3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

• In October 2011, a 2,200-page report, "Banlieue de la République" (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming "separate Islamic societies" cut off from the French state and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law.

• An early usage of the term regarding Europe was in a 2002 opinion piece by David Ignatiusin The New York Times, where he wrote about France, "Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders."^[21] La Courneuve and other districts in Paris were described by police as no-go zones.^[22]

• http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

• http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/22/inside-frances-sharia-no-go-zones/

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area

 

You might want to read this article, which translates the real situation and not some fantasized vision of some people who apparently never put a toe in France or the suburbs they're talking about.

Edited May 19, 20169 yr by Hystery

6 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I'm registered at the national employment office, followed many courses on job interviews and business letters and the like, passed all of them with congratulations. I spend several hours a day looking at the few job offers (even the ones that are like for a week of work, or even a day of work, or sometimes even just an afternoon or even just a few hours). Still nothing. The total rate of unemployment is at 10% at the moment one of the highest we ever had, and it keeps increasing. Do you know why? Because companies simply DON'T HIRE. They either keep their teams as they are, or they fire, or they even shut down all together. Because that's how the economy is running at the moment. Low, and downhill.

Just because you REALLY want something doesn't make it magically appear, it has to exist in the first place, which is not the case.

Well maybe it's different in France, but in the UK it feels like everywhere is hiring. The company I work for has three open positions that I'm currently trying to find applicants for. I've had a few shitty applications and one or two quality ones.

I also know that there are many other companies hiring, my friend is also looking for new hires too, he has multiple entry level positions with above average salary at the moment.

Trust me, you can always improve your strategy. You just gotta work on it.

11 minutes ago, Hystery said:

You might want to read this article, which translates the real situation and not some fantasized vision of some people who apparently never put a toe in France or the suburbs they're talking about.

A lot of the reported stories are literally from inhabitants of the countries that they're speaking of. If you take a look at the Wikipedia link, most of the "no-go zones" mentioned are in some shape or form relevant to Islam and Sharia Law. If the Wikipedia link I've provided, which further increases the accuracy of my statement about "no-go zones" is inaccurate, then I would highly encourage you to make necessary corrections. Everything I'm saying is from websites and Wikipedia accounts. 

12 hours ago, LtRob said:

 

This is why in Europe we don't want to have a career in law enforcement. Because we can't do shit to protect ourselves and others. Same goes in Italy too. We don't have half of the tools american police has. It's depressing really. 

This happened in France during a protest for work wages or something similar I believe, and black block were there. 
Watch your six and of your fellow officers.

similar attack happened in ca

 

34 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I'm... afraid it doesn't work like that. At all. No matter how hard you can try, if there's no job offer, you won't get one. I know that for a fact, I'm unemployed, and I sent... easily more than a hundred letters to all the different companies and stores in a 40 kilometers radius. Either they don't hire, or they want 'people with experience', which won't ever happen if they actually don't hire young workers in the first place.

The "If you look hard enough you'll find one" sentence is a popular myth, work and economics don't work that way. If it did, we'd live in a world of carebears.

Well, you live there, so you know better. For myself I can only say I've been sending resumes for full 4 months before they hired me on my present job. Lawyers are, like, not needed generally, especially when economy is in recession like it is now. What is your degree, by the way, if I may ask? Not looking to compare and all, just curious.

36 minutes ago, Hystery said:

The total rate of unemployment is at 10% at the moment one of the highest we ever had, and it keeps increasing. Do you know why? Because companies simply DON'T HIRE. They either keep their teams as they are, or they fire, or they even shut down all together. Because that's how the economy is running at the moment. Low, and downhill.

 

Oh, and by the way -- the companies won't do better if you force them with a law to hire everyone or to pat higher salaries or whatever. They'll simply leave the market, and this in turn will cripple the tax base which in turn will impede the government spending, as I'm sure you know. Right now it's a two-way road. You either make businesses' life easy by repealing the legislation which obstructs them -- and they WILL hire because they'll start expanding and growing. Or you do it the old Soviet way, regulate everything to the top (and possibly nationalize eventually). You'll have guaranteed work for everyone, like it was in the USSR. But at the same time in the USSR my parents lived in an apartment shared by 4 other families (14 people altogether) and they salary was paid with food sometimes.

51 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

A lot of the reported stories are literally from inhabitants of the countries that they're speaking of. If you take a look at the Wikipedia link, most of the "no-go zones" mentioned are in some shape or form relevant to Islam and Sharia Law. If the Wikipedia link I've provided, which further increases the accuracy of my statement about "no-go zones" is inaccurate, then I would highly encourage you to make necessary corrections. Everything I'm saying is from websites and Wikipedia accounts. 

Most likely false reports, because I can assure you there's no "no-go zone". At all. At worst some risky, sensible areas due to crime, which is unrelated. Those reports are most likely brought by islamophobic extremists and the like. I've yet to see one "no-go zone" in my life here. Besides, the Wikipedia page only refers to news articles but no actual reliable source (Breitbart is a conservative news site that seemingly likes to be fearmongering after I read a few of their articles, Fox News is known for being far from being muslim-friendly, while Gatestone has been regularly criticized for being anti-muslim). Actually, the Wikipedia page even says:

"[...] various American media, including the news cable channels Fox News and CNN, described the existence of no-go zones across Europe and in France in particular, or featured guests that referred to them. In some cases, the French areas termed "sensitive urban zones" were described as no-go zones. Both networks were criticized for these statements, and anchors on both networks later apologized for the characterizations. The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, said that she intended to sue Fox News for its statements."

So yeah, your sources are slightly biaised, I believe, and do not really reflect the reality.

Edited May 19, 20169 yr by Hystery

4 minutes ago, Hystery said:

Most likely false reports, because I can assure you there's no "no-go zone". At all. At worst some risky, sensible areas due to crime, which is unrelated. Those reports are most likely brought by islamophobic extremists and the like. I've yet to see one "no-go zone" in my life here. Besides, the Wikipedia page only refers to news articles but no actual reliable source (Breitbart is a conservative news site that seemingly likes to be fearmongering after I read a few of their articles, Fox News is known for being far from being muslim-friendly, while Gatestone has been regularly criticized for being anti-muslim). Actually, the Wikipedia page even says:

"[...] various American media, including the news cable channels Fox News and CNN, described the existence of no-go zones across Europe and in France in particular, or featured guests that referred to them. In some cases, the French areas termed "sensitive urban zones" were described as no-go zones. Both networks were criticized for these statements, and anchors on both networks later apologized for the characterizations. The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, said that she intended to sue Fox News for its statements."

So yeah, your sources are slightly biaised, I believe, and do not really reflect the reality.

Well, sense there's literally no way of me knowing whether or not the sources are truthful compared to your word, I'll just have to take your word for it, or take the news's word for it. I've never been to Europe so. Can't really argue any further than what various websites have provided. It just seems like a pattern to me. The same European nations dealing with the same group of people (Muslims) and it's reported by several different sources. Even if the sources are biased, there's always truth to a biased report. It's not entirely make believe, maybe just exaggerated. Just the events that have been happening in Europe don't add up to the statement that there are no such "no-go zones". 

8 hours ago, OfficerFive0 said:

similar attack happened in ca

 

I hope police can identify these vandals. Stay strong.

On 19.5.2016 at 1:57 AM, Hystery said:

This happened during a protest for a law breaking down our entire working system, a law that was passed by force by our government against all democratic system, just like any dictatorship would. Those protests happen here because people are tired and want change, and people are tired of the police brutality we've been facing lately. Search on Google and you'll find HUNDRED of cases of police brutality just for the last few weeks. Don't judge on one single video when you actually ignore what is truly happening here.

Well, as you can see, i'm German. Your european neighbour. I always respected the French for their engagement to fight against injustice. But i really don't want to see, how police officers fear for their life while sitting in a destroyed, burned car. This goes too far. Is the police btutality against normal french people, or against arabic immigrants?

1 hour ago, Schecter004 said:

Well, as you can see, i'm German. Your european neighbour. I always respected the French for their engagement to fight against injustice. But i really don't want to see, how police officers fear for their life while sitting in a destroyed, burned car. This goes too far. Is the police btutality against normal french people, or against arabic immigrants?

There wasn't anyone sitting in a burned car. One of the testimonies about this event was also actually false and was from someone who wasn't even a cop to begin with. The police brutality occurs against anyone who attempts to protest. Even against journalists. Even against CHILDREN. Police charged a group of 12 years old kids no less than last week, injuring 2 gravely. In 2 months, 48 investigations were initiated by the internal services for police brutality. The total complaints about police brutality raised by almost 200% just for this year.

Edited June 9, 20169 yr by Hystery

14 minutes ago, Hystery said:

There wasn't anyone sitting in a burned car. One of the testimonies about this event was also actually false and was from someone who wasn't even a cop to begin with. The police brutality occurs against anyone who attempts to protest. Even against journalists. Even against CHILDREN. Police charged a group of 12 years old kids no less than last week, injuring 2 gravely. In 2 months, 48 investigations were initiated by the internal services for police brutality. The total complaints about police brutality raised by almost 200% just for this year.

So, why do you think this happens? Why french ctizen, police officers, attack other french citizen, civilians? Because the government told them to do? I saw videos of french police officers who supported protesters during a warning strike. What do you think about the situation in France? Serious, i really want to know!

27 minutes ago, Schecter004 said:

So, why do you think this happens? Why french ctizen, police officers, attack other french citizen, civilians? Because the government told them to do? I saw videos of french police officers who supported protesters during a warning strike. What do you think about the situation in France? Serious, i really want to know!

Honestly? I think they are told to do so. The government wants to pass a labour law no one wants (71% of the population is against it). People protest, do strikes. The majority of the the population support them. What to do in this case? Denigrate the protestation movement by turning it into violent conflicts. No one likes violence. People are favorable to peaceful protests, not to civil war-like sceneries. If they see the protests turn into open conflict between protesters and police enforcement, their opinion will turn defavorable, and they'll want the protests to stop. And without protests, the government has a good reason to pass the labour law, saying people are actually not against i.

Even though some cops are actually happy to charge into the crowd, that's a fact that can't be denied. A video shows a small group of cops saying "Using maximum force" against a peaceful group of protesters.

Edited June 9, 20169 yr by Hystery

The old Socialist way is to do what your government wants you to do. And Holland is a socialist. He somehow skipped the mass murder by the security service part, but he'll manage.

Seriously tho, is that true that under current labour laws there's an extremely high unemployment rate in France? If that is the case I really can't see why people defend the old system. It's like "we have no jobs but at least we have our rights which don't help the economy at all"?

4 hours ago, Hastings said:

Seriously tho, is that true that under current labour laws there's an extremely high unemployment rate in France? If that is the case I really can't see why people defend the old system. It's like "we have no jobs but at least we have our rights which don't help the economy at all"?

They defend the old system simply because the one they want to apply is even worse. Amongst them, some of the biggest lines:

• No more minimum ammount of indemnity in case of unjustified layoff (like if your boss fires you for a supposed mistake you actually never did)
• In case of unjustified/illegal layoff, the maximum the ex-employee can get is capped to 15 months of salary
• The minimum 11 hours of rest per 24 hours can be cut down in small parts along the day
• A company can decide to fire a large part of their employees without any economical justification, they can do it just if they feel like it
• The minimum leave duration for malady or handicap of a relative (for example if your mom has a car accident and you need to take care of her for a few days) is no longer guaranteed by the law
• Labour medicine will have minimum voice and almost inexistent presence (for example, the labour medicine are those who put my mom in a leave for massive breakdown and depression after she has been verbally and psychologically harassed for months by her ex-bosses, with the law they want to pass it wouldn't have happened and she would probably have ended herself by now)
• The minimum leave duration for natural catastrophe is no longer guaranteed by the law (imagine in the US, a tornado rampages your house and nothing is left out of it, well, your boss can still tell you "Come to work or you're fired", seems nice isn't it?)
• In case the company you work in moves from a city to another, if you can't manage to follow, they can fire you more easily. In the past, if you couldn't follow your company moving from a city to another, they had the obligation to relocate you in one of their other subsidiaries that would be closer and better for you. In situation, let's say the company you work in moves from Los Angeles to New York. But they have a susbidary in San Francisco. You don't have the money to move to New York, but you could afford to move to San Francisco. Right now, the company would have the obligation to move you to San Francisco, or to fire you with indemnities. With the labour law they want to pass, they can just fire you, period.
• The dates of your holidays can be changed up to the last moment. For example, you've planned a cruise in the carribeans. You used your available holiday days to leave for a week, you bought the tickets, the hotel, everything. And the day before you leave, they can tell you "No, you stay".
• Standby time can be withdrawn from your rest time. For example, you're a cop. In France, some cops have work hours, and standby hours. During those standby hours, they're at home or wherever they want as if it was a day off, but if they are called for work, they have to answer. Those standby time weren't counted as rest time, because they're still technically working, without actually working. With that law, the standby time would be withdrawn from your total rest time, meaning that as a cop, you'd have your work times even longer. And we all know what tiredness can do on people, I doubt it'd be wise on workers like cops, firefighters, EMS and the like.
• The medical observation before being hired turns into a simple information visit.

And that's just a tiny fraction of the entire law. The Labour law counts 467 amendments. Summarized, the law is pro-business, pro-liberalism, and anti-people. They allow companies to fire more easily, and to make people work more and paid less. This is surely not going to solve the unemployment problem.

The unemployment problem is mainly due to large companies that move their factories out of the country (every day we hear about yet another factory of 500 workers that is closed and moved to China or wherever), as well as the bosses of those large companies who keep increasing their wages and the part of the shareholders. For example, Renault, large vehicle company, fired hundreds of workers, while the CEO increased his wage of several millions. Millions that could be used to actually hire workers, but they prefer to get richer. Meanwhile, our government gave one BILLION euros to major companies to help them hiring workers. What did they do? They took the billion, and fired people.

Those are the problems that should be solved, amongst many others. Governments should stop attacking low and middle-class, and they should start taking things in hands about the richest classes.

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by Hystery

15 minutes ago, Hystery said:

They defend the old system simply because the one they want to apply is even worse. Amongst them, some of the biggest lines:

Apparently you keep forgetting I'm not a proud American, eh? :D But from what I've learned the US have much much much less employees protection that Europe (and Russia), many of your points above are a reality for them.

So, let's take a look at it...

1. How much is the present minimum amount?
2. 15 months of your Euro salary... That's a lot. But OK, that's not fair if someone asks me, illegal employment termination is illegal, pay to your employees what you owe them.
3. ELEVEN HOURS OF REST?! What this even mean? here you have 8 hours work day plus 1 rest hour. I work 11-hour days with not much compensation.
4. Yep. that's perfectly fine. It's a private matter who to hire. In the US you can be fired at will as well (at least that was true during my employment in B-more).
5. What it even is? I don't know no such leave around 'ere. There are annual 25 days-off (35 in my case), and my company additionally offers you 5 sick leave days with no medical paperwork required. Other than that, you're on your own.
6. Again I honestly don't know what it is, it's nonexistent here. A good employer cares about his workers (we have a company medic and a huuuge insurance policy), a bad doesn't.
7. No such thing here, like I said - annual leave, that's it. I doubt something like that is a law in the US... Maybe a labor contract clause at best.
8. No such obligation here. We manage.
9. That's not good, true.
10. That's a really different system from what we have here (cops work shifts and call be called at any time on emergencies), so I can't compare. have no clue about the US either.
11. Uuum that's not good.

Well, 5 out of 11.

Companies move out? You know why? Because they loose a lot of money on workers and a lot of money on taxes (to support the very same immigrants you welcome that much, and to pay for the cars people burn down as well). They will move. It's their right. Companies are created by owners for owners, not by people for people. If they fire people they don't need them. Cruel, I know. I was lucky to find this job, and I might loose it, so I'm not speaking from some entitled-rich-who-doesn't-know-how-poor-people-live position (in fact I earn less in a month that the unemployment aid in France).

All I can say that if you press the business too hard, it will move out completely. And then, lol, then you'll have Venezuela.

Again, you ignore the history. The largest country on earth for century had been socialist. Jobs were guaranteed, no private companies, no one was allowed to leave the country, everyone was paid the same amount of salary, healthcare, education and housing was free. And now you have Russia. This all has been tried and failed. I have the right to say this because me and my family have been through this and not much other people in other countries have.

 

42 minutes ago, Hastings said:

-snip-

1. 20% of the monthly salary per year working in that company + 33% of the monthly salary per year working in that company if you were there since more than 10 years. Put in situation, a guy who worked roughly 4 years and a half for 2000 euros per month will get an indemnity of ~1800 euros. It's already not that much when you think about it when someone dedicated 4 years of their life and got illegally fired.

3. A day is 24 hours. 8 hours of work per day. That leaves 16 hours of rest. This can be lowered to a legal minimum of 11 hours (which means you would work 13 hours a day). That minimum can be cut down. Basically you can work more while resting less, legally.

4. That's NOT fine here. What has to be taken into account is the difference of culture and economy. We're not the US either. US have been pro-business and pro-liberalism since ages, it still didn't help them really well so far considering the gap in wages and the gap between the richest and poorest population increasing.

5. Here you are allowed to leave your work for a few days if you have a relative who is gravely sick or handicapped, to avoid negative consequences on your work. For example, if your father has a cancer and is about to die within the few days, you're allowed to leave your work and be next to him when he'll pass away instead of him dying while you're working your ass off. I think it's, you know, human.

6. You're actually pointing at the exact problem. Many, if not all workers care about their company. When they find a job, most of the time they want to keep it, and they like where they work. The thing is, nowadays french company employers do not care about their employees. Their employees are just names and numbers, not persons, and thus they just use them as tools instead of considering them as the important cogwheels that allow their companies to run. It creates a negative atmosphere, a feeling to be exploited, and to be treated like animals.

The rest of the points you adressed... I think it's just a cultural difference. That's how it has been in France since 1936 and 1968. We earned those rights after long battles, so it's only natural to not want to let them go, especially when they are beneficial for us.

The thing to see is that all specialists agree on this fact: french workers are actually the most productive workers in Europe. Because our system allows workers to work, but also have a life next to it. Rested and happy workers mean more productive workers. Breaking down this balance will turn people lethargic because of the tiredness, angry because of the poor working conditions, depressed because unable to settle down somewhere since their job can be taken away from them at any moment. What will this do? It'll make the french workers worth less. Wages will go down, and we'll result in the new China of Europe with workers paid with ridiculous wages while working 12 hours per day. All in all our quality of life will be destroyed. That's why we are fighting against that law and the great majority of the population is against it.

 

42 minutes ago, Hastings said:

Companies move out? You know why? Because they loose a lot of money on workers and a lot of money on taxes

Not disagreeing on this. France is the european country with the heaviest taxes, both on companies and citizens. Or well. Companies. On small companies. The large ones always manage to hide their earnings in tax havens, which is also an entire problem on its own.

 

42 minutes ago, Hastings said:

(to support the very same immigrants you welcome that much, and to pay for the cars people burn down as well)

Immigrants cost hundred times less than tax evasion, and cars are insured, so it's not the real problem.

 

42 minutes ago, Hastings said:

Again, you ignore the history. The largest country on earth for century had been socialist. Jobs were guaranteed, no private companies, no one was allowed to leave the country, everyone was paid the same amount of salary, healthcare, education and housing was free. And now you have Russia. This all has been tried and failed. I have the right to say this because me and my family have been through this and not much other people in other countries have.

Liberalism, capitalism and pro-business actions have also been tried since decades and failed miserably, because it creates an endless circle. A new economic system is found, it works for a time, it makes rich people richer, it makes poor and middle-class people poorer, and then, an economical crisis occurs. Rich people hide their money somewhere, they remain unaffected by the crisis, poor and middle-class people have to endure the hard times, and then another economic system is found. Rinse and repeat.

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by Hystery

11 minutes ago, Hystery said:

The rest of the points you adressed... I think it's just a cultural difference.

Liberalism, capitalism and pro-business actions have also been tried since decades and failed miserably, because it creates an endless circle. A new economic system is found, it works for a time, it makes rich people richer, it makes poor and middle-class people poorer, and then, an economical crisis occurs. Rich people hide their money somewhere, they remain unaffected by the crisis, poor and middle-class people have to endure the hard times, and then another economic system is found. Rinse and repeat.

Guess all my points can be covered by it. Nothing to argue about then

In that case I do hope you're ready for the world where what you do is what the government tells you to do. Or maybe it will work better in Europe. Maybe not. I just hope I'll die before my world dies :)

 

Edited June 10, 20169 yr by Hastings

To be honest I hope more for a world where democracy is actually a thing. Power to the people. And not to some random assholes in suits deciding everything for us and influenced by lobbies and all the like.

One can dream.

But dudes, police brutality in the USA is way more likely.

 

1 hour ago, Sn0wf4ll said:

But dudes, police brutality in the USA is way more likely.

 

This is such a dry statement.