But if the police would venture into in large groups then how it is a 'real no go zone'

And how is a one time event like this anarchist demonstration late evening going out of hand relevant to structural problems?

For the rest you can do with semantics as you please, we all know that no-go zones as used in Europe do exist in Sweden, and it just means that police lost control on preventing and controlling crime in such parts and that they do hardly to no patrols in there, but they do respond to calls in such area. And such is what we mean with no go areas in this context.

Just admit that you haven't been there for years at night.

So you want to redefine problem zones as no go zones even though the police do go there?

Then how do you define areas where the police really do not go?

no no go zones?

https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artike...rtikel=6630452

It's all semantics, and political posturing. If you are Left you call them "vunerable areas", if you are Center, you call them "high risk areas", if you are Right, you call them "no-go zones". Whatever, it's the same thing, it's an area that has a high crime rate and police may not be in full control of the area.

Oh like your examples you mean...

But who is guilty then that these genetically "pure blonds" (Hitler and the Nazis loved all these Scandinavians ) - the Swedish - allow all sorts of "deplorables" settle in their country, but on the same time do whatever it takes to stay away from the "vulnerable" areas? Isn't this the most perverse sort of racism - the one coming from well-intended people. I can't suspect there's huge interest in exploiting their work in diverse unskilled jobs because the Swedish economy is more sophisticated than that and they have an welfare state which could make the whole idea economically unviable - for the immigrants. However, I do believe that no all the Swedish (most?) agree with this policy and we will see more far right parties in the future. And more powerful. The ugliest. Most hate and viscerally driven.

In France and other Western countries, at least the ghettos have an historical explanation, in some others - an economic or geographical explanation (close to Africa etc) - or simply put you can't have it only one way, your way. Al the "deplorables" from former colonies will think they're entitled to a piece of that wealth you've got for yourself. Sweden does not belong to this category, so what it takes? Ideology and posturing, most probably. The opposite ideology of the one which, back in the history, didn't allow certain groups of people to settle or to enjoy full citizen rights there. But is the world really better? The divide is still there. Unfortunately, multiculturalism will become another word for ghettoisation. Well, exactly like in the USA..

No-go zones are places where the police do not go.

Redefining no-go zones as places where police actually do go is semantics, I agree.

How this redefinition helps I do not know other than to encourage people to frighten themselves with nonsensical definitions.

I am not clear what point you are trying to make.
Every city has ghettos!
Or to put it another way, every city has rich and poor people and both groups tend to group together and live in a common area be it Beverley Hills or a French Banlieu.

A ghetto is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, typically as a result of social, legal, or economic pressure.
The term was originally used in Venice in the year 1516 to describe the part of the city to which Jews were restricted and segregated.

So it is not like ghettos are new phenomena and the term is not linked to any particular group other than "the poor".

Various Communist states have tried eliminate the difference between rich and poor to create a single class and prevent ghettoisation but such attempts failed; basically because there is not enough "to go around".

__________________
It is naive to assume my posts are my own work

The ghettos are inevitable. Estonia has received a few hundred "quota refugees" in the past couple of years, and over half of them have already left. When they asked the ones still there why they don't like it there, almost all say that they want to go to Germany to live in a big city together with other Africans/Arabs. Hardly anyone wants to actually integrate, learn the language and live among the locals. Nobody is "forcing" them into ghettos, they build them themselves, they feel more comfortable among their own people.

The once they have formed their own "communities" (ie: ghettos, parallel-societies, etc.), they will start to complain that they are not treated equally as locals, can't get good jobs, etc.. Instead of seeing that they haven't bothered to integrate, learn the language, get an education, etc. they will just cry "racism" and the loony-Left will come out to support them, and that's how cities like Malmö are built.

To Germany's credit, they already realize all this, and are doing their best to distribute refugees spread throughout the country as best as possible, to avoid them all moving into the same city and forming ghettos, but really, in the end it will happen anyway one way or another, because that's what they want.

Lol, discussions with you are so fruitless. Who said that "ghetto" is a new term? On the contrary, read carefully my post, there are some clues there.

The problem is a little more complicated here and much more nuanced. I don't want to be politically correct, I want to be fair. First of all, they didn't come for and to Estonia. They probably couldn't put it on a map before coming to Europe. When they are distributed, or forced to find temporary refuge in some Eastern European countries, they do it with the intention of getting out of there with the first favourable occasion. Economic or financial reasons, first of all - I suspect. Language issues, more opportunities elsewhere even if these are just theoretical, or projections. Being more welcomed in the West, as the society is more diverse in the sense that there are already older groups of immigrants from their original countries. Who won't be particularly thrilled to integrate new groups, but that's another story, let's not get immigration realities stay in the way of the good cultural marxism.
Secondly, they are not a homogenous group of people, despite of what identity politics activists try to force down on our throat. An Iranian won't be particularly thrilled to live next to a Turk, or to an Arab, who in turn won't be particularly thrilled to live next to the Christians, or Yaziddis, or who knows who else....and so on and so further. These ghettos are formed simply because, mostly due to economic reasons, many people are forced to cram together.

"An Iranian won't be particularly thrilled to live next to a Turk, or to an Arab, and so on and so further." Do you have a source or experience to support this?
My experience (which is , of course, limited) is that once people have travelled to another country and live there then they are much more open to have friendships and contacts with others and lose a lot of their home country prejudices.

I mean look at EF as an example, there are many people here from different backgrounds but all are equally heard?

Either you are a refugee - then you'll be happy for a roof above your head, a warm bed to sleep in, safety of not getting shot, and meals.

Or you're an economic migrant, someone who wants to leech systems that they've never contributed to, and take advantage of hard work of others..

Lol.
I am sorry marton, I can't go on and on with you. Is there a particular benefit of having yet another poor strata in a country? Locals don't suffice anymore?
I'm kidding, everyone is welcomed as far as I'm concerned, but then people should not complain anymore. Yes, there will be ghettos as they always were.

The problem with twisting definitions is that there unexpected side effects, it would be a pity if people did not holiday in Sweden and instead went to more dangerous places.

Here’s where you’re most likely to be murdered while on holiday if you’re British.

You see Sweden is not listed

No room for the economic migrant who wants to move to a place with more opportunities to carve out a living for themselves and their families?

I imagine some (not all - let's not make any sweeping statements here) are wanting to work and get some traction going on their new lives but are having to "leach" off the system because they aren't allowed to work.

No, not if the economic migrant entered Europe under the guise of being a refugee.

They're probably not allowed to work because they're not even meant to be in the country.

So which are you? Refugee or economic migrant?

Well that's an additional subset then, isn't it? It doesn't alter my comment at all.

On the plus side, at least you are starting to see that the lines of definition categorising people moving around are blurred.

Well it does counter your comment:

''No room for the economic migrant who wants to move to a place with more opportunities to carve out a living for themselves and their families?''

No Sandgrounder, unfortunately Europe is not the home for the rest of the world nor can it accept everyone who wants to work and carve out a living for themselves and their families.

I meant "no room" as in "didn't you consider", not literally "no space or no place".

Actually I didn't say Europe can, does or will. Just pointing out that there are more scenarios than the two offered: Either refugee or economic migrant on the blag.

Jesus wept.