|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 14 2003 @ 01:04 PM CDT |
The University's statement of defence states that the events of New Year's Eve forced them to act. They are (basically) claiming the Federation is incompetent or unwilling to run safe bars; and these are the grounds for terminating their licensing agreement.
Key is that the fights occurred outside the jurisdiction of the Fed Hall staff.
Whose jurisdiction were they in? Campus Cops.
Why weren't campus cops present? Oh wait, they were -- SIX of them.
Why weren't campus cops informed of the altercations? Oh wait, they were.
What was the response of the Campus Cops? According the Feds response, nothing (or at least not to call for the necessary backup when requested -- I'm unsure if there was more to the inactivity, nonfeasance, and negligence mentioned than that from the response).
If the University is going to say that the Federation's bars must be closed because they cause safety concerns, then they're going to have to answer these charges regarding their police officers, who were paid to be present for just such an eventuality.[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
