Search

The usual critiques are already starting, so it's worthwhile to put on the table how meteorological science works in an episode like this. The numerical models showed a clear scenario of irregular but high-impact storms. In this configuration, the key is not that it rains everywhere equally, but the danger where storms form and barely move: torrential intensities (>90 mm/1h) and critical accumulations (>180 mm/12h). We don't work with a crystal ball; we work with supercomputers that solve millions of mathematical equations to project the future atmosphere. Why is it so complex to specify the exact municipality? Unlike a winter storm with continuous and organized fronts, the physics of these storms is much more complex. They depend on how winds collide on a microscale, humidity, and relief over just a few kilometers. They do not follow a rigid pattern: they move and regenerate where that flow collision occurs, and modeling that to the millimeter is a huge challenge. Science always has room for improvement, of course. But before blaming meteorologists and @AEMET_Esp, it's worth remembering the rigor and constant vigilance behind issuing warnings that save lives. (translated)

The Tusk law introducing a new tax has been signed. Tusk has no alibi anymore, he cannot shift the responsibility onto anyone else. We have record prices at the stations, although the oil prices are not record-high at all, and the zloty has a higher value against the dollar than it did years ago... The government has all the tools to reduce prices even starting tomorrow. Will we see 5.19 zł/l of fuel on the pylons in the morning? We know how much Tusk's stories are worth. (translated)

The president signed the law on extraordinary profits of oil companies. Now it’s Donald Tusk's move. From Monday, petrol at 5.19 PLN? Or maybe at least a few zlotys cheaper? We will see. Honestly, I doubt it. The president has done his part. Poles cannot be hostages. (translated)

The president signed the law on the extraordinary profits of fuel companies. Now it's up to Donald Tusk. From Monday fuel at 5.19 zł? Or maybe just a few złoty cheaper? We'll see. I honestly doubt it. The president has done his part. Poles cannot be held hostage. (translated)

Retail sales in August increased, although the result turned out to be weaker than economists' expectations. According to GUS, sales at constant prices were 3.8% higher than a year earlier, but compared to July, it fell by 0.3%. Online shopping grew much stronger - online sales. (translated)

Mr. Grzegorz, I read the entire justification. And I agree with one thing – legal analysis cannot be replaced with the label of a "neo-judge," because that is not an argument 🤷‍♂️ However, the justification itself, although extensive and internally organized, in my opinion leaves two very serious legal problems. The first concerns Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision states that in preparatory proceedings, a "blanket warrant" can be issued at the request of the prosecutor or in the absence of their objection. Here, the prosecutor filed an objection. The court does not challenge the wording of the provision. It consciously deviates from it, considering that the binding objection of the prosecutor would violate the court's jurisdictional independence. It references Article 8 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 178 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the KPP, and part of the case law of appellate courts. This is a legal argument. But there is also an opposing line of case law, based precisely on the linguistic interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the court itself notes in the justification. I wrote about this yesterday. So it is not the case that there is no problem. There is a very serious dispute about the limits of interpretation contra legem and whether the court can practically deprive the premise, which the legislator explicitly included in the provision. The second problem I have is with the prognostic assessment. The court acknowledges that Romanowski left Poland, did not appear for the hearing concerning the temporary arrest, was outside the reach of Polish authorities, and even informed in his own application that he has a passport issued under a different identity 🤷‍♂️ The court considers these circumstances to be burdensome but then assumes that they cannot determine the assessment because one should look at it primarily prospectively. 🤔 And this is where I have the greatest doubt. The prediction of a suspect's future behavior does not occur in a vacuum. Its foundational material is, after all, their past behavior. 🤷‍♂️ If a person involved in the proceedings previously did not comply with procedural mechanisms, left the country, and remained outside the reach of the authorities, then their later declaration that from this moment they will comply with the conditions of the "blanket warrant" must be subjected to particularly rigorous assessment. The court may conclude that despite this, the risk has currently diminished. But it should convincingly demonstrate why specific past behaviors have lost their prognostic significance. Because if we are to predict a person’s future behavior while disregarding their past behavior, then a rather fundamental question arises - on what basis are we actually building this prediction? 🤷‍♂️ Therefore, I would not dismiss this ruling with the label of a neo-judge, but I would also not say that the problem ends with the justification sounding rational. A rationally constructed justification can still lead to a legally debatable result. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of case we are dealing with here. The argumentation of the court is clear and can be recounted, but both the way of breaking the literal wording of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prognostic assessment of the suspect's behavior leave significant legal doubts. If I were to rule on this matter, I would not grant the application. Firstly – due to the prosecutor's objection and the content of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly – even accepting a different interpretation of this provision, I would not find sufficient grounds for a positive prognostic assessment. This is not about punishing Romanowski for the past. It is about assessing whether his past behavior allows rationally to assume that from this moment he will respect the obligations arising from the "blanket warrant." In my opinion – it does not allow 🤷‍♂️ And that is precisely why there is an appellate review. (translated)

The attacking liberals of Mentzen are an electorate raised by Mentzen himself and his predecessors, including Korwin, who over the years built in their supporters an attachment to the idea of individualism at the expense of community. So now he suffers from what he himself has nurtured. (translated)

80 percent of Hungarians support the introduction of the euro, which, according to the latest Eurobarometer, makes them leaders among the five EU countries outside the eurozone, although the path to adopting the common currency faces numerous economic and political challenges. (translated)

Garry Kasparov revealed that he, along with Ivan Tiutrin, found himself on a list of people to be eliminated by the Kremlin, which, although not surprising to him, is still shocking, and he himself announced that despite the threat, he would not abandon his political activities. (translated)

A typical conversation of someone without a master's/degree/engineering from HR in a corporation these days is like this. - Your higher education doesn't matter. You must learn everything here from scratch, or have experience from other companies. - I understand. Although I still don't have a higher education. - In that case, we can't hire you. A higher education is required for this position. (translated)

We live in a country where the president is a person not counted in the vote. Where illegal judges issue court rulings. Where the Constitutional Tribunal breaks the constitution at the request of one person. Where political parties distribute state assets in the form of villas and money. Where a criminal can be pardoned even though they have not been convicted. There are countless such paranoias. It seems that this is beyond cleaning up. Not for this generation. (translated)

The wife and the father-in-law of the head of the Karkonosze Regional Development Agency applied for aid for flood victims, although according to local officials, during the flood, the property was not theirs and was never flooded. Marshal Paweł Gancarz (PSL) clearly states: "It's an overinterpretation to say that a father-in-law is a family member." Nepotism? What nepotism! Blood sausage is not a cold cut, a father-in-law is not family🙃 (translated)

This statement by the current Minister of Justice (and former civil judge!) is shameful. The representative of the executive authority essentially suggests that judges appointed after 2017 are less intelligent, and that if @RomanowskiPL were judging the case, it would not have been dismissed "for substantive reasons" if an alleged old judge were presiding. Mr. Minister @w_zurek, before you go telling the media about the lack of substantive grounds for issuing an iron letter, please familiarize yourself with the jurisprudence of the Appeal Courts in Kraków (e.g., II AKz 523/22), Gdańsk (e.g., II AKz 222/22), or Warsaw (e.g., II AKz 1175/25), and then say that the prosecutor's objection blocks the possibility of issuing the letter. You have dedicated many years of your professional life to fighting against @ZiobroPL and you had the Constitution on your lips, yet now you find the "Ziobro" provision suitable, and you dislike the pro-constitutional interpretation of the regulations, although before 2023 your circle spoke completely differently than you do today. And for how you allow yourself to "ride" on judges publicly due to the fact that you do not like their rulings, you should simply be sued by them. If they do, I will cheer them on. (translated)

Am I understanding correctly that Onet reported Edyta Skotarczak as a witness in the case against Karol Nawrocki? Her testimony was supposed to take place, but the publisher's representatives ultimately withdrew that evidentiary motion. And now I really would like to know what specifically her testimony was supposed to be about. Because if it turns out that Onet, publishing material with very serious accusations against Nawrocki right before the second round of elections, based at least part of their findings on information from Edyta Skotarczak, then I'm fucked... It would have been much better to take Murański instead. 🤦🤦🤦 But this is not Onet's first fuck-up. When the justification comes, I'll say more. (translated)