Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I need some information:
1. Your address
2. When you're going on holiday
PS: is that really true?
...la police n'a pas le droit d'expulser le voleur/squatteur passé 48 heures. Le propriétaire ou le locataire doit alors engager de longues démarches administratives et judiciaires avant de pouvoir réintégrer son domicile. Cette situation qui, d'après de nombreux acteurs de terrain et articles de presse, serait plus courante qu'on ne l'imagine, représente une injustice particulièrement choquante pour les citoyens qui y sont confrontés. Dans un délai de 48 heures suivant l'intrusion illicite, la police peut procéder à l'expulsion immédiate des squatteurs - c'est le « flagrant délit » (article 53 du code pénal). Passé 48 heures, toutefois, la police est juridiquement impuissante. C'est l'article 61 de la loi n° 91-650 du 9 juillet 1991 portant réforme des procédures civiles d'exécution qui s'applique : le propriétaire ou le locataire du domicile doit saisir la justice, obtenir une décision d'expulsion, puis attendre le concours des forces de l'ordre pour l'exécution de cette décision. Plusieurs mois peuvent s'écouler avant que le droit ne soit appliqué, laissant le propriétaire/locataire démuni.
The police cannot throw out the intruder after 48 hours. The owner or tenant must then undertake long administrative and legal procedures before returning to his place of residence. This situation, which is more common than one could believe, (...) is a particularly striking injustice for citizens who face it. Within 48 hours following the illegal intrusion, the police can immediately throw out the intruders (...). After 48 hours, however, the police has no legal power. (...) The owner has to refer to the judicial authority (...) Several months can elapse before the law is enforced, leaving the owner helpless.
WELCOME TO FRANCE
If it were to happen to me, I'd turn the intruder into my post work-out protein source, but that would be illegal.
Lol didn't know that. How retarded can some French laws be?
As for the religious symbols law, I think it's completely unnecessary. Guess it favors the business of islamic and catholic private schools, as it's only banned in public schools.
Not in Massachusettss unless you have a "reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling"
The French model veers to almost anti-religious at times (banning people from wearing religious symbols seems like an infringement of liberty). I prefer the American model:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité#Contrast_with_the_United_States]Laïcité - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
No religous education in public schools here, although some bible belt areas try to add creationism.
Hmm it can go both ways I guess. I don't think that anybody should be forced to learn religious education, so America has it right there. I guess the banning of all religious symbols stems from the banning of the veil in France, in order to keep equality all other religious symbols are also banned. I'm not so sure where I sit with this, as it does seem like an infringement on liberty, yet I also am not a religious person and if youths are not allowed to wear their hoodies into shops, then people wearing veils should not be allowed to wear them either
...la police n'a pas le droit d'expulser le voleur/squatteur passé 48 heures. Le propriétaire ou le locataire doit alors engager de longues démarches administratives et judiciaires avant de pouvoir réintégrer son domicile. Cette situation qui, d'après de nombreux acteurs de terrain et articles de presse, serait plus courante qu'on ne l'imagine, représente une injustice particulièrement choquante pour les citoyens qui y sont confrontés. Dans un délai de 48 heures suivant l'intrusion illicite, la police peut procéder à l'expulsion immédiate des squatteurs - c'est le « flagrant délit » (article 53 du code pénal). Passé 48 heures, toutefois, la police est juridiquement impuissante. C'est l'article 61 de la loi n° 91-650 du 9 juillet 1991 portant réforme des procédures civiles d'exécution qui s'applique : le propriétaire ou le locataire du domicile doit saisir la justice, obtenir une décision d'expulsion, puis attendre le concours des forces de l'ordre pour l'exécution de cette décision. Plusieurs mois peuvent s'écouler avant que le droit ne soit appliqué, laissant le propriétaire/locataire démuni.
The police cannot throw out the intruder after 48 hours. The owner or tenant must then undertake long administrative and legal procedures before returning to his place of residence. This situation, which is more common than one could believe, (...) is a particularly striking injustice for citizens who face it. Within 48 hours following the illegal intrusion, the police can immediately throw out the intruders (...). After 48 hours, however, the police has no legal power. (...) The owner has to refer to the judicial authority (...) Several months can elapse before the law is enforced, leaving the owner helpless.
WELCOME TO FRANCE
If it were to happen to me, I'd turn the intruder into my post work-out protein source, but that would be illegal.
Wow. That really does seem like a ridiculous law. In what way is that law supposed to protect the interest of citizens of France? (i.e the point of a law in the first place)
Hmm it can go both ways I guess. I don't think that anybody should be forced to learn religious education, so America has it right there. I guess the banning of all religious symbols stems from the banning of the veil in France, in order to keep equality all other religious symbols are also banned. I'm not so sure where I sit with this, as it does seem like an infringement on liberty, yet I also am not a religious person and if youths are not allowed to wear their hoodies into shops, then people wearing veils should not be allowed to wear them either
Not sure what's wrong with wearing a hoodie, though it seems similar not to put your hood down inside. A hoodie is just a dress choice than a personal belief.
Not sure what's wrong with wearing a hoodie, though it seems similar not to put your hood down inside. A hoodie is just a dress choice than a personal belief.
Certain shops in the UK have signs saying that hoodies are not allowed - at the very least they make you put your hood down. I guess it is for CCTV use, in which case I feel that it would be fair to make everyone, even those wearing religious head scarves, to take them off
Certain shops in the UK have signs saying that hoodies are not allowed - at the very least they make you put your hood down. I guess it is for CCTV use, in which case I feel that it would be fair to make everyone, even those wearing religious head scarves, to take them off
Never seen a no hoodie rule before here. I'm not sure a shop banning head scarves would be permissible in the US, sounds like an invitation for a lawsuit at least.
I remember a no hat rule, that sometimes got enforced. Sometimes didn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
