Diskussion:T EN: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
| Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
| − | + | == Draft law == |
|
| − | + | </br>[1]</br> |
|
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | [ |
+ | </br>[2]</br> |
| ⚫ | Thank you very much for preparing the first draft. I think it is very successful. Only in paragraph 3 I am not sure whether we should leave it out. It describes the principles of police action that must be respected by the police in all situations and regulates what is already known. Otherwise I wouldn't change anything else, what do you guys think? User163 (discussion) 11:18, 22 May 2022 (CEST) |
||
| − | [5] </br> I understand what User 163 means, but think that a repetition of what is already known would not hurt at this point. I would leave para 3 as it is. User137 (discussion) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) |
||
| − | [ |
+ | </br>[3]</br> |
| + | |||
| − | [7] </br> I agree that a repetition of a police principle here does no harm. After all, the Zug version repeats it. So I would leave para 3 as it is. "User129 (discussion) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" |
||
| − | [ |
+ | </br>[4]</br> |
| − | + | I understand what User 163 means, but think that a repetition of what is already known would not hurt at this point. I would leave para 3 as it is. User137 (discussion) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST) |
|
| − | [ |
+ | </br>[5]</br> |
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | + | </br>[6]</br> |
|
| − | + | I agree that a repetition of a police principle here does no harm. After all, the Zug version repeats it. So I would leave para 3 as it is. "User129 (discussion) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (CEST)" |
|
| − | [ |
+ | </br>[7]</br> |
| + | |||
| − | [15] </br> I agree, although it is not clear to me whether the sentence with the exceptions already constitutes a new paragraph or whether this is a new paragraph. In any case, one would have to determine where the exceptions are regulated with a reference or regulate in the article itself as paragraph 2, which these are.User117 (discussion) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (CEST) |
||
| − | [ |
+ | </br>[8]</br> |
| + | For me, our solution including para 3 is fine. I have now changed the title of our text to "New legislative proposal" so that, in view of tomorrow's submission, "draft" no longer occurs. User146 (discussion) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST) |
||
| − | [17] </br> I agree that the exception provision needs to be in a second paragraph. In addition, I find the sentence order "Exceptions may be granted" a bit unattractive. Better: "Exceptions may be granted" ("it" does not need it). Further, I also think that it needs to be more specific as to when exceptions are granted. The problem right now is that no one really knows exactly when the provision applies now, because for some reason an exception could be granted. So I would suggest that we say, for example, "exceptions can be granted for reasons of public interest". What do you guys think? "User129 (discussion) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (CEST)" |
||
| − | [ |
+ | </br>[9]</br> |
| + | |||
| − | [19] </br> : you could also refer to BV 10a III. There the exceptions of "security, climatic conditions and native customs" are mentioned. User159 (discussion) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (CEST). |
||
| − | [ |
+ | </br>[10]</br> |
| ⚫ | |||
| + | </br>[11]</br> |
||
Version vom 8. Februar 2023, 10:19 Uhr
Draft law
[1]
[2]
Thank you very much for preparing the first draft. I think it is very successful. Only in paragraph 3 I am not sure whether we should leave it out. It describes the principles of police action that must be respected by the police in all situations and regulates what is already known. Otherwise I wouldn't change anything else, what do you guys think? User163 (discussion) 11:18, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[3]
[4]
I understand what User 163 means, but think that a repetition of what is already known would not hurt at this point. I would leave para 3 as it is. User137 (discussion) 13:52, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[5]
[6]
I agree that a repetition of a police principle here does no harm. After all, the Zug version repeats it. So I would leave para 3 as it is. "User129 (discussion) 20:53, 22 May 2022 (CEST)"
[7]
[8]
For me, our solution including para 3 is fine. I have now changed the title of our text to "New legislative proposal" so that, in view of tomorrow's submission, "draft" no longer occurs. User146 (discussion) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (CEST)
[9]
[10]
Exceptions
[11]