These are the words with which yesterday's meeting, those present commented on the behavior of one of the members of the Committee Crusel . This unseemly attitude led me to postpone the publication of my technical analysis on the table for discussion, to focus first on this matter and to remove a shoe from the sharp stones, pebbles instead of the usual ..
But first things first ..
Assembly yesterday was attended by many people and also representatives of various institutions, including the deputy mayor Scaramuzzino. There were some managers, representatives of the newborn committee Free Pratello , but above all there were many "ordinary citizens", some representing cultural associations but most of these as individual residents.
After the introduction of the rite, the first to speak was (as always ..) one of the activists of the Committee Crusel (this one in that group), instead of express their thoughts in a debate he simply read a statement to put on record. A demonstration of the fact that he and his cronies do not care anything other people's opinions and that the concept of mediation between the different interests totally alien to him, the person in question at the end of reading your press release, is up and if they have went as the representative of the committee was the Free Pratello his speech. Of course, this gesture has triggered reactions of outrage and disbelief in the present and the room has literally exploded in a chorus of "Shame on You!" , "Do not behave like that!" and the like.
albeit less explicit, this news was also mentioned in the ordinary printing, but there are a couple of things that I have not read anywhere (I admit to myself missed an article where he talked about ..) .
early release (which acts), the gentleman in question explicitly says to speak on behalf of the owners number XX, YY , ZZ (do not say why the number does not seem right to do so here) and the Committee Crusel. The problem is that room there were some people who live in those buildings and that not only do not share the views of the Committee, but have not even been interviewed about it! In addition to these, we know that there are several other people who do not feel represented by Crusel (not just those condimini, among other things) and we can not but be outraged by this latest evidence that these subjects had the right to representative who did not.
By the way, I would throw the first stone in this, hoping that some wave arrivals in the right places, and I would stress as a declaration of Crusel is actually against the law in that state false or misleading. As the Committee speaks often to take legal action (as I'll explain later) I'd say it would not hurt the residents of the condominiums have not been surveyed cited that they did a great complaint against the Crusel ..
Another pebble that bothers me yesterday from the foot and that was not highlighted by any news organization, is the fact that the release of Crusel there simply to thank the Mayor for ordinances, but not offend the organizers Pratello and participants in the project, calling it something that you no longer want to see and additives such as a den of people that advance personal interests and who just want to grab public money . Apart from these public funds have not yet been used for any of the action proposals, but only to carry out the message boards and other little things of common interest such as these, but the point I want to emphasize is that it can be sleazy to make a table for discussion to bring forward their own ideas (as they did throughout the project) and at the same time spit on offending all those who work there or who participate. But the sharp stone
I talked about something that happened last spring, which shows that those methods are compared with the ideas of others that the Committee and those that are their methods of interface with citizens who claim to represent.
Following my article on this blog, I received an email from a member of Crusel, with whom I distrusted you officially on behalf of the Committee and threatened me to act for unspecified "legal action "if I had not removed the reference to their . The ground that it refers to that person who was trying to mystify the situation subtly trying to give the Committee the views of fatherhood does not share that instead.
Assuming that for a mind in search of loopholes and controversy, my words could be misunderstood, I changed the once, turning it into what is hours. If you already knew before, after the amendment was clear that I set up the Committee only as one of the sources I looked at to make my article and expose those that could be shared by enough to make proposals during his meeting with the institutions. But the representative of the Committee stressed, renewing the threat, so the reference to Crusel was canceled altogether, which, for the sake of freedom of information, I did not.
And to make matters worse, the end of that warning I was told in a peremptory tone (written in bold ..) that the mail was given to me and that the author did not like it to be published either on the blog or elsewhere. ..
At that point, because I am a polite person, I thought I would not publish it (I did not even now ..) and do not make public what happened, but after yet another demonstration of the fact that the Committee has no respect for Crusel opinions of others and who insists on falsely state to give greater weight to public opinion and institutions, I decided it was time to get this big stone in the shoe and hurl it against a wall (instead of throwing it in the water), hoping that the sharp corners scratch the wall erected by this barbaric and unworthy minority that wants to decide the fate of the district by involving citizens in their unseemly actions also unaware and without wanting to argue with anyone .
0 comments:
Post a Comment