe that Mr Putin may enjoy greater public support than Prime Minister Blair does so who is to say which system in its context is best? Certainly there is increasing apathy and cynicism about politics in the UK "mature democracy".
OK, I know, I haven't brought light to the debate either.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Have you anything new to say that actually refutes anything that has been said? Have you uncovered some constitutional loop-hole or secret mechanism in British law that allows a minister to decide the outcome of a court case that we don't know about? And have you divined a motive for Blair to wish to do so in this case, even assuming that such a loop-hole existed?

Basically, do you have anything of any value to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep posting meaningless quips ad ignorantiam until everyone else loses interest, and you don't have to listen to things that don't suit your ridiculous prejudices any more?

Can you show a little more tolerance to another man's opinion, please? I'v just answered to laxxy's post.

Ну Басил, и другие, не обижайтесь на нас.

Мы тонко объяснили как работает "разделение властей" http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Разделение_властей
Мы даже дали примеры как оно работает в Англии. Но вы всё ещё не верите, не дая одну разумную причину. Вот скажите, пожалуйста, почему у нас (ну, по крайне мере в Англии) не работает разделение властей? Как, именно как, может Блэр влиять на расследование? Примеры у вас есть? Без шуток, я хочу вас понимать!

Нам кажется, что это как будьто вам удобнее, потому что тогда можете объяснить почему нейтральные органы делают выводы, которые вам не нравятся.

Кстати: армия не входит в "разделение властей"

Вы лучше объясните почему статус политиццкого беженца присваивается судом. По-моему суд не должен заниматься политикой.

А кто должен решать статуса всех людей, которые ищут убежище в стране, по-вашему? Нужен какой-то суд, который смотрит все доказательства и т.д. Вы думаете, только один человек в месяц хочет убежище в Англии?

Но вы не ответили не на один из моих вопрос. Даже те, которые я написал вчера. Не ускользните!

Originally Posted by Basil77

Can you show a little more tolerance to another man's opinion, please? I'v just answered to laxxy's post.

I can respect any opinion that amounts to more than sticking fingers in your ears and singing "la la la, I'm not listening" over and over again.

I mean, if that's the game you want to play, then fair enough, but at least have the decency to say that at the start of a thread, rather than after someone has taken the time to explain something to you.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

А кто должен решать статуса всех людей, которые ищут убежище в стране, по-вашему?

Вот что на днях прочитал по этому вопросу.


Би-би-си: В прессе уже появились сообщения, что британские дипломаты жалуются на трудности, которые у них возникают в общении с их российскими коллегами, когда они пытаются объяснить, что они не в состоянии решить вопрос об экстрадиции Березовского или Закаева, что суд в Британии независим. Российские коллеги как будто кивают головой, говорят "Да-да-да", но, тем не менее, обижаются, говорят: "Понятно, суд независим, но неужели нельзя как-то решить этот вопрос?" Британские дипломаты никак не могут доказать, что это невозможно, потому что не они решают этот вопрос, а суд. Действительно есть такая проблема непонимания?

Юрий Федотов: (посол России в GB)

Да нет. По-моему, здесь наводится тень на плетень, как у нас принято говорить, потому что суд есть суд, суд действительно независимый. Но возьмите последнее рассмотрение вопроса о выдаче одного из этих фигурантов в лондонском суде, когда судья отказался рассматривать вопрос по существу: материалы, переданные российской прокуратурой, были отложены в сторону. На том основании, что данный господин пользуется политическим убежищем в Великобритании, судья принял решение, что дело в суде рассмотрено быть не может, чтобы не тратить деньги налогоплательщика. Это вопрос суда. Но вопрос предоставления политического убежища - это вопрос правительства. Министерство внутренних дел Великобритании ежегодно лишает этого статуса тысячи человек из Азии, из Африки. Эти вопросы решаются рутинно, без всякого надрыва и драматизации, точно так же, как и предоставляется этот статус. Это технический вопрос. И если бы этот технический вопрос был решен британским правительством, тогда и британскому правосудию было бы легче по существу рассмотреть те материалы, которые были переданы российской стороной.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/tal...00/6317993.stm