apologies for the spelling and grammar mistakes- sent from my blackberry On Oct 20, 12:14 pm, H Schultz <[email protected]> wrote: > In fact (as a quick Google search has shown me). Zero tolerance in New > York involved targeting repeat offenders, specifically around drug > dealing and homicide (not random beggars on the street). The > efficiency of Zero tolerance and the effect that it had on NY crime > has also been questioned: > > Some articles for your interest: > > This collection of articles by William Bratton (responsible for zero > tolerance policing) in NY insists on targeting problematical behaviors > (such as public urination) nowhere does he mention making sure people > can't sit on a park bench. Or eating a sandwich on a > pavement.http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw35.pdf > > Commentators also disagree that zero tolerance was the main driver > behind the decrease in crime (http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/ > information_bulletins/IB9.pdf) > > So in summary. The efficiency of Zero Tolerance is debatable. OBSID's > understanding of it is shaky. It's application is illegal and wrong > (because they are not prosecuting people for actual offenses, they are > persecuting them for being in the suburb not for). Oh and it is > definitely racist and illegal to target people and beat them up > because you think they look funny. > > On Oct 20, 11:53 am, H Schultz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Carys no one is objecting to criminals being arrested. What we are > > objecting to is the illegal policing methods being used. Beating up > > vagrants is not ok. It is racist to target people because they are > > poor and black. It is racist to "move people along" because you don't > > like what they look like. Racist and wrong (and everyone of every race > > is capable of being bigoted). All we are asking is for the law to be > > applied. Equally. What is so threatening about that. As far as I > > know, policing in NY did not involve illegal forced removal > > > On Oct 20, 9:46 am, "Walsh, Carys" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I just want to say that I object to this - it has nothing to do with race > > > - I don't care if the people roaming the streets are black, white, > > > coloured, chinese, whatever (and as my father is black as night it would > > > be quite difficult for me to be racist!) - what I do care about is the > > > crime that comes with vagrants. Robbery, holding guns to people's heads, > > > attacking people with guns or knives, breaking into people's houses in > > > the middle of the night with the intent to hurt - causing harm to people > > > in order to get money - that is what I have a problem with. And > > > unfortunately, vagrants do bring an element of crime - it is a fact. I > > > think everyone needs to get over the past and forget about race etc - > > > rather look at the bigger picture, which is that crime is a big problem > > > in Observatory. And if people believe it is wrong to arrest people, then > > > maybe you need to take a look at the history of New York and how it > > > managed to get rid of crime - zero tolerance. Which I believe is what Obs > > > is trying to do. And as a single mother with 2 small children - I am more > > > than happy with - I have already had someone inside my house at 1am with > > > my children sleeping in their bedrooms. But as I understand it from you, > > > and maybe I am wrong, I shouldn't be upset about that - I should have > > > told the guy that it was ok, he can help himself to the small amount of > > > things I have - maybe stab or rape one of my children - because if I get > > > upset and want better protection in Obs, then I am actually taking away > > > his human rights. What about my human rights? What about my children's > > > human rights? Or because I work 12 hour days to make sure that my kids > > > have a home, does that mean that that we aren't entitled to anything > > > because we already have a house? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > H Schultz > > > Sent: 20 October 2011 09:23 > > > To: The Observatory Neighbourhood watch > > > Subject: Re: FW: [obsnw] Re: Intriguing by line on the cover of Big Issue > > > > quick edit: abyss instead of abbess. Apologies > > > > On Oct 19, 4:16 pm, H Schultz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Hannah Schultz (daughter of Mrs. Schultz) here > > > > My mother moved to Observatory in the 1980s because it was one of the > > > > few places in Cape Town in which inter-racial partnerships could be > > > > ok. You argue that Observatory has become better, but for us it has > > > > not. This is because it is difficult to live in a place that > > > > considers poor black people to be undesirable. > > > > > I do not know why my mother's aims are so baffling to you. What my > > > > mother wants is for the law to be applied equally. For Observatory to > > > > be open, for the policing of the suburb to be legal (yes Vita Schola > > > > arresting private citizens is illegal). She would like everyone of > > > > every race and class to be able to move freely on the streets of Obs. > > > > She spent her formative years fighting against forced removal; she > > > > does not want to witness it in the street outside. As a tax-payer she > > > > would like to hold the council accountable for the way in which her > > > > money is spent. As a ratepayer she would like to be able to sit in > > > > the parks. > > > > > You do not like her. Fair enough. People with conservative views have > > > > never liked her. And that has never stopped her before. You find her > > > > abrasive. Perhaps she is a little. Don't you think that it's excusable > > > > after 30 years of saying the same thing? Don't you think she has > > > > earned the right to be a little short to people who deny the humanity > > > > of others? > > > > > As you find her motivations strange, I find yours strange. How can you > > > > have so little compassion? How can you see people and be frightened of > > > > them simply because they are poor and black? If you have evidence that > > > > they have committed a crime, bring it to the police. But how can you > > > > believe that it's ok to target people because they look funny or > > > > because they are carrying poles? You would deny the destitute a > > > > sandwich and a place to sit and eat it. You see people with nothing > > > > and want to take that away. I do not understand how people who have > > > > so much can deny those with nothing so little. > > > > > And so it is clear that we will always have difficulty understanding > > > > each other. You do not want to take the leap into the human rights > > > > culture that we now enjoy. And none of us wish to travel into the dark > > > > abbess of paranoia that you inhabit. All she is asking is that the > > > > rule of law be respected in Observatory and that, as a tax-payer, she > > > > has a council that is accountable to her. It is her hard-earned right > > > > to do so and she will fight on. > > > > Sincerely > > > > Hannah Schultz > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "The Observatory Neighbourhood watch" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/obsnw?hl=en. > > > > The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally > > > privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this > > > e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you have received this > > > communication in error, please address with the subject heading "Received > > > in error," send to the > > > sender, then delete the e-mail and destroy any copies of it. If you are > > > not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any > > > action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and > > > may be unlawful. Any opinions or advice contained in this e-mail are > > > subject to the > > > terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement > > > letter. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this e-mail and > > > any attachments that do not relate to the official business of the firm > > > are neither > > > given nor endorsed by it. > > > > KPMG cannot guarantee that e-mail communications are secure or > > > error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, > > > lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. > > > > This email is being sent out by KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG > > > International”) on behalf of the local KPMG member firm providing > > > services to you. > > > KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) is a > > > Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of > > > independent firms operating under the KPMG name. KPMG International > > > Cooperative (“KPMG International”) > > > provides no services to clients. > > > Each member firm of KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) > > > is a legally distinct and separate entity and each describes itself as > > > such. Information about the structure and jurisdiction of your local KPMG > > > member > > > firm can be obtained from your KPMG representative. > > > > This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept by > > > AntiVirus software.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Observatory Neighbourhood watch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/obsnw?hl=en.
