Gun attack in Sweden (Malmo)

Chuchote wrote: »

Knowing one or two people whose children haven't gone wild isn't an overview of a whole society

The person who first made the kids-go-wild-in-new-estates point to me grew up in Kimmage in the 1940s, and moved to various new estates (rich and poor) in Cork, London, Liverpool and Belfast, and said he'd seen the same thing almost invariably. I don't know if it's a theory that's testable, but it seems to be that estates do get settled when the next generation has kids - unless there's a mass movement out and a new movement in by new people.

And no-one said that, I was just saying it is not a "always lived there" versus "new in town" type of thing and concerns also very much exist within the newer populations.

If you want high level figures showing disparities between different immigration groups in term of crime rates, you can for example look at the ones the economist quoted recently saying that between 40-60% of inmates in French prisons are Muslim (much more that the proportion of Muslim people in the general population), which clearly shows there has been specific crime-related issues with children of immigrants coming from at least some Muslim countries. On the other hand, crime rate amongst Asians is actually lower than the general public while there has also been large scale immigration for example from Vietnam starting around the same time and those people originally lived in the exact same suburbs, were treated in the exact same way, and the culture gap was at least as large for them.

Hence my point: I am not too keen on making excuses for anyone and think it is best to just hold everyone to the same standard (the highest one), or in the long term you will just let problems snowball and increase the gap between different groups (which his bad for everyone, including the groups including those youth who have "gone wild").

There was an error rendering this BBCode post

Nody wrote: »

This report from the Swedish police force is the first, and only, reference to the 50 areas that should be used. The first summary sentence is:
Then we can skip down to 3.4.4 which translates as (this is google translated so not 100% accurate translation as a side note):
Which goes into the above definition used and is listed in 3.5.3:
This is all from the original report which the rest of the articles are based on; that is the definition used in the report that defined the areas. Hence the 55 areas are not no go zones; they are defined as areas where the local police had at the time difficulty to execute their job but they also state they can foot patrol in the majority of said areas without risk of being attacked.

So from what I can see rather than being presented as a definition of these areas it is more of a comment on how the police is exercising its duty in there, in a subsection of the report, amongst a number of others comments.

If I Google Translate the introduction of the report, I get at some point:

Development in the regions has led to difficulties in investigating crimes. Police have also in other respects, difficult to work in these areas, including due to the environment reacts to the police at intervention or by attacking police vehicles.
Police difficulty in curbing the problems mentioned could be a contributing factor to the public in several cases, understands that it is the criminals who control the areas of. Such a view may be contested Police's role as guarantor of security, and ultimately reduces the public's inclination to turn to the police. The situation in these areas is of concern and has in several cases meant that police have not been able to fulfill its task.

Basically they are saying that if the police goes there it gets attacked, that there is a feel that criminals control the areas, and that there is a is a loss of trust in the public in terms of the police's ability to maintain order.

In the conclusion (part 5) they also basically describe a situation whereby there is a parallel power structure controlled by criminals which partially replaces the state's policing and judicial powers.

Overall, the situation can create a negative spiral that feeds fears and insecurity without concrete threats have spoken. In this way, set up an informal power structure in the local community, which ultimately benefits the criminal actors. In several areas experienced police officers that such a process occurred and that the public's fear of reprisals led to the ordinary justice system to some extent been eliminated. This is expected to lead to confidence in the state's monopoly on violence risk being undermined. The police therefore sees the situation in areas as serious.

Not exactly very cheerful :-s (if you had told Swedes 15 or 30 years ago that in the medium term these characteristics would be used in an official police report to describe several areas of their country, they would probably have laughed at you ...).

Looks like the situation in the area where the shooting happened is in line with what is described in the police report mentioned above: Witnesses 'afraid to talk' to police about Malmö shooting