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: An Act to provide for Protection of Public Property (UPS)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Imperial Democratic Coalition
Status[?]: defeated
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: November 2676
Description[?]:
| Why should the public property of the Selucian governments be patrolled in some provinces and not in others? We must have uniformity in this regard to ensure certain provinces are not overly targetted by criminal elements. [We realise this was just considered recently; but as two parties abstained from voting, it is quite possible it may pass this time around.] |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards police presence.
Old value:: Presence of the police is left to the local governments.
Current: The police patrol public property at all times.
Proposed: The police patrol public property at all times.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:04:29, December 04, 2008 CET | From | Free Radical Party | To | Debating the An Act to provide for Protection of Public Property (UPS) |
| Message | WE do not support this, requiring police to patrol public property at all times is a misuse of police officers. Instead of having them patrol public property they could be patrolling the local high crime areas of the respective cities/provinces. |
| Date | 09:12:55, December 04, 2008 CET | From | Minarchist Party | To | Debating the An Act to provide for Protection of Public Property (UPS) |
| Message | I oppose this, but I do disagree with the FRP a bit. The local governments can decide, based on their better information as closer to the situation, whether to police public property or not. There should not be a uniform policy of patrolling or not patrolling the property because it is not based on the needs of each locality. |
| Date | 09:47:22, December 04, 2008 CET | From | Imperial Democratic Coalition | To | Debating the An Act to provide for Protection of Public Property (UPS) |
| Message | The UPS will put this to vote fairly soon if the AFRP support; otherwise we will most likely remove it from the floor, as the opinions of the other seat-holding parties are well-known to us. |
| Date | 17:03:54, December 04, 2008 CET | From | Selucian Home and Hearth | To | Debating the An Act to provide for Protection of Public Property (UPS) |
| Message | This wouldn't mean that police have to patrol all public property equally, regardless of crime level; that's reading too much into it. We support this bill. |
| Date | 23:10:22, December 04, 2008 CET | From | Selucian Party of Social Democrats | To | Debating the An Act to provide for Protection of Public Property (UPS) |
| Message | We oppose this bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 236 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 242 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 22 |
| Random fact: There is a phpBB forum dedicated to Particracy. Please click the Forum link in the top game menu. Additions to the game, suggestions and discussion is held there so get involved. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Politics, when it is an art and a service, not an exploitation, is about acting for an ideal through realities." - Charles De Gaulle |