As the Crusel is trying in every way to argue the opposite, did not attend Wednesday's meeting only the managers and their friends and were much less numerous outside Pratello called to make up the numbers. For obvious reasons there were several operators (of which only one has made a speech and was not even one of the premises affected by the order), but these were, however, almost all people living in the neighborhood, with the addition of some External curious and a few journalists (and independent of the official press). Oltrettutto the average age was around 40 years, and work with young people, who surely (as was then stated by many) has no interest in transforming the way in a rave for ever.
least of the people who were trying to undermine democracy and security in the neighborhood, unlike what he says Crusel, which instead is actually trampling on democracy with the numerous press releases full of falsehoods that ships all over the place in which the Project and slander those who participate, and it had the right of representation absolutely far-fetched.
Apart from that, the meeting did not go just as we hoped, but some interesting statement by these institutions has been there. When I spoke I asked the following questions:
1) Does it still make sense to these discussion boards, in the light of recent events? That is, what we say here, has any real chance to be heard by the administration?
2) Considering that Article. 25 will not be accurate about it, I wanted to know what the criteria (if any) are different groups of customers from simple gatherings illegal under discussion.
And these criteria are at the discretion of the officer making the inspection, or directives are clear and equal for all?
And if in fact intended, why did you not enter directly as an addition to Article 25?
But above all, the managers were informed of these criteria, or has been delegated their responsibility to check for forming illegal gatherings, but without explaining how to recognize them?
3) Since at that point will the art. 25 is still less precise, what are the ways and means by which an operator could (and should) act to disperse or suppress an unlawful assembly? In the sense that not having the power of the badge, but even handcuffs and gun, the operator may be convincing to go out with a bat and threaten customers who fail to comply with the law?
3) We know that many resources have been invested (human and therefore economic) to check the local regulations on the sale of takeaway and the closure of the premises. These forces were in plainclothes and lurk for hours.
If you have willingly invested these resources to do some penalty for the sale to take away overtime, why were not invested to control the legality of the gatherings of patrons in the street, instead of downloading this obligation on managers? The attempt was perhaps an excuse to close these premises, assigning them a task that he knew they could not fulfill?
Unfortunately I was not immediately answered and, at the end of all the speeches, various institutions have taken the floor without actually responding to me or to any direct questions that were asked. At this point, despite the assurances of the vice mayor that the project still makes sense to exist, I think we should review something in the performance of these tables, because if the minority who have ideas various excludes himself from the debate, and institutions are prepared speeches that are a priori instead of arguing with these, I do not think we can continue to call these meetings the discussion boards, as the debate does not exist ..
Beyond this personal observation, I am confident that the next table will be done in the best way (I'll say to myself and try to make things go differently), partly because the actions of the institutions were quite reassuring. Specifically, the deputy mayor
Scaramuzzino reiterated his opposition to the orders and the fact that the Sheriff Cofferati acted without consulting her and the rest of the Executive. He also Crusel added that consists of very few people ( "count them on fingers" ) and "would do better to spend their time in activities 'profits instead of spying on the next ... a bit' of wine has never hurt anyone ... "
The District President has expressed his opposition to the ordinances, saying that relations between people are a wealth of society as a feeling of belonging to a community emphasizes respect for the rules, and therefore it is not good in the neighborhood if there close to others. And the commissioner
Mancuso in his speech to minimize the degradation Pratello, saying to bury the hatchet because basically the way Mass is not so bad and that we can all live together. But unfortunately the Crusel dissidents were not present to hear his words, and in fact he has expressed his disappointment at the refusal of a comparison of the members of the Committee.
In the final, in addition to the numerous responses from people of all ages and backgrounds who stressed that the ordinances were doing wrong on the street and had instituted a dangerous process of desertification in the road, with its attendant problems of security, we can say that even part of the institutions there was a stance against these ordinances, but above all against the methods of the Committee Crusel, which once again proves to be not only not representative, but also disliked by many.
0 comments:
Post a Comment