And some of you were worried about the new LONDON mayor...

[Colonâ„¢]

Rome is irrelevant.

[David Floyd]

Spiffor,

So that you understand me better, here's a comparison: poverty is often a cause of criminality; this fact doesn't mean we should blame the poor for the crime problem. But try to find solutions.

I'm sorry, but poverty doesn't cause crime. People make decisions. Now, statistics may show that poor people commit more crimes than non-poor people, but that doesn't mean that poverty is the cause of their criminality. Ultimately, the people committing the crimes are responsible, and all of this modern sociology which creates excuses for people just because they are poor, black, or were abused as a child simply detracts from the point.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And the 'solution' seems to be don't have the tourists go to Rome.

A moron would come to that conclusion, yes

Somebody with half a brain would deem this as a bad solution, and would look for others.

"Having half a brain" involves among other things to have the basic understanding, that problems can have several solutions, some better than others. I'm sure you too can understand that.

Again, it's not the tourist's fault.

Well, let me tell you about my own experience as a tourist in Rome. Before going there last summer with two friends, I was pretty jaded by the fact that my family had been pickpocketed twice in two trips there. So, I took my wallet's safety quite seriously.
Upon explaining to them, my friends were amazed at how serious a problem pickpocketing is in Rome. They were fully unprepared to face it. But they understood I was right, as we witnessed a pickpocket trying to steal in another tourist's backpack right in front of our eyes.

Preventing pickpocketing is fairly easy, if you're aware of the risk. I find it especially easy to have a pocket between your tigh and trousers, which is pretty much unreachable unless the pickpocket looses your belt and your trousers, and then open the damn thing
Curiously enough, during my trip in the Swedish countryside, I didn't bother with the same safeties I used while in Rome or Bamako...

What should happen is that any thief who is caught should be punished.

Obviously, this never happened in Rome during the era of pinko Veltroni. It's sad the Italians have to vote for a fascist to find such a basic idea

Why the soft spot for pickpockets Spiffor?

I don't have a soft spot for pickpockets. Drawing such a conclusion is about as off-the-mark as drawing that one.

What I'm explaining is, when you're a massively touristic city with crowded streets, it's pretty hard to fight pickpockets only with police. And you have to try solving the causes rather than the symptoms.

Any policy based only on a "tough-with-crime" stance is doomed to failure because of the core problems in Rome, as the problem can only be solved by a mix of punishment, prevention, and changing the fundamentals. Any policy based on only one factor is completely idiotic, and won't help in any way.

Arresting criminals is namecalling? At least he has a plan that will see some success.

Condemning Gypsies and immigrants is name-calling. But let's look at his plan. He'll dislodge the established camps around Rome. What will happen next?
His scenario is that the Gypsies will go back to Romania (because the Roman police will obviously be strong enough to escort them there), and stop bothering the Romans.

My scenario is that a large majority of them will remain in the vicinity of Rome, because they have their source of income there (be it actual jobs or thievery). However, rather than being settled, and with a sufficient stability that they can expect to have ordinary jobs, hygiene and education, they'll be even more marginalized, and will resort even more to crime as a way to make a living.
Not to mention the easily-avoidable tragedies that will be due to poor hygiene and health conditions (but in order to bother about that, one would have to think of Gypsies as actual humans worth of dignity)

Some plan

[C0ckney]

(but in order to bother about that, one would have to think of Gypsies as actual humans worth [sic] of dignity)

i can see why that would be hard.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Spiffor,



I'm sorry, but poverty doesn't cause crime. People make decisions. Now, statistics may show that poor people commit more crimes than non-poor people, but that doesn't mean that poverty is the cause of their criminality. Ultimately, the people committing the crimes are responsible, and all of this modern sociology which creates excuses for people just because they are poor, black, or were abused as a child simply detracts from the point.

Certainly true, but poverty leads to crime - this cannot be argued with. People who are poor are more likely to commit crimes than those who are not, because the decision of 'Is it worth it to commit this crime in terms of risk/reward' is balanced towards 'yes' for the poor, because of a higher reward and a lower risk (due to less money, no job, etc.)

In combatting crime, one must understand the realities behind what leads to crime, not simply 'who is to blame'. Certainly we should hold the criminals responsible, but reactively fighting crime is not the answer; removing the conditions that cause crime to be committed is necessary.

[Ben Kenobi]

A moron would come to that conclusion, yes

+1 Ad hominem.

Somebody with half a brain would deem this as a bad solution, and would look for others.

+2 Ad hominem.

"Having half a brain" involves among other things to have the basic understanding, that problems can have several solutions, some better than others. I'm sure you too can understand that.

Drop the attitude and perhaps we can have a civil discussion. I realise you are emotionally invested in the issue, but honestly even folks you disagree with politically can get it right.

Well, let me tell you about my own experience as a tourist in Rome. Before going there last summer with two friends, I was pretty jaded by the fact that my family had been pickpocketed twice in two trips there. So, I took my wallet's safety quite seriously.
Upon explaining to them, my friends were amazed at how serious a problem pickpocketing is in Rome. They were fully unprepared to face it. But they understood I was right, as we witnessed a pickpocket trying to steal in another tourist's backpack right in front of our eyes.

Preventing pickpocketing is fairly easy, if you're aware of the risk. I find it especially easy to have a pocket between your tigh and trousers, which is pretty much unreachable unless the pickpocket looses your belt and your trousers, and then open the damn thing
Curiously enough, during my trip in the Swedish countryside, I didn't bother with the same safeties I used while in Rome or Bamako...

As I said emotionally invested. Perhaps Rome should invest in matters to actually deal with the pickpockets rather then having them run rampant.

I'm glad to see that you are noble and pure when it comes to travelling, but that doesn't justify the pickpocket. You make it sound that if the tourist commits the unpardonable sin of wearing his wallet in his outside pocket that it's his fault. I'm sorry. As you said civilised countries don't have to worry about that problem, so perhaps we should let Italy do the same.

Obviously, this never happened in Rome during the era of pinko Veltroni. It's sad the Italians have to vote for a fascist to find such a basic idea

And we get to the real issue.

I don't care whether it's Veltroni or Berlesconi. If thieves and criminals are a problem for your tourist, you crack down on the theives and criminals. It's common sense.

What I'm explaining is, when you're a massively touristic city with crowded streets, it's pretty hard to fight pickpockets only with police. And you have to try solving the causes rather than the symptoms.

So what's your alternative spiffor? Classes on "why pickpocketing is bad for your health?"

Any policy based only on a "tough-with-crime" stance is doomed to failure because of the core problems in Rome, as the problem can only be solved by a mix of punishment, prevention, and changing the fundamentals. Any policy based on only one factor is completely idiotic, and won't help in any way.

Obviously. So why are you opposed to the application of punishment? You should be cheering this plan on, but I understand the reason you don't it's because this fellow is a fascist so he must automatically be wrong on everything.

Condemning Gypsies and immigrants is name-calling. But let's look at his plan.

He never said gypsies. I'm glad to hear you are a racist, spiffor. He said the camps of illegal immigrants, and never specified.

What makes you say these are gypsies Spiffor?

He'll dislodge the established camps around Rome.

Send them home. What's so foolish about expelling illegal immigrants who do not respect the rule of law? I'm sure France would just give them the dole.

My scenario is that a large majority of them will remain in the vicinity of Rome, because they have their source of income there (be it actual jobs or thievery). However, rather than being settled, and with a sufficient stability that they can expect to have ordinary jobs, hygiene and education, they'll be even more marginalized, and will resort even more to crime as a way to make a living.
Not to mention the easily-avoidable tragedies that will be due to poor hygiene and health conditions (but in order to bother about that, one would have to think of Gypsies as actual humans worth of dignity)

So you send them home. If they aren't willing to abide by the laws in Italy, I don't see why they should be permitted to stay.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are 85 abusive nomad camps to destroy.

Why are these all Gypsy camps Spiffor?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Drop the attitude and perhaps we can have a civil discussion.

We will have a civil discussion when you'll try to understand what I mean, rather than attacking a strawman which you seem to confuse with me. Until you actually try to understand me, the discussion cannot be civil, thank you

Since I still believe that you're not doing it on purpose, here are the points which I deem to be strawmanly:

1. I don't blame tourists.
- I don't make any moral judgment on tourists in Rome or anywhere else. By their very nature, tourists are more careless than locals, and thusly more attractive for pickpockets. This is common knowledge in Rome, however tourists don't have an easy access to safety information, partially because Rome doesn't want the bad publicity.
- I'm saying that the very nature of Rome makes it both more attractive for pickpockets, and makes police work less efficiently, than, say, Mora in Sweden.

2. I do think crime is a problem that should be adressed.
I just think that having an exclusively "tough on crime" approach to the problem would be inefficient. There are better policies to implement.

3. I am not opposed to applying punishment.
I don't see where the heck you came up with that idea.

4. I am not France: France is a country, while I am an individual. If you intend to make strawmen out of my arguments, please only do them at my individual expense, and not at any group's you think I can be identified with.

We can have a civil discussion once you try to understand

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why are these all Gypsy camps Spiffor?

Well, the anti-Gypsy movement has been all the reage recently in Italy, and Gypsies in western Europe tend to live in camps whereas immigrants from sedentary cultures tend to live in sedentary housings.

But if you aren't satisfied with those explanations: http://www.independent.ie/national-n...515.html?r=RSS

The new mayor of Rome promised yesterday to purge the Italian capital of 20,000 illegal immigrants and to raze 85 Roma Gypsy camps.

Thank you. Glad to know I'm a racist

[Ben Kenobi]

1. I don't blame tourists.
- I don't make any moral judgment on tourists in Rome or anywhere else. By their very nature, tourists are more careless than locals, and thusly more attractive for pickpockets. This is common knowledge in Rome, however tourists don't have an easy access to safety information, partially because Rome doesn't want the bad publicity.

I agree that tourists are more vunerable, which is why you have to take steps to protect them. I also agree with you that the nature of Rome makes it more difficult. It's what you call a structural factor.

Now, my point is that it all starts with this get tough approach. That is how you get the impetus to work on some of these structural factors which are much more entrenched.

2. I do think crime is a problem that should be adressed.
I just think that having an exclusively "tough on crime" approach to the problem would be inefficient. There are better policies to implement.

What is your alternative plan? I'm curious. I can see given the size of the problem that the tough approach of arrests and deportations is necessary to get a handle on things befor you can even go into the other factors.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What is your alternative plan? I'm curious.

Me too.

[Ben Kenobi]

The new mayor said his first action would be to begin "immediate expulsions" of the 20,000 immigrants in the city with criminal records

He never says that he is expelling Gypsies, nor that all of these immigrants are gypsies. You've inferred that conclusion not from anything he has said but the article in itself.

It would be like me saying that every time they talk about a Youth in Paris, they mean only Muslims. You'd call me a racist for saying that I'm sure.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What is your alternative plan? I'm curious.

1. I would continue the police coverage that already exist.

2. Now that the obvious is said, here are some possibilities:

- I'd pour some money into informing tourists about safety, in such a way that it's efficient. For example, giving actual efficient tips, showing crime stats, explaing the thieves' main modus operandi, giving adresses of shops that sell safety gear.

- I'd pour some money into making the city less puzzling for a foreigner. When you don't know how the city works, it's quite strenuous to find your way. This leads to always look at the map, ask for help, or be on the lookout for the strett's name. During that time, tourists are naturally more vulnerable to pickpocketing.

- I'd think about controlling access to the most crowded parts of the city (I'm thinking of the fontana di trevi for example), so that there's always a reasonable amount of people. Not only can it help against crime (by giving the cops enough room to actually catch a pickpocket if they see one), it's also a good thing for other forms of safety.

- I'd strongly reinforce public transportation, in order to alleviate overcrowding (which makes crime easier, and is a discomfort for Romans anyway), and to have tourists use the mass transit rather than their feet to go from one tourist spot to another. A mass transit, if it's under control, pwns pedestrianness when it comes to safety.

- I'd make a strong campaign to attract tourists in places outside the city centre. Rome is overcrowded with tourists at some places, and has absolutely none at some others. If the city-centre becomes less overcrowded as the tourists are more spread out, the police will be able to work more efficiently.

- I'd work with immigrant communities, especially the Gypsies, so that they can be better integrated and find better job opportunities. Such a work has to be done with caution, as a "white man's burden" approach can only fail, as well as an approach that's not assertive enough. In any case, it's always a bad thing to have a large part of the population completely alienated.

- If I was a right-wing mayor, I'd make CCTV more prevalent. With the extra proof, punishment for serial pickpockets will be higher, and they'll be more easy to arrest (as the police won't need to see them doing the stealing to arrest them)


I don't think razing the Gypsy camps will be any useful. To the contrary. It is pretty clear the Gypsies will stay in the vicinity of Rome (you may want to remember that Romania is now in the EU, which makes expulsions there much more difficult). And it's pretty clear that, by leaving in even more fragile conditions, they'll be more likely to turn to crime.

[David Floyd]

- I'd work with immigrant communities, especially the Gypsies, so that they can be better integrated and find better job opportunities. Such a work has to be done with caution, as a "white man's burden" approach can only fail, as well as an approach that's not assertive enough. In any case, it's always a bad thing to have a large part of the population completely alienated.

Eh, from what I understand, gypsies aren't really interested in jobs. Am I wrong?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
He never says that he is expelling Gypsies, nor that all of these immigrants are gypsies. You've inferred that conclusion not from anything he has said but the article in itself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7372202.stm

He [Alemanno] promised to put more police on the streets of the city and to expel thousands of Roma travellers living in illegal settlements around the city.

"Roma" is another word for Gypsy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_people

Now, I'm not saying Alemanno is only attacking the Gypsies. When he says he wants to expel 20,000 immigrants, it's pretty obvious he's referring to all stripes of immigrants he doesn't like.

It's also obvious he's talking about Gypsies, since they are a common scapegoat in Italy today. When he chose the specific case of Giovanna Reggiani's rape & murder to push his political point, the culprit, a "Romanian immigrant who lived in such a [abusive nomad] camp" obviously had nothing to do with Gypsies... (note: the previous sentence is sarcasm)

It would be like me saying that every time they talk about a Youth in Paris, they mean only Muslims. You'd call me a racist for saying that I'm sure.

No. A more apt comparison would be "If Le Pen talked about a youth committing a crime in Paris, he'd mean only a Black or an Arab". I wouldn't call you a racist, but someone who knows some basic facts about French politics.