Today I want to take away another pebble in the shoe, now that I'm walking on a gravel base ..
We will never tire of saying that the premises affected by the Ordinance of the Mayor were not closed because a repeat violation rules on the sale of takeaway alcohol and on closing times, but were closed by appealing to ' Article 25 of the Regulations of Police. This article empowers the operator (to an extent not clearly specified and not to mention the means at its disposal and its action limits) control of the appliances of his restaurant so "goers avoid behavior which may arise affecting the peace and privacy as well as the health and public decency ".
Obviously this article is so vague that the limits beyond which a group of customers can be defined as illegal are at the discretion of the institution that makes a visit, so appealing to this rule could close the bar in front of the school after school because they form large groups of noisy kids .. but the stone was talking about is not that. In an early
tables organized by the project Security Pratello, I was able to ask questions to one of the auditors of the police in Pratello. This person was informing us about the many tests they did, even in the evening and night and several plainclothes agents, in order to catch the managers who were too smart and sold alcohol after hours. Apart from the fact that anyone in the audience said that they were not diligent enough and present, as there were still people who enjoyed until late at night, the representative of the police was quite proud of how they were working, and pitted rate data (nearly 2 days of testing every 10-15) and its sull'efficenza troops (agents in bourgeois who were stalking hours, disguised as secret agents of the film). At that point, however, I have spoken and I made a couple of questions in an attempt to understand whether these agents were there only to make the premises or fines if they already were concerned that there were also to protect public order and safety Public ...
How do you think is going to end? Well, let's say I was good at pretending not to have noticed the apparent contradictions between its responses and the fact that at straws, but the gist of his speech was that "most of the time" could not intervene if they saw people who break the laws, first because otherwise their cover would be blown and then because the drug dealers and rissaioli (all non-even to him) were very difficult to grasp the fact, however, and often turned the detention in custody for a variety of technical problems.
Ok. Surely this is common knowledge, but if our police force can not solve these problems, because so much rage against the noise instead of relentlessly attacking situations of lawlessness and danger for citizens? And above all, because you have to spend money and that agents are sent in Pratello, why do not you send someone affixed to scrub the real criminals, instead of doing a fine to a manager who sells beer to take away after 22?
But the real question that arises at this point is not even one of them. Actually I wonder (and here I ask you to ponder) why these agents are not about to help operators to monitor gatherings of more difficult, instead delegating to them the risk of intervening to calm groups of drunk people (who may had been drinking at other premises even though stationed outside his ..), though without any qualification or persuasive power (The power of the badge ..) as a simple citizen like the others? But above all, why not help the operator to identify when the customers out of his room turned into a Gathering contrary to law, and merely note or wait until the situation degenerated to make a good record?
and want to give you the answer to these questions is: "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The Answer Is Blowing in the Wind."
0 comments:
Post a Comment