Ei schreef:Dus een schrijver kan van alles zitten uitkramen en dan moet Ei maar bewijzen dat het niet zo is?
Een bewijs is dat het verhaal in werkelijkheid praktisch onuitvoerbaar is. Hoeveel meer bewijs heb je nog nodig?
Hoe weet Ei dat het in werkelijkheid onuitvoerbaar is? Dat weet Ei helemaal niet. Ei gaat er schijnbaar ook vanuit dat een gevestigde uitgeverij als SUN Nijmegen zomaar allerhande lariekoek uitgeeft, dat, indien het niet waar is, zéker op een rechtszaak wegens smaad zou zijn uitgedraaid.
Trouwens, over Reedy Creek Imrovement District zegt Wikipedia:
The land where Walt Disney World resides part of the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), a governing jurisdiction created in 1967 by the State of Florida at the request of Disney. RCID provides 911 services, fire, environmental protection, building code enforcement, utilities and road maintenance but does not provide law enforcement services. The approximately 800 security staff are instead considered employees of the Walt Disney Company.
Wikipedia rept ook over de Sipkema-zaak:
Security vans previously had red flashing lights, but after public scrutiny following the Sipkema case, were changed to amber to fall in line with Florida State Statutes.
Bob and Kathy Sipkema sued The Reedy Creek Improvement District and Disney for access to Disney Security records following the death of their son at the resort in 1994. The court characterized Disney security as a "night watchman" service not a law enforcement agency and was not subject to Florida's open records laws. An appeals court later upheld the lower courts ruling.
Bron:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_SecurityDe noten in Wikipedia verwijzen naar een boek waarin de zaak-Sipkema besproken wordt:
Pastor, James F. (2006). Security Law and Methods. Butterworth-Heinemann,. pp. 505-512. ISBN 0750679948.
Een schrijver van de Associated Press heeft in het magazine 'The Journal Record' ook aandacht besteed aan deze lugubere constructie van Disney World:
Disney World is, in fact, a government entity, a 30,000-acre municipality that can tax and spend and patrol and develop like other communities, but which has been granted key exemptions from oversight that make it far less accountable. It also has a reputation for toughness, aggressiveness, and litigiousness that is unrivaled in the entertainment industry. And some of its critics say it sometimes goes too far to protect its interests, shunning compromise in favor of confrontation. Disney insists it runs its business and defends its interests in a legal and ethical manner.
In het artikel wordt Richard Foglesong aangehaald, een professor in de Politicologie aan het Rollins College in Winter Park:
Because Disney World controls so much of its corporate and municipal universe, it can't help but act in a heavy-handed manner in order to ferociously protect its self-interest, contends Richard Foglesong, a professor of politics at Rollins College in Winter Park and a veteran Disney watcher who is writing a book about the company. "They have immunity from state and local land use law," he said. "They can build a nuclear plant, distribute alcohol. "They have powers that local communities don't have. Do they abuse it? In my opinion, yes."
Dat het in werkelijkheid niet uitvoerbaar is, wordt ook tegengesproken. Zelfs met een directe verwijzing naar het verleden van Florida, waar Disney World gevestigd is:
Dating back to the railroad barons of frontier times, Florida has a history of giving tremendous leeway to big revenue producers.
Maar hier wordt het pas echt interessant, want hier wordt de geschiedenis van Rob Sipkema, uit het door mij aangehaalde boek van Van Willigen, besproken:
But there is evidence of some nervousness with Disney's relative autonomy. State Attorney General Bob Butterworth is seeking permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief in a state appellate court case brought against Disney by Robert and Kathlyn Sipkema of Windemere. The couple wants to use Disney police records as evidence in a wrongful death lawsuit against the company. Their son, Robb, was a passenger in a truck that led a Disney patrol car on a high-speed chase in 1994. The truck hit a tree and the Sipkema teen was killed. The couple, seeking full access to Disney police records, contends the Disney security staff is subject to the Florida's public-records laws. Disney said it considers its crime unit to be private security guards and its records not bound by such sunshine laws. The state would like to challenge that stand. "A public agency cannot avoid the open records law by contracting away its governmental responsibilities," said Assistant Attorney General Pat Gleason. "This principle is particularly relevant in this case because the records at issue are law enforcement records, and as government continues to consider ways to privatize various functions, it's vital that the public's right of access to records be protected." The Sipkemas' lawyer, Eric Faddis, said Disney World's security people aren't just cops, they are bad ones. "I don't think there is any corporation like Disney. There is no other corporation that has ever had the perceived power that Disney has."
Uit het artikel wordt duidelijk dat zelfs de staat Florida, die, zoals het artikel meldde, toch een reputatie heeft van het geven van verregaande privileges aan grote bedrijven, bezwaar had tegen de werkwijze van Disney in het geval rond de dood van Sipkema. Helaas weten we nu uit Van Willigen's boek dat de afloop beslecht is in het voordeel van Disney.
Ook Terri Dorsett komt terug in het artikel van The Journal Record:
Terri Dorsett, a 17-year-old from Yadkinville, N.C., got a lesson in relentlessness after she visited the park with her high school band last year. She and a few classmates visited a Disney store and were arrested for shoplifting, taken to the security office, fingerprinted and, her father says, prevented from calling anybody. "She was hysterical," said Thomas Dorsett, a North Carolina businessman. She also was innocent, she said. One of the other girls admitted dropping a $1.98 Mickey Mouse pen into Terri's shopping bag without her knowledge. He said his daughter passed a polygraph test he arranged. Dorsett said he met with prosecutors and Disney officials who seemed sympathetic. He thought for sure the company would drop her case. But it never did. "Disney would not back off," said the family's lawyer, Harrison Slaughter. Dorsett spent $15,000 fighting the criminal charge that eventually went to trial. His daughter was acquitted. Dorsett now has filed a federal civil suit against Disney and says he is convinced that Disney maliciously prosecutes innocent people. "It's scary what can happen to a child," Dorsett says. "The prosecutor's office, they are scared of Disney. Disney rules that area with an iron fist. It's a joke. "Mickey Mouse is not the guy we thought he was," he said.
Bron:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... 0077/pg_2/