Amsterdam to create 'scum villages'

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raxoxane
Well,if a large portion of those likely to be designated to "scum villages" on account of their behavior are immigrants-JUST DEPORT THEM,for heaven's sake.Instead of creating neighbourhoods crammed with folks who indulge in constant unacceptable+disruptive behaviour to such an extent that society wants them removed-and dump All the "bad apples" together-deport the ones who are not Dutch citizens.Like in England,which is practically a Muslim country by now-I understand that many British dont feel they're living in England anymore,its changed that much,and militant Islamists,among the large Muslim population are to blame for much of that-British people in and around bigger centers are being victimised in their own country-there's been threads on this site about the problems they're having,well,DEPORT THOSE WHO WONT ABIDE BY THE RULES AND CUSTOMS AND ESTABLISHED WAY OF LIFE, OF THE COUNTRY THEY WISH TO LIVE IN.SO SIMPLE.. good grief,why pussyfoot around? You come into a country to live,you respect their way of life-or go back to whence you came.There's more than enough decent folks who'd love to be in these emigrants shoes,to try+ensure a better life for their children-and would be an asset to the country they're allowed to emigrate to.Make it as simple as that-BEHAVE IN A SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE WAY-OR GTFO.


I am not saying there are not cases such as the ones you mention, but my experience is when i was living in an other city in a community that was mainly Asian as a white family, we had no problems with anti social behavior at all, it is only after moving out of that area and into one where it is mainly white where our problems started, we moved here because of the job prospects, being nearer to family and the fact it is a much larger city and there is more to do. we are starting to wish we never moved.

this is my experience of living in a mainly immigrant/different origin community compared to living in a white mainly British area.




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by earthalien50
 


It sounds exactly like a democratic society...majority rule even if its only 51%.... That's why America was never supposed to be a democracy.

If the majority is sick of living with pigs they they can agree to get them out.

Half of the US is destroyed by this type of behavior, that's why it is a waste of money to keep fixing up the inner cities, let the live in what they create.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by earthalien50


These people should be evicted/punished for their crimes. The Netherlands should make laws and enforce them. Without a defined law, the government can evict whomever they want. Look at a cop funny, and you are labeled antisocial with a ticket to scum town.



 


It says there will be a service set up to report problems in the social housing neighbourhoods. So first you object to this but now you are advocating criminalizing these people? Either it's one or the other. You want them to go to jail or live in the "scum villages" ??

The Netherlands is making an option so they jail doesn't become the first one. As far as crime goes, laws can be made for damn near anything. And I suspect, the people that end up the "Scum towns" are probably already guilty of threats, harassment, violence, property destruction, etc.

This is giving them an option so they aren't automatically evicted and left homeless, or not winding up in jail.
edit on 3-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


Read my post friend. My argument is about having clearly defined laws that prosecute the guilty. If you can not understand the difference and find it contradictory, I can not help you.

They are probably already guilty, you say? That means you can evict or lock them up? I do not want to live in a world where that is the accepted philosophy.

People have a right to live their lives with clearly defined laws. Without these laws, it becomes someone's judgement that determines their fate.

Please read the above line, it is the essence of my argument.

edit on 12/4/2012 by earthalien50 because: because



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Hah! Yeah, do you see the problem here? The U.S. is practically already an orwellian society, munching on soylent green cookies, England is already there. We'll all be worshipping Big Brother before long, or sunk in mass graves.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Unity_99
In reality, since people don't see with eyes that are decent to begin with, some of what they call garbage are the worlds biggest saints, and the ever so proper ones are not going anywhere, for they haven't grown love at all.

When you're born with health, intelligence, stamina, and talents or ability to get ahead or prosper, those are gifts, not things that make you more than equal, they're gifts, allotted you, to see what you will do with them, and whether you will help others. Its a priviledge. One day the test is over.
edit on 3-12-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


What does this have to do with people in social housing that are making life difficult for their neighbours? Where I am from the social housing misfits threaten the locals who are trying to stay away from gangs, drugs, violence. If those people are ejected or put under scrutiny is that a bad thing?



Difficult? How?

Do they mean rapists, murderers?

Or do they mean those with handicaps, those with health problems and too much of a burden but struggling along, living in a very primitive world that does not look after its own that should value children and family and have abundance in beauty, homes, food, and services and many ways of reaching everyone and encouraging growth of talents, trying on skills and finding their joys, with no judgement and no harshness, ugly demonic dog eat dog crapola?

Do you mean the ones with the social phobias, the ones with borderline apraxia, or various conditions.

Do you mean the angry ones, the ones who have been shutting down all trust in the world due to harsh thigns and hurt?

What kind of ones do you mean?

If someone isn't a criminal, you don't have the right to judge. If someone needs help with their yards, understand them, what their health and life is like and volunteer to assist them like a good person.

But you don't get to label them, or call them garbage.

We're a big dsynfunctional family put in the psych 101 couseling school called earth. The ones with the least are often the nicer people, the little old loner that gets cranky because his nerves are shot and his health is gone, would give you the shirt off his back if in need and offer his life to stop an attacker. Who are you to judge.

The one who pats himself on the back for his health and talents and success and judges anyone who is not a danger to his family and others through criminal behavior, is a far lesser soul.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 

Hi,yes i was talking about immigrants to a country,who conduct themselves so badly that they make life difficult for the citizens born there,and who reflect badly on their fellow immigrants from the same country/race or religious group,the grateful,decent,well-behaved ones.The ones who tend to have a pattern of totally unacceptable/criminal behaviour,and has no interest in productively and positively contributing to the country who was kind enough to accept them in good faith,Those are the individuals who should just be sent back to their country of origin.Im aware there's a massive problem with the delinquency and crime amongst the British-born white youth,too,ive read of some abominable acts by this bad element in British society for years,and of course,Every country has a problem with crime by mostly,their own born citizens.I live in South Africa,i should know.The Gauteng Province of my country is practically little Nigeria,resulting in a massive drug trade+all that goes with that.There have been many Mozambican nationals living here,convicted for murder.So my reasoning is:At least first,deport the bad apples who are immigrants/on residency permits(the correct term evades me now) then secondly take charge of the crime situation involving the citizens born in the country-that is really the more important matter-because they can not be deported.The fewer bad seeds,the better.A government is pretty much stuck with those natively born to the country,so to avoid troublemakers,trash and criminals from other countries,endlessly adding to the problem,it should be stated,and these people should be made to sign a contract,stating that if they get up to criminal acts/are a chronic trouble and nuisance,they have to leave.I would happily sign such a contract,if i wanted to emigrate elsewhere-that country's government is doing me a favor,so the least i can do is act civilly and in a socially acceptable way.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Raxoxane
 


Immigrants such as the ones that come to my mind, should not be placed in one area. They literally need to be counciled, schooled in secular educations not in private schools and be their women forced to take public speaking and education and normalize, and be spread out living in some slum where even more dangers can brew.

I'd force equality and assimulation for their women and children. Any men who didn't like this could be deported but their family would be offered protection and much retraining.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
What is considered anti-social behavior? What about someone who has autism? Also, umm... no. We live in a free society, at least in America. That means you can be whoever you want to. Jesus... totalitarian much?
edit on 4-12-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by earthalien50


They are probably already guilty, you say? That means you can evict or lock them up? I do not want to live in a world where that is the accepted philosophy.


 


Where does it say anything about locking people up? They are kicking trouble makers out of public housing. The alternative is criminalizing the actions and locking them up which they are not doing. The public housing in the Netherlands is pretty swank compared to most places, and they are a pretty understanding society. I highly doubt they are going to relocate people lightly. And the system is based off complaints from the community because in the past innocent people were moving out of public housing because they could not deal with the trouble makers.




People have a right to live their lives with clearly defined laws. Without these laws, it becomes someone's judgement that determines their fate.


Modern day laws are clearly defined? Like I said, the people that are causing a nuisance could probably be prosecuted under laws, this is a measure so they're not criminalized.
edit on 4-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


reply to post by earthalien50
 


Anti-Social Behaviour is reasonably defined by the NL Government:

So now you can tell me if you are still up in arms over gangs being mistreated by the "Totalitarian Regime" and whether or not dealing with them by community officer involvement should be instead met with a police interdiction like it is in the US?


Nuisance gangs
In 2009, 1,341 youth gangs were a cause of nuisance. Nuisance gangs loiter in the neighbourhood, are sometimes noisy and have little respect for others. They cause small fights and vandalism. The behaviour of a nuisance gang can be corrected.

Antisocial gangs
In 2009, 327 youth gangs were a source of antisocial behaviour. Antisocial gangs are provocative, abuse or intimidate other people, are destructive and do not step aside. Such gangs commit petty crime.

Criminal youth gangs
In 2009, there were 92 criminal youth gangs. The members of criminal youth gangs are no strangers to the police. They commit crime for the money, not for the thrill or for prestige. They use violence and steal.



Combating youth nuisance
Gangs commit 75% of youth crime. The government is combating youth crime by:

gathering information on youth gangs in the Netherlands;
intervening promptly so that shoplifting, for example, does not turn into drug dealing;
fast-tracking punishments so that young people are confronted with the consequences of their behaviour.



antisocial behaviour by young people;
antisocial behaviour in entertainment areas due to alcohol or drug use;
antisocial behaviour in residential areas due to road rage, vandalism, etc.;
neighbourhood decay due to graffiti, broken windows, empty houses, litter, etc.


www.government.nl...

While I agree with the strategy being used to curb youth gang crime I don't wholeheartedly agree with some of the petty ones like littering etc, to be used as a reason for relocation. Although it doesn't mention what exactly constitutes moving someone.

Although, there is a lot to be said about a city or country that prides itself on keeping it clean and accommodating for its residents. Right now in NL they are handing out tickets and fines for the lessor offences.

I grew up in a city that had relatively no litter, and police would fine you in this places for it, but the real incentive to keep clean was the public stigma that came from littering as the city prided itself on being well kept.

So, does anyone want to continue pleading for the poor criminals that may lose their public housing because the state chose not to automatically throw them in jail and is giving them more options?
edit on 4-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-12-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
By the way, you guys can always get the opinion of one of the residents of the so called "scum village"

Although, the places aren't that bad. Living space like that in my neighbourhood would still be worth $$$.




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
The British did this years ago.

They called it Australia



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
It seems Orwellian, but really it isn't.

Nobody is being locked up, torn from their family, or having their liberty taken away...they are being evicted from their social housing, and moved into areas of 'like minded people'..to see how they like it.

Currently in the UK, those who are 'anti-social', (which is a term that is overused as too broad a descriptor i feel) who are making their neighbours lives a misery with intimidation, loud noise and music all through the nights, shouting and swearing during the day, vandalism of their neighbours vehicles and property, breaking into cars, sheds, houses, and a lot more besides, are also moved out of the area, and offered another social housing place elsewhere.

But all this is doing is moveing the problem along to another housing estate, in another area, for other people to have to suffer.

The answer is to put all the trouble makers in the same area, and they can aggrivate the hell out of each other to their hearts content!

The other option is to be a respectful, courteous and and considerate neighbour...then you won't be kicked out of your social home, to be moved in to areas full of horrible people.

It's a good idea...i can think of a few candidate for such a place who live near to me and my family.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I can't seem to find this news on dutch sites or in google.nl, but this kind of project originated from Denmark and is called "Skeave Huse".


Skaeve Huse is a Danish expression which means something like special houses for special people. It refers to a project in Denmark that has been set up to house people who can no longer be housed through the regular housing system, because of their history as problem- or nuisance tenants. In 2006 Amsterdam adopted the Danish approach by creating a pilot scheme in the harbor area to the west of the city. This project (see below) consists of 6 houses built by Tempohousing. It offers accommodation to a small group of people, often with a history of mental health problems, together with a supervisor. The approach turned out to be successful and more project are expected in Holland. link




I'd like to see some other source for the op, before I write myself in for a unit.



edit on 4/12/12 by D.Wolf because: typo



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by D.Wolf
 


.
Wiki link - in Dutch.

It's not a new concept. It's done before using housing units
and the plan is to do it on a larger scale. I'm all for it!
Really, I am!
.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I wonder if this is what the ndaa was for. Maybe thats where america will dissapear people to.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by earthalien50
 


Well I'm not sure what your definition of an anti-social neighbour is, but you can come and live in my block for a few weeks and I'm sure that may give you a definition of mine...out of control dogs that constantly bark and piss on the stairs, drunk residents and all their pals throwing beer cans and fast food containers all over the stairs, constantly shouting and screaming at each other til all times in the morning, smashing up their properties and being a general nuisance. There are 8 flats in my block and 3 of them are occupied by these types, the rest of us just have to suffer and constantly clean up the mess. Is that fair?

They just have no respect for anyone or anything, because they know the local council and the police cannot do anything (unless they start physically attacking people, and even at that they will be let off with a warning) so they just carry on doing whatever they want, whenever they want



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthalien50

Originally posted by boncho

Should their be no punishment/consequences for people who are making living conditions unbearable to the people around them when they are in public housing?



These people should be evicted/punished for their crimes. The Netherlands should make laws and enforce them. Without a defined law, the government can evict whomever they want. Look at a cop funny, and you are labeled antisocial with a ticket to scum town.


.
Bollocks. There are defined laws, but should the laws
be *that* nittypicky to sift out all the tiny loopholes those
scumbags make use of? Don't thinks so. And remember,
it's the Netherlands, not the US. We can look at a cop,
call him a pig and walk on without any problem.

Visiting Amserdam is not like living there.
.



edit on 4-12-2012 by snewpers because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by snewpers


.
Bollocks. There are defined laws, but should the laws
be *that* nittypicky to sift out all the tiny loopholes those
scumbags make use of? Don't thinks so. And remember,
it's the Netherlands, not the US. We can look at a cop,
call him a pig and walk on without any problem.

Visiting Amserdam is not like living there.
.

 



Forgive the Americans, they believe that everyone lives in the Police state they are accustomed to and tend to push for more of their rights taken away while crying 'freedom'.




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
As a resident of Amsterdam, I feel the need to comment on this thread. I must say I have only skimmed through the replies, but I sensed some balancing is needed.

I remembered reading about this a couple of days ago and it is really not that big of a deal. I located the original article:

www.ad.nl...

Same article, different outlet:

www.trouw.nl...


The translation of the article goes as follows:



The city of Amsterdam plans to relocate infamous neighborhood terrorizers to caravans or containers in another part of the city. There they will be monitored for a maximum timespan of 6 months by Amsterdam officials, social workers and if needed the police.

By forcibly relocating these terrorizers, the city wants to ensure they will stop being a threat to their environment.

Per year, the city of Amsterdam reportedly deals with 10 or so cases of extreme neighborhood terrorization, like assault, vandalism or other forms of making other peoples life miserable. This happens out of sight of officials, in a sneaky way. Perpetrators are almost never caught red-handed. And that's why today, the city of Amsterdam presents a plan to deal with these people.

The plan focuses on structural terrorization, in cases where victims feel seriously intimidated or threatened. People who cause these types of sentiments in neighbourhoods will receive a yellow card - a warning. If their behaviour does not change, they will receive a red card and will be forcibly relocated.

They will be housed in a temporary housing unit on the edge of the city. Amsterdam is also looking for a permanent location to house neighbourhood terrorizers, that would accommodate a maximum of 10 families.



In my humble opinion, there's no need to panic or judge Amsterdam/The Netherlands for wanting to deal with only 10 seriously persistent cases per year. This is in no way is a reflection of bad policy or a failing system of tolerance.





top topics
 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join