Immigration

[TenEightyOne]

Meanwhile, the same source has officers quoted that say they are inadequately trained and inadequately equipped to handle dangerous patrols and terrorism.

Could you re-link the source please? I can't see that reference in this one, this one or this one?

There is an article at Local about police fears for equipment levels in the face of a full-on terrorist attack - I'll repeat my earlier comment that funding/equipment level worries in the emergency services are a common theme across Europe since the recession began. None of this does anything to justify your conflation of immigration and terrorism despite it being demonstrated to you over again that violent crime in Sweden was spiralling long before the "immigration crisis" and that the vast vast majority of such crime is perpetrated by Swedes of Swedish heritage.

Why do I need to find an article stating that more immigrants means more terrorists means less cops etc.? I'm not making that case. I'm pointing out that you aren't making the opposite case with the article you linked to and, with your own links, throwing in more evidence from the police dept. itself, that there are multiple factors in play.

Yes, because that's the case. You're rebutting the idea that more immigrants doesn't mean more terrorists but so far you've been very light on the old evidence so.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Could you re-link the source please? I can't see that reference in this one, this one or this one?

There is an article at Local about police fears for equipment levels in the face of a full-on terrorist attack - I'll repeat my earlier comment that funding/equipment level worries in the emergency services are a common theme across Europe since the recession began. None of this does anything to justify your conflation of immigration and terrorism despite it being demonstrated to you over again that violent crime in Sweden was spiralling long before the "immigration crisis" and that the vast vast majority of such crime is perpetrated by Swedes of Swedish heritage.



Yes, because that's the case. You're rebutting the idea that more immigrants doesn't mean more terrorists but so far you've been very light on the old evidence so.

I'm not conflating immigration and terrorism, sorry. I've already clearly stated that I'm just rebutting a single point on one side of the argument.

 

[Encyclopedia]

The reasons I keep hearing the most for people quitting the force here is inadequate pay and a feeling of not being useful due to the huge innefficiency of the police system after the reforms a few years ago. That plus stress.

I can't remember hearing much about increased danger being a common reason though. Although danger is of course a side effect of the problems the police are facing.

 

[Dotini]

Migrants being sold in open slave markets all across Libya. I suppose its better than starving to death, and maybe it takes some pressure off of Europe. It sure was fun seeing an angry rebel run a sword up Gaddafi's ass, but was it worth this price? I would like someone to explain to me why Britain, France and the USA caused this to happen.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/migrants-are-being-sold-open-slave-markets-libya-1616492

 

[Johnnypenso]

The reasons I keep hearing the most for people quitting the force here is inadequate pay and a feeling of not being useful due to the huge innefficiency of the police system after the reforms a few years ago. That plus stress.

I can't remember hearing much about increased danger being a common reason though. Although danger is of course a side effect of the problems the police are facing.

If they aren't feeling useful that means they are engaged in a lot of mundane and probably boring work. How is that stressful?

 

[mister dog]

If they aren't feeling useful that means they are engaged in a lot of mundane and probably boring work. How is that stressful?

Saw this yesterday too:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...elivery-suspended-no-go-zone-safety-concerns/

If they would send postal pigeons, would they get shot down?

 

[TenEightyOne]

If they aren't feeling useful that means they are engaged in a lot of mundane and probably boring work. How is that stressful?

I guess you're being sarcastic... but just in case you're not: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-work-three-reasons-why-and-what-can-free-you. It's long been known that feeling bored/unfulfilled at work can be as stressful as working in traumatic situations, that's why work/life balance has been such a big thing for so long.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I guess you're being sarcastic... but just in case you're not: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-work-three-reasons-why-and-what-can-free-you. It's long been known that feeling bored/unfulfilled at work can be as stressful as working in traumatic situations, that's why work/life balance has been such a big thing for so long.

In other words, everything is stressful.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Mad world. Or maybe just Mad Sweden

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-swedish-teen-leave-male-friend-brain-damage/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I got as far as "b-r-e-i" in the URL before I gave up.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

I got as far as "b-r-e-i" in the URL before I gave up.

You have to type the URL in the address bar to make it work? You know you can just click it right?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You have to type the URL in the address bar to make it work? You know you can just click it right?

No, I mean that I stopped reading when I saw that it was Breitbart.

 

[Encyclopedia]

If they aren't feeling useful that means they are engaged in a lot of mundane and probably boring work. How is that stressful?

Sorry for the late reply...

I think they aren't feeling useful because a lot of crimes end up not getting solved. People become police officers because they want to fight crime and make society better. If they feel like they aren't able to do that then there's no wonder it feels pointless.

Mad world. Or maybe just Mad Sweden

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-swedish-teen-leave-male-friend-brain-damage/

Yes Mad Sweden. The only country where rapes and violence happen.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sorry for the late reply...

I think they aren't feeling useful because a lot of crimes end up not getting solved. People become police officers because they want to fight crime and make society better. If they feel like they aren't able to do that then there's no wonder it feels pointless.

Yes Mad Sweden. The only country where rapes and violence happen.

Why aren't a lot of crimes getting solved? What's changed?

 

[Encyclopedia]

Why aren't a lot of crimes getting solved? What's changed?

The re-structuring is considered to be the major cause. I can't remember exactly what it entailed but it's the reason most police officers give. Then tere's the ever present issue of money.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Yes Mad Sweden. The only country where rapes and violence happen.

I think you're supposed to get from the story the lunacy of the sentences and deportation. Or lack thereof....

In other news what can be done about this:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...umber-migrants-crossing-mediterranean-easter/

A lot of people don't make it so it's still a risky trip.

 

[MeanElf]

...I'd say that the Daily Mail has shown itself as a great example of where ignorant, bigoted and hateful people should draw the line.

Judging by their readers' comments on many articles, restraint in any form is not a part of their make up. I know these are often faceless keyboard-pounders who might well be meek face-to-face but the amount of likes such frothing at the mouth responses get tells me that we aren't in Kansas anymore.

 

[stonesfan129]

There is a legal path to citizenship in the United States. It should be followed. If you didn't follow it, you should get deported.

 

[LeMansAid]

Judging by their readers' comments on many articles, restraint in any form is not a part of their make up. I know these are often faceless keyboard-pounders who might well be meek face-to-face but the amount of likes such frothing at the mouth responses get tells me that we aren't in Kansas anymore.

So your rationale is that responses to an article serve to define the publisher? That's...... pretty damn silly.

At least what @Scaff used as a counter was a supposedly suspect article that actually came from the Daily Mail itself. I did a bit of a search for the article, but couldn't find it. Would you be able to track it down, @Scaff?

While we're on this type of thing....

No, I mean that I stopped reading when I saw that it was Breitbart.

Web-searching the names of the two convicted, I'm struggling to find any article that presents the story with any notable differences. It would lead me to think that either the information in the Breitbart article is legit and accurate, or that balanced and opposite-political-slant media haven't reported it at all, or both. Unless there's reason to allege that the story was completely fabricated? I'm genuinely interested to know how they've distorted the truth, if that is the case.

I find the trend of blanket dismissals of certain media outlets lazy and counter-productive. That is, if one's version of "productive" is making a positive difference, and not just about maintaining an illusion of moral superiority. I trust my intellect to not allow me to have the wool pulled over my eyes by any voice with an agenda, and I would rather see myself actually read an article in question, and come up with something that rationally discredits it, if flagrant lack of scruples was so assured.

"Coz Daily Mail" and "Coz Breitbart" is just meaningless noise to me, and likely a negatively provocative call-to-arms for some others. Either way, it's not smart, or of any real world moral value.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

"Coz Daily Mail" and "Coz Breitbart" is just meaningless noise to me, and likely a negatively provocative call-to-arms for some others.

I'm reminded of an image someone posted that showed how a series of publications were viewed by people across the political spectrum, with Buzzfeed being the regarded as the worst. Publications like The Daily Mail, Brietbart and Buzzfeed can occasionally post quality journalism, but they have such poor reputations that you have to ask yourself if you really want to dig through a pile of manure in the hopes of finding a diamond. In those cases, verifying the story through a trusted source is the most practical thing to do because the old adage that you should only ever believe half of what you read in the paper rings true. When it comes down to it, being cynical about a quality story is better than trusting one that is compromised simply because of the power that the media has to shape our understanding of the world.

 

[MeanElf]

So your rationale is that responses to an article serve to define the publisher? That's...... pretty damn silly.

Not really what I was saying - however, The Daily Mail has been on a hate crusade since well before WWII and in many ways its articles and editorials have cultivated an echo-chamber of sorts for the kind of people who respond to their agenda. So, I think it's more a case of the publisher nurturing the need and continuing to build on it. Happened with The Sun too and most other publications/organisation controlled by Murdoch. The readers are in automatic response mode now after years of drip-fed hate propaganda.

To give an idea of the paper's veracity, it and at least two of its hacks have been hit by some pretty big court fines lately with more still to come - all due to fallacious and not fact checked content printed in their pages.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm reminded of an image someone posted that showed how a series of publications were viewed by people across the political spectrum, with Buzzfeed being the regarded as the worst. Publications like The Daily Mail, Brietbart and Buzzfeed can occasionally post quality journalism, but they have such poor reputations that you have to ask yourself if you really want to dig through a pile of manure in the hopes of finding a diamond. In those cases, verifying the story through a trusted source is the most practical thing to do because the old adage that you should only ever believe half of what you read in the paper rings true. When it comes down to it, being cynical about a quality story is better than trusting one that is compromised simply because of the power that the media has to shape our understanding of the world.

Many stories in Breitbart and the like are not original in my experience and, when that is the case, they always provide a link to the original story in the body of their own version of it. Only takes a few seconds to find it and move on to the source.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm reminded of an image someone posted that showed how a series of publications were viewed by people across the political spectrum, with Buzzfeed being the regarded as the worst. Publications like The Daily Mail, Brietbart and Buzzfeed can occasionally post quality journalism, but they have such poor reputations that you have to ask yourself if you really want to dig through a pile of manure in the hopes of finding a diamond. In those cases, verifying the story through a trusted source is the most practical thing to do because the old adage that you should only ever believe half of what you read in the paper rings true. When it comes down to it, being cynical about a quality story is better than trusting one that is compromised simply because of the power that the media has to shape our understanding of the world.

I doubt that we're too different in regards to levels of cynicism. It's just that I think I'm cynical more in equal measure toward publications of varying political slants. I'm suspicious of how Breitbart reported that case, and suspicious of the publications that didn't report on it at all.

"Manure"? "Diamonds"? We're being cynical. We're not trying to find "diamonds" here. We're trying to find the truth that would support our suspicion. If these outlets are so dodgy, it shouldn't be difficult at all, right? We need an "Actually.......", with a discerning truth, not a "Breitbart bad!!". Media outlets will have agendas. They will report selectively. So what? If there's no lies, there's no problem, and it's then down to the individual to make of it what they will.

It's simple..... Judge the content. Not the reputation, not the comments from readers....... The content. Dismissing with eyes wide shut only tells others that they are inextricably pegged as the enemy, and that we're not negotiating...... we're at "war".

That's pretty much ISIS' modus operandi by the way. The approach highlighted by Waleed Ali in a video you once linked to, for that reason, on this site.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Judge the content. Not the reputation, not the comments from readers....... The content

Content which can be presented differently in line with a publication's prejudices.

 

[LeMansAid]

Content which can be presented differently in line with a publication's prejudices.

That's part of the content I'm talking about, and what should be judged.

Point out what they failed to include, what they exaggerated, the deceptive graph, the outright lies..... whatever - but don't just roll eyes, and say "Oh, I know their agenda. Pass". There's also that odd thing that some people do of just not saying anything at all. Not taking it upon themselves to declare to the world, unsolicited, that they are choosing not to read a Breitbart article.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Now for goodness sake people, just remember that despite being taken in by the French:

Rolando said he didn’t like the French people, saying: “They prefer seeing us on the streets suffering. I observe people passing by, whenever they gazed at us they would be smiling! As if they are happy seeing us suffering, you understand?"

And Africa's problems were of course caused by Europeans:

He went on to say: “We blame them, for what they did to Africa! Let’s assume that they did not spoil our country, you wouldn’t have seen me here.”

And that it was whitey that actually created Boko Haram. This is no work of Islam, but instead of MI6....

According to Rolando, the terrorist organisations attacking his country like Boko Haram were created by the British spy agency MI6. “Our generation are smarter. A white man can not come and deceive me,” he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/03/exclusive-paris-migrants-blame-europe/

 

[stonesfan129]

.

 

[Scaff]

Now for goodness sake people, just remember that despite being taken in by the French:

Rolando said he didn’t like the French people, saying: “They prefer seeing us on the streets suffering. I observe people passing by, whenever they gazed at us they would be smiling! As if they are happy seeing us suffering, you understand?"

And Africa's problems were of course caused by Europeans:

He went on to say: “We blame them, for what they did to Africa! Let’s assume that they did not spoil our country, you wouldn’t have seen me here.”

And that it was whitey that actually created Boko Haram. This is no work of Islam, but instead of MI6....

According to Rolando, the terrorist organisations attacking his country like Boko Haram were created by the British spy agency MI6. “Our generation are smarter. A white man can not come and deceive me,” he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/03/exclusive-paris-migrants-blame-europe/

Look its another Breitbart piece that provides zero sources to back up its claims, all once again well timed to attempt to support a political motive that comes from the interests of its owners and principal financiers.

When are you going to actually understand that Breitbart is not a news agency? Its a tool of direct political propaganda and you fall for it every single time.

Oh and if you don't think that Western influence has had any impact what so ever in creating instability in Africa then quite frankly you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Look its another Breitbart piece that provides zero sources to back up its claims, all once again well timed to attempt to support a political motive that comes from the interests of its owners and principal financiers.

When are you going to actually understand that Breitbart is not a news agency? Its a tool of direct political propaganda and you fall for it every single time.

Oh and if you don't think that Western influence has had any impact what so ever in creating instability in Africa then quite frankly you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

According to my mental list, TROP, the Daily Mail, Gatestone and now Breitbart can't really be used to prove a point. Are there any I missed?

 

[Scaff]

According to my mental list, TROP, the Daily Mail, Gatestone and now Breitbart can't really be used to prove a point. Are there any I missed?

What a high quality rebuttal, packed with facts and sources to dismiss the points and concerns raised.

I will be blunt, if you want a point to be taken seriously then sources that have a long history of bias, outright lies, deception, self-citing and in one case have even been denied White House Press accreditation because they are clearly politically funded; then no don't use them.

Not that the article posted actually proved a point, and if you actually think it did you have no idea what constitutes even the lowest standard of evidence.