… In these days on television and started mass active advertising KIA: KIA! – Ruynivnik stereotipiv "(KIA – destroyer of stereotypes, that is to say, in Russian) It seems that the company is trying to turn the thinking of the domestic consumer's strong belief in a certain (will not say out loud what) opinion with regard to brand KIA. Perhaps, to This has all the prerequisites, as even a cursory glance at the reports sales are made to believe in the increasing popularity of car brand KIA (or comparing the overall trend of increasing car sales in Ukraine include these results to a more convenient, compared to the other, the method of purchase, a good filling of the warehouse, a good model lineup, as well as advanced network service). I do not judge, because I am not expert analysis and evaluation of the automotive market, but as an ordinary citizen no one bothers me to have an opinion on this subject, like millions of our fellow citizens. And this opinion, as I have emphasized in the preceding article with buying "Sorrento" was strongly committed to the innovative style of KIA. (Take the example of degeneration of the old Sportage in the new – it's the easy revolution in a separate automobile concern – from the ugly "Soap" make a "swan song – best seller"). But the fairy tale and euphoria when either end (with BMW, Toyota, Subaru and others, I hope, not so fast J) and all innovations are not backed by a credible, as a result, become zilch, which the consumer evaluate adequately. .
-
March 3, 2011 the second meeting of the commission to counter the unlawful conspiracy, the traffic police and the courts. As a speaker, presenter and executive secretary of the event was the Chairman of the Jury Shulipa. Speakers: Deputy chairman of the committee, Vyacheslav Voevodin, committee member, essayist newspaper “Novye Izvestia”, “Top Secret” and magazine “Spark” Iskander Kuzeev historian, a member of the commission, a psychologist, Ph.D. Psychological Science Gorbatkina Denis, a member of the commission, lawyer Yury Preydunov; activist Moscow branch of the PAR Kruglyakov Anton, an expert committee, the chairman of the regional public advocacy charity organization of the Moscow region “BOARD OF CONTROL PUBLIC” Andrew Massagetae. At the session attended by representatives of the Committee for Civil Rights, Legal Assistance Centre, as well as other public associations from the website “The right rudder” – Valery Pugachev attorney and public defender Yuri Kolodyazhni car owners. The meeting was opened by Chairman Yuri Shulipa. Initially, the interim results were announced the commission.
Announced Answers-unsubscribe Chairman Qualification Collegium of Moscow AI Marinenko and a member of the Pardon Commission at the Moscow Mayor G. Ponomarev. Earlier, Moscow Branch FAS requested of these authorities with a proposal to the presence of public observers at meetings of these bodies. Yuri Shulipa recalled that by virtue of Part 1 of Art. 4 of the Order of the qualifying boards of judges (approved by the Higher Qualification Collegium of the Russian Federation under Article 14 of the Federal Law “On Bodies of the judiciary in Russia,” March 22, 2007) meeting of the Judicial Qualifications Board conducted, tend to open. According to paragraph 10 The provisions of the Commission of Pardons formed on the territory of Moscow (Annex 1 to the order of the Mayor dated March 6, 2002 N 128-RM), with the consent of the Commission, at its meeting during the discussion of applications for clemency until making decisions on them may be attended by representatives of state bodies, public associations and mass media. Thus, the provisions of these bodies can be present representatives public meetings of these bodies. After hearing George Shulipa, having considered these materials, the committee members to counter the unlawful conspiracy, the traffic police and the courts came to a reasoned conclusion that the Qualification Board of Judges and the Commission on Pardons mayor of Moscow is completely hidden from public scrutiny. Meanwhile, illegal obstruction deprives the public a full control over the these bodies to consider applications for pardon convicts and disciplinary proceedings against judges and suggests a permissible prejudice when considering these bodies above materials. Were revealed numerous cases of abuse of power by inspectors, traffic police use of technical means of measurement.
