26

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> it is exact, but I all the same like to live in pure civilized country where I do not need to suffer because of different  which words do not reach more. N> I consider absurd idea that good people should is system to suffer because of the bad. If you spoiled - that receive help that you  and pay for . And if you do not spoil - you it in any way does not affect that, only expenditure it is less and to live better. Penalties can be big. Can be very big. But they should be only for the proved offenses. It is the basic moment.

27

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, anonymouse2, you wrote: N>> I consider absurd idea that good people should is system to suffer because of the bad. If you spoiled - that receive help that you  and pay for . And if you do not spoil - you it in any way does not affect that, only expenditure it is less and to live better. A> penalties can be big. Can be very big. A> but they should be only for the proved offenses. A> it is the basic moment. Well indeed. Spoiled - you pay for it. And a penalty total sum such that after certain mandatory normalization of the total of assembled penalties sufficed on damage compensating. Once again. Someone should compensate a damage. To me it is is interesting simple, for what reason you hang up it on those who is exact in it is not guilty?

28

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> And I here saw places where  was not present, but also the garbage is not present. And at us  is, and the earth on half from  consists. You know a verse? In a window two looked, one saw a rain and a dirt, the second saw the sky. Do not search

29

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: K>> What for you got a dog if you have no place to walk it? A> because I have the right. And still duties.

30

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, wl., you wrote: N>> And I here saw places where  was not present, but also the garbage is not present. And at us  is, and the earth on half from  consists. wl.> you know a verse? In a window two looked, one saw a rain and a dirt, the second saw the sky. Do not search  Give better you few times  - and it will not be necessary to look away permanently from garbage?

31

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

N> Well indeed. Spoiled - you pay for it. N> and a penalty total sum such that after certain mandatory normalization of the total of assembled penalties sufficed on damage compensating. N> Once again. Someone should compensate a damage. To me it is is interesting simple, for what reason you hang up it on those who is exact in it is not guilty? To prove that she is your dog spoiled, it will be very difficult, only if directly the police for a foot catches a dog, and that  with the proof will be a heap. And imagined the protocol on this business, the dog  a heap has been caught, the person standing nearby is delayed, the act of expertize of a shit is applied. The penalty with not fixed total? What sphere of action for lawyers on contest of calculation of the total of the penalty! Here the tax service cannot count taxes normally! TAX Charles!!! Is mistaken permanently! And you want to calculate the total of penalties.

32

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

R3> And still duties. Registered in laws I all fulfill duties. There is no at us a local law that that is necessary that there to remove, and penalties any are not present. At us it is impossible to walk only in territory of nurseries , the penalty of 500 roubles.

33

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> Give better you few times  - and it will not be necessary to look away permanently from garbage? I do not understand, during what moment we quarreled, from the very beginning this law was not pleasant to me

34

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: N>> Well indeed. Spoiled - you pay for it. N>> and a penalty total sum such that after certain mandatory normalization of the total of assembled penalties sufficed on damage compensating. N>> Once again. Someone should compensate a damage. To me it is is interesting simple, for what reason you hang up it on those who is exact in it is not guilty? A> to prove that it is your dog spoiled, it will be very difficult, only if directly the police for a foot catches a dog, and that  with the proof will be a heap. And imagined the protocol on this business, the dog  a heap has been caught, the person standing nearby is delayed, the act of expertize of a shit is applied. It is not necessary to theorize here when before eyes there is a world where it is all for a long time becomes. The simplified office-work is applied to administrative penalties, and to you not in pleasure - but there even  innocence does not operate. The cop sees - and at once the penalty writes out, will try to dispute - demand from it a paper, at it take sample and go to court. If it appears that you drove - the penalty doubles. A> the penalty with not fixed total? What sphere of action for lawyers on contest of calculation of the total of the penalty! Here the tax service cannot count taxes normally! TAX Charles!!! Is mistaken permanently! And you want to calculate the total of penalties. Yes-yes, give in nihilism if only beastliness to justify. Perfectly all works, simply Russia was specific in this plan one of the most wild countries among developed, therefore it something unusual seems to you.

35

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, karbofos42, you wrote: K> the Tax! = the penalty. To levy the tax about dogs and this money to start up on arrangement of platforms in region is a norm. To levy the tax because penalties to collect laziness it it is wrong. K> I already pay for the content of territory and cleaning of garbage and to me without a difference whence this garbage undertakes and that it from itself(himself) represents. Not without a difference. It is necessary to punish those who purposefully litters, for example to throw out a pack of cigarets or a bottle from the machine. K> the state can launch propagation what to remove for pupils abruptly, to teach it to do to start police cynologists. K> it is possible certainly horse to make, give penalties a command of police and it quickly intimidates the people receipts on payment that start to remove . Only it is all somehow incorrectly. It is correct.  .

36

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> P.S. N> Amuses as the standard claim that  that the people did not litter in the street - it is necessary  to put at every turn, and differently type excuse. N> and then time, somebody enters the penalty in 10000 for the thrown stub and becomes pure, as in a museum, without everyones  at every turn. It is necessary to do to penalties  and platforms. One penalties - a measure draconian.

37

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: K>> What for you got a dog if you have no place to walk it? A> because I have the right. Why is not present. The main thing not to forget penalties to pay for  in not supposed places and excrements. Locks in this sphere sooner or later it will be directed.

38

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, wraithik, you wrote: N>> P.S. N>> Amuses as the standard claim that  that the people did not litter in the street - it is necessary  to put at every turn, and differently type excuse. N>> and then time, somebody enters the penalty in 10000 for the thrown stub and becomes pure, as in a museum, without everyones  at every turn. W> it is necessary to do to penalties  and platforms. One penalties - a measure draconian. Achieve, that made.

39

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

N> it is not necessary to theorize here when before eyes there is a world where it is all for a long time becomes. The simplified office-work is applied to administrative penalties, and to you not in pleasure - but there even the innocence presumption does not operate. The cop sees - and at once the penalty writes out, will try to dispute - demand from it a paper, at it take sample and go to court. If it appears that you drove - the penalty doubles. I perfectly know about that as administrative affairs are produced. Also that the innocence presumption is not applied to them. But here the innocence will prove simply therefore as proofs and testimony is all the same necessary. We do not have presumption of trust of police. The word of the policeman and a word of the citizen are equal. Than the citizen even is more equal, for if the citizen is not right, from it only the penalty and if the policeman is not right it is reprimand and up to dismissal therefore they do not like to risk. And so the police only also would do that that wrote out penalties simply so, and all ran and they proved that not camels. N> Yes-yes, give in nihilism if only beastliness to justify. Perfectly all works, simply Russia was specific in this plan one of the most wild countries among developed, therefore it something unusual seems to you. I do not justify beastliness, I for that everywhere there was an order and the law. It is written in the law that I have the right, I mean it I will defend, it is pleasant to a clod that or not. It is possible to dispute wrong calculation of the penalty if I consider on another, I mean it I will do, and all will be. Money at all of us is able to consider, for copeck hang!

40

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Kerk, you wrote: K> Hello, wraithik, you wrote: N>>> P.S. N>>> Amuses as the standard claim that  that the people did not litter in the street - it is necessary  to put at every turn, and differently type excuse. N>>> and then time, somebody enters the penalty in 10000 for the thrown stub and becomes pure, as in a museum, without everyones  at every turn. W>> it is necessary to do to penalties  and platforms. One penalties - a measure draconian. K> Achieve, that made. Dogs are not present, on  - is direct problems I do not see.

41

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Alfarn, you wrote: A> to Prove that it is your dog spoiled, it will be very difficult, only if directly the police for a foot catches a dog, and that  with the proof will be a heap. And imagined the protocol on this business, the dog  a heap has been caught, the person standing nearby is delayed, the act of expertize of a shit is applied. "There are no at you methods against Kosti Saprykina!" (

42

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

K> "There are no at you methods against Kosti Saprykina!" ("If the law once to crush, then at times, then with it to start holes to stop up in a consequence as with you it will be necessary for us it any more the law will be, and ." (c)

43

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> It is admissible, dog breeders do not remove for dogs, but to walk among excrements obviously as though not so pleasantly. It is necessary  someone who will urgently remove them that 90 % of the population did not suffer, and payment of these cleaners to produce from penalties from those whom caught behind brothel cultivation. I.e. we monthly collect statistics and: (payment of cleaners + payment of cost of catching) / number caught == to the size of the penalty. And it is better so: caught you that your dog spoils in a court yard, and you behind it do not tidy up - receive from the state in rent a shovel for a week, and are responsible for absence  a shit in a court yard. If one more such gets to you, have the right to take it in the help. Week the court yard was pure - are relieved from responsibility, for the present time do not catch. You do not consult with the duties - period lasts.

44

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> And it is better so: caught you that your dog spoils in a court yard, and you behind it do not tidy up - receive from the state in rent a shovel for a week, and are responsible for absence  a shit in a court yard. If one more such gets to you, have the right to take it in the help. Week the court yard was pure - are relieved from responsibility, for the present time do not catch. You do not consult with the duties - period lasts. Well, as a variant.

45

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, karbofos42, you wrote: K> the child dropped ice-cream - pay the penalty. .

46

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, karbofos42, you wrote: K> It turns out as a result that the dog spoiled on a lawn which motorists transformed in , from a dog lover the horse penalty, and to automobile owners of anything. The first vital remark in all topic.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

47

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> the simplified office-work is applied To administrative penalties, and to you not in pleasure - but there even  innocence does not operate. Here it is news.  the Russian Federation article 1.5. An innocence presumption

48

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Pzz, you wrote: Pzz> And it is better so: caught you that your dog spoils in a court yard, and you behind it do not tidy up - receive from the state in rent a shovel for a week, and are responsible for absence  a shit in a court yard. If one more such gets to you, have the right to take it in the help. Week the court yard was pure - are relieved from responsibility, for the present time do not catch. You do not consult with the duties - period lasts. So for this purpose watching, retaliatory and supervising device needs to be had, on one court yard costing more expensive managing on orders  which  needs to be had all.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

49

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> Idea in the following. Whether you admissible consider scale introduction in Russia compensating penalties, i.e. such, which purpose payment of elimination of harm for a society. I always against any penalties. 1) low efficiency 2) for economy it solves nothing,  from air, is simple an overflowing from one pocket in another

50

Re: Whether penalties <voting> are admissible

Hello, Dead Down, you wrote: > I always against any penalties. Quite quite good punishment. Not to be restricted public   in a type that following punishment imprisonment. But to suppose that money collected by such way can or should suffice on the decision of any problems, it the unhealthy approach and  from life agrees.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>