France to Erupt?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT I often disagree with Sarkozy, but I know that the Minister of the Police cannot be held responsible for every accident, crime or drama happening in the whole country. The problems of the suburbs did not appear with Sarkozy as IM;

I fully agreed. They predate him largely. And the causes for the problems are many. IMO, the main roots of the problem are actually the very urbanism of the cités. Something that begun back when Sarkozy was but a child.

However, Sarkozy and his team didn't improve the situation at all. Sarkozy's repressive policies over 3+ years proved mostly useless, and even contra-productive on some aspects (while thefthas reduced overall, violent theft has considerably increased). And Sarkozy's provocations in 2005 seriously contributed to turning the deep malaise into actual riots. His provocations were probably the straw that broke the camel, if you wish.

they result primarily of the leftist attitude prevailing since 1981 that this population has every possible rights and no obligations at all. When they
- attack medical men working locally, or ambulances of emergency services
- attacks firemen coming to help people living in the area
- attacks bus drivers and destruct buses assigned to transport in and out of areas where they are living
- destruction schools (even infants schools) and gymnasium in their areas
they must not be held responsible because they are sons of immigrants or still worse : descendants of slaves.

I don't remember having heard a politician saying that since the mid-90ies. Even in my party, which should be hold that speech in the most extreme fashion, we want to punish the destroyers. But we want to do it in a productive way indeed, and we think that we must above all strive to prevent criminal behaviour from occuring in the first place.

Now there is the case of two youngsters who entered a dangerous place, the entrance of which was forbidden and the danger explained visibly, by climbing over the wall; once in the place, they made the worst possible move and got electrocuted. In this country, everybody knows EDF, and the places used by EDF to transport electricity. All those places have large posts describing the danger and mentioning the interdiction to enter. How the two children who knew the place since it was in their suburb can have chosen to take a mortal risk ? Because they refuse all interdictions coming from authorities; they did not realise that the EDF post was made for their good, as the firemen, the bus drivers and the medical teams act for them.

It's good to see you can talk with the dead...
Or maybe you just happen to know their reasons, because all ghetto-dwellers are the same anyway?

Could you please explain me, if these two dead were such antisocials, why they came back from football, instead of coming back from torching the stadium? Could you tell me why one of them was fully unknown by the police, whereas the other was only known because his father wanted an educator to give a lesson to his son, after an argument over a bike?

And don’t tell me that they were afraid of being caught by the police; they knew perfectly well, as all boys below 18 know, that the police can do almost nothing against them except controlling their identity, which does not justify to risk their lives in an EDF place.

That's absolutely false. The police can bring them to the post. They can keep them there for some time (48 hours and even up to 96 hours if they really want to be bad).
And in case you don't know, it was already possible in 2005 to put children aged 13 in jail.

[DAVOUT]

It's good to see you can talk with the dead...
Or maybe you just happen to know their reasons, because all ghetto-dwellers are the same anyway?

I am not talking with the dead, but simply connecting facts with a plausible explanation of their behaviour. You prefer another explanation more useful for your political agenda.
As for what I think of ghetto-dwellers, the opinion I expressed in this thread concerns only those who attack people, destroy building and vehicles, or behave stupidly when facing interdictions.

Could you please explain me, if these two dead were such antisocials, why they came back from football, instead of coming back from torching the stadium?

I don’t think and I did not say that they torch a stadium every day.

Could you tell me why one of them was fully unknown by the police, whereas the other was only known because his father wanted an educator to give a lesson to his son, after an argument over a bike?

Could you tell me why, with such a benign experience of the contacts with the police, they feel so terrorised by a control that they prefer to risk their lives? It is my opinion that it can be only explained by a dramatical ignorance of the actual danger, totally hidden by the irrepressible temptation to break an interdiction.

That's absolutely false.

Even if you were right, those inconveniences do not justify to risk their life, so my statement is not false.

The police can bring them to the post. They can keep them there for some time (48 hours and even up to 96 hours if they really want to be bad).
And in case you don't know, it was already possible in 2005 to put children aged 13 in jail.

I would be interested by the list of nations where the police has not the authority and power to bring somebody to the post, and which cannot keep them for some time. I would be particularly interested by socialist and communist government appearing in this list.
Regarding the 96 hours time limit, I understand that you believe that drug and terrorism are simple matters easily dealt with within the ordinary limit of 48 hours. This is not my opinion.
Finally, your mention that there is a possibility in 2005 to put children aged 13 in jail does not concern the police but the justice, and basically for crimes. I assume that the two boys had not their conscience crushed by the crimes they have committed and therefore cannot feel threatened by the jail.