Paris What is going on now !

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="raindog"]

I can understand why a young immigrant with no future would want to burn a car, but only a rich man's BMW or Mercedes, not their poor neighbour's second hand Renault.

I remember during the riots in '05 they showed a guy standing crying in front of his burned out builder's lorry. He'd saved for years to buy it so he could get a small business off the ground. It was heartbreaking.

I also have trouble understanding why they would want to burn down a local library or children's nursery.

[/quote]

I do agree that rationally speaking, in terms of "targets", the rich cars would make a "better target".  But of course the minute the lads marched out of "their zone", they would be in strange territory, unprotected, get immediately busted and jailed.  It is really tragic that all over the world, "they" burn down their own cars, their own libraries and their own buildings.  Really makes no "sense" in some ways, yet it is easy enough to understand why the poor youth don't assemble in large groups, or even small ones, in the rich neighbourhoods.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="raindog"][quote user="TreizeVents"]

  I just can't figure out why you don't all know this is happening, or have never seen a burnt out car.  I really did think this was common knowledge.

[/quote]

So did I........

good googling TreizeVents

[/quote]

It may be common knowledge, but I still can't answer my own my own question: is it a comparitively "big" problem or a "small" one? Is 40,000 burned out cars a lot in a modern, forward looking European state, or not? I've googled (and even yahooed, which just cannot be a proper word) every set of key words I can think off, but have as yet been able to find a comparable figure for the UK or Germany or Italy, for example.

Where I lived in London (which I like to think was quite a "nice" area) we got about two burned out wrecks a month, which seemed about normal to me on my strolls around. Extrapolating this to the whole of London in an extremely ropey fashion based on estimating the size of the area I knew intimately to cover the whole of the Capital suggests about 25000 cars torched per year for London. But I have no real idea.

Someone must record this sort of stuff.

[raindog]

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"][quote user="raindog"][quote user="TreizeVents"]

  I just can't figure out why you don't all know this is happening, or have never seen a burnt out car.  I really did think this was common knowledge.

[/quote]

So did I........

good googling TreizeVents

[/quote]

It may be common knowledge, but I still can't answer my own my own question: is it a comparitively "big" problem or a "small" one? Is 40,000 burned out cars a lot in a modern, forward looking European state, or not? I've googled (and even yahooed, which just cannot be a proper word) every set of key words I can think off, but have as yet been able to find a comparable figure for the UK or Germany or Italy, for example.

Where I lived in London (which I like to think was quite a "nice" area) we got about two burned out wrecks a month, which seemed about normal to me on my strolls around. Extrapolating this to the whole of London in an extremely ropey fashion based on estimating the size of the area I knew intimately to cover the whole of the Capital suggests about 25000 cars torched per year for London. But I have no real idea.

Someone must record this sort of stuff.

[/quote]

I know, i've been trying to find out, but I can't find any hard figures for other countries. I should think it's alot, otherwise they wouldn't keep going on about it as if it's primarily a French problem. I'll ask around - see what I can sniff out.

[Gluestick]

Having looked at the core matter in greater depth during the past few days it seems that - perhaps! - the following is a reasonably accurate statement of the surrounding facts.

1.  The rioters are invariably of North African descent, and in the main sons and grandsons of original migrants post the Algerian crisis:

2.  The cars being burned are in the, vast majority, old decrepit cars of other residents of the ghettos, rather than those owned by non-migrant French families/individuals:

3.  The cars are illegally owned and used, with no insurance and thus are not captured by French insurance underwriter's stats:

4.  The areas where rioting occurs, are mainly the 1960s/70s High Rise Concrete Estates thrown up to accomodate the original migrants:

5.  It would appear that much of the motivation is, by Islamic agitators, many of whom are not old migrant stock, but either recent "Assylum Seekers" or illegals many of whom are connected with the global Al Qaeda network of  urban terrorists:

6.  The original "Ghetto Mindset" of the French authorities still holds true: i.e surround these ghettos with a Cordon Sanitaire of Police, Gendarmerie and CRS to prevent the troublemakers and criminals venturing out to where "The Nice People" live:

7.  The rioters are using any excuse to create a "Grievance" such as the earlier incident where two youngsters fleeing from the police after commission of a crime were burnt to death in an electricity sub-station where they were attempting to hide from pursuing police officers:

8.  Therefore where police are endeavouring to apprehand criminals in these areas, inter alia, riots will occur in order that police might be deflected from their legitimate duties:

9.  The troublemakers will invariably destroy their own social facilities and infrastructure such as their schools, shops, libraries etc:

10. Since it is a fact that the police authorities in France are known to be somewhat more "Heavyhanded" than elsewhere and the CRS even more so, it would appear that these authorities are targeted by the rioters as "Public Enemy Number One"; and that therefore any confrontation is bound to become excessively violent on both sides.

(GS Stands by for the vitriol! [6])

 

[5-element]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Having looked at the core matter in greater depth during the past few days it seems that - perhaps! - the following is a reasonably accurate statement of the surrounding facts.

1.  The rioters are invariably of North African descent, and in the main sons and grandsons of original migrants post the Algerian crisis:

2.  The cars being burned are in the, vast majority, old decrepit cars of other residents of the ghettos, rather than those owned by non-migrant French families/individuals:

3.  The cars are illegally owned and used, with no insurance and thus are not captured by French insurance underwriter's stats:

5.  It would appear that much of the motivation is, by Islamic agitators, many of whom are not old migrant stock, but either recent "Assylum Seekers" or illegals many of whom are connected with the global Al Qaeda network of  urban terrorists:

 [/quote]

Some gross inaccuracies here, compel me to put my 2 cents in.

1. There are many youths of various descents in the cites: Algerian, yes, but also Moroccan, African, and other (one of the 2 young men who died was of Moroccan origin, the other was of Senegalese origin (BUT  FRENCH). As for "the rioters", they are mostly issued from immigration , but not excusively - there are also many "pure white" French living in the cites, and what all the cites people have in common is their poverty and low social status.

2. It is true that the cars burned are cars of other ghetto residents. Remembering that "non migrant French families/individuals" ALSO live in the cites, the cars are burned indiscriminately, whoever they belong to. The only qualification for a car to be burnt is that it has to be THERE.

3. It is true that many people of low social status and on low income do not always insure their car. Therefore, it is hard to find out from insurance claims how many cars exactly are being burnt.

5. Now this is a conspiracy theory claim which is ridiculous - although I have seen it suggested. Anyone who has been in one of those cites, has seen the gangs of disaffected youths, has spoken to them or has had anything to do with them, would just laugh at this theory.

However, it is a dangerous theory - so it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

[raindog]

"2.  The cars being burned are in the, vast majority, old decrepit

cars of other residents of the ghettos, rather than those owned by

non-migrant French families/individuals:

3.  The cars are illegally owned and used, with no insurance and thus are not captured by French insurance underwriter's stats:"

Not at all - you can see plenty of images of brand new cars burnt out - recent models. And over the years, this week included, they have destroyed whole showrooms of new, unsold cars.

[Gluestick]

Interesting.....................

Well, that was a compilation from various mixed and discrete news media sources in France, elsewhere in Europe, the USA, the UK (of course) and so on.

Thus it leaves me wondering who if anyone is writing and reporting accurately on these matters.

 

[raindog]

Hey gluestick, I thought you'd been a bit naughty and invented that list just to wind us all up....[:D]

[Frederick]

 " Nothing to do with social crisis  " .........everything to do with   "  Yobocracy  " said  Mr Sarkozy .........now there IS a great new word ....where did he find that one ?   so......... how do we refer to unrest  ..grafiti etc ...now   " Yobocratic behaviour " ?

[5-element]

If Monsieur Sarkozy said it, then it must be true....

By the way, he never said "yobocracy" - that is the English translation....[:D]

[Gluestick]

Hey!

I like that one! Far better than oiks!

BTW, since I am trying to assemble some varied refs on this subject for another matter, if I can find time in the next few days I'll post some of the webrefs for the "Media Sources".

Makes interesting reading.

 

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Having looked at the core matter in greater depth during the past few days it seems that - perhaps! - the following is a reasonably accurate statement of the surrounding facts.

1.  The rioters are invariably of North African descent, and in the main sons and grandsons of original migrants post the Algerian crisis:

2.  The cars being burned are in the, vast majority, old decrepit cars of other residents of the ghettos, rather than those owned by non-migrant French families/individuals:

3.  The cars are illegally owned and used, with no insurance and thus are not captured by French insurance underwriter's stats:

4.  The areas where rioting occurs, are mainly the 1960s/70s High Rise Concrete Estates thrown up to accomodate the original migrants:

5.  It would appear that much of the motivation is, by Islamic agitators, many of whom are not old migrant stock, but either recent "Assylum Seekers" or illegals many of whom are connected with the global Al Qaeda network of  urban terrorists:

6.  The original "Ghetto Mindset" of the French authorities still holds true: i.e surround these ghettos with a Cordon Sanitaire of Police, Gendarmerie and CRS to prevent the troublemakers and criminals venturing out to where "The Nice People" live:

7.  The rioters are using any excuse to create a "Grievance" such as the earlier incident where two youngsters fleeing from the police after commission of a crime were burnt to death in an electricity sub-station where they were attempting to hide from pursuing police officers:

8.  Therefore where police are endeavouring to apprehand criminals in these areas, inter alia, riots will occur in order that police might be deflected from their legitimate duties:

9.  The troublemakers will invariably destroy their own social facilities and infrastructure such as their schools, shops, libraries etc:

10. Since it is a fact that the police authorities in France are known to be somewhat more "Heavyhanded" than elsewhere and the CRS even more so, it would appear that these authorities are targeted by the rioters as "Public Enemy Number One"; and that therefore any confrontation is bound to become excessively violent on both sides.

(GS Stands by for the vitriol! [6])

 

[/quote]

1. 

This is just plain wrong.  Watch TV and check out the skin colour.  Note

especially the few white poor guys, and the numerous black guys.  Then

tell me how one can tell the Algerians from the Tunisians and Moroccans at a

distance, or better yet give me the source for the ethnic background data, as

the French are not allowed to collect it.  The French do not ask origins

in the census, and Morocco

and Algeria

are the same size, so I am not sure where this analysis comes from.

4.  Migrant are internal, immigrants are from outside a place.  So I

guess your source thinks that Algerians are French, or were.  You all

might be interested to know that in Montpellier

the high rises were built to accommodate some of the pieds noir, and to some

extent still have white people as well as brown and black.  Don't know

about all the other cities.

5.  I find the terrorist plot reference a bit silly.  Never read that

one anywhere else.  Although there are plenty of people trying to take advantage of the

riots, no doubt among them the odd Islamist.  Quite normal.  But to

suggest the terrorists had any significant role in starting the whole thing, or creating

the conditions that gave rise to it is really quite silly.  The Islamists

have not been in the French government for the last fifty years.  And the left hardly

has.  It is the right wing governments who have helped create the mess.

6.  Actually the police are far more pro-active.  They DO NOT just sit

around on the outside waiting to stop escapees, they go right in there and help

create the situation.

7.  Nearly all riots start with small incidents, although in the two cases you

mention we are talking about DEATHS, perhaps not caused directly by the police,

but in which police were involved.  Don't forget the two youths were

playing footie when they fled the arrival of the police in 2005.  Just scared kids,

who knew that messing with the police is never a good idea, so scarper.  They picked a stupid place to hide.

8.  This seems confusing.  Are you suggesting that each time the police

arrive to bust someone there is a riot?  Or just that if a bit of a local

distraction can save a mate, the local lads try it on?

The rest of it makes some sense.  You do neglect to try to draw conclusions

or reprint analyses of what caused or might continue to cause these

events.  It seems to be all about the details.  Its like describing a

FA Cup Final and some disturbances in it, without the context of the UK and football as a business and so forth..  Why are

these kids so pissed off and why does it take "so little" to set them

off?  What is going on in France? 

Does racism have nothing to do with it?

[Scooby]

[quote user="TreizeVents"]

 It is the right wing governments who have helped create the mess.

[/quote]

[blink]????

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="Scooby"][quote user="TreizeVents"]

 It is the right wing governments who have helped create the mess.

[/quote]

[blink]????

[/quote]

I know many British immigrants are surprised that the right has been in power since the

Revolution, nearly all the time.  I have

heard people say this is a communist country or a socialist country.  Neither could possibly be true, as it is so

clearly a capitalist country (and getting more market oriented daily) that it

is hard for me to know how to reply to such claims.

 One historian

I read recently, sadly I forgot who, said the left has been in power for just

over 20 years in France

since the Revolution (1789).  However,

simplifying things to the Fifth Republic (1959), where both the President and

the parliament have and have had varying power (but the same constitution), we come across the following

actual objective data, although I could have made a slight mistake as I didn’t’

add up the months in power, but just copied the years.  Beginning with 1959 (the Fifth Republic,

the present constitution), when we can assume that policies were made that

still have repercussions today, especially in relation to immigrants, their

housing and their children.  There has

been one Socialist President, Mitterand, for 14 years.  During eight of those years he had a

Socialist Prime Minister.  So there can

be little doubt that during those eight years (separated by three years when

there WAS NOT a Socialist Prime Minister/government) we can safely say, without any argument, “the Socialists were in power”. 

Those years of Socialist power were 84-88 and 91-95.  There was also a Socialist Prime Minister

(Jospin) from 97-02, but there was not a Socialist President.  So if you count the Socialist Prime Ministers

only (ignoring completely the President, his power and his influence) you could

say that the Socialists were in power for 13 years since 1959.  You could make it even more impressive for

the Socialists by saying that in the last 23 years (the ONLY years the Socialists

have had Prime Ministers) they have had 13 years in power.  That is just over half.

 Given this

information, when I hear immigrants from Britain or elsewhere talking of

"years of Socialist power" or the things the Socialists have done, I just am

gobsmacked.  Am I being unfair?  As far as I can see the Socialists are mostly

losers in elections, and most other things. 

I should add that I am not and never have been a Socialist in France

or anywhere else. 

 There you

are, the reasons I say there have been mostly right wing governments in power

influencing the nature of contemporary France.  I recognise that governmental power is not

everything.  But “normally” that is what

people talk about, as other forms of power are quite complicated and require

quite complex argument.  And some,

including me, might say the other forms of power are actually way more

important.  But that is another argument.

[Gluestick]

Personally, I feel it's very much the same argument, TV and hugely critical to it!

Surely, the major core difference in France is that firstly under the Fifth Republic is enshrined the right to peaceful assembly and demonstration and freedom of trades unions?

Unions are hardly a Right Wing reality!

Whilst Presidents and PMs may well have been Right Wing, surely the rank and file French citizen tends to be Socialist/Communist and has been since the beginnings of the end of WW II?

Having amongst my reference book collection the original authoritative work on the SAS (Who Dares Wins), writtten in the early 50s by an original member of the regiment who was dropped behind German lines with a troop to support the Maquis and harrass German troops and sabotage critical installations, they were, apparently in far more danger from the Communists and the FFI (Free French of the Interior) than from the occupying German soldiers!

Indeed, Churchill and Truman were extremely concerned that after peace came, France would instantly turn communist.

Perhaps I am wrong, however I have always perceived France as a sort of Modus Vivendi, between the mainly Socialist electors and the professional Central Government politicians with more interest being expressed by the average man in local politics, until and unless the government try and bring in reforms such as those tried by both Lionel Jospin and Domenique de Villepin, of the Social Contract!

Then the electorate wake up!

As did the SNCF staff, recently.

 

 

[hoverfrog]

as far as numbers of burnt-out cars go, in the riots of 2005 they reported on the Limousin news that Brive had 2 cars less than average burnt the W/E with most disturbance! Turned out the average was 9 a W/E....

[Chancer]

This article may be of interest.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/12/03/noindex/nrsarko102.xml

[TreizeVents]

Hey Gluestick,

"Personally, I feel it's very much the same argument, TV and hugely critical to it!"

I don't actually understand this first sentence, so I won't say anything about it.  I never thought "the right to assemble and demonstrate" was anything other than a crucial ingredient for democracy of even the most basic sort.  Not really left or right.  I think you can do this in most countries that remotely claim to be democratic.  So what it has to do specifically with Socialism would require a bit of explanation for me.  Even the early USA founders thought it was a good idea.  Some unions are right wing and some left, as in most countries. Surprisingly, France has one of the smallest percentages of unionised worker in Europe.  I am not sure how much they actually influence policy, but I agree they certainly do, like all the other interest groups and associations in France, including the Employers' union.  Mind you I reckon the employers' union has a lot more influence and always has.   Sorry, I know nothing about this book you cite, nor about who gave whom the most trouble for what reasons in WW2.  In fact I am not sure if it has anything to do with my small point that the Socialists or the left simply have not been in power much, in fact hardly at all.  I would love to see your evidence for the majority grass roots socialist voters, and the conservative politicians, although I tend to agree that most politicians are pretty conservative, whatever their party.  In fact I am sure the Socialist Party would love to see that evidence, as they seem to be pretty big losers at the national level, although not total losers.  As for France "turning Communist" after WW2, many people agree with Truman and Churchill.  However, they were all wrong.  The role of the PCF in formulating French  policy over the last fifty years has to be pretty pathetically negligible, although like all political groups they had some influence at some times.  I just don't think there is much evidence for this "leftist France" or "communist France" we hear about.  And I think the policies of France over the last few decades have been overwhelmingly right wing, but in a European/French way of course. For example, compared to American parties, the conservatives are quite leftist or Socialist.  The last "socialist" government more or less moved in the same direction as all the other Euro market-oriented parties, although with a few innovations that true conservatives didn't like.  However if you think New Labour is socialist or communist, then I guess France is more leftist or socialist.  I think Blair was always a nice mild kind of social democrat who had little to do with socialism as I learned about it.  Where was the PS during the strikes?  I didn't notice them much, but maybe I missed it.  Good old Olivier B was there, and seems to be more popular than François, whatever that may mean.

All the best.

[Gluestick]

Most interesting, TV: thank you for your detailed and valuable response.

Some pondering for a bit here................

JR: interesting article. again much to consider.

More anon.........

 

[Wendy]

Katie, I refer to Gluestick's post 29/11th at 22.16pm

I thought I was the only wind-up merchant here!

How dare you usurp my reason for living!!

By the way...how in any way shape or form are these riots 'muslim' based?.

The rioters are not screaming about Allah, nor waving flags nor condemning Christianity or 'The`West'.

Simply non-French national thugs clashing with the racist French police.

 

 

[Cat]

[quote user="Jura"]

Simply non-French national thugs clashing with the racist French police.

[/quote]

Do you think that those rioters aren't French then Jura?  Or do you mean that, like you and me, their origins are non-French?

[Iceni]

[quote user="Jura"]

Simply non-French national thugs clashing with the racist French police.

[/quote]

Nah, just one of the benefits of living in a multi-cultural society.

John

not

[Bugsy]

[quote user="Iceni"][quote user="Jura"]

Simply non-French national thugs clashing with the racist French police.

[/quote]

Nah, just one of the benefits of living in a multi-cultural society.

John

not

[/quote]

[:)][:)][:)]

[5-element]

[quote user="Cat"][quote user="Jura"]

Simply non-French national thugs clashing with the racist French police.

[/quote]

Do you think that those rioters aren't French then Jura?  Or do you mean that, like you and me, their origins are non-French?

[/quote]

Will this come as a shock to some? But the rioters are more French than most people on this forum, well-spotted Cat!