Saffest city in Europe?
Dec 1st, 2002, 03:09 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Saffest city in Europe?
Having lived in Macau, Dubai and SIngapore I have gotten used to living in safe countires and not worrying too much about my kids going out. I would like to know if there is a city in europe that is as safe as the ones I have mentioned. Thank you
Dec 1st, 2002, 04:04 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd say almost every country in Europe has a or several showcase city(ies) that are "safe". Also depends on what you mean by safe - if there are ever any suspect areas in cities, you generally avoid them. And otherwise, if you stay out of trouble, you won't get into any. <BR><BR>If you want some areas that spontaneously say "safe" - probably some cities in northern Europe (Scandanavia), and Switzerland and Austria.<BR>
Dec 2nd, 2002, 10:21 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wow, so many snide responses! For big capital cities, to me the safest (among those I have visited) is Vienna. I felt very comfortable walking by myself in the central district, even late at night. Also (one way to judge the relative safety of a city), almost none of the big jewelry stores in Vienna bother to take in their window displays after closing or roll down security gates. <BR>Brussels, on the other hand, is rather depressingly full of street crime. I have been mugged in Brussels (near the Hilton hotel at 6:30 pm, hardly the middle of the night), had a gun pulled on us just off the Avenue Louise, our car (along with those of friends throughout Brussels) was broken into several times (even though we always made sure to leave it completely empty, nothing to tempt thieves, etc.).<BR>Among mid-sized cities, among the safest I've encountered were Basel (Switzerland), Brugge/Bruges (Belgium) and Angers, France. Basel is another city where I felt completely safe walking alone late at night, as did most of the other women I knew there. Bern is probably as safe as Basel, but I didn't spend as much time there.<BR>Brugge, unlike Brussels, depends so heavily on tourism $$$ that the community does its best to make its streets safe. <BR>Angers was a remarkably pleasant surprise. It's not crime free, but overall, I found it a very safe place to be, with kind and concerned residents. Also, an off-topic comment about Angers: if you want to see non-smoking France, this is THE place to go!! We were shocked at how few smokers we saw during our two weeks there in October. We had dinners in several different restaurants and saw on average only one or two smokers. Ditto for the cafes where we stopped for our morning coffees. Hmmm, wonder why this is (also OT note: Angers is the best place in France to try out your French. Studies have shown that the residents of Angers speak the most "perfect" French in France. Everyone sounds like a language teacher!). <BR>BTilke (Brussels, but currently in Chicago enjoying the snow)<BR>
Dec 2nd, 2002, 11:00 AM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
oh, good thinking, ben - the suspected "criminals" at "Guantamo" Bay. <BR><BR>yes, those "criminals" probably were just planning to knock over some hot dog stands, steal purses from little old ladies and maybe sell some pot to the kids on the corner in kabul. just a little "criminal" matter, a law enforcement problem, right?<BR><BR>you must reading the guardian too much.
Dec 2nd, 2002, 05:29 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
The meaning of the American Constitution, and the meaning of magna carta, is that law will prevail. You helped us try the Nazis at Nuremberg, and we are trying Milesovic now. A mass murderer from Ausschwitz, a man caught running around Afghanistan with an AK-47 and a thug who steals from little old ladies are all entitled to justice. That is, to a trial, and to a judgement. <BR><BR>This is not my private input, nor the strange opinion of the Guardian: to their honour the United States of America have it as it is a pillar of policy.<BR><BR>Ben Haines<BR>
Dec 2nd, 2002, 11:09 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
>yes, those "criminals" probably were >just planning to knock over some hot >dog stands<BR><BR>Some of these dangerous criminals were old boys in their 70s and 80s. One of the British papers quipped that the Americans thought that they had captured dangerous terrorists but had in fact caught an old folks' outing.
Dec 3rd, 2002, 04:45 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben,<BR>Foreign nationals, otherwise known as unlawful combatants, caught in the act of waging war against the US are not entitled to protection under the US Constitution. That said, I believe these people will be tried and judged properly. Which is a lot more than can be said for the frontier justice they and their ilk dispensed. Funny how I don't hear you complaining about that ...
Dec 3rd, 2002, 06:26 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
ben -<BR><BR>so, specifically, where in the constitution are these unlawful combatants guaranteed protection?<BR><BR>you seem to be an expert on the 'meaning of the American Constitution" as well as places - like the U.S., apparently - that dont "get worked up about human rights."<BR><BR>since this is not your 'private input' but fact, tell us. where?
Dec 3rd, 2002, 08:31 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
'unlawful combatants' seems a very convenient phrase <BR>human rights are exactly that for all - by denying them the state lowers itself to the level of the alleged terrorists.<BR>Innocent til proven guilty also seems to have been forgotten.<BR>We've already seen how other states have jumped on the 'war on terrorism' bandwagon to commit war crimes and human rights abuses (Middle East springs to mind)<BR>By upholding the law and human righst for all the problems and terrorism and people being driven to extremist organisations can be best combatted (as well as a little fair trade and more even distribution of wealth)
Dec 3rd, 2002, 08:49 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
ok, james. so, specifically, what law applies to those held in guantanamo? what is convenient is talking in generalities as you and ben are.<BR><BR>by the way, wealth isn't "distributed," it's earned - as anyone who holds a job can tell you. the only time wealth is distributed is when governments take it from those who have earned it and give it to someone else.
Dec 6th, 2002, 10:21 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
For Roger: I like your use of the word properly, and agree with it. I, too, believe that these accused will be tried and judged properly: I am sorry this has not yet happened. As Magna Carta says, justice delayed is justice denied. <BR>You say ..is a lot more than can be said? States like ours that advocate the rule of law are naturally unlike despotisms that do not: we have higher standards than despots do. Despots do not read Fodors forum, and if they did I doubt that they would care what I write. So the best way with them is to act, and I am glad that our countries bombed Milesovic out of Kossovo and the Taliban out of Afghanistan. On this forum I have noted with pleasure the trial of Milesovic, so I think you may conclude that I do indeed complain of his frontier justice.<BR><BR>In short, I am much in agreement with you.<BR><BR>For xxx: But the heart of my sorrow is that the US does indeed get worked up about human rights. What will you choose: the declaration of independence, the Federalist papers, freedom of speech, the end of slavery, the welcome to immigrants (the huddled masses), the defeat of Hitler, the end of school bussing, the defeat of the Soviet empire? it goes on and on. It is just because the USA has meant so much that I lament the present fall from historic standards.<BR><BR>Ben Haines<BR>
Dec 7th, 2002, 12:37 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lawyers acting on behalf of two Britons held in Guantanamo Bay have petitioned the federal appeals court in Washington DC this week. Their clients are Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul, both from Tipton in the West Midlands.Neither of the two is aware that anyone is acting on their behalf. <BR>The proposition sounds a modest one: that they should not be held forever on Cuba without being charged, without a lawyer, without a trial, and without a semblance of due process. Perhaps they should even be allowed to see their mothers once in a blue moon. <BR>To date, their only contact with the outside world has been the occasional heavily censored Red Cross postcard. The Bush administration has announced that they may be held without even the limited rights allowed by the draconian executive order signed a year ago. <BR>US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went so far as to say that if they are permitted a military tribunal and are, by some miracle, acquitted, national security may still require that they be held at the pleasure of the United States for ever. <BR><BR>The steps the US is taking are extreme, and the rule of law seems to have been the first casualty in the war on terrorism. <BR>The lawyers have demanded to know how democracy is threatened by telling the two men what the charges are against them. <BR>Let me remind you that 50 years ago, the last time McCarthyist paranoia reigned over good sense, even the most dangerous Soviet spy was allowed a lawyer. <BR><BR>Can someone explain to me what seperates this judicial system and the extra-judicial killing of terrorist suspects in Yemen (by remote control!!) from the nauseous practices of the Taliban and al-Qaeda?<BR><BR>Sadly, most Americans care nothing about Asif and Shafiq's fate. They are presumed guilty, although nobody has yet identified their crime. It is enough that the military assures us they are fanatics dedicated to the destruction of Civilisation As We Know It. <BR><BR>It is frustrating to witness the abnegation of human rights on such a foolish cause. In the wake of 11 September, some American voices faintly asked: 'Why are we so hated around the world?' Sadly, for the most part those voices were suffocated by the call for revenge. Yet at least one answer is clear: the word is hypocrisy. <BR><BR>D.<BR>
