Search

The prosecutor presented disturbing details and a photograph that shocked Diego Maradona's family during the trial against the medical team that cared for him, seeking prison sentences for the negligence that led to the footballer's death. #Maradona #pravosudje #medicina (translated)

I am convinced that this will happen on the same day, but I hope that all people understand that the fate of the country is at stake in these referendums. Left coordinator Luka Mesec estimates that the government is actually worried about the possibility of defeat in the legislative referendum on the intervention law. #Referendum #Sindikati #InterventniZakon (translated)

Borut Rončević wrote that the ministry reduced the number of employees by 4.2 percent in four months through soft methods, without affecting the quality or timeliness of work. He emphasized the leadership's responsibility for good work organization, thoughtful task allocation, and careful handling of taxpayers' money, and thanked the employees for their knowledge and dedication. He added that they would continue optimizing the state administration at their ministry as well. #optimizacija #javnauprava #kakovostdela (translated)

The USA and the World Health Organization (WHO) are requesting additional information from Russia regarding the alleged death of a laboratory worker due to pneumonic plague, who became infected while working in the laboratory, raising concerns about potential public health risks. #pljučnaKuga #Zdravje #Rusija (translated)

In occupied Ukraine, healthcare is provided under extremely difficult conditions, without electricity and anesthesia, with procedures being performed with the help of mobile phone lights, while patients often die due to a lack of basic medical resources. #Ukrajina #zdravstvo #rat (translated)

Jana Gržinič wrote that on that day, the second session of the shadow government took place and that its members were concerned about high taxes and the taxation of wages. She added that these were people who, in her opinion, created this tax burden. Next to the photograph, she remarked that it says everything, and the composition of the participants even more. https://t.co/fEiaIriyzI #Davki #Vlada #Slovenija (translated)

Milena recorded that she would vote for four questions because she wants to express what kind of country she desires. During the parliamentary inquiry, she supported more effective oversight of decision-makers and the establishment of political accountability, while respecting the rights of the investigated. Regarding social assistance, she argued that people who are able to work and do not have objective barriers should contribute to the community in exchange for help. She emphasized that the state must distinguish between them and people who cannot work due to illness, disability, or other barriers, and help them. She supported a proposal that Slovene citizens and citizens of other EU member states should vote in local elections. She believed that the right to vote should be linked to citizenship, which, according to her, means belonging to a political community and brings rights and responsibilities. She advocated for the abolition of the mandatory RTV contribution due to a change in the funding method and greater accountability of public broadcasting to payers. She expected credible reporting from them, space for different opinions, and transparent spending of money, as well as a clear plan for funding quality programs of public importance after the change. She added that four votes for the states will not be resolved overnight, but she wants to express through them that responsibility, work, citizenship, and respect for the money people earn are important to her. https://t.co/9KelKzT62C #Glasovanje #PolitičnaOdgovornost #DružbenaSolidarnost (translated)

Rok Ravnikar accused RTV Slovenia of not fulfilling its mission of balanced reporting and presenting different views. He wrote that more than which side it supports, he is concerned about the loss of space for the exchange of opinions and confrontation in a democratic republic. He compared two television debates. Last November, during the referendum on euthanasia, he participated in a debate where, according to him, the time was evenly divided between supporters and opponents. There were supposed to be considerably more opponents, so each was given about 45 seconds, while supporters had two minutes each. In a debate about one of the four current referendums, they announced that each participant would get 40 seconds. Ravnikar asked why RTV Slovenia changed the criteria for time distribution, as the same time for each side and the same time for each speaker with a different number of participants would mean a different ratio between the sides. He added that as an active citizen, he expects a response from the journalistic, media, and legal professions. In this context, he cited the stance of Levitsky and Ziblatt from the book *How Democracies Die?*, that changing the rules to one's own benefit and to the detriment of opponents is characteristic of authoritarian regimes. #mediji #demokracija #poročašnje (translated)

More than 2000 words blame how the public @rtvslo does not fulfill its mission of balanced reporting and presenting different views. You cannot make a bigger anti-ad. And it is the least important which side I support - what worries and saddens me the most is that as a democratic republic we are losing the space for exchange and confrontation. Why do you think of the "others" as so stupid? When did the attitude towards the "others" change so much? Yes, I ask you, who prepare the program. I understand, you have your own agenda and your own views, but in a democratic community mutual respect is a fundamental value. Twenty years ago, I worked as a PR person in politics. Even then, we knew who belonged where and which uncle from the background had more influence. But I felt that those of us on the ground, who were in direct contact – journalists, editors, and PR people – respected each other on a professional level. When I participated in a debate last November about the referendum on euthanasia, the time was evenly divided between the "FOR" side and the "AGAINST" side. There were significantly more opponents at that time, so each of us got, if I remember correctly, 45 seconds. Most barely managed to present one thought. On the other side, the supporters had two minutes. There were also some pretty bizarre embarrassments, as some could not come up with enough arguments for a two-minute speech. Last night, I heard an introductory announcement at a debate about one of the four current referendums that each speaker would get 40 seconds. Seriously? So back then equal time for both sides, now equal time for each speaker. These are different criteria, which with a different number of participants also mean a different distribution of time between both sides. Why did you change the criterion? I am just an active citizen, I expect that the journalistic, media, and legal professions will provide their criticism and assessment. "Changing the rules to your advantage and adjusting the conditions to the detriment of opponents is one of the basic characteristics of authoritarian powers." (Levitsky & Ziblatt: How democracies die?) #demokracija #mediji #poročanje (translated)