We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Police Departments Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Nationalist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2416
Description[?]:
| We believe that we need a strong well funded police department to make sure criminals are caught, that people know if they comit crimes they will not get away with it and so that our citizens can live in peace and safety. This would set up a FBI to work across the nation. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the organization of police/law enforcement
Old value:: The operation and funding of the police is left to local governments.
Current: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Proposed: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:38:07, June 18, 2007 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | Isn't the national police department the military? Although I'm generally opposed to the idea, it would make more sense to have the military support local police, as opposed to creating an entirely new branch of bureaucracy. If we have the funds to create an entirely new police force, let's set aside those funds for our existing local police force. |
| Date | 18:42:53, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | We agree with the NDP's assessment of this proposal. We would most likely support the increase in police funding to local police forces. |
| Date | 20:02:44, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | Having a National Police department would create a less of a military state, it will also create a more efficent police force for dealing with crimnals and gangs that opperate around the whole country. |
| Date | 20:41:23, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | I see this fuffilling the role of the american FBI. agreed. |
| Date | 20:45:07, June 18, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | wait.... how would national police create less of a military state? |
| Date | 21:35:42, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | Ah...well...that's true. We weren't thinking along the FBI lines. That would mean that currently multi-kingdom cases would be reliant upon two or more seperate police forces working in tandem. We think that's possible...but...fairly unlikely. We may have to consider this a bit more. |
| Date | 22:10:45, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Radical Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | The Military will not be getting involved in civil matters, they will be left to deal with national security and defence. |
| Date | 23:13:56, June 18, 2007 CET | From | Lodamun Distributionist Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | That's true...it's a separate law. |
| Date | 04:57:42, June 19, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | yes, LDP, that is a separate law. currently the military may not get involved in policing (except emergencies maybe) so that part of your argument is void |
| Date | 05:49:10, June 19, 2007 CET | From | Free Lodamun | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | Is everyone else with me on this? FBI? Can we change the description to provide a definition of what this national police force does? Also, it would have to operate under the judiciary (to keep it seperate from the military). |
| Date | 06:29:28, June 19, 2007 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | Internal affairs controls police, not justice |
| Date | 12:58:36, June 19, 2007 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | If these changes are made, we will likely support this bill. |
| Date | 00:57:49, June 20, 2007 CET | From | Independent Republican Party | To | Debating the Police Departments Act |
| Message | If this can set up a government agency such as the FBI to deal with crime, we support this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 365 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 234 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: By default the head of government is the ultimate authority within a national government. In general terms, heads of government are expected to consult with cabinet colleagues (including those from other parties) before making significant decisions but they remain responsible for government action. |
| Random quote: "I got nothing against no Viet Cong. No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger." - Muhammad Ali, 1967, refusing to fight in Vietnam |