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 Presence Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Pro Lodamunese Unitarian Party
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: September 3953
Description[?]:
| Leave police presence up to the police departments they know what's best for their communities that they are apart of Robert Lodamun PLUP Prime Minister |
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 do not actively patrol public property.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:20:03, December 15, 2015 CET | From | Traditional Alliance | To | Debating the Police Presence Act |
| Message | Mr Soeaker, This bill seems ill conceived. The PLUP says this is about devolving responsibility from police departments but in fact it does the opposite, requiring a dramatic reduction in police patrols. We are in favour of devolution and support a strong police presence. We will be opposing this bill vehemently. I would also note that it is poor form for the PLUP to have pushed this confused measure to a vote without any debate. John Smith Leader of TA |
| Date | 22:31:27, December 15, 2015 CET | From | Pro Lodamunese Unitarian Party | To | Debating the Police Presence Act |
| Message | I would like to remind Mr Smith that he did in fact in another bill ( http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=456110 ) that he did in fact vote for this proposal and others the CoS had in said bill. So then my question for the TAX is, what changed? Stephen Lodamun PLUP President |
| Date | 22:34:28, December 15, 2015 CET | From | Pro Lodamunese Unitarian Party | To | Debating the Police Presence Act |
| Message | Excuse me I would like to withdraw my earlier statement I was wrong Stephen Lodamun PLUP President |
| Date | 22:40:48, December 15, 2015 CET | From | Traditional Alliance | To | Debating the Police Presence Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I am pleased to accept Mr Ladamun's apology. To reiterate, nothing has changed in our position. We are enthusiastic to support "leaving police presence up to the police departments" as Mr Ladamun suggests. We do not believe this bill achieves that aim - in fact we believe it achieves the opposite. As such we will oppose this bill. John Smith Leader of the TA |
| Date | 22:42:28, December 15, 2015 CET | From | Pro Lodamunese Unitarian Party | To | Debating the Police Presence Act |
| Message | None the less this is not a bill to limit the police patrols in fact we want quite the opposite to free up the police, so that they can set up anything they have to do themselves, to patrol the way they really need to. Stephen Lodamun PLUP President |
| Date | 22:46:56, December 15, 2015 CET | From | Pro Lodamunese Unitarian Party | To | Debating the Police Presence Act |
| Message | On another note, we pushed this bill because it's not a big deal, plenty of the other party's will do the same thing. No use debating something no one would want to debate. Stephen Lodamun PLUP President |
| Date | 22:54:53, December 15, 2015 CET | From | Traditional Alliance | To | Debating the Police Presence Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Unlike the PLUP, we consider the issue of justice and protecting our citizens important, and worthy of debate. The people of this country will no longer accept that the rights of criminals are prioritised ahead of law abiding citizens. We need more police activity to cut down on criminals, not fewer. This is an entirely misguided and inappropriate bill. We - and we hope many other parties - will oppose this until such time as it can be properly debated. John Smith Leader of the TA |
| Date | 23:57:41, December 15, 2015 CET | From | Traditional Alliance | To | Debating the Police Presence Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, I note that the LPA has voted for this non-sensical measure without so much as deigning to enter the debate. It seems our great leaders are too busy to discuss actual issues affecting our country. Perhaps they are too busy discussing issues of another kind amongst themselves... I once again urge the PLUP to withdraw this dangerous act before it becomes law. We must not abandon our citizens to the criminal hordes waiting at our gates. I urge the PLUP to withdraw this law before they have to explain to voters why they chose to degrade law enforcement at this crucial time. We in the TA will always support law enforcement and ensure our citizens are safe. John Smith Leader of the TA |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 295 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 304 | ||||
| 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: "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." - Aristotle |