• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
Taking in refugees during a war is not "mass migration". That's just word magic. At no point has Sweden opened it's doors to whoever. The fact that some have thrown caution to the wind and come anyway doesn't mean they'll get to stay.

Again, I'm not sure what problem you think border checks have solved? All it's done is made it more important to keep your papers in order. Something difficult for somebody living in a suitcase and fleeing for their lives across Europe. All that has happened is that those who are eligible to stay but unlucky to lose their papers are now shit out of luck. And if we assume that people respond to incentives, is that:

1) Good for Europe
or
2) Bad for Europe

Legitimate Syrian refugees returned to Syria will be shot on site. Regardless of which part of Syria they're from. So returning is not an option. If you give a person a choice between death and a life of crime they'll all go for a life of crime. Then you've created a criminal. Which takes away any moral high point from which to judge "criminals".

At least a person housed in a refugee camp and fed doesn't have an incentive to commit crimes. While there's a war raging in Syria I think that's the least we can do.

Taking refugees is correct, but a lot of economic migrants joined the flow. They are from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and other countries. Some did come from Syria but not all. On You tube Hungarian's found thrown away IDs from these countries. The majority of crimes are not committed by Syrians. I am not sure if every one will be shot.

Wtf are you talking about? What has this got to do with anything? Just letting somebody into Sweden doesn't automatically grant them the right to stay. All it means to be admitted into a country means just exactly that. They can get kicked out at any time.

Here's what happens when a refugee comes to Sweden.

1) They're admitted into the country. Now they're tourists on an automatic tourist visa. 1-3 months. Not allowed to work.
2) They go to a police station and apply for refugee status. This is where the famous UNHCR refugee hoops come into play. Absurdly convoluted and inefficient. The main goal with these rules are to protect countries from criminals and terrorists. They're so ludicrously rigorous that they come across as a bad joke. They have to account for stuff that nobody could possibly account for. Especially if their home country is in a state of war... which it always is. The rules are this ludicrously rigorous because people keep demanding stricter and stricter rules. Of course it's just racism. But racists don't want to be on record that "we" don't want brown people. Instead they say this via proxy. Ie more hoops for refugees to jump through.

The rules are also fair. Nobody is given preferential treatment. Considering the number of bullshit applicants means that the process is incredibly slow. While inefficient I'm pretty sure that an unfair system would get abused in no time leading to rampant corruption. So I'm all in fair of fairness.

Papers are not needed for UNHCR's rules. The rules assume that all papers are false. Which is obviously the smart choice.

http://www.unhcr.org/43171ac42.html

On top of that they'll also have to jump through whatever added hoops the Swedish government puts on top of these. There always are in every country... and they're also always redundant, considering UNHCR rigorous rules. These added rules exist, not because they add value. But because the voters have demanded them and politicians do want to appease their (idiot) voters. These added rules slow down the refugee process even more.

3) The refugees are placed in refugee camps awaiting processing. Because of the complicated rules this will take 18 - 22 months. This is what it normally takes. Who knows how much this will slow down because of the magnitude of this crisis?

Life in these camps vary greatly. In Sweden we've decided that they're forbidden from working. They're not given any money. They're given housing, food and clothing and then nothing to do all day. That's not a recipe for success. We know this. This is like breeding for crime. It is the worst possible thing we can do. It's like we want these people to become criminals. Normal people want to work. And if we forbid them, normal people will turn to crime. Anyway... that was a derail. Anyway.. so they're stuck in these camps until they've been processed.

4) If they are genuine refugees: Once they've been processed they then either receive a temporary refugee status (TUT) or a permanent refugee status (PUT). This is at the discretion of the receiver country. TUT means they have to go home once the conflict is resolved. Historically conflicts are officially resolved way before they're actually resolved. This is a problem. Sweden chose to only hand out PUT. This means that any refugee given refugee status here will always be welcome here. They're effectively a Swedish citizen. This is of course the smart choice if we ever want to get any money back from taking in refugees.

5) If they aren't genuine refugees or they fucked up somewhere along the way in the application the time in the refugee camp is spent trying to figure out what to do next and how to skip the camp and go and live illegally somewhere. This is when they learn that all in Swedish refugee camps are, at all times, monitored as if they were criminals and are immediately caught. Yes, it is standard for refugees/migrants with denied applications to try to escape. Why wouldn't they? But it very seldom works out. This is the fate of about half of those who apply for refugee status.

Since papers are so easily forged... what does demanding papers add to any of this? I'm especially wondering about the honest Syrians who are refugees, lost their papers and aren't in the habit of forging papers?
 
What do you mean? Are you talking about the German authorities slow response on NEW-FUCKING-YEARS-EVE? The one day of the year when every countries police force is overworked and slow to respond? And you're then equating this to them doctoring statistics. That's quite the jump.

As for the speed of the authorities to issue statements. Initially the authorities wasn't sure what had happened. As nobody did. There were just rumours. The statements made reflected this uncertainty. It took a couple of days to collect and compare the stories. That's a far cry from denial. Also has nothing to do with statistics. After this story broke a hell of a lot more women came forward and made reports. Adding to the number. This wasn't known until these women came forward.

So again... wtf are you talking about?
They were not slow, they simply tried sweep under the rug and even advised media not to press the issue.

I'll repeat the question. What are you talking about? Any links to post? Preferable one that isn't the Daily Mail. I'd say they've failed the three-strikes-and-they're-out rule.
 
I tried Googling this. Didn't come up with anything in the Swedish media. The closest I found was this:

http://vlt.se/nyheter/vasteras/1.3488614-poliser-tvingades-fly-fran-asylboende

I think this is the same story. But the Swedish story is simply that the cops made a judgement call that they were outnumbered, given the situation, and needed backup so they retreated back out onto the street and waited for backup. This comes into the category of not taking unnecessary risks on the job. The backup came and everything was sorted without a bump. Yes, the Swedish article is also overly dramatic in it's wording. But if you read what it says there's really no drama here.

This is the third Daily Mail article posted in this thread that doesn't match the source article at all. Ie is nothing but lies. I suggest you stop reading the Daily Mail. Just an observation.

Can't wait for the apologists response!

You're welcome

I can't read the Swedish but if the police have to back down because they're outnumbered by a mob you have a pretty bad situation there!
 
I tried Googling this. Didn't come up with anything in the Swedish media. The closest I found was this:

http://vlt.se/nyheter/vasteras/1.3488614-poliser-tvingades-fly-fran-asylboende

I think this is the same story. But the Swedish story is simply that the cops made a judgement call that they were outnumbered, given the situation, and needed backup so they retreated back out onto the street and waited for backup. This comes into the category of not taking unnecessary risks on the job. The backup came and everything was sorted without a bump. Yes, the Swedish article is also overly dramatic in it's wording. But if you read what it says there's really no drama here.

This is the third Daily Mail article posted in this thread that doesn't match the source article at all. Ie is nothing but lies. I suggest you stop reading the Daily Mail. Just an observation.



You're welcome

I can't read the Swedish but if the police have to back down because they're outnumbered by a mob you have a pretty bad situation there!

So I even listened to the linked interview with the cops. The journalist was very aggressive and pressured the policeman. But he kept a cool head and didn't say much. All he said was that the police report could have been worded better. If I'm to make a guess the cops were going to move one family from one refugee camp to another. There was a miscommunication somewhere and the residents thought the family were going to get kicked out of the country altogether and were upset about it. Which, if these were Syrian genuine refugees, (promised residency) is understandable. But I'm just guessing here. It doesn't actually say. What it does say... right at the bottom of the article is that no crime was committed. In Sweden even just threatening a policeman is automatic time in jail. So we know that didn't happen.

This is made up news. There is no news here. Nothing happened. A policeman called for backup because he didn't want an already aggravated situation to get out of control. Backup came and then nothing happened. Maybe it was unnecessary to call for backup. Maybe? But he chose to make this judgement call and everything was fine. No crime. Just being angry is not a crime. Not even if you're a refugee.
 

Ok. that was a pretty well written and strongly worded article by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. I don't disagree with the facts. I just don't agree with the interpretation. I think it's both German and Swedish policy to leave out potentially racist comments. Anything that is potentially inflammatory or political. That's just wise policy from the police. It's not the job of the police to try to steer public opinion. That's not what they're for. That's what journalists are for. If the police would do it, wouldn't that be abuse of their power? Is that "covering up?" Do we want such a society? I would prefer a society where the police stay the fuck away from politics and public opinion.


Same here.


This one is the same.


This is different. So this is basically a random guy crying because he didn't get enough attention from a famous journalist. Maybe she thought he was lying.. who the fuck knows? Maybe she was working on some other case at the time? The guy called her. Getting the attention of the press isn't a right. And this is one of the most famous journalists at Sweden's biggest newspapers. Some perspective please.

I put this in the column of total bullshit. And considering the torrent of popups it unleashed when I tried shutting it down I wouldn't be surprised if this was a click farm article. It is, after all, completely devoid of content. I would not be surprised at all if that wasn't an automatically generated article using just keywords.


This is the same as the first article.


Obvious tin-foil-hattery. This is so badly written it hurts my eyes.


Here it gets a little bit more interesting since it includes the interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich, ie a person whose job it is to make political statements. But he does no covering up of anything. It says it in the article!


I've already said I'm not going to read any more Daily Mail articles. So far the three articles I've read have been just bold faced lies.

I'll cut my Odyssey of the International press short here

 
Taking refugees is correct, but a lot of economic migrants joined the flow. They are from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and other countries. Some did come from Syria but not all. On You tube Hungarian's found thrown away IDs from these countries. The majority of crimes are not committed by Syrians. I am not sure if every one will be shot.

Wtf are you talking about? What has this got to do with anything? Just letting somebody into Sweden doesn't automatically grant them the right to stay. All it means to be admitted into a country means just exactly that. They can get kicked out at any time.

Here's what happens when a refugee comes to Sweden.

1) They're admitted into the country. Now they're tourists on an automatic tourist visa. 1-3 months. Not allowed to work.
2) They go to a police station and apply for refugee status. This is where the famous UNHCR refugee hoops come into play. Absurdly convoluted and inefficient. The main goal with these rules are to protect countries from criminals and terrorists. They're so ludicrously rigorous that they come across as a bad joke. They have to account for stuff that nobody could possibly account for. Especially if their home country is in a state of war... which it always is. The rules are this ludicrously rigorous because people keep demanding stricter and stricter rules. Of course it's just racism. But racists don't want to be on record that "we" don't want brown people. Instead they say this via proxy. Ie more hoops for refugees to jump through.

The rules are also fair. Nobody is given preferential treatment. Considering the number of bullshit applicants means that the process is incredibly slow. While inefficient I'm pretty sure that an unfair system would get abused in no time leading to rampant corruption. So I'm all in fair of fairness.

Papers are not needed for UNHCR's rules. The rules assume that all papers are false. Which is obviously the smart choice.

http://www.unhcr.org/43171ac42.html

On top of that they'll also have to jump through whatever added hoops the Swedish government puts on top of these. There always are in every country... and they're also always redundant, considering UNHCR rigorous rules. These added rules exist, not because they add value. But because the voters have demanded them and politicians do want to appease their (idiot) voters. These added rules slow down the refugee process even more.

3) The refugees are placed in refugee camps awaiting processing. Because of the complicated rules this will take 18 - 22 months. This is what it normally takes. Who knows how much this will slow down because of the magnitude of this crisis?

Life in these camps vary greatly. In Sweden we've decided that they're forbidden from working. They're not given any money. They're given housing, food and clothing and then nothing to do all day. That's not a recipe for success. We know this. This is like breeding for crime. It is the worst possible thing we can do. It's like we want these people to become criminals. Normal people want to work. And if we forbid them, normal people will turn to crime. Anyway... that was a derail. Anyway.. so they're stuck in these camps until they've been processed.

4) If they are genuine refugees: Once they've been processed they then either receive a temporary refugee status (TUT) or a permanent refugee status (PUT). This is at the discretion of the receiver country. TUT means they have to go home once the conflict is resolved. Historically conflicts are officially resolved way before they're actually resolved. This is a problem. Sweden chose to only hand out PUT. This means that any refugee given refugee status here will always be welcome here. They're effectively a Swedish citizen. This is of course the smart choice if we ever want to get any money back from taking in refugees.

5) If they aren't genuine refugees or they fucked up somewhere along the way in the application the time in the refugee camp is spent trying to figure out what to do next and how to skip the camp and go and live illegally somewhere. This is when they learn that all in Swedish refugee camps are, at all times, monitored as if they were criminals and are immediately caught. Yes, it is standard for refugees/migrants with denied applications to try to escape. Why wouldn't they? But it very seldom works out. This is the fate of about half of those who apply for refugee status.

Since papers are so easily forged... what does demanding papers add to any of this? I'm especially wondering about the honest Syrians who are refugees, lost their papers and aren't in the habit of forging papers?

Britain faces a problem in that the cost and logistics for deportation are enormous. IMany end up not being deported. Some even get citizenship as they have been in the country for five years. At one time the sweatshop industry was luarative for many and they could earn a reasonable income. Germany is now in negotiations with Various countries to try to send back the rejected asylum seeker or simply those who never applied and didn't cooperate by providing information.
Genuine refugees who have lost their papers will of course be the ones giving their names and as much information as possible. The point is many who come into the country are economic migrants. They take advantage of the open border policies. In England there are people roaming about and illegally working who have no papers and 'cannot remember their birthday' and sometimes give false nationalities. There are extensive shared data base links where the persons details can come up in the system. In other instances this requires cooperation from the authorities of the host countries. For instance, once it received a name and birthday it will take the Indian and Pakistani authorities about six months to provide details.

The cost of deporting 80,000 people or so plus the time it takes and then negotiations involves with countries who don't want them back will be substantial.
 
Did you even read the article you're quoting? I suggest you reading it again.

There's no reason to believe Sweden has any more rape than any other country. There's a number of reasons for this. Everything from cultural to methodological. Sweden registers more as rape than any other country. It would be fair to say that Sweden sanitises our rape statistics less than any other country. That's just a fact. We are unique in this regard.

This is stated in the article you are quoting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Sweden

See sub topic Sweden

However this assumption agrees with what I have previously stated:

QUOTE that culture is unlikely to be a strong cause of crime among immigrants UNQUOTE

My point is that the crimes are not because they are migrants but because of a lack of checks at the border (recently showing signs of being implemented) where there could be socio economic factors but the fact that some criminals are taking the opportunity to mingle with the genuine asylum seekers.

As far as immigrants being overly represented. Whatever group has the lowest status in society will be over-represented in all blue collar crimes. Not a lot. But by a couple of percentiles. That's just fact. Also true across all cultures. Immigrants tends have low status. This is also true across all cultures. It really doesn't matter from which culture people travel or to where they travel. Has been researched extensively.

My point is that the crimes are not because they are migrants but because of a lack of checks at the border (recently showing signs of being implemented) where there could be socio economic factors but the fact that some criminals are taking the opportunity to mingle with the genuine asylum seekers.

What are you talking about? A "criminal" isn't some strange bird or rare plant. Criminals aren't born. They're made. People respond to incentives. Everybody does. Yes, including people who earlier in their lives made some bad choices. Which is what I suspect you are referring to as "criminals"?

The immigrants are not committing crimes because they come from 'strange cultures' Muslim society is generally very civil and does not tolerate such behavior. So those who commit crimes do so because they are criminals. However, as I mentioned it is the volume of unchecked people coming into the country. In this alone there are bound to be some infractions of the law. Something similar would happen if you let British people loose in another country. A case in point was Hong Kong during the construction of the Chep Lap Kok airport projects. I met several bail jumpers and drunks who came over and then cause problems in the bars every so often. They were given an automatic visa upon arrival. The influx was due to the large amount of work for this 18 million pounds plus project.

I lived in Belgium when I was at school (travelling to an Army boarding school in Germany). In the Belgian town where I lived no one locked their bikes. As a result British troops used to steal them and dump them outside the barracks. The police never prosecuted but should have.

So I am referring to actual criminals who I believe were so in their own countries of origin.
 
Ok. that was a pretty well written and strongly worded article by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. I don't disagree with the facts. I just don't agree with the interpretation. I think it's both German and Swedish policy to leave out potentially racist comments. Anything that is potentially inflammatory or political. That's just wise policy from the police. It's not the job of the police to try to steer public opinion. That's not what they're for. That's what journalists are for. If the police would do it, wouldn't that be abuse of their power? Is that "covering up?" Do we want such a society? I would prefer a society where the police stay the fuck away from politics and public opinion.


Same here.


This one is the same.


This is different. So this is basically a random guy crying because he didn't get enough attention from a famous journalist. Maybe she thought he was lying.. who the fuck knows? Maybe she was working on some other case at the time? The guy called her. Getting the attention of the press isn't a right. And this is one of the most famous journalists at Sweden's biggest newspapers. Some perspective please.

I put this in the column of total bullshit. And considering the torrent of popups it unleashed when I tried shutting it down I wouldn't be surprised if this was a click farm article. It is, after all, completely devoid of content. I would not be surprised at all if that wasn't an automatically generated article using just keywords.


This is the same as the first article.


Obvious tin-foil-hattery. This is so badly written it hurts my eyes.


Here it gets a little bit more interesting since it includes the interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich, ie a person whose job it is to make political statements. But he does no covering up of anything. It says it in the article!


I've already said I'm not going to read any more Daily Mail articles. So far the three articles I've read have been just bold faced lies.

I'll cut my Odyssey of the International press short here


You may be right about the Daily Mail at least to some degree. However the German police did admit they covered up things. They should have noticed what was going on in Cologne Station. It's not such a large area and anyone with an average level of observation would notice the groups running around and causing disorder. Sweden at least seems to be restricting the volume of people coming into the country.
 
What are you talking about? A "criminal" isn't some strange bird or rare plant. Criminals aren't born. They're made. People respond to incentives. Everybody does. Yes, including people who earlier in their lives made some bad choices. Which is what I suspect you are referring to as "criminals"?

Some criminals are born. Yes persons respond to incentives. Incentives vary by location and grouping. Not going to go out on a limb here. Just saying there are predispositions in individuals likely to result in criminal behavior. This topic is still being argued. For one from the perspective I'm suggesting is "The Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) Genetic Predispositionto Impulsive Violence: Is It Relevant to Criminal Trials? "http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/rheg/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/genetic-italy-case.pdf

A Cautious Conclusion

I recalled a brief history of genetics of crime and behavior up to the probabilistic association between the MAOA gene × environment interaction and impulsive violence. I argued that this genetic evidence is similar to current psychiatric diagnoses as a marker of a potentially relevant condition and could with future research form the rational basis for mitigation of criminal responsibility. Before we can know whether the decisions in the only two trials in which this data has had an effect, Bayout (2009) and Waldroup (2009), were correct, however, we need further research (see Table 4), especially corroboration that the deficits in emotional regulation and impulse control seen in those with MAOA-L alone are magnified upon addition of an adverse environment;we also need to better delineate the type and window of adverse environment that is relevant.

As we move forward toward this goal of building a rigorous evidence base, we should keep in mind that it was less than 100 years ago (during the interwar period)that Yale Psychologist Robert Yerkes stated in an addressto the American Eugenics Council that “the safe development of eugenics is indeed assured by [our]insistence that we should not let application outstrip knowledge” [51]. Despite the energies of some of the brightest minds of the time, the heritability of crime was overestimated, was poorly and too generally defined,and resulted in a definition of the “unfit” that closely mimicked existing racial and ethnic prejudices.23

Some persons are strange birds indeed.
 
Ok. that was a pretty well written and strongly worded article by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. I don't disagree with the facts. I just don't agree with the interpretation. I think it's both German and Swedish policy to leave out potentially racist comments. Anything that is potentially inflammatory or political. That's just wise policy from the police. It's not the job of the police to try to steer public opinion. That's not what they're for. That's what journalists are for. If the police would do it, wouldn't that be abuse of their power? Is that "covering up?" Do we want such a society? I would prefer a society where the police stay the fuck away from politics and public opinion.


Same here.


This one is the same.


This is different. So this is basically a random guy crying because he didn't get enough attention from a famous journalist. Maybe she thought he was lying.. who the fuck knows? Maybe she was working on some other case at the time? The guy called her. Getting the attention of the press isn't a right. And this is one of the most famous journalists at Sweden's biggest newspapers. Some perspective please.

I put this in the column of total bullshit. And considering the torrent of popups it unleashed when I tried shutting it down I wouldn't be surprised if this was a click farm article. It is, after all, completely devoid of content. I would not be surprised at all if that wasn't an automatically generated article using just keywords.


This is the same as the first article.


Obvious tin-foil-hattery. This is so badly written it hurts my eyes.


Here it gets a little bit more interesting since it includes the interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich, ie a person whose job it is to make political statements. But he does no covering up of anything. It says it in the article!


I've already said I'm not going to read any more Daily Mail articles. So far the three articles I've read have been just bold faced lies.

I'll cut my Odyssey of the International press short here

So you basically ignore information which does not fit with your views.
 
Dr. Zoidberg

As you live in Stockholm can you check with any officials and persons you know who were there at Stockholm station on 28 January 2016. Apart from the incident I don't know any details of any reports complaints or arrests. Perhaps this was not so dramatic as it is reported to be. Anyway take a few days here and there to check this (a few minutes each time).
 
Britain faces a problem in that the cost and logistics for deportation are enormous.

I'll give you this one. I'm still doubtful we'll solve this problem by starting with border checks.

IMany end up not being deported. Some even get citizenship as they have been in the country for five years.

Sounds like lies made up by the BNP. Do you have a reliable source?

Germany is now in negotiations with Various countries to try to send back the rejected asylum seeker or simply those who never applied and didn't cooperate by providing information. Genuine refugees who have lost their papers will of course be the ones giving their names and as much information as possible. The point is many who come into the country are economic migrants. They take advantage of the open border policies. In England there are people roaming about and illegally working who have no papers and 'cannot remember their birthday' and sometimes give false nationalities. There are extensive shared data base links where the persons details can come up in the system.

I suggest not trying to speculate on the psychological characteristics of refugees. These are all traumatised people, in one way or another. Trauma can lead to all manner of weird behaviours.

But people can enter countries with forged papers. Many countries passports are pretty worthless. This is all stuff you've said to support checking papers at borders. I'm saying that the papers doesn't prove as much as you think they do. The above problems will occur regardless if people have papers on entry or not.

In other instances this requires cooperation from the authorities of the host countries. For instance, once it received a name and birthday it will take the Indian and Pakistani authorities about six months to provide details.

Welcome to the developing world.

The cost of deporting 80,000 people or so plus the time it takes and then negotiations involves with countries who don't want them back will be substantial.

Yes, this sucks.

Bottom line. If people want in badly enough they'll get in.
 
Dr. Zoidberg

As you live in Stockholm can you check with any officials and persons you know who were there at Stockholm station on 28 January 2016. Apart from the incident I don't know any details of any reports complaints or arrests. Perhaps this was not so dramatic as it is reported to be. Anyway take a few days here and there to check this (a few minutes each time).

No deaths. But quite a few had to go to hospital. Haven't seen numbers. People are barely talking about anything else nowadays. In Sweden people are allowed to be held by the police for four days for no reason. If there's a reason they are held for longer. Isolated. So if they've actually done something there's very little information that gets out until the trial six months down the road. If it wasn't so serious they'll be released today I think and we'll get to hear about it. I think these are all going to be charged with committing an act of terrorism. If that is so they'll be gone for a long time.

The Swedish secret police have judged it to be a terrorist attack and have now (allegedly) switched their focus from Islamic terrorists to Nazi terrorists. The worrying thing about it is that it's a type of behaviour we haven't seen in Scandinavia for about 70 years. It's taken everybody by surprise. This is a monumental shift. Cannot be underestimated. And everybody knows the source. It's the racist blogs that have been spreading so much lies that people are starting to believe them and behave as if it's the truth.

It's important to understand that Sweden is a super super super safe country. Nothing bad ever fucking happens here. A woman can walk naked through central Stockholm at night... chances are pretty good that she'll be fine. Drunk people might say overly nice or hurtful things. But that's pretty much it. The worst that happens here is people getting punched in the face. This is a culture that drinks heavily. So we have that type of "crime". Just an observation from travelling the world. In Sweden women don't worry about rape and sexual assault nearly as much as women in other countries. If a young girl goes home with a stranger after a club, nobody is concerned. They might slip her a condom before she's off. But her friends will tell her to "have fun". Just comparing London with Stockholm... it's like they're on different planets. Or Stockholm and Berlin. Or Stockholm and Barcelona. Young girls have to take precautions outside Sweden that they just don't bother with here. I'm not saying they shouldn't bother with it. I'm not making a judgement. I'm just observing how people actually behave. I believe the reason for this difference in behaviour has to do with actual danger. The chances of getting hurt or raped here is extremely extremely low. That is regardless of what the statistics say. Yes, I'm aware they are different.

Now and again something bad happens and everybody goes absolutely apeshit. Any stupid minor event makes head line news, and is immediately spread around the world, and yada yada yada. People around the globe seem to love to read about "dangerous" Sweden. But it's not noticeable to us who live here. I live in down town Stockholm. Very close to where the riot was. This is the area with the highest reported occurrences of crime in all of Sweden. I often can't be bothered to lock my front door when I leave my home. I've lived there for 14 years now. The worst things that have happened is that somebody stole my bike, once a homeless person moved into our communal washing room and a drunk person tried to rape a neighbour. Didn't go so well for him as she kicked his ass. That's all that has happened in my crime infested corner of Sweden.

The racist bloggs are of course exaggerating the rapes and violences as much as they can. But they get called on it all the time. They're just making shit up.
 
It's important to understand that Sweden is a super super super safe country. Nothing bad ever fucking happens here.
That means it could only get worse, especially considering how relaxed your police is.
A woman can walk naked through central Stockholm at night... chances are pretty good that she'll be fine.
What about the same by in country side?
 

Yup. This is so outlandish and utter crap I don't even have to go looking for sources. This is complete nonsense.

The riots in Husby (mentioned) weren't riots in the sense we get in USA or Cairo. These are a couple of kids throwing stones and setting fire to a couple of cars.

Results (translated from Wikipedia)
1 death. A cop shot a guy
3 mildly wounded (all police and faulty equipment was blamed)
44 arrests
17 charged
1 convicted (set fire to two cars)
5 children placed in juvie

In Sweden the it's the police themselves who investigate misconduct within the force. This means that the police can pretty much do whatever they want and get away with it. It's a problem here. The cop who shot a guy was not convicted.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upploppen_i_Stockholm_2013
 
That means it could only get worse, especially considering how relaxed your police is.

I don't know what that means?

A woman can walk naked through central Stockholm at night... chances are pretty good that she'll be fine.
What about the same by in country side?

Sweden is a huge country with a total population of 10 000 000. If you're out in the countryside good luck meeting anybody. Safe safe safe.

Just look at a map. Sweden is extremely depopulated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom