Theme for discussion ...

[Сергей Анатольевич]

Some people really want to pull a coin from the working people. They went ... by the forest

FOREST !!!
We do not need freeloaders, they will teach us that yes, how !!!

 

[Black Horse]

I am in the same bewilderment on this account in which I worked a few years ago. They are already trying to limit our activities within the framework of the law to such an extent that it becomes impossible to work within this framework ... I think the ending is understandable

 

[Группа К]

I am in the same bewilderment on this account in which I worked a few years ago. They are already trying to limit our activities within the framework of the law to such an extent that it becomes impossible to work within this framework ... I think the ending is understandable

Can you elaborate on what we were limited to in what we were not limited from the very beginning - 25 years ago? They do not allow the detective to develop - Yes, here I agree. But in order to develop, you need an elementary understanding of the mission of a private investigation (not tasks). And here is the void.

Now, you, a colleague, can now answer, what is your mission as a detective? Say - assistance to law enforcement? homeland? to the customer? or maybe just making a profit? (we are all IPs !!!) I can’t answer either. And those figures who have been vigorous for 25 years and do not do anything useful in essence do not have such an understanding. A vivid example of this is that our profession was only included in the All-Russian cadastre in 2015.

It is impossible to push into the framework (and limit) what is not in nature.

That's when the theory of private forensics appears, and with it the methods of conducting private investigations, one can talk about the rules and restrictions. In the meantime, the field is free. Do what I want. I want - I work under a license, I want - I work as a commercial intelligence officer, but I want to - as a psychic. Hence, probably, the desire of the state to restore order in our activities. Since we ourselves have not been able to do this for 25 years, then the SRO will do it for us. No matter how we resist, we will have to submit to the nouveau riche. And to sound the bells, as Robert says, seems too late.

 

[Детектив-Молдова]

All this can be called short - PPR!
Colleagues, our customers have up to one place these standards!
In our work, the main thing is that we do not violate the Law, the client remains satisfied with our work, and as a result, we earned!

But who does not know how to work in our field and breeds a similar demagogy.

 

[Группа К]

All this can be called short - PPR!
Colleagues, our customers have up to one place these standards!
In our work, the main thing is that we do not violate the Law, the client remains satisfied with our work, and as a result, we earned!

But who does not know how to work in our field and breeds a similar demagogy.

Just those who are engaged in "demagogy" know their business better than us. And do it quietly but consistently. In 2015, GOST R 66.0.01-2015 was adopted. This is a new state standard for assessing the experience and business reputation of companies and individual entrepreneurs - the main activity of a private detective - checking the business reliability of partners.

 

[Запаренко Александр Николаевич]

Dear Colleagues. In my opinion, the main mark we can get is our client’s mark. If a client comes to us, it means we arrange it, then we solve his problems, so he will advise our services to another. If it doesn’t, then we are shit. In my practice, my clients talked about so many negative things about so many "so-called colleagues" that it’s possible to promote more than one criminal article. And in relation to such "bad colleagues" a permit should work (which she does not do at all).
Regarding standards. Personally, I work as I was taught when I wore shoulder straps. I practically use those orders (the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, and others) that regulated the operational work. Yes, and partially use documents from a past life. To think up something new, in my opinion, it makes no sense - everything has already been invented, regulated, laid out in orders.
Again, in my opinion, to enter into the framework of standards, regulations are necessary for the private owner to receive information, for relations with law enforcement agencies, the prosecutor's office, the courts - in general, procedural aspects that are completely absent for the private owner.
respectfully

 

[Группа К]

Regarding standards. Personally, I work as I was taught when I wore shoulder straps. I practically use those orders (the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the FSB, and others) that regulated the operational work. Yes, and partially use documents from a past life. To think up something new, in my opinion, it makes no sense - everything has already been invented, regulated, laid out in orders.
respectfully

This is the mistake of all those detectives who came to investigate from operational work. For some reason, the majority believes that everyone who used to work in the Police or the FSB is simply called upon to engage in professional private investigation. This is not so and that is why.

First, not all former police officers were engaged in operational work.
Secondly. At the forum (MOD), one can often hear detectives discussing the lack of demand for their services. Well, let's say this trouble is not from the inability to conduct investigations, but from ignorance of marketing. Then maybe there are some among us who can demonstrate official income from their private detective practice? I think not, because we ourselves have turned our market into a semi-legal one, and it is customary to keep silent about this in decent societies . It turns out that the former policeman is faced with the dilemma of how to earn money and at the same time remain at large, which is almost impossible. Hence the lack of orders.

For some reason, no one wants to admit that Detective and ORM are incompatible things. Well, the detective has no right to conduct an ORD:!:. Do not agree? :?: Tell the prosecutor and the LRS officer about this: lol:: lol:: idea:. There is no sense in the work on chipboard techniques, since everything that the detective "accumulates" in this way has no scientific justification, is not based on standards, and, most importantly, the court will not recognize the evidence:!:

On the other hand, if the detective’s performance standards are introduced, then work will appear for us. The introduction of GOST for the verification of business reputation is the first reasonable and consistent step by the authorities towards standardizing detective activity. It’s a pity, only that the standard was adopted without discussion with detective practitioners. But this is rather the fault of those leaders of associations to whom detectives blindly trust their arrangement for many years. In general, if we continue to deny the obvious, then the CPO in their chapter with the KRs will quickly drag the remnants of the detective cake to their plate: ugeek:

Output. Do not deny the obvious, do not resist the development of the institution of private investigation, but take control into your own hands.

 

[Матушкин Андрей Николаевич]

This is the mistake of all those detectives who came to investigate from operational work. For some reason, the majority believes that everyone who used to work in the Police or the FSB is simply called upon to engage in professional private investigation.

I agree.

At the forum (MOD), one can often hear detectives discussing the lack of demand for their services.

I only hear this from Robert.

For some reason, no one wants to admit that Detective and ORM are incompatible things. Well, the detective has no right to conduct an ORD:!:. Do not agree? :?:

I admit that Detective and ORM are not compatible. And I think the vast majority of colleagues with you in this Alexander agree.

On the other hand, if the detective’s performance standards are introduced, then work will appear for us.

I do not see the relationship.
In Germany, there is no law on detective work, but they work successfully.

The introduction of GOST for the verification of business reputation is the first reasonable and consistent step by the authorities towards standardizing detective activity. It’s a pity, only that the standard was adopted without discussion with detective practitioners. But this is rather the fault of those leaders of associations to whom detectives blindly trust their arrangement for many years.

The opinion is very controversial.

Alexander, somewhere I agree with you, an ardent opponent in some issues, but in any case, I thank you for expressing your point of view.
THANK!

 

[Андрей Захаров]

Regarding the GOST for checking business reputation ... it’s certainly good that there is such a thing ... but in reality all these calculations ... like Rosstat’s calculations can be far from realities .... nevertheless, we came across similar phenomena .. . sometimes everything seems to be fine outside ... but as a matter of fact ... the question ... and this gost is not a panacea ... and in principle it has no real value for the development of some kind of standards .... it certainly personal opinion ... after studying this document ....

 

[Роберт]

Gentlemen, colleagues, what kind of "floodroom" do we get? Agree until the BH has rights, at least as a journalist, here you can conduct discussions until we say to each other "YOU WILL GO FAR").

Well, it's natural. I do not agree with Zakharov. If the detective is introduced into the process, it will be prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Code of Civil Procedure, but the design standards will have to comply with these laws. And just about the services. A detective, without concluding an agreement with a client participating in the process, will not have the right to provide evidence in court. This means that a corresponding contract must be submitted to a criminal case or court.