Ber2dca

They go in those areas in numbers as I said in my original post. They won't just go there in a patrol car with 2 officers to arrest a fellow.

It's not like this isn't widely discussed in the European media. The ridiculous part of the statement was to make it a Muslim/Non-Muslim issue and to make it about an entire big city rather than small parts of it.

But here's a link to an interview in a German newspaper with a representative of the police officers union where he confirms that there's areas where the police won't go without backup:

http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-p...id4926287.html (In German. Headline: In problem areas even the police are afraid.)

Andy33

Haven't there always been areas in big cities where the police only went in numbers? Over time the locations and cities change, and sometimes the reasons are political, or religious, or racial, or straightforwardly criminal, but there are always some districts, somewhere.

GUWonder

I've seen uniformed police wander by themselves in each of the areas you mentioned.

There are places in the US where police are assigned with a back-up. Does that mean the US has "no-go areas" for law enforcement? Not unless the reference in non-failed states were limited only to areas which are part of diplomatic facilities and thus not subject to local law enforcement jurisdiction.

CosmosHuman

East Cleveland is a no-go area for any human beings.

Ber2dca

I'm not as familiar with U.S. cities as I am with Europe but from what I've heard and seen, yeah I'd say there's parts of some U.S. cities which people in common parlance would call "no-go areas".

I think that's really the core of the issue here, isn't it? If you see a "no-go zone" an an area where you literally would never go under any circumstances, you render it a pretty meaningless term for a discourse on a security situation. After all in that instance even ridiculously chaotic war zones such as Mogadishu in 1993 or Fallujah in 2004 weren't no-go areas as U.S. forces went there.

Or is it, in the way the term is commonly used in public discourse, simply an area where the security situation and threat scenario demand a significant behavioural adjustment in that you may not go there unless there is absolutely no way to avoid it or that you may take notable precautions before going there. In that instance, I would think most big cities in the U.S. have such areas and certainly most cities in Europe as well. In fact I can think of at least two estates in the town I live in that I would generally avoid.

lhrsfo

If I turn left out of my office in the US, I'm fine. If I turn right, I'm not fine. And it's only 30 miles from San Francisco, in a city called Oakland where they riot at any excuse - several per year at the current rate - and the murder rate is unbelievable. All far, far worse than Birmingham.

GUWonder

I am less likely to get robbed at gunpoint, assaulted or murdered in the most dangerous neighborhoods in the EU OECD states than I am in the most dangerous neighborhoods in the ten US metropolitan areas most likely visited by foreign tourists. And yet none of these neighborhoods are no-go zones for law enforcement; foreign tourists are unlikely to want to visit these areas unless engaged in VFR travel, but the suggestion that they are no-go areas for law enforcement and other governmental security operations is rather amusing given what government authorities do with/to people in those neighborhoods.

East Cleavaland has police patrolling it too.

Oxon Flyer

Also from Twitter :

NickB

There is a perfectly good word in the English language to describe those areas where you would want to take precautions and avoid unless necessary: that word is "dangerous".

Unless it is used jokingly, I see no need to use tabloid-inspired, hyperbolic language that has no meaningful relationship to reality and serves no purpose other than instigate an exaggerated sense of fear among those to whom the discourse is addressed. What next? Describe areas where the murder rate is statistically higher than average as "killing fields"?

stut

"Murder Mile" is the correct terminology, in London at least...

NickB

... but the phrase is very much tongue-in-cheek rather than meant seriously. Besides, the murder stats in Clapton have gone down ....

Silver Fox

Sadly.

HIDDY

If you'd read certain travel guides you would never set foot in Avenida 9 de Julio the widest avenue in the world without a bodyguard. According to them even during daylight hours you need to have eyes in the back of your head or you're certain to become a victim of the many shady dudes just waiting to rob you.
Many's the time I've strolled down its length and across its width and not once have I felt the threat of being pounced upon......well up until a couple of weeks ago that is. On that hot day a yellow Labrador who was cooling off in one of the fountains spotted me looking at him, he barked, then decided to bound over to me to give a big lick.

stockmanjr

Is that's where Jack the Ripper used to hang out?
Cheers
Howie

stockmanjr

Thinking their around the New Den....
Cheers
Howie