Is it a problem when what you say is not very true, not quite true or not at all true.
I put a lot of effort into teaching them during Kiki's time that in politics /and it's the same in business and society/ you have to think first, then say "hop".
Because yes, the effect of speaking quickly, especially when you are in power, is immediate. What you say goes around the TVs one by one, then the analysts start – one by one, then the commentators start one by one and so, what you said is multiplied very quickly, very strongly and with a huge effect.
The problem occurs when what you said is not very true, not quite true or not at all true.
Then, quite often without you noticing it, that thing that you cannot touch with your hand, cannot buy with money and cannot fight with your own strength, that thing called public opinion, is poured on you.
Because people very easily "buy" Sensationalists are very easily swayed by convincing claims, especially when they are made by those in power.
Then, however, people slowly and systematically learn that you cannot be trusted, that you often say things that are unverified or that you cannot prove, or in short, that you are a liar.
The principle of "don't say hop before you jump" is an elementary communication principle that remained completely unknown to the PP-DB leadership and naturally led to the collapse of its prestige, trust in something and hence the approval of society.
Because it is cool to arrest Borisov, it would be even cooler if something other than Borisov's return on a white horse, unindicted and free followed from this arrest.
So it is with the new Minister of the Interior, who is quite similar to the old one /the one with the oligarchic trizonet and the elevator to it/.
Apart from the institutional fact that the Ministry of the Interior has the task of collecting information and presenting it to the prosecutor's office, and hence to the court, before someone is declared a criminal, apart from the institutional fact that the Ministry of the Interior can and should disclose data when collecting evidence only and only when not disclosing this data could lead to harm to society, when people should be warned about a criminal at large and in general, the disclosure of this data follows the logic of preventing danger.
Unless the disclosure of such data does not pursue other /remaining behind the scenes/ goals or does not simply pursue an increase in personal rating by a person who does not know that increasing the rating /public approval/ is a process, not an instant act.
But in any case, when disclosing facts from an ongoing investigation, the principle fundamental to modern justice should be observed - better 10 criminals at large than one innocent person in prison.
Or the principle that is embedded in American justice, which in order to issue a conviction requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as that there is a unique reason "democracies have divided the roles between the police, the prosecutor's office and the court. And it is not bureaucratic. It is the protection of the free man."
So Desislava Atanasova shows a document from the Turkish authorities that she did not leave Turkish territory during the time that Demerdzhiev sent her to Dubai to Peevski.
I know that now Demerdzhiev's Kosharev witnesses will bring out new Kosharev data.
For me, without ever voting for her, Desislava Atanasova is a constitutional judge whose reputation was destroyed by a current Minister of Internal Affairs, without evidence, or at least without reliable evidence.
And the minister knows very well how important reputation is, because that is precisely why he created dozens and hundreds of fan pages and groups for himself, precisely in search of a good reputation.
However, encroaching on someone else's reputation, in search of affirming one's own, is not an act of statesmanship, but a pure abuse of power.„
A bit like the one who was also a minister /only with a trizonet/ and who read from the rostrum of the National Assembly exchanged texts between doctors whom he called murderers, publicly and so on.
But at least he was a gymnast, so he had some explanation.
Now I can't find anything besides image, image and image, in the name of which you encroach on someone's reputation without reliable verification.
Well, that's not good.