What Pavel Astakhov said to the children. “How did you swim?”: Astakhov called his question to a girl who survived a storm in Karelia a psychological trick

The recent tragic story that took place in Karelia is still well known and resonates with pain in the heart of a huge number of people in Russia. Children died - it is already and always scary. Innocents died. They died where they were supposed to rest and rejoice, where everything had to be organized in such a way as to ensure their safety and the preservation of health and life. And yet they drowned. It is difficult to judge which death is more terrible, and which is less. But I think many will agree that this is a terrible end - choking on water, sinking to the bottom ...

“How did you swim? Pavel Astakhov, Commissioner for Children's Rights, asked the surviving children. Frankly, after such statements, the question should arise not about the professional suitability of this person, but about his mental health. It is difficult to say which is closer to reality - the assumption that Astakhov is the real king of black cynicism, or an ordinary fool, but this kind of thing should be a cross on a career. With the same success, one could ask the victims of the terrorist attack in Nord-Ost “How is the musical?”, Survivors of the forest fire “How did you get warm?”

This is the whole essence of a modern Russian official, not a servant of the people, but a gentleman who does not serve, does not work, but leads. It is only through an unfortunate misunderstanding that he is forced to say something to the mass of lackeys, to somehow show interest in their troubles, but also to bother to really think about it, really get to the bottom of the matter - fi, what else! Speechwriters and jackals of the pen from journalism will receive an order to express where necessary deep sorrow mixed with on-duty idle talk, with turns in the spirit of “we will immediately take measures to take immediate measures”, with formidable instructions to “deal with and identify those responsible”. Which, of course, will never be installed if they are a rank above the unfortunate commoner. Indeed, in this there is something not even capitalist, but feudal. Capitalism - in competition, in an effort to sit, crush and substitute. Launched into a wide popular circulation by the Guarantor of the Constitution himself and the sun of the earth, the Russian turnover about “we don’t hand over our own” is more reminiscent of the class solidarity of the gentlemen, who, of course, can even reach a duel among themselves, but if the serf raises his hand, then just hold on, his fate is unenviable.

If the villainous fate forces him to speak without a piece of paper, according to the precepts of the Great Peter, then yes, it is possible, from a combination of a complete inability to express a thought and a complete lack of it, to do it inadvertently, and therefore it is better not to allow a living word if possible. However, such grief is not a problem. Our wonderful neighbors, yes, of course, and many before them, have already tried the golden method of turning zrada into victory - you just need to strenuously pretend that absolutely nothing happened, that everything is going according to plan, that those who clearly heard the sound of non-victorious fanfare, but, rather, the emissions of gases are incompetent, do not wash their ears well, and in fact they are completely secret agents of hostile forces. That's it!

Our best friend of children acted in a similar way - a petition for thousands of years for his resignation gave rise to only one thought in a bright head, resulting in a public response to a clearly expressed popular question. No, of course, he doesn’t go anywhere, all the more he doesn’t apologize - this is all for suckers, and clear-cut guys wanted to spit on such trifles as honor, conscience and reputation. On the contrary, these are all those 60,000 at the time of the interview, and by the time of this writing - more than 100,000 signatories - unreliable and unpatriotic people who vilely express their opinion on a network platform that is not related to Runet:“Change.org is registered in San Francisco, will we now express public opinion on American sites? A large number of electronic bots enter there, you don’t need to register there,” Astakhov said, adding that he could only answer signatories by continuing to work in his post. Neither subtract nor add! The words are not of an irresponsible simpleton, but of a true son of the Fatherland. I just want to really quote a few episodes from the biography and speeches of such an outstanding husband. To begin with, instead of unpatriotic American sites, it is not so easy to attract the attention of the children's ombudsman in another way - Pavel Astakhov does not conduct personal reception of Russian citizens. To Pavel Astakhov, unlike the President or Prime Minister of Russia, Russian citizens cannot even send a written appeal, since all written appeals to the Commissioner for Children's Rights are automatically forwarded to the commissioners in the regions. Well, okay, let's leave these little things. In 2002 he completed a two-semesterMaster's School of LawUniversity of Pittsburgh(USA), about which he spoke with great affection:“I never forget that Pittsburgh Law School was my second alma mater, and United States is my second home . These are the facts that I will never stop sayingpeople of good will living in Russia, France, Spain, Great Britain, the USA and all over the world. Oh, uncle patriot, and your mustache has peeled off ... Astakhov is against registration onchange. org– but he is a member of the European Court of Arbitration of Brussels, a member of the American International Law Association,in 2000, during his practice as a lawyer, Pavel Astakhov defended a former staff membermilitary technical intelligence of the US NavyEdmond Pope (Edmond Pope ), arrested by the FSB of Russia on charges of espionage. Pope most likely did not use the sites registered in San Francisco - the conspiracy did not allow - he was just trying to steal information on our Shkval rocket-torpedoes ...

But the most remarkable and remarkable thing is not even this - the reaction of individual political forces can be considered the most outstanding, which rushed to Astakhov's defense with such fervor and activity that they lost their underpants, the last remnants of sanity and all solidity along the way, reaching such a level of conspiracy that even some theories of the modern Ukrainian establishment seem not so crazy against their background. The worldwide conspiracy of pedophiles has decided to dump the guardian for our happy childhood! No more and no less! But how is it, you ask, did the “pedophile-juvenile lobby” really make Astakhov say obvious nonsense? Or did he not pronounce it, or is everything an illusion and deceit? Well, of course, it must be so, because it is clear to everyone that without a conspiracy and insidious intrigues of secret forces, our dear Russian official could never make a mistake! Yet, who dares to doubt this - the guardians and agents of the State Department, Freemasons, pedophiles, Masons-pedophilos and the Pope himself!

Only now the petition is not the first. In 2015 Pavel Astakhov spoke approvingly of the wedding of a minor, 17-year-old Kheda Goylabieva, with the elderly head of the local police department, 57-year-old Nazhid Guchigov. Commenting on this, the Ombudsman allowed himself a rude statement about women: “In the Caucasus, emancipation and puberty happen earlier, let's not be hypocrites. There are places where women are already shriveled at the age of 27, and by our standards they are under 50. In general, the Constitution prohibits interfering in the personal affairs of citizens.” After this statement, the first petition for the resignation of Pavel Astakhov appeared, which gained more than 40 thousand votes. It must be thought that this is also a pedophile lobby. But wait, shouldn't pedophiles encourage older men to marry underage girls? No! We have incorrect, outdated information about pedophiles - Astakhov and his defenders know better!

In general, Astakhov is very consistent “it is better not to interfere in the personal affairs of citizens” - he does not interfere. In February 2016 during Astakhov's visit to Tyumen E. Reshetnikov, a father with many children from the village of Gorkovka, who was threatened with eviction with his children on the street, tried to get to see him. However, the children's ombudsman refused to talk to the citizen who was waiting for him near the building of the regional government. It's a personal matter - let him figure it out! Astakhov himself, of course, is a child-lover - you can't argue with that. He has three sons, as in a good Russian fairy tale. Two of them work in the father's office. Anton Astakhov was born in 1988, he obviously studied, in accordance with his father's line, that the USA is his second homeland, in Oxford College and New York School of Economics. From autumn to December 2015, he owned 9.7% of the shares of Zerich Bank, which, unfortunately, on February 26, 2016, was deprived of the license of the Bank of Russia as unreliable.

The point, of course, is not in Astakhov - the point is in the system. And if Astakhov nevertheless leaves, a person of no less outstanding talents and qualities will be appointed in his place with a 146% probability. But this does not mean that such spitting in the face of the people, like this “How did you swim?” you can endure! You can take a lot from people - you can rob them, you can squeeze out all the juice in terrible exploitation, you can deprive them of their rights - but it is impossible to take away their dignity, unless they give it themselves! To give the opportunity to continue to remain in their easy chairs like Astakhov means to recognize oneself as slaves, means to renounce the right to be people, because it is not permissible to talk to people like that! Astakhov himself is only a small fraction of what the current system of Russian capitalism shows us, only an insignificant part of the problem, but here we can draw a line beyond which it is impossible, we can show that humiliation has an edge and a border! What is the limit for incompetence. A person who drowns kittens in a river with a smile is a flayer and a scoundrel, but what can be said about a person who, without changing his face, treats drowned children with kittens? And what can be said about the country, about the authorities, about the system that makes him responsible for children's well-being, for the children's issue!?

I signed a petition for Pavel Astakhov's resignation. And you?

Press service of the Moscow City Committee of the Communist Party, Ivan Mizerov

Well, how did you swim?

Pavel Astakhov, Commissioner for Children's Rights under the President of Russia

This quote, no matter how hackneyed it may be, cannot be passed by. The circumstances, just in case, are as follows: Commissioner Astakhov is talking to teenagers who survived the fatal danger, saw the death of friends closely, barely escaped and are now trying to somehow cope with their terrible condition.

"Well, how did you swim?" “It’s good that they survived,” the teenage girls answer him.

Further it turns out that the authorized Astakhov is not the only one, or rather, with such a question. Here, if you please, the official representative of the Investigative Committee of Russia Vladimir Markin: “We have long asked the question “How did you swim?” those who directly sent and accompanied the children on this deadly voyage. And investigators, unlike the Ombudsman, use any psychological techniques when talking with children exclusively in tandem with qualified psychologists.”

But the authorized Astakhov echoes the official representative Markin; The commissioner, it turns out, did not blurt out, but deliberately asked how they swam: “There are special psychological techniques that help open a frightened child and give him the opportunity to speak out, throw out emotions<...>And we talked very frankly, a lot came to light. They provided a lot of useful information that will be used in the investigation." And one more thing: “Before asking them [the surviving girls] questions that depend on whether it will be possible to identify the perpetrators and whether they will be punished, we must try to speak their language. It was impossible to speak in a grave voice and demand facts with a gloomy look. This is a sure way to scare the kids even more."

“How they swam” is in their language. "It was impossible to speak in a grave voice." Seems like it shouldn't have been said at all. It was not even worth talking about the interests of the investigation, about those responsible; the task of the commissioner, judging by decree No. 986, which determines his activities, is to ensure that the authorities from top to bottom do not violate the rights of children; in other words, authorized Astakhov could ask the Investigative Committee if he somehow behaved incorrectly, but not from the children.

Commissioner Astakhov, according to the letter of the decree, does not need to approach the children at all; the subject of interest should be officials, any, to them he freely has the right to come; and sometimes experts who are supposed to help him draw conclusions about violations of children's rights.

In the official Facebook of Commissioner Astakhov for the month of June there is not a single such conclusion, not a single message about a visit to officials; on the website of the commissioner, the date of the last inspection trip is July 2015. But there are many reports about the participation of the commissioner in raising funds for the treatment or food of children - it turns out that Astakhov does not force free Russian medicine to fulfill its constitutional obligations, does not prescribe it to respect the rights of sick children.

Then you can ask how you got on.

During a visit to surviving children after the tragedy at Syamozero, the commissioner for children's rights Pavel Astakhov with a smile he asked them how they swam. This was reported by the REN TV channel.

Astakhov began the conversation with a question about how the rescue operation went, and then asked the girls with a smile: “Well, how did you swim?”

The children stumbled and could not answer such a question - the woman who was with them in the ward answered for them.

“Thank God, they survived,” she told Astakhov.

Later, Astakhov on his Facebook commented conversation, calling the phrase taken out of context. “Roughly torn out of a common extremely difficult psychologically and morally conversation with the injured girls, the phrase does not at all convey the nature of this conversation,” the children’s ombudsman wrote. —<…> There are psychological techniques that help open a frightened child and give him the opportunity to speak out, throw out emotions, which is extremely necessary for such children. He added that as a result of the conversation, the children did not let him go, and the conversation itself was very good and gave many new facts that would be useful in the investigation.

. Photo: http://www.rfdeti.ru/

On June 18, 47 children and four instructors from the camp on Syamozero went on a trip in three boats and got caught in a storm. The boats capsized, killing 14 children. The body of one child has not yet been found. On June 21, rescuers at Syamozero found a life jacket.

The Commissioner for Children's Rights in Russia, Pavel Astakhov, explained why he asked the girls who survived the tragedy at Syamozero about that terrible night in this way.

The day before, the Ombudsman visited the hospital and talked to two teenagers. Astakhov began the conversation with the phrase: "Well, how did you swim? ..".

The reaction on the Internet to this phrase was immediate. Astakhov considered it necessary to comment on such a sharp reaction of bloggers. He wrote on his instagram blog that the question “well, how did you swim?” taken out of context.

The Children's Ombudsman noted that these words do not convey the nature of the conversation. According to the commissioner, he had to establish contact with frightened children who barely survived the fight against the elements.

“Roughly torn out of a general, extremely difficult psychologically and morally conversation with the injured girls, the phrase does not at all convey the nature of this conversation ... You can’t speak to them in a grave voice and demand facts with a gloomy look. This is a sure way to scare them even more and completely lose contact. psychological techniques that help to reveal a frightened child and give him the opportunity to speak out, throw out emotions, which is extremely necessary for such children ..”, Astakhov wrote in a blog.

The tragedy in Karelia occurred on June 18. Schoolchildren from the camp went along with the instructors for a walk around Syamozero. 51 people participated in the campaign. A storm began on the lake, and two canoes with children capsized. 14 students died.

Roughly torn from a general, extremely complex psychologically and morally conversation with the injured girls, the phrase does not at all convey the nature of this conversation. It is very difficult to establish contact with teenage girls who survived a terrible emergency, frightened, barely survived the fight against the elements, and before asking important questions that determine whether the perpetrators can be identified and whether they will be punished, one should try to speak their language. You can’t speak to them in a grave voice and demand facts with a gloomy look. This is a sure way to scare them even more and finally lose contact. There are psychological techniques that help to open a frightened child and give him the opportunity to speak out, throw out emotions, which is extremely necessary for such children. It is sad that investigators have not yet talked to these girls and psychologists have not worked carefully. And we talked very thoroughly and frankly. And a lot has been revealed. And when I was already leaving, they did not let me go, they gave me a lot of useful information that will be used as part of the investigation and asked for something else personally ... But, unfortunately, this was left behind the scenes and apparently was not very interested in those who edited this "sensational" story... Moreover, the whole conversation took place in the presence of the mother and grandmother of the girls and the hospital doctors. And NOBODY expressed a single drop of dissatisfaction. The conversation was extremely emotional for everyone present, not only for the girls, but also for me.

While the venerable public was indignant at the installation of the Mannerheim board in St. Petersburg, a fresh mockery was aired. This time from Pavel Astakhov.

Visiting the children who survived the tragic campaign on Syamozero, the Commissioner for Children's Rights under the President of Russia asked one of the girls:

The girl didn't have an answer.

Instead, one of the women in the ward answered: “Thank God, we survived.”

Well, what did Astakhov expect to hear in response?

“Thank you, Uncle Pasha, some liked it so much that they decided to stay” - so what?

However, he probably did not think at all that he could be answered this question. And I didn’t think about the tact of the question itself either. I just didn't think that's all. I decided to say something, chose the duty phrase from the dictionary and said. And then, by the reaction of others, I realized that I had said something wrong. Then I began to think.

And this is very revealing.

Here we often try to understand what certain statements of our politicians and the country's leadership mean. And they don't mean anything. That is, they mean, but only that the figures who pronounce them do not think with their heads. Or they think, but only later. First they speak, and then they begin to think. Here Medvedev said just now: "There is no money, but you stay there, good health, good luck." What does this mean? Is there really no money? There is money. It's just that Medvedev himself does not know where they are, how many of them and when it will be possible to direct this money to index pensions. But something had to be said. And so, the central processor of the DAM model biorobot, creaking slightly, broadcast the first phrase that was found in its dictionary - “no money”. And then the prime minister's reflex worked, which demanded to somehow support, cheer up the people, say something life-affirming. We know the resulting phrase very well.

Approximately the same ingenious economic revelation of the president arose:

“Yesterday we were selling a dollar at 30 rubles, and today we are selling the same dollar at 45.”

However, this phrase is actually much deeper and more informative. It should be understood as follows: by the word "we" the president meant himself and his associates in the oil and gas trough. Indeed, they also receive dollars for export oil and gas, not rubles. And then they sell them to the Central Bank. Previously, they sold dollars received from exports to the Central Bank for 30 rubles, and then they began to sell for 45. And for the last year and a half, they have been selling at all for 65 rubles. Profit!

What other brilliant answers of the president and officials do we know?

When asked what stripe we have now, black or white, the president replied: “gray”.

Brilliant!

Calling the strip white is impossible, calling it black is dangerous, but what if it gets even worse? The central processor of the biorobot of the GDP model rummaged through the dictionary and chose the most suitable answer, as it seemed to him, the answer: gray.

This is how we live with this gray stripe.

Moreover, the gray streak in our country is primarily in the heads of leaders, and the gray streak in politics and economics is already a consequence of the gray streak in the country's leadership.

There was also a wonderful response from the president about what happened to the Kursk submarine:

"She drowned."

How did this answer come about? The president was either afraid to tell the truth, or was even coded from the truth during his service in the KGB. And no successful explanation of the incident, allowing to evade an honest answer, could not be invented in a second. Therefore, the president gave out what was already known to everyone - she drowned.

The stump is so clear that it drowned. Interested in the causes of drowning. I wondered why she drowned. And the president's answer is the same as answering the question "why" with "shaken."

Another good phrase: "Poroshenko is the best chance for Ukraine." To condemn the coup in Kiev, to carry out an operation to return the Crimea, referring to the lack of legal power in Ukraine, and then to call Poroshenko, who came to power as a result of the coup, the best chance and declare support for the integrity of Ukraine - again brilliant. And, of course, it is worth remembering the statement that Russia will not allow anyone to do something there in the south-east of Ukraine. What did this statement mean? Never mind! The President just sneered. He puffed out his cheeks. He was bursting with self-importance and a sense of power after the triumphant return of Crimea to Russia. And held the Olympics at the same time. Here it is broadcast. And the people in the Donbass thought that someone would actually protect them.

By the way, the words about “the largest divided people” are approximately from the same series. Although their president was written on a piece of paper and, in theory, they should have thought before writing. But they didn't seem to think so either.

The Kremlin wanted to somehow justify the return of Crimea - brightly, weightily, so that no one would have any doubts that this was exactly how it should have happened and nothing more.

Justified. They announced the reunification of the largest divided people. They just missed a small detail - that the largest divided people in Crimea does not end there, that there is still Donbass, Kharkov, Odessa and other cities and regions.

And the people understood the words in such a way that they seem to be reunited to the end. And there was no need to understand. Because the president didn’t mean anything like that, he didn’t need anyone except Crimea, he just wanted to justify the return of Crimea somehow more seriously and nothing more. And the people went to rallies, build barricades, and then took up arms ...

In general, our leadership has said a lot in recent years. You can't remember everything.

True, sometimes there were statements on the verge of prophecy.Here, for example, Chernomyrdin once issued:"You and I will still live in such a way that our children will envy."

And lately there has been a suspicion that this promise may come true. So sometimes our rulers say things that should be heeded. But this is rare for them.

Most of the time, it's not worth listening to our guide. Because our leaders simply do not think what they say. The result is either pretentious nonsense with a thoughtful facial expression, in which some try to see signs of a cunning plan, or even bullying.

And if you believe the promises of our president and prime minister and take some decisions from their words, then it can turn out quite badly. Donbass will not let you lie.