‘Help Us, Help Us’: Swedish National Police Commissioner Begs as Number of No-Go Zones Rises

[DoomPatrol]

Like Muslim countries who are not in war take them in not Europe.

That would be great if local areas more suited to handle their cultural issues would take them in. The Gulf states actually spend more on aid than anyone else, but they aren't taking in actual refugees. A big part of that is that none of the Gulf states are signatories of the UN Conventions on Reduction of Statelessness. They don't even recognize refugees legally in the Gulf states. Add in their animosity towards different religious beliefs and their atrocious human rights violations, I wouldn't expect them to do much for refugees. These are people who don't even take care of their own citizens.

We have a great life in the Western world. Even our poor tend to have cars, phones, and other modern amenities. I just don't think it will kill us to help how we can. If we can fit some of the people fleeing violence in our lands until it's safe for them, then I support doing it. I don't want people who we have no idea who they are running around our cities, but there are ways we can help.


"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

[lecter]

There certainly are problems, but it's propaganda for idiots at the same time as the Swedish police has been very clear in official statements that they have no no-go zones

There is no official definition of the word 'no-go area' which would make it possible to objectively and beyond a doubt 'proof' such descriptions with some sort of checklist, so what do you expect?
What do you think police or government (as a whole) says in France about no-go zones most of the time?
If those who are responsible say "yes we have no-go areas, people are afraid", that's the equivalent of "we failed at our job" or "we effectively lost control over the country".
The most 'official' or legit statements complaining about no-go areas typically come from police unions or single cops who speak out in documentaries or newspapers.
The former also word their concerns very carefully. I think the term was coined by journalists.
The mayor of Paris was outraged over reports about 'no-go zones' and threatened to sue newspapers.
There were "fact checkers" who criticised such reportings by Fox as right-wing fake news.
Yet, the concierge of our hotel in France warned me and my girlfriend to avoid a specific area when we go out at night.
That's not really what I'm used to from holiday in many European countries over the last 10 years or so.
It doesn't mean the nation is about to collapse, we have areas you better avoid at night in American cities as well but from my point of view, Europe always has been more civilised and safe in that regard.
If you're at a point where you have to warn tourists to not go to a specific area, it's not fake news if someone calls that a no-go zone, if anything you can debate how bad it is and if that is a good word to describe the situation.

 

[Squarechoke]

Is their official statements the truth, or just propaganda to support the governments position? You say there is no problem, others with experience of the Swedish situation say there are. It comes down to what you believe, what you can see and can read and what motives may be behind all of the information you are taking in.

Maybe you're right, maybe there is no problem or at the very least no problem outside of what any city may normally see. However, it doesn't look good when various law enforcement officers come out with such statements and video is captured of the ineffectiveness of law enforcement in these areas compounded by guerrilla journalism of these and others to get a sense of what is going on and you see a rising disturbing trend.

But hey, it's your country. Do with it what you will.

My first words in my post: "There certainly are problems", followed by explaining that the areas are problem areas that need more police presence. Your response: "you say there is no problem".

 

[Teppodama]

My first words in my post: "There certainly are problems", followed by explaining that the areas are problem areas that need more police presence. Your response: "you say there is no problem".

I believe I was responding more to the perceived tone of your comment rather than the actual statement. In that, I was in error. I should have taken the time to truly take in what you said before knee jerk responding to it.

 

[Squarechoke]

There is no official definition of the word 'no-go area' which would make it possible to objectively and beyond a doubt 'proof' such descriptions with some sort of checklist, so what do you expect?
What do you think police or government (as a whole) says in France about no-go zones most of the time?
If those who are responsible say "yes we have no-go areas, people are afraid", that's the equivalent of "we failed at our job" or "we effectively lost control over the country".
The most 'official' or legit statements complaining about no-go areas typically come from police unions or single cops who speak out in documentaries or newspapers.
The former also word their concerns very carefully. I think the term was coined by journalists.
The mayor of Paris was outraged over reports about 'no-go zones' and threatened to sue newspapers.
There were "fact checkers" who criticised such reportings by Fox as right-wing fake news.
Yet, the concierge of our hotel in France warned me and my girlfriend to avoid a specific area when we go out at night.
That's not really what I'm used to from holiday in many European countries over the last 10 years or so.
It doesn't mean the nation is about to collapse, we have areas you better avoid at night in American cities as well but from my point of view, Europe always has been more civilised and safe in that regard.
If you're at a point where you have to warn tourists to not go to a specific area, it's not fake news if someone calls that a no-go zone, if anything you can debate how bad it is and if that is a good word to describe the situation.

Talking about no-go zones and police clearly sets the issue to something different than that someone suggests that a tourist shouldn't go there by night (I'm quite sure even a relatively low crime country like Sweden has more places like that than the problem area list we're talking about). We have to keep a shred of intellectual honesty here. Breitbart is very clearly angling it to something it's not about, and it's not the first time they've done that either.

This, and other reporting from both "sides", really reminds me of how important independent media is. Not that anything is flawless, and we should always look at all sources critically, but there's definitely a difference.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

The collapse of society is what happens when you have a feminist government. Feminism is cancer.

 

[Squarechoke]

I believe I was responding more to the perceived tone of your comment rather than the actual statement. In that, I was in error. I should have taken the time to truly take in what you said before knee jerk responding to it.

No problem, admitting that alone puts you above the majority of people I've discussed with. There's certainly problems here, and one can't close one's eyes to that immigration is a significant part of it (for many various reasons), but it's just not displaying an honest picture to call it no-go zones in relation to the police.

The problem is that false angles and twisting of truth comes from both sides, over here and in general, so the whole debate is very dishonest and not very rewarding much of the time.

 

[Bacco]

We have a great life in the Western world. Even our poor tend to have cars, phones, and other modern amenities. I just don't think it will kill us to help how we can. If we can fit some of the people fleeing violence in our lands until it's safe for them, then I support doing it. I don't want people who we have no idea who they are running around our cities, but there are ways we can help.

Because they will definitely leave and go back there when "it's safe for them" right?

To not count that most of them are not even currently-in-war states refugees but economic migrants

And the current trend is not about "some" but all the ones that come, because current leaders have the power to do it without have to account for short and far future damage they're doing to european citiziens

 

[uppercutbus]

We have a great life in the Western world. Even our poor tend to have cars, phones, and other modern amenities. I just don't think it will kill us to help how we can. If we can fit some of the people fleeing violence in our lands until it's safe for them, then I support doing it. I don't want people who we have no idea who they are running around our cities, but there are ways we can help.


"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Most migrants in Germany and Sweden aren't eligible for asylum.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Because they will definitely leave and go back there when "it's safe for them" right?

To not count that most of them are not even currently-in-war states refugees but economic migrants

And the current trend is not about "some" but all the ones that come, because current leaders have the power to do it without have to account for short and far future damage they're doing to european citiziens

Well if they're in controlled camps, I don't see how they'd have a choice.

That's also not true that most are economic migrants from what I've been researching. Economic migrant is a loose term anyways, considering the regions they are leaving are basically dead. It's not like they're leaving a decent life to take advantage of European acceptance. They are leaving regions with no resources and nothing to survive on.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Most migrants in Germany and Sweden aren't eligible for asylum.

By cause of having insufficient documentation usually from what I understand. I guess it's hard to keep all your documentation when you lose everything from a brutal civil war and such. Damned people should keep track of paperwork better.

 

[DannyNL]

Unreal. What the hell is happening in the world? Why are we all so willing to trade our safety away for a PC agenda?

 

[uppercutbus]

Well if they're in controlled camps, I don't see how they'd have a choice.

That's also not true that most are economic migrants from what I've been researching. Economic migrant is a loose term anyways, considering the regions they are leaving are basically dead. It's not like they're leaving a decent life to take advantage of European acceptance. They are leaving regions with no resources and nothing to survive on.

That's not a good enough reason to take them in. Now you're just totally ignoring the legal terms and requirements of what makes a refugee and how countries (should) identify a legit one because the facts don't fit your narrative.

Your post is literally "but they is poors, fuck laws and borders and shit."

By cause of having insufficient documentation usually from what I understand. I guess it's hard to keep all your documentation when you lose everything from a brutal civil war and such. Damned people should keep track of paperwork better.

What source claims this? I'll take reputable sources over your claims.

 

[Grenz]

Sweden and Germany are about as trustworthy with race and crime stats as CNN.

Actually in defense of Germany, the media there (e.g. Der Spiegel which is like the German version of Time Magazine) has been pretty open about the issue since the Cologne attacks. Just read an article last month that was detailing the issue with "Nafris" (North Africans as the cops there call them now) and how they commit a disproportionate amount of crime and how much of a hassle it is to deport them since their countries of origin don't want them either. And Der Spiegel is about as MSM as it gets...

 

[Bacco]

Well if they're in controlled camps, I don't see how they'd have a choice.

That's also not true that most are economic migrants from what I've been researching. Economic migrant is a loose term anyways, considering the regions they are leaving are basically dead. It's not like they're leaving a decent life to take advantage of European acceptance. They are leaving regions with no resources and nothing to survive on.

"Controlled camps" are not a definitive measure, wich make the only possible successive step let them in or deport them.
And we both know wich option win in 2017

The solution simply can't be let them all in, not if you're not willing to make natives to pay a big sacrifice

And of course, no globalist politician is telling this to voters

 

[DoomPatrol]

"Controlled camps" are not a definitive measure, wich make the only possible successive step let them in or deport them.
And we both know wich option win in 2017

The solution simply can't be let them all in, not if you're not willing to make natives to pay a big sacrifice

And of course, no globalist politician is telling this to voters

I don't see how controlled camps can't be a definitive measure. As long as entry and exit of the camp is controlled, it seems to be a fair option. If we're not above putting Asians in work camps in WW2, I don't see why we can't put refugees in refugee camps that are secured from the rest of the nation.

 

[Denter]

No problem, admitting that alone puts you above the majority of people I've discussed with. There's certainly problems here, and one can't close one's eyes to that immigration is a significant part of it (for many various reasons), but it's just not displaying an honest picture to call it no-go zones in relation to the police.

The problem is that false angles and twisting of truth comes from both sides, over here and in general, so the whole debate is very dishonest and not very rewarding much of the time.

We had an actual Swede in here who was in the unique position of straddling both worlds, being half African and half Swedish, who detailed some of the problems.

 

[Denter]

Well if they're in controlled camps, I don't see how they'd have a choice.

That's also not true that most are economic migrants from what I've been researching. Economic migrant is a loose term anyways, considering the regions they are leaving are basically dead. It's not like they're leaving a decent life to take advantage of European acceptance. They are leaving regions with no resources and nothing to survive on.

That's also not true, it costs a lot of money, relatively, to be smuggled to Europe. Their families often pitch in to buy them passage. Most of them are middle class by their countries standards.

 

[DoomPatrol]

That's also not true, it costs a lot of money, relatively, to be smuggled to Europe. Their families often pitch in to buy them passage. Most of them are middle class by their countries standards.

It usually costs them about everything they have to their name, but their "middle class" isn't close to what our usage of middle class makes it seem like.

 

[uppercutbus]

That's also not true, it costs a lot of money, relatively, to be smuggled to Europe. Their families often pitch in to buy them passage. Most of them are middle class by their countries standards.

And they're not even legit refugees fleeing war. Crossing multiple borders and safe countries to end up in Italy and Schengen zone