Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Vive la France

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Brexx View Post

    It is amazing how you don't want to acknowledge the problem of severe harassment of women in some areas of Paris. The mayor of Paris has acknowledged it and has promised to do something about it.
    You keep using Fox News as if their mistakes and apology means none of this actually exists. You can forget about Fox News. There are plenty of sources that report on these areas, and they don't say that these zones are officially designated, and they don't mention religion. They just describe what goes on on the street and it ain't pretty especially for women.

    The mayor is completely right to enforce the law against anyone found guilty of harrasing women, muslim or non-muslim, whereever, whenever. Signed. That does neither prove the existence of sharia-run no-go zones nor is harassment of women a problem limited to Paris or France. Or Muslims. So present your magnificient "sources" or leave it at that. And stop moving the goalposts.

    ?


    • #62
      Originally posted by Voland View Post


      The mayor is completely right to enforce the law against anyone found guilty of harrasing women, muslim or non-muslim, whereever, whenever. Signed. That does neither prove the existence of sharia-run no-go zones nor is harassment of women a problem limited to Paris or France. Or Muslims. So present your magnificient "sources" or leave it at that. And stop moving the goalposts.
      OK, how about the Guardian? Are they politically correct enough for you? All of these sources are describing the same thing. The problem is migrants and they aren't from China.

      https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...pelle-refugees

      https://www.thelocal.fr/20170519/pro...grant-district

      https://www.rt.com/news/389055-women...st-harassment/

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...men-PARIS.html

      ?


      • #63
        Now we are claiming that organized crime (typically a mix of domestic and foreign ne'er do wells) treats women with respect? Perhaps other dysfunctional people in bad neighborhoods treat women (or other decent people) with more respect than muslims? There is a need for perspective, while respect for citizens is enforced.

        Get the police to bust people who assault others, put pressure on the local DA's to prosecute, then on the judges to maximize sentences. Then, be prepared to pay for the increased cost up front, in exchange for better (and more prosperous) working class neighborhoods in the longer run. From article in Brexx's post, above:
        On the issue of street harassment in Paris, she says: Its offensive and its appalling but its not because of the young guys who are on the street here. Its certainly not the ones in the most precarious situations.
        https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...pelle-refugees
        Are these average run-of-the mill muslim men, or if they are ex-muslim dysfunctionals who were run out of their home countries and hid among the mix of decent people fleeing places like Syria? IOW, the police need to do the same job they would do if the refugees were fleeing any country in crisis: Separate the regular refugees from the pimps, aggressive drunks, and other misfits.

        ?


        • #64
          Originally posted by Brexx View Post

          OK, how about the Guardian? Are they politically correct enough for you? All of these sources are describing the same thing. The problem is migrants and they aren't from China.

          https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...pelle-refugees

          https://www.thelocal.fr/20170519/pro...grant-district

          https://www.rt.com/news/389055-women...st-harassment/

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...men-PARIS.html


          Russia Today, the Cremlins official Propaganda channel ? Seriously ? Oh well....
          Both the Guardian and the Local article focus on one particular neighborhood, La Chapelle-Pajol in northern Paris, in the 18th Arrondissement, which is one of the most run-down parts of Paris and definitely in need of some law enforcement. The area was once working class, yet its decline started decades ago, and not due to immigration (but to factories closing). Middle class Parisians would advise you to be careful there, just as Londoners or New Yorkers might tell their foreign visitors to stay away from certain parts of their cities. That is a problem that most or all metropoles have to some extent. Yet the Guardian is completely clearly NOT describing a "no-go-zone" under sharia law ( as you have claimed). For that one has to read beyond the headline though. The issue is obviously one of law enforcement : Clean the streets of drug dealers, alcoholics, molesters and pickpockets ( that are often the same persons, a job for police), and support local residents in their efforts to upgrade their quarter ( a job for administration/urban planning). And whoever claims that this was a muslim vs. non-muslim issue has obviously never set foot on the streets of France. And not read the article :


          https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...pelle-refugees


          ..................At the same time, posters popped up along hoardings outside public buildings, displaying an open letter from The women of the 18th.

          We are against the instrumentalisation of feminism to racist and anti-poor ends against the background of the electoral campaign, it reads.

          The local mayor, Eric Lejoindre, says street harassment is a problem, but the presence of migrants in the area has no direct link with the issues and concerns of women in public space.

          ........Caroline also says its not a migrant problem, and insists the initial petition has been misinterpreted by all sides. Ive tried to discuss it with people, she says. I think we agree, but our interests arent the same. Im interested in defending women and they have other interests......

          ......
          On the issue of street harassment in Paris, she says: Its offensive and its appalling but its not because of the young guys who are on the street here. Its certainly not the ones in the most precarious situations.




          And as far as the Local article is concerned :




          https://www.thelocal.fr/20170519/pro...grant-district


          Quote : /
          A young female reporter from The Local when walking around the area on Friday experienced catcalling. But while there were many large groups of men on Rue Pajol, at the centre of the so-called "no go zone", the atmosphere at the time was calm and unthreatening.

          When the same reporter went into Caf Cyclone, which protestors say is one of many local bars or cafs where only men go, the reaction was one of surprise but again, not aggressive.


          Women and men at a counter-demonstration held at the same time as the SOS La Chapelle protest claimed that the issue of feminism was being used to hide what in reality was an anti-immigrant drive.

          "The majority of people in the area behave well -- this is a witchhunt on immigrants," Alice, 40, told The Local, without wanting to give her last name. "It is a complete manipulation of the truth.


          Zeynab, a woman working in the area, agreed.

          "I have to come here everyday and if I didn't feel safe I wouldn't do it. This is a lie made up by the press and right-wing politicians," she told The Local




          Trying to make a particular point, reading your own sources is usually helpful.
          Last edited by Voland; 08-31-2017, 04:06 AM.

          ?


          • #65
            Originally posted by Voland View Post



            Russia Today, the Cremlins official Propaganda channel ? Seriously ? Oh well....
            Both the Guardian and the Local article focus on one particular neighborhood, La Chapelle-Pajol in northern Paris, in the 18th Arrondissement, which is one of the most run-down parts of Paris and definitely in need of some law enforcement. The area was once working class, yet its decline started decades ago, and not due to immigration (but to factories closing). Middle class Parisians would advise you to be careful there, just as Londoners or New Yorkers might tell their foreign visitors to stay away from certain parts of their cities. That is a problem that most or all metropoles have to some extent. Yet the Guardian is completely clearly NOT describing a "no-go-zone" under sharia law ( as you have claimed). For that one has to read beyond the headline though. The issue is obviously one of law enforcement : Clean the streets of drug dealers, alcoholics, molesters and pickpockets ( that are often the same persons, a job for police), and support local residents in their efforts to upgrade their quarter ( a job for administration/urban planning). And whoever claims that this was a muslim vs. non-muslim issue has obviously never set foot on the streets of France. And not read the article :


            https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...pelle-refugees


            ..................At the same time, posters popped up along hoardings outside public buildings, displaying an open letter from The women of the 18th.

            We are against the instrumentalisation of feminism to racist and anti-poor ends against the background of the electoral campaign, it reads.

            The local mayor, Eric Lejoindre, says street harassment is a problem, but the presence of migrants in the area has no direct link with the issues and concerns of women in public space.

            ........Caroline also says its not a migrant problem, and insists the initial petition has been misinterpreted by all sides. Ive tried to discuss it with people, she says. I think we agree, but our interests arent the same. Im interested in defending women and they have other interests......

            ......
            On the issue of street harassment in Paris, she says: Its offensive and its appalling but its not because of the young guys who are on the street here. Its certainly not the ones in the most precarious situations.




            And as far as the Local article is concerned :




            https://www.thelocal.fr/20170519/pro...grant-district


            Quote : /
            A young female reporter from The Local when walking around the area on Friday experienced catcalling. But while there were many large groups of men on Rue Pajol, at the centre of the so-called "no go zone", the atmosphere at the time was calm and unthreatening.

            When the same reporter went into Caf Cyclone, which protestors say is one of many local bars or cafs where only men go, the reaction was one of surprise but again, not aggressive.


            Women and men at a counter-demonstration held at the same time as the SOS La Chapelle protest claimed that the issue of feminism was being used to hide what in reality was an anti-immigrant drive.

            "The majority of people in the area behave well -- this is a witchhunt on immigrants," Alice, 40, told The Local, without wanting to give her last name. "It is a complete manipulation of the truth.


            Zeynab, a woman working in the area, agreed.

            "I have to come here everyday and if I didn't feel safe I wouldn't do it. This is a lie made up by the press and right-wing politicians," she told The Local




            Trying to make a particular point, reading your own sources is usually helpful.
            I read the sources I provided. I didn't cherry-pick like you did. I posted whole articles.

            The Guardian article states that opinion in the area is divided between those who want to tell it like it is and "migrant rights" groups who obviously have their own axe to grind. Also some people are afraid to speak out.

            "The question of the treatment of women among the jumble of streets surrounding the Place de La Chapelle in northern Paris has divided local residents in recent weeks; so much so that Caroline asked to use a pseudonym, after being insulted and threatened on social media.

            On one side are those who claim that this small slice of the 18th arrondissement, known as La Chapelle-Pajol, has become a no-go zone for women. On the other are migrants rights groups, who say these complaints are motivated by xenophobia towards the districts itinerant migrant population. The issue is causing rifts between neighbours often those who live in the same building"

            ?


            • #66
              Originally posted by Brexx View Post

              I read the sources I provided. I didn't cherry-pick like you did. I posted whole articles.

              The Guardian article states that opinion in the area is divided between those who want to tell it like it is and "migrant rights" groups who obviously have their own axe to grind. Also some people are afraid to speak out.

              "The question of the treatment of women among the jumble of streets surrounding the Place de La Chapelle in northern Paris has divided local residents in recent weeks; so much so that Caroline asked to use a pseudonym, after being insulted and threatened on social media.

              On one side are those who claim that this small slice of the 18th arrondissement, known as La Chapelle-Pajol, has become a no-go zone for women. On the other are migrants rights groups, who say these complaints are motivated by xenophobia towards the districts itinerant migrant population. The issue is causing rifts between neighbours often those who live in the same building"

              The article does identify ONE neighborhood of Paris, La Chapelle-Pajol ( that is something like certain parts of the Bronx for Parisians ). The article does identify ONE source/witness that doesnt want to be named but as "Caroline", allegedly because of insults and threats, others saying similar things are named in full though. It does not contain any information how representative Caroline is, yet she also says the following ( that you havent quoted obviously) :


              https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...pelle-refugees

              "Caroline also says its not a migrant problem, and insists the initial petition has been misinterpreted by all sides. Ive tried to discuss it with people, she says. I think we agree, but our interests arent the same. Im interested in defending women and they have other interests"



              While the headline is somewhat misleading the article provides a generally balanced view on the efforts of various sides to improve the unsatisfactory situation in La Chapelle, by administration, local politics, activists and residents. It also puts the blame where it belongs :


              .......On the issue of street harassment in Paris, she says: Its offensive and its appalling but its not because of the young guys who are on the street here. Its certainly not the ones in the most precarious situations.

              .......Still, he says the problems began when an informal migrant camp sprung up under the railway lines at La Chapelle station, and criminal networks moved in to cater to their needs. He says its these men who continue to sell phone cards, contraband cigarettes, fake papers and drugs who are the main issue.........


              "Criminal Networks "(!) imply a law enforcement issue.
              La Chapelle is a troubled neighborhood and it has been troubled for a long time. Yet dragging it into the spotlight of the presidential elections has woken up the political sphere. Hopefully with positive results for the locals on the ground.
              Thats what your article documents. Nothing more and nothing less. No cherrypicking at all, just "fact-checking" your own sources. In the sense of backing up your previous claims ( about sharia ruled no go zones and all that ) this one gets an "F", precisely because it is actually a serious piece of journalism and it backs up no such thing.

              ?


              • #67
                Originally posted by Voland View Post


                The article does identify ONE neighborhood of Paris, La Chapelle-Pajol ( that is something like certain parts of the Bronx for Parisians ). The article does identify ONE source/witness that doesnt want to be named but as "Caroline", allegedly because of insults and threats, others saying similar things are named in full though. It does not contain any information how representative Caroline is, yet she also says the following ( that you havent quoted obviously) :


                https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...pelle-refugees

                "Caroline also says its not a migrant problem, and insists the initial petition has been misinterpreted by all sides. Ive tried to discuss it with people, she says. I think we agree, but our interests arent the same. Im interested in defending women and they have other interests"



                While the headline is somewhat misleading the article provides a generally balanced view on the efforts of various sides to improve the unsatisfactory situation in La Chapelle, by administration, local politics, activists and residents. It also puts the blame where it belongs :


                .......On the issue of street harassment in Paris, she says: Its offensive and its appalling but its not because of the young guys who are on the street here. Its certainly not the ones in the most precarious situations.

                .......Still, he says the problems began when an informal migrant camp sprung up under the railway lines at La Chapelle station, and criminal networks moved in to cater to their needs. He says its these men who continue to sell phone cards, contraband cigarettes, fake papers and drugs who are the main issue.........


                "Criminal Networks "(!) imply a law enforcement issue.
                La Chapelle is a troubled neighborhood and it has been troubled for a long time. Yet dragging it into the spotlight of the presidential elections has woken up the political sphere. Hopefully with positive results for the locals on the ground.
                Thats what your article documents. Nothing more and nothing less. No cherrypicking at all, just "fact-checking" your own sources. In the sense of backing up your previous claims ( about sharia ruled no go zones and all that ) this one gets an "F", precisely because it is actually a serious piece of journalism and it backs up no such thing.
                If the migrants are not to blame for the harassment why are migrants' rights groups involved? Because they are being falsely accused? And if that is the case, who could possibly be mistaken for a Muslin migrant? A white Frenchman? I doubt it. If it is all the fault of these "criminal network" types they must look an awful lot like Muslims. Probably because they are. You think? Who else has this attitude that women don't belong out in public, and if they are they must be sluts? So this may not be strictly a migrant problem, but it is obviously a Muslim problem.

                ?


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                  If the migrants are not to blame for the harassment why are migrants' rights groups involved? Because they are being falsely accused? And if that is the case, who could possibly be mistaken for a Muslin migrant? A white Frenchman? I doubt it. If it is all the fault of these "criminal network" types they must look an awful lot like Muslims. Probably because they are. You think? Who else has this attitude that women don't belong out in public, and if they are they must be sluts? So this may not be strictly a migrant problem, but it is obviously a Muslim problem.
                  In that case, it should be a piece of cake to find women victims who don't mince words and claim that most of the verbal/physical assaults were from muslim men. Maybe these same women will also state that the mixed (ethnic) bag of misfits don't mistreat them in the same way as the muslim misfits. Find those sources, and you have something on which to base your argument.

                  ?


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    In that case, it should be a piece of cake to find women victims who don't mince words and claim that most of the verbal/physical assaults were from muslim men. Maybe these same women will also state that the mixed (ethnic) bag of misfits don't mistreat them in the same way as the muslim misfits. Find those sources, and you have something on which to base your argument.
                    A lot of the women victims must be pointing the finger at muslim men otherwise the migrant rights groups wouldn't be calling them a bunch of xenophobes. Women are being treated appallingly in an area with a concentration of muslim men. Are you seriously suggesting that this abuse is being done by somebody other than them? Any idea who these mysterious people might be, and how it is they are being misidentified as muslim men?

                    ?


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      In that case, it should be a piece of cake to find women victims who don't mince words and claim that most of the verbal/physical assaults were from muslim men. Maybe these same women will also state that the mixed (ethnic) bag of misfits don't mistreat them in the same way as the muslim misfits. Find those sources, and you have something on which to base your argument.
                      Yeah, if they want to get their heads lopped off or accused by the government of hate speech.

                      ?


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                        A white Frenchman? I doubt it. .

                        Since that is apparently news for you : France, for beeing an ex-colonial empire, has millions of people with family roots in former colonies, and often going back generations. People arrived as servants of their french masters, as workers, as students and hundreds of thousands of colonial soldiers from northern as well as subsaharan Africa fought for France in both world wars. Many of them didnt return home, since they were awarded citizenship for their service and stayed to rebuild the country after 1945. By 1930, Paris already had a sizeable muslim population ( of mostly north african origin, officially around 100 000, yet researchers are sure that it was more ). That rose sharply shortly after WW II ( when France was eagerly recruiting workers for its rebuilding and industrial revival) and again after Algerias war for independence from France ( when Algerians loyal to France or at odds with the independence movement arrived in great numbers). The vast majority of their descendants live perfectly normal lifes as french citizens. Yet it is also true that many joined the working class in quarters like La Chapelle, and shared these quarters decline and the subsequent problems. Recruitment was stopped in the early 70s and since then new immigration to France has been european for the most part ( such as from the east of the continent). Yet neither skin colour nor beeing Muslim ( or buddhist, or something else) is or has been a valid measure of nationality since decades. Fact. Easily documentable.
                        The refugee crisis and criminal gangs ( that are ethnically a mixed bag, also romanian Gypsies or certain southern italians types can look middle eastern for some and they are VERY active in organized crime) taking advantage and cover of run-down, badly policed quarters like La Chapelle and "informal" refugee camps like the one described in the article are a different and newer matter and THAT is what your source says regardless what you are trying to add in wild guesses.
                        Last edited by Voland; 09-02-2017, 05:51 AM.

                        ?


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          In that case, it should be a piece of cake to find women victims who don't mince words and claim that most of the verbal/physical assaults were from muslim men. Maybe these same women will also state that the mixed (ethnic) bag of misfits don't mistreat them in the same way as the muslim misfits. Find those sources, and you have something on which to base your argument.
                          Signed.

                          ?


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Voland View Post


                            Since that is apparently news for you : France, for beeing an ex-colonial empire, has millions of people with family roots in former colonies, and often going back generations. People arrived as servants of their french masters, as workers, as students and hundreds of thousands of colonial soldiers from northern as well as subsaharan Africa fought for France in both world wars. Many of them didnt return home, since they were awarded citizenship for their service and stayed to rebuild the country after 1945. By 1930, Paris already had a sizeable muslim population ( of mostly north african origin, officially around 100 000, yet researchers are sure that it was more ). That rose sharply shortly after WW II ( when France was eagerly recruiting workers for its rebuilding and industrial revival) and again after Algerias war for independence from France ( when Algerians loyal to France or at odds with the independence movement arrived in great numbers). The vast majority of their descendants live perfectly normal lifes as french citizens. Yet it is also true that many joined the working class in quarters like La Chapelle, and shared these quarters decline and the subsequent problems. Recruitment was stopped in the early 70s and since then new immigration to France has been european for the most part ( such as from the east of the continent). Yet neither skin colour nor beeing Muslim ( or buddhist, or something else) is or has been a valid measure of nationality since decades. Fact. Easily documentable.
                            The refugee crisis and criminal gangs ( that are ethnically a mixed bag, also romanian Gypsies or certain southern italians types can look middle eastern for some and they are VERY active in organized crime) taking advantage and cover of run-down, badly policed quarters like La Chapelle and "informal" refugee camps like the one described in the article are a different and newer matter and THAT is what your source says regardless what you are trying to add in wild guesses.
                            I think your guess is much wilder than mine. You are guessing that the abuse of women is being done by italians or gypsies. My guess is that it is being done by muslims who come from a culture where women are largely excluded from public places. To these men, if a woman is out in public and not draped from head to foot she must be a slut. This is a well known problem with muslim men who migrate to western countries.

                            ?


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                              I think your guess is much wilder than mine. You are guessing that the abuse of women is being done by italians or gypsies. My guess is that it is being done by muslims who come from a culture where women are largely excluded from public places. To these men, if a woman is out in public and not draped from head to foot she must be a slut. This is a well known problem with muslim men who migrate to western countries.
                              With your lack of articles identifying names (of witnesses, "men only cafe", etc.), you could guess all sorts of things. Things based less on reality, more on speculation. Truly, if one of these alleged journalism sources wanted to be a little bit more believable, they would have placed a good quality, hidden camera on a couple of prostitutes. Go into the "Mystery Cafe" to get kicked out after the "men only" threats. Walk down the street and collect some insults from swarthy-looking types. Then we would have evidence, rather than crappy journalism listing anonymous first names and a Caliphate Cafe somewhere in Paris.

                              With those recordings, those Defenders of Journalism and Decency could back up their story, even prevent the gummint from "lopping off their heads" in the legal sense. Without those recordings, we may yet have a story, but it is one from a book of fairy tales. I don't think these outlets are even trying to avoid legal troubles by inventing a story; it seems to me they are had an agenda on a low budget, wanted to spend a minimal amount of time as well, so interviewed (or invented) a total of 3 people who got "bad vibes" in the neighborhood. The apology by Fox would back up this version of poor journalism; Fox asked for real sources, didn't get any, and came to the same conclusion.

                              ?


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                                With your lack of articles identifying names (of witnesses, "men only cafe", etc.), you could guess all sorts of things. Things based less on reality, more on speculation. Truly, if one of these alleged journalism sources wanted to be a little bit more believable, they would have placed a good quality, hidden camera on a couple of prostitutes. Go into the "Mystery Cafe" to get kicked out after the "men only" threats. Walk down the street and collect some insults from swarthy-looking types. Then we would have evidence, rather than crappy journalism listing anonymous first names and a Caliphate Cafe somewhere in Paris.

                                With those recordings, those Defenders of Journalism and Decency could back up their story, even prevent the gummint from "lopping off their heads" in the legal sense. Without those recordings, we may yet have a story, but it is one from a book of fairy tales. I don't think these outlets are even trying to avoid legal troubles by inventing a story; it seems to me they are had an agenda on a low budget, wanted to spend a minimal amount of time as well, so interviewed (or invented) a total of 3 people who got "bad vibes" in the neighborhood. The apology by Fox would back up this version of poor journalism; Fox asked for real sources, didn't get any, and came to the same conclusion.
                                When you have women in the area organizing a petition and getting 20,000 signatures in less than two weeks I think its safe to say there is more going on than just three women getting bad vibes.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X