At school my teachers call it PEA and at primary school they called it PEE but no one would take it seriously like that.
Sjorve Ned and The union of new rhodesia
Yes, I'd recommend you do, I've always told my students that a peed paragraph cannot fail.
🦉 Office of WA Legislation Notification (OWL)
A new proposal has reached the voting floor in the General Assembly. OWL has written up a recommendation and posted it to our Dashboard.
GA: Crime Victims' Rights Act
OWL Recommendation: Against
OWL recommends voting AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Crime Victims' Rights Act". The Delegate has been asked to cast their vote accordingly.
Please find below the Office's Analysis for an examination of the resolution and the reasons for the final recommendation.
A well-intentioned attempt to replace a resolution that was repealed a long time ago, the at-vote resolution "Crime Victims' Rights Act" seeks to offer protection for victims of violent crimes as well as grant them certain rights during criminal proceedings to have their story heard. However, there are a number of wording-related issues present in the current version of the proposal which render it unsupportable.
Firstly, the provided definitions are severely lacking ‒ e.g. defining "the accused" to have committed an offense against the victim in a related case (rather than the actual one that is being prosecuted) or that they have committed the crime "recently" (thereby excluding criminals who could only be apprehended after a significant amount of time) doesn't actually cover all relevant cases for the resolution, harming its effectiveness; furthermore, excluding those who are charged with "another crime that occurred as a result from the same occurrence or incident" from the definition of "crime victim" could rob victims of important rights in nations which do not recognize states of self-defense. Concerningly, the definitions also very closely resemble those of GA#247 "Rights of Crime Victims", seemingly without having the appropriate permission obtained.
Additional concerns from the operative text of the proposal include that clause 1(c) doesn't prohibit the accused from contacting the victim indirectly ‒ even against their wishes ‒ which voids this directive of any effective protection for the victim, and clause 1(a)'s way too broad mandate that the victim has the right to be tested for serious illnesses they "may have been exposed to during the act of the crime" ‒ neither a reference to the actual likelihood of such infection nor a limitation that the illness be carried by the attacker is made, thus leaving the scope of this clause so wide that effectively any crime victim has the right to be tested, since an uninvolved passer-by at the crime scene may have carried a serious illness.
Thus, OWL recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Crime Victims' Rights Act".
Want to take part in OWL discussions and decide on how TSP's WA Delegate casts their weighted vote? Come join OWL on TSP's Discord server!
Well, I've already voted for, there's no point in voting against as for has the majority. Furthermore, you do not need a question mark at the end of your sentence as it was a statement and not a question.
You can change your vote at any time! Just following the majority isn't really a good strategy, but in this case it won't ultimately matter since the resolution is going to be deleted from the floor for plagiarism anyway :P
(The reply also was in fact an implicit question as to whether you hadn't seen the Office Analysis section. Also sorry if it came off as too aggressive, it wasn't meant that way ^^)