As I do not like the famous song in the chorus calls Italy "the country of half truths," at this time to share what I feel 'review.
To begin with I came into possession of the minutes of the last table Security and I find it somewhat incomplete. First, they are not even mentioned practically the questions I posed in the sense that a lot of imagination can be understood in the generic phrase "They take the word some people who have reservations on the orders of the mayor found too punitive against the operators of the affected premises and counter on the side of safety. " Even if in fact my questions were specific sullassurdità Article 25 of the Police and that was only used to punish some locals, when thanks to the its incompleteness could be punished the same way almost every room (and many shops), without actually found is a real fault of the operators.
In my opinion, not to mention the comments that I and others have done on this matter is at least unfair, not to mention that already at the meeting this item was skillfully dodged by all the institutions present ..
Another thing frivolous, In my opinion, is the fact that in the record is completely missing the reference to the intervention of Scaramuzzino deputy mayor, who said the very important things on the representativeness and methods of Crusel, but fortunately this have talked about the newspapers.
But the really disgusting (and which is not mentioned in the report) is that the representative of Crusel early release said that condos represent 3-4 (saying just the street number), but in the document acts as the opening sentence is different and does not contain such a misrepresentation! Evidently they preferred not to leave written evidence .. Here are the methods of certain people. Here's who will be heard by the Mayor. That's who, according public opinion, represents the residents of Pratello and ideals. One word: VERGONATEVI!
Also today I came in possession of a copy of 'agreement proposed by Cofferati to ease provisions of the ordinance . I must say that if Article 25 is indecent and unfair, and stir well as smoky as they prefer the Administration, that other agreement is even more in places borders on the ridiculous. But of course these details were not discussed at all in the official press ..
In practice, managers must commit to:
1 - " take steps to prevent the stationing of the patrons in the immediate vicinity of the premises giving rise to a public nuisance and to ensure that the influx of customers does not constitute [...] [...] [...] obstacle to the passage of personnel including through the orderly conduct of business activities, risk prevention, mediation of conflicts. "
2 - Always have to hand the documents relating to hiring employees.
3 -" encouraging and signal the possibility of using the toilets and the local indicate the presence of public toilets located in the close . "
4 - Carrying out information and prevention of the effects of alcohol abuse
5 - to separate their waste in a manner defined by Hera.
6 - to carry out controls on noise pollution at its own expense and at the request of the Administration.
7 - waive any further appeal the order to the courts and administrative assistance.
Like Article 25, the first does not explain how, by what means and to what extent, the operator should implement this control of the territory. It does not explain how far the area under the responsibility of the operator. It does not say what criteria the operator should consider how a group of outlaws out of its local customers. But above all this adds other obligations absurd impractical and that the operator should also look at risk-prevention and conflict mediation!
Another thing not clear is how they should separate their rubbish these, when we all know that there are not any center in the damp and plastic bins .. we talk about unspecified agreements with Hera, but we doubt if they undertake to go door to door to collect the sorted waste, not to mention that to put the bins outside the room the operator needs a special permit (with the consequent costs ..).
Also note the absurdity of the point 3, which also discharge the burden on managers to inform the public toilets! But where are we?! And
which are already in the mood to save on costs and that competing slamming the Administration, have seen fit to delegate to managers also seek to make information on harm reduction and to pay the countless acoustic controls that some people ask constantly frustrated (often without being detected infringements).
But the beauty is in the final. The nice thing is that nobody knows, but in this agreement that passes for a Cofferati willing to mediate, there is the seed of blackmail I'll leave you to keep open until one o'clock, and you not only have to beat you do several things that we should do, but you also have to give up your right to appeal against an order that I delegitimizing myself am back on my feet. Not to mention that with this basis, it seems clear that the agreement seeks primarily to find other possible reasons for guilt and give fines to operators, and eventually justify a further order maybe even harder.
Unfortunately, being caught by the neck, the five managers will sign this agreement and, unbeknownst to most of the city, with this signature is given another pickaxe to democracy. Thanks Sheriff! And Merry Christmas!
0 comments:
Post a Comment