EffectivelyChristophe wrote:I just noticed that we had focused on the housing part of this law, the "virtual" part is not more encouraging:
The reason given? According to the promoters of this amendment, UMP senators Gérard Longuet and Gérard Cornu, the goal is to make it easier for car manufacturers to recall their car "for security reasons" ... "but also for commercial and statistical operations", specifies Le Parisien.
If you own a car, your name, your date of birth, your address, the make and the power of your vehicle appearing on your registration card will be able to be sold by the State to private companies,
Christophe wrote:
Hey the soft bulb Gérards ...
The Assembly adopts the final version of Loppsi 2
MEPs voted on Tuesday the Assembly / Senate compromise text of the orientation and programming bill for the performance of internal security (Loppsi 2). The final version of Loppsi 2, which translates part of the security measures of the famous Grenoble speech of the Head of State, such as the floor penalties for aggravated violence, was to be definitively adopted Tuesday evening by the Parliament.
The text is a compromise resulting from the joint joint commission (CMP), allowing to agree the National Assembly and the Senate. Several points were the subject of friction between the two Chambers, such as the floor sentences for first-time offenders.
MANY COMPROMISES
These, previously reserved for repeat offenders, will be applicable to first-time offenders who have committed aggravated violence punished by more than seven years in prison. The Assembly wanted this extension for crimes between three and five years, and the Senate wanted to reserve it only for the most serious crimes punishable by at least ten years in prison.
The security penalty associated with the conviction for having killed a representative of the public authority will be applied in the event of assassination and murder in an organized gang.
On another controversial measure, the appearance of a minor without going through a children's judge, the CMP adopted a compromise position. The public prosecutor can only resort to this procedure if the minor has been the subject of a procedure in the preceding six months, or if he has been convicted in the preceding six months. The Assembly wanted a year.
On the curfew applicable to minors, the general curfew is decided by the prefect, as the Assembly wished. On the other hand, for the individual curfew, the children's judge will decide.
Regarding video protection, the presence of the CNIL as a supervisory authority that the Senate wished for was acted on, but not the power of public warning.
On the road safety side, on the issue of the points license, nothing has been changed since the senators had validated the relaxation adopted by the deputies. "Everything was tied up in advance," lamented PS deputy Delphine Batho, who reiterated the will of her group to seize the Constitutional Council on this text.
THE PS DECLINES "A LEAK IN THE WHOLE PRISON"
For Jacques-Alain Bénisti (UMP), "this text meets the expectations of victims and puts an end to the feeling of impunity of certain delinquents".
Conversely, Julien Dray (PS) blasted "the flight into the whole prison". “We know her, she's not getting anywhere!” He lost his temper. Taking the minimum penalties, the Socialist stressed that "the force of justice" was precisely "individualization".
"Summum of tartufferie", slammed on her side Delphine Batho (PS), "because the government continues to lie about security, it states lie after lie". "Not only is your policy not working, but it is today the first factor of disorder, the first factor of destabilization of the penal chain", she continued while the government faces a sling of the magistrates in in the context of the Laëtitia Perrais case.
Same indignation among the Greens, expressed by Noël Mamère: "It is an exclusively repressive project."
PCF deputy Jean-Paul Lecoq got into the gear, believing that this project "shakes the red rag of security" and makes "the bed of unhealthy populism".
aerialcastor wrote:To avoid speculation of all kinds
The official text
.......
It is therefore only illegal installations that are targeted, we are not talking absolutely about eco and self-construction.
In question: a few square meters too much which should have led to the request for a building permit.
bernardd wrote:aerialcastor wrote:To avoid speculation of all kinds
The official text
.......
It is therefore only illegal installations that are targeted, we are not talking absolutely about eco and self-construction.
Lost !
The first expulsion of a yurt in France is underway ....
installed a yurt on private land with the consent of the owner without having asked for a building permit (see our previous articles).
indy49 wrote:Not that lost since the justice system does seem to have considered that the accused had not obtained the required authorizations.installed a yurt on private land with the consent of the owner without having asked for a building permit (see our previous articles).
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 76 guests
