'Hundreds' of masked men beat refugee children in Stockholm

First topic message reminder :

Hundreds of masked men marched through Stockholm's main train station on Friday evening, reportedly beating up refugees and anyone who didn't appear to be ethnically Swedish. Wearing all-black balaclavas and armbands, the men "gathered with the purpose of attacking refugee children," Stockholm police spokesperson Towe Hagg said. "I saw maybe three people who were beaten. That was no football brawl or something similar. They targeted migrants. I was quite scared and ran away," an eyewitness told the Aftonbladet newspaper.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hundreds-of-masked-men-beat-refugee-children-in-stockholm-a6843451.html



Gutless idiots.
You want to protest, that is fine, beating up children for just being refugees is child abuse.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

But the Swedish people are certainly responsible.
Sweden changed after the First world War from being a nation of emigration to being a nation of immigration

I think we need to distinguish between economic migrants and the current large influx of refugees.

I do not think you should separate anything were, when the nation has for decades been receptive to refugees






Since the early 1970s, immigration to Sweden has been mostly due to refugee migration, especially from former Yugoslavia (due to the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s) but also from countries in the Middle East and Latin America.[5]

In 2009, immigration reached its highest level since records began with 102,280 people migrating to Sweden while the total population grew by 84,335.[1] In 2010, 32,000 people applied for asylum to Sweden, a 25% increase from 2009, one of the highest amount in Swedish since 1992 and the Balkan wars.[6] However the number of people that were granted asylum stayed the same as previous years. In 2009, Sweden had the fourth largest number of asylum applications in the EU and the largest number per capita after Cyprus and Malta.[7]

During 2010 the most common reason for immigrating to Sweden was:

Labour migrants (21%)
Family reunification (20%)
Immigrating under the EU/EES rules of free movement (18%)
Students (14%)
Refugees (12%)[8]
In 2010, 32,000 people applied for asylum to Sweden, a 25% increase from 2009, however the number of people who received asylum did not increase because the large increase was much due to the allowing of Serbian nationals to travel without a visa to Sweden.[6] In 2009, Sweden had the fourth largest number of asylum applications in the EU and the largest number per capita after Cyprus and Malta.[7] Sweden has the highest asylum immigration per million inhabitants in Europe.

The problem is the large, sudden influx of refugees though.

Raggamuffin wrote:The problem is the large, sudden influx of refugees though.

Which they have allowed to happen.
Its not something that has happened within the last year Rags,. is it?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The problem is the large, sudden influx of refugees though.

Which they have allowed to happen.
Its not something that has happened within the last year Rags,. is it?

The Swedish people have allowed it to happen? Do you think they should have prevented the influx then?

The current problems are largely about the influx in the last year or so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Which they have allowed to happen.
Its not something that has happened within the last year Rags,. is it?

The Swedish people have allowed it to happen? Do you think they should have prevented the influx then?

The current problems are largely about the influx in the last year or so.

The influx has gone on for several years now, so if nothing has been done about this and where and if now Swedes are complaining about this, then the Swedish people have not protested by voting for change. They are thus responsible for this happening.
Bit late in the day to ask whether it should have been prevented or not, as they are now in the position where this has gone basically unopposed for years. So I cannot say whether it should have been prevented, as I do not live there Rags

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Swedish people have allowed it to happen? Do you think they should have prevented the influx then?

The current problems are largely about the influx in the last year or so.

The influx has gone on for several years now, so if nothing has been done about this and where and if now Swedes are complaining about this, then the Swedish people have not protested by voting for change. They are thus responsible for this happening.
Bit late in the day to ask whether it should have been prevented or not, as they are now in the position where this has gone basically unopposed for years. So I cannot say whether it should have been prevented, as I do not live there Rags

So would you have approved of a Swedish Government which banned refugees? You've defended the Governments which have allowed in large numbers of refugees and berated those which haven't.

So I cannot say whether it should have been prevented, as I do not live there Rags.
Didge said this above.

Didge, you pass comment all the time about places which you do not live in, we all do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

The influx has gone on for several years now, so if nothing has been done about this and where and if now Swedes are complaining about this, then the Swedish people have not protested by voting for change. They are thus responsible for this happening.
Bit late in the day to ask whether it should have been prevented or not, as they are now in the position where this has gone basically unopposed for years. So I cannot say whether it should have been prevented, as I do not live there Rags

So would you have approved of a Swedish Government which banned refugees? You've defended the Governments which have allowed in large numbers of refugees and berated those which haven't.

Banned?

I have not defended Governments that have allowed and where in the case of Germany no checks made on thousands entering the country.
So that is a distortion of what I have said. I think Germany can cope with large number of refugees, but there should be a limit and a far better improved security control on entry to the country

I think every nation has a duty to accept refugees.
Its reasonable to set a limited number entry per year to allow for the expansion of society to not struggle with too many coming in, where not enough resources are available.

The foreign scum have been flooding into sweden for years and because of the foreign scum raping Swedish women, it is now the rape capital of Europe and one of the worst in the world!!!


The police and authorities do little or nothing and in some cases even move to protect the rapist!!!


Is it any wonder the people are getting angry! ?

Every nation has the right to refuse anyone admittance to their country, not doing such is asking for trouble. LOOK AT THE USA FOR EXAMPUL.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So would you have approved of a Swedish Government which banned refugees? You've defended the Governments which have allowed in large numbers of refugees and berated those which haven't.

Banned?

I have not defended Governments that have allowed and where in the case of Germany no checks made on thousands entering the country.
So that is a distortion of what I have said. I think Germany can cope with large number of refugees, but there should be a limit and a far better improved security control on entry to the country

I think every nation has a duty to accept refugees.
Its reasonable to set a limited number entry per year to allow for the expansion of society to not struggle with too many coming in, where not enough resources are available.

You said that the Swedish people are responsible for the influx of refugees by not voting for change. What if they had voted for a Government which banned refugees? Would you have approved of that? If not, then why are you blaming ordinary Swedish people for the influx of refugees?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Banned?

I have not defended Governments that have allowed and where in the case of Germany no checks made on thousands entering the country.
So that is a distortion of what I have said. I think Germany can cope with large number of refugees, but there should be a limit and a far better improved security control on entry to the country

I think every nation has a duty to accept refugees.
Its reasonable to set a limited number entry per year to allow for the expansion of society to not struggle with too many coming in, where not enough resources are available.

You said that the Swedish people are responsible for the influx of refugees by not voting for change. What if they had voted for a Government which banned refugees? Would you have approved of that? If not, then why are you blaming ordinary Swedish people for the influx of refugees?

Then they would be responsible banning refugees and no doubt be seen as a pariah state.
Again what ever decisions are made are done so through the elected process.
If as claimed the Swedish people have an issue with refugees, do you not think over decades they would have made this vocal by electing an anti-immigration party?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You said that the Swedish people are responsible for the influx of refugees by not voting for change. What if they had voted for a Government which banned refugees? Would you have approved of that? If not, then why are you blaming ordinary Swedish people for the influx of refugees?

Then they would be responsible banning refugees and no doubt be seen as a pariah state.
Again what ever decisions are made are done so through the elected process.
If as claimed the Swedish people have an issue with refugees, do you not think over decades they would have made this vocal by electing an anti-immigration party?

So either way, you would blame the Swedish people. You blame them for allowing in loads of refugees, but you would blame them for not allowing in loads of refugees as well.

You keep talking about decades, but the problem has been hugely exacerbated quite recently by the huge influx in the last year or so, and the open-door policy which I don't suppose ordinary people foresaw. The Germans are in a similar situation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Then they would be responsible banning refugees and no doubt be seen as a pariah state.
Again what ever decisions are made are done so through the elected process.
If as claimed the Swedish people have an issue with refugees, do you not think over decades they would have made this vocal by electing an anti-immigration party?

So either way, you would blame the Swedish people. You blame them for allowing in loads of refugees, but you would blame them for not allowing in loads of refugees as well.

You keep talking about decades, but the problem has been hugely exacerbated quite recently by the huge influx in the last year or so, and the open-door policy which I don't suppose ordinary people foresaw. The Germans are in a similar situation.

Okay lets put to bed once and for all your incorrect accusations.

To be responsible is to be answerable or accountable. It means that we will be measured.
To be at fault is to be responsible for a failure or worse, a wrongful act.
Finally, to blame is not just to hold responsible but to find fault with.


Thus i am not blaming the people of Sweden but pointing out they are responsible for who they have elected into Government.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So either way, you would blame the Swedish people. You blame them for allowing in loads of refugees, but you would blame them for not allowing in loads of refugees as well.

You keep talking about decades, but the problem has been hugely exacerbated quite recently by the huge influx in the last year or so, and the open-door policy which I don't suppose ordinary people foresaw. The Germans are in a similar situation.

Okay lets put to bed once and for all your incorrect accusations.

To be responsible is to be answerable or accountable. It means that we will be measured.
To be at fault is to be responsible for a failure or worse, a wrongful act.
Finally, to blame is not just to hold responsible but to find fault with.


Thus i am not blaming the people of Sweden but pointing out they are responsible for who they have elected into Government.

Only if they could have foreseen this huge more recent problem and foreseen the open-door policy. If they do vote in future for a Government which promised to stop refugees coming in, they would need to able to ignore the criticisms of other countries - like the people in Denmark and Slovakia seem to be doing. They need to be able to stick two fingers up at anyone who says - but what about the EU and human rights issues?

Raggamuffin wrote:It was more a case of "it's only a few", etc. Well if this happened, it's only a few chaps who did it.

Pointing out that the crimes were committed by about 1,000 people of a group of about 1 million isn't even close to the same thing as saying it did not happen. It's just putting the crimes in a perspective that some people don't want to think about, because they refuse to see the majority of the refugees as decent people.

Stormee wrote:Every nation has the right to refuse anyone admittance to their country, not doing such is asking for trouble. LOOK AT THE USA FOR EXAMPUL.

Let's say you had a passion for the history of the Roman Empire and wanted to move to Rome to live near all the ancient ruins. Your plan was to get a job teaching English.

What business would Italy have telling you that you couldn't do that?

The problems in sweeden have been going on since their treacherous govts started allowing the people into the country who are causing the problems...

No benefit to the Swedish people as they weren't needed or wanted, largely unskilled and reluctant to work so a drain on the public finances, plus they have been responsible for large amounts of crime and rape against the Swedish people!

Pat condell said this in 2010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZtc2ma2GEQ&app=desktop


Then this in 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZwRg1wCh2Y&app=desktop


And...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZsvdg1dkJ4&app=desktop


And this a couple of months ago. ..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uws9BlnJmjI&app=desktop

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It was more a case of "it's only a few", etc. Well if this happened, it's only a few chaps who did it.

Pointing out that the crimes were committed by about 1,000 people of a group of about 1 million isn't even close to the same thing as saying it did not happen. It's just putting the crimes in a perspective that some people don't want to think about, because they refuse to see the majority of the refugees as decent people.

I didn't claim that you said it didn't happen.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Stormee wrote:Every nation has the right to refuse anyone admittance to their country, not doing such is asking for trouble. LOOK AT THE USA FOR EXAMPUL.

Let's say you had a passion for the history of the Roman Empire and wanted to move to Rome to live near all the ancient ruins. Your plan was to get a job teaching English.

What business would Italy have telling you that you couldn't do that?

Perhaps you should concentrate on criticising your own Government and that of Australia then. They don't just let anyone in do they?

I watch Australian Border Control and they come across as strict

I dont think free migration works, unitl there is a one world government
 

the difference is clear Once here legally they are here we are not going
"we'll send you away a the drop of a hat because someone that came from the same place as you committed a crime."

IF an individual commits a crime then the individual is punished

Because a person Should be judged on their choices and actions as a statement of the content of their character NOT the colour of their skin, ethnicity or piece of dirt they were born on.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Stormee wrote:Every nation has the right to refuse anyone admittance to their country, not doing such is asking for trouble. LOOK AT THE USA FOR EXAMPUL.

Let's say you had a passion for the history of the Roman Empire and wanted to move to Rome to live near all the ancient ruins. Your plan was to get a job teaching English.

What business would Italy have telling you that you couldn't do that?

Perhaps you should concentrate on criticising your own Government and that of Australia then. They don't just let anyone in do they?

I'm not setting the U.S. or Australia up as being better, I'm asking a hypothetical question. Just asking people to think -- why do certain people get to tell the rest of us where we can and cannot go? (excluding private property, of course).

Shouldn't every Earthling be able to travel and settle freely on the Earth, basically?

And before anybody tries, I'm talking about traveling, settling and living -- not raping or killing.

Of course they can travel and settle where they like.
Anyone should be able to.

But they can't. Take Australia, you can't just turn up - so why a different rule for them?

Also. If you're going to turn up; learn the language, fit in, stay out of trouble or fuck off back to whence you came.

That goes for all nationalities everywhere.

eddie wrote:Of course they can travel and settle where they like.
Anyone should be able to.

But they can't. Take Australia, you can't just turn up -  so why a different rule for them?

Also. If you're going to turn up; learn the language, fit in, stay out of trouble or fuck off back to whence you came.

That goes for all nationalities everywhere.

Like I said, I'm making a hypothetical question to raise the issue of whether freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. I'm not talking about any country's actual policy.

I'd say it's a fundamental right as long as it doesn't become about large groups turning up in countries and turning their chose country into the land they left.

There something very wrong in seeing large parts of Spain become very British, for example.
I don't want to live in BritSpain, some mixed breed version of a country, if I choose to live in Spain I will be a British woman, living in Spain and abiding by their rule.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Perhaps you should concentrate on criticising your own Government and that of Australia then. They don't just let anyone in do they?

I'm not setting the U.S. or Australia up as being better, I'm asking a hypothetical question. Just asking people to think -- why do certain people get to tell the rest of us where we can and cannot go? (excluding private property, of course).

Shouldn't every Earthling be able to travel and settle freely on the Earth, basically?

And before anybody tries, I'm talking about traveling, settling and living -- not raping or killing.

If you were to look at this scientifically, taking how in nature many animals mark out their territory, it shows humans are still very much tribal in nature. As if say a big cat strays into a rival territory, he is most likely to be chased out, It shows that humans are quite unique, as we have moved beyond that.
We a;ready have the right to freedom of movemnt to many areas. Some need extra offical documents. So beng able to  go to another county is not a problem, as sometimes the big cat will go unseen or noticed in the rival teritory.
So next aspect is whether a person can  stay, well if a person moved into your garden, of which you own and started to make a rent free home for themselves. Do you think you have a right to stop them?
Yes. Now a landmass is far bigger, but the principle should still aplly. That the nation in its policies has a right to deny someone the right to stay, of which is needed for security reasons.

Now your hypothetical question was flawed, as it did not reason that already he can move to Italy. All that need to be shown and reasoned is not whether that specific example would be apporved or denied, but that a nation should have the right to deny spome applications to live in this country

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Perhaps you should concentrate on criticising your own Government and that of Australia then. They don't just let anyone in do they?

I'm not setting the U.S. or Australia up as being better, I'm asking a hypothetical question. Just asking people to think -- why do certain people get to tell the rest of us where we can and cannot go? (excluding private property, of course).

Shouldn't every Earthling be able to travel and settle freely on the Earth, basically?

And before anybody tries, I'm talking about traveling, settling and living -- not raping or killing.

If you were to look at this scientifically, taking how in nature many animals mark out their territory, it shows humans are still very much tribal in nature. As if say a big cat strays into a rival territory, he is most likely to be chased out, It shows that humans are quite unique, as we have moved beyond that.
We a;ready have the right to freedom of movemnt to many areas. Some need extra offical documents. So beng able to  go to another county is not a problem, as sometimes the big cat will go unseen or noticed in the rival teritory.
So next aspect is whether a person can  stay, well if a person moved into your garden, of which you own and started to make a rent free home for themselves. Do you think you have a right to stop them?
Yes. Now a landmass is far bigger, but the principle should still aplly. That the nation in its policies has a right to deny someone the right to stay, of which is needed for security reasons.

Now your hypothetical question was flawed, as it did not reason that already he can move to Italy. All that need to be shown and reasoned is not whether that specific example would be apporved or denied, but that a nation should have the right to deny spome applications to live in this country

For fuck's sake, Didge ...

Okay, let's imagine that Hypothetical Being A was born in one quadrant but wanted to live peacefully in another quadrant. What business -- what right -- has any other Hypothetical Being to tell it no?

I'm not talking about moving somewhere AND committing a crime -- which would include trespassing on private property -- I'm talking about JUST moving, and I'm not talking about any country's current policies.

In simpler terms -- what gives you the right to tell me where I can and cannot settle, absent some other crime I've committed?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


If you were to look at this scientifically, taking how in nature many animals mark out their territory, it shows humans are still very much tribal in nature. As if say a big cat strays into a rival territory, he is most likely to be chased out, It shows that humans are quite unique, as we have moved beyond that.
We a;ready have the right to freedom of movemnt to many areas. Some need extra offical documents. So beng able to  go to another county is not a problem, as sometimes the big cat will go unseen or noticed in the rival teritory.
So next aspect is whether a person can  stay, well if a person moved into your garden, of which you own and started to make a rent free home for themselves. Do you think you have a right to stop them?
Yes. Now a landmass is far bigger, but the principle should still aplly. That the nation in its policies has a right to deny someone the right to stay, of which is needed for security reasons.

Now your hypothetical question was flawed, as it did not reason that already he can move to Italy. All that need to be shown and reasoned is not whether that specific example would be apporved or denied, but that a nation should have the right to deny spome applications to live in this country

For fuck's sake, Didge ...

Okay, let's imagine that Hypothetical Being A was born in one quadrant but wanted to live peacefully in another quadrant. What business -- what right -- has any other Hypothetical Being to tell it no?

I'm not talking about moving somewhere AND committing a crime -- which would include trespassing on private property -- I'm talking about JUST moving, and I'm not talking about any country's current policies.

In simpler terms -- what gives you the right to tell me where I can and cannot settle, absent some other crime I've committed?

Every buisness to decide, as again if you say they cannot, and there is no reason to deny, everyone can then move and stay where they pleae. The view you asked is whether an application can be denied.
It can for a number of valid reasons
Never claimed I have a right, but the nation collecyively does, as that is called democracy Ben.
Some people may hold extremist views coming here. It is not a criminal act, but you would certainly not to want people to settle you held views at odds with that society
Human nature also shows that humans will defend and protect their territory its instinct.
Like I said which you failed to answer, do you then not think you have a right to remove someone who has taken up reidency in your garden?

eddie wrote:I'd say it's a fundamental right as long as it doesn't become about large groups turning up in countries and turning their chose country into the land they left.

There something very wrong in seeing large parts of Spain become very British, for example.
I don't want to live in BritSpain, some mixed breed version of a country, if I choose to live in Spain I will be a British woman, living in Spain and abiding by their rule.

The problem is People like Stormee Say that is not allowed if you want to live in Spain then YOU MUST live like a Spanish Woman
Just like Syrians Are Expected to Live Like Brits or Swedes.


And You cant just go to the UK either. See ALL those people in Calais that want to go to the UK BUT CANNOT.

Again the Problem is when People Say NO to ALL immigration and Stop Foreign Aide and Be ---- to everyone not born on the some shitty island for multiple generations. So the UK is Nowhere near the position on these things to be comparing themselves to Australia. You need to take at least double what you are taking as legal migrants before you complain about having too many and trying to stop illegal ones.
Again UK doesn’t have mass immigration it has average immigration and it is complaining about meeting the Average.

Australia still takes 3 people for every one the UK takes (per capita).
So yes we are sticker on illegal Arrival In part because of Quarantine, the quickest way to be stopped is try and bring fruit.
But the average Australian Taxpayer is covering the cost of arrival and settlement of 3 people for every one the Brit is. And we don’t expect them to abandon their cultures, just add the bits of ours that allow everyone to get along (equality, due process, don’t be a ----, etc.)

Is there still not a point system in Australia? They only want migrants who are useful to them - people who have skills which are in short supply there.

Are you calling my Country a "shitty island"?

nicko wrote:Are you calling my Country a "shitty island"?

Veya? Of course he is. You must know by now that he hates the UK.

I'D LOVE TO MEET HIM FACE TO FACE.

No... it should not be allowed for anyone to turn up at another country and be allowed to settle there.


This just opens the way for everyone from countries where they haven't bothered building up from a shit hole to turn up on other countries where the people have bothered building it up through centuries of hard work blood sweat and tears, and then turning it into a shit hole.