Posted 28 мая 2021, 08:29
Published 28 мая 2021, 08:29
Modified 24 декабря 2022, 22:37
Updated 24 декабря 2022, 22:37
The words of the head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Bastrykin, that the Kazan tragedy "happened because the school did not have security, for which the pupils' parents did not want to pay", caused not only absolutely fair indignation on social networks, but also surprise. For example, political scientist Abbas Gallyamov is sure that this, to put it mildly, an imprudent statement, will undoubtedly hit the positions of the authorities:
“Parents will read them as a signal that the rescue of drowning people is the work of the drowning people themselves. Like, if, in addition to the taxes that you pay for the maintenance of the law enforcement system now, you don’t shell out for a separate school guard, then no one guarantees your children’s safety.
This was stated by the head of a key law enforcement agency on the very day when the government published a decree on the next increase in the salaries of the security forces.
Very clever, right under the elections..."
Journalists did not stand aside. So Peter Kiryan noted:
“The head of the Investigative Committee, most likely, unwillingly, says: citizens - you are on your own, you protect yourself, you protect yourself. The representative of the state cannot be guided by such logic”.
Kirill Shulika sneers:
“How! It turns out that the parents have to pay the security. And at their own expense to build schools, pay teachers, buy textbooks, etc. And taxes will go to palaces, yachts, foreign real estate and young mistresses for non-nobility. With such a program, "United Russia" would go to the polls. Maybe even more will vote. For honesty..."
That is, it is not the authorities who are to blame, but the parents - they did not pay for the school security. Do the parents, in general, have money for the next extortions? In Putin's prosperous state of the poor?
This is usually for the Russian bosses - people are to blame for their failures.
So, Mr. Bastrykin, the state is responsible for the safety of schools. Including you, together with other "siloviki". Citizens have already paid you, and you are obliged to ensure security by receiving a salary from their taxes and revenues from the country's natural resources. That's why they were hired. If you can't cope - the jacket is on the hanger and out.
After all, you, Mr. Bastrykin, do not throw off privately to protect Putin. You are not collecting money from the Rotenbergs, Usmanov, Sechin. Putin is protected at the expense of the state. Protect schools as well - at the expense of the state..."
And one of the parents reminded law enforcement officer Bastrykin of what he should know by heart - about the law:
“It's funny... In Moscow, any collection of parental money is strictly prohibited. We don't even have the right to collect money from children for theater tickets. Not to mention the security. According to the law on education, the school is obliged to ensure the safety of students on its territory: Article 41, Part 1, Clause 8. The budget is obliged to allocate money for this..."
But the funniest thing happened after these critical responses appeared in public space: Svetlana Petrenko, an official representative of the ICR, said that Bastrykin was not to blame: “Only the first, taken out of context, part of the speech of the chairman of the Russian IC, where he voiced part of the conversation, sounded in the media. with the director, who, in turn, justified the absence of protection by the parents' refusal to pay for it, "Petrenko explained. At the same time, she pointed out that later in his speech, Bastrykin said that “there was an agreement on the protection of an educational institution, but the school was not guarded.
“It must be emphasized that the chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia did not draw conclusions about the guilt of the parents in this tragedy”, - the representative of the investigative department concluded.
Here you should literally quote the words of the head of the Investigative Committee, drawing once again attention to the words "parents must":
“The school was not guarded, although there was a security agreement. I asked the headmistress: “Why didn't they guard the school?” - “The parents were against it” - “Why?” He is silent. And I know why - my parents had to give money for security, they refused. There was no security, although the contract existed".