Denmark

CFLarsen said:
If you don't want to discuss, then don't.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who is speaking in contradictions and acts like they don't know where they are.

I am glad Thomas answered my question confirming you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Grammatron said:
I am not the one who is speaking in contradictions and acts like they don't know where they are.

I am glad Thomas answered my question confirming you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I see.

You were not interested in Denmark, but merely looking for something that looked as if I was wrong, without being bothered with actually checking if I were.
 
CFLarsen said:
What did he say after what you quoted?
Click to expand...

Thomas said:
Translated to english;

From Politikens Danish dictionary 2001:

State: A country's government and the public administration.

Government: A states highest political management with (many) ministers.

They are not seperated from eachother as such, because in many cases the state has to do what the government says.
Click to expand...

Is Thomas wrong?
 
Grammatron said:
Thomas agrees with me and you disagree with me, yet agree with Thomas.
Click to expand...

Nobody has claimed that the government doesn't tell the state what to do. Obviously, this is true. We don't have an autonomous state, independent of the government. Duh.

I said that government and state are two different things in Denmark. The government is not the state and vice versa.

When we say "the government" in Denmark, we don't mean "state", or "public sector". We mean "PM and his ministers".

There's no contradiction, no matter how you try.
 
CFLarsen said:
Nobody has claimed that the government doesn't tell the state what to do. Obviously, this is true. We don't have an autonomous state, independent of the government. Duh.

I said that government and state are two different things in Denmark. The government is not the state and vice versa.

When we say "the government" in Denmark, we don't mean "state", or "public sector". We mean "PM and his ministers".

There's no contradiction, no matter how you try.
Click to expand...
And yet...
Thomas said:
You can feel free to call the Danish state the government, as the state are supposed to carry out the tasks and politics set by the government.
Click to expand...
 
What is the problem?

Where do I say that the state is not supposed to carry out the tasks and politics set by the government?
 
CFLarsen said:
What is the problem?

Where do I say that the state is not supposed to carry out the tasks and politics set by the government?
Click to expand...

You haven't, BUT.........

In the post that led to the question that led to this thread, you say


You are, naturally, thinking of Denmark and the Muhammed Cartoons. There was never a threat of prosecution in that case. The State Attorney - independent of the government - investigated the case, and found no reason to prosecute.
Click to expand...


Where you talk about the state taking actions independant of the government. If the state is supposed to "carry out the tasks and politics set by the government" then it is not truly independant of the government. Given that you have agree that the state is NOT independant of the government, and that you have lived in the US and can reasonably be presumed to know the difference between the way you use the term and the way we use the term, that the above quote was an attempt at trying to make a point absed on pure semantics.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
You haven't,
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Nyarlathotep said:
BUT.........

In the post that led to the question that led to this thread, you say


Where you talk about the state taking actions independant of the government. If the state is supposed to "carry out the tasks and politics set by the government" then it is not truly independant of the government. Given that you have agree that the state is NOT independant of the government, and that you have lived in the US and can reasonably be presumed to know the difference between the way you use the term and the way we use the term, that the above quote was an attempt at trying to make a point absed on pure semantics.
Click to expand...

No, no, no.

The state prosecutor is independent of the government. He is not controlled by the government. He does not take orders from the government. The government does not tell the state prosecutor what to prosecute, or how to prosecute. That's his own decision.

It would cause an uproar in Denmark, if the PM or anyone in his government even hinted at an attempt of telling the state prosecutor what to do.
 
CFLarsen said:
Thank you.



No, no, no.

The state prosecutor is independent of the government. He is not controlled by the government. He does not take orders from the government. The government does not tell the state prosecutor what to prosecute, or how to prosecute. That's his own decision.

It would cause an uproar in Denmark, if the PM or anyone in his government even hinted at an attempt of telling the state prosecutor what to do.
Click to expand...

How can he carry out the tasks and politics set by the government if the government can't tell him what to do?
 
Nyarlathotep said:
How can he carry out the tasks and politics set by the government if the government can't tell him what to do?
Click to expand...
But he isn't carrying out the tasks and politics set by the government.

If anything, he is carrying out the laws laid down by parliament. Not just the current government, mind you.
 
Interesting exchanges here.

My understanding here in the U.S. is at least similar to what Claus is writing:

The prosecutor represents the state, not the government. The prosecutor is not replaced, if we change government.
Click to expand...

Yet there is something lacking in that statement with regard to American government:

Here we have political, appointed, and career status agents of the government.

Obviously, political entities within government come and go at the pleasure of the voters.

Appointed entities within government come and go at the pleasure of the political leadership.

And career agents are supposed to be immune from all of that.

Here, both at the federal and state levels, prosecutors are career status (and thus represent "the state"), however at least to some degree, they are answerable to the appointed judicial leadership.

To what degree that is, I'm not sure.

Also, as "officers of the court", they are clearly members of the judicial branch, yet are working with the laws passed by the legislative branch, and endorsed by the executive branch, and thier ultimate "boss" is the attorney general, who is appointed within the executive branch.

My curiosity is piqued...............

This has all the makings of a classic, never-ending JREF brawl.
 
Last edited:
This thread is not about American government. This thread is about Danish government.

If you want a brawl, take it elsewhere. Preferably off this forum.
 
Huntster said:
Interesting exchanges here.

My understanding here in the U.S. is at least similar to what Claus is writing:



Yet there is something lacking in that statement with regard to American government:

Here we have political, appointed, and career status agents of the government.

Obviously, political entities within government come and go at the pleasure of the voters.

Appointed entities within government come and go at the pleasure of the political leadership.

And career agents are supposed to be immune from all of that.

Here, both at the federal and state levels, prosecutors are career status (and thus represent "the state"), however at least to some degree, they are answerable to the appointed judicial leadership.

To what degree that is, I'm not sure.

Also, as "officers of the court", they are clearly members of the judicial branch, yet are working with the laws passed by the legislative branch, and endorsed by the executive branch, and thier ultimate "boss" is the attorney general, who is appointed within the executive branch.

My curiosity is piqued...............

This has all the makings of a classic, never-ending JREF brawl.
Click to expand...

And this is where comparing countries gets complicated. Because it sounds like in Alaska, the Attorney General is appointed, just like at the Federal level, whereas in Nevada the AG is an elected position. So obviously in my state, the AG is more politically motivated than in yours or a 'State' Attorney in Denmark. That makes any sort of comparison hard to make.

But in even when DAs and AGs are appointed, rather than elected, there is always the chance that they have their eye on an elected office down the line, a judgeship or a legislative seat, and their record as an attorney is definately going to play into that, so the playing of politics occurs even when they are theoretically outside of politics. I would presume that to be true for any suitably ambitious person in the "State" or "government" level in Denmark or the UK, too. I won't claim that it IS true, since I don't know, but if it isn't, I'd like to hear how they prevent it.

As for brawling, heck, this thread is downright civil compared to most politcal threads in these parts.
 
CFLarsen said:
This thread is not about American government. This thread is about Danish government.
Click to expand...

And those of us unfamiliar with Danish government might need to use their own as a comparison point to understand what you mean.

Nyarlathotep has made an excellent point in that some "states" have elected attorney generals instead of appointed.

I was considering your statements as well, trying to understand how the Danish system worked.

If you want a brawl, take it elsewhere. Preferably off this forum.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't want a brawl, but my experience in this forum is that when you participate in a thread, a brawl is a fairly common event. Considering the possible complex and overlapping nature of a prosecutor's position within government (state?), I kinda figured this thread might devolve.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I guess we'll see, won't we?

And, in order to avoid the impression that I was involved in the devolution, I will abstain further from posting to this thread.

And who knows? Maybe if I continue reading, I might learn something.

But then again, maybe not........................
 
Nyarlathotep said:
I would presume that to be true for any suitably ambitious person in the "State" or "government" level in Denmark or the UK, too. I won't claim that it IS true, since I don't know, but if it isn't, I'd like to hear how they prevent it.
Click to expand...
In the UK it is relatively rare for an official to move to elected office. I can not think of one case where a MP has used their public service as a springboard to political office, except in the case of "special advisor's" but as these are appointed political positions in the first place there isn't that same conflict of interests. Holding previous appointed office is unlikely to be an advantage in elections. There are several reasons for this, firstly I think it is because we don't tend to have high profile Civil Servants- often because convention has it that the Government is responsible for the actions of the government, which means the Government takes both the credit and the blame. Secondly I think that our party system means that in practice many voters vote for a party rather than for an individual MP, it's often the personalities of the leadership of the parties which has more influence than the personality (and personal history) of an individual MP, within reason of course.
Finally senior (and even relatively junior) officials are restricted in what political activity they can engage in, even during their own time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom