Brickbat: Hotline Bling


Ljupco /

Police in Rotterdam, in the Netherlands, say they will begin taking clothes and jewelry off of young people if they look like they can't afford them. Cops say they want to keep criminals from profiting from their crimes. Critics say it will just lead to racial profiling.

NEXT: Sadly, America's Not the Freest Country in the World

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. you got a receipt for that there necklace, boy?

    1. Forget receipt. This is “you got a W-2 for the money you spent?” (or whatever they use for a W-2 over there.)

    2. ………I just started 7 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home.
      go to this site for more details…..

  2. Cops say they want to keep criminals from profiting from their crimes.

    Clothes and jewelry are consumption spending. If you want to take away their profits you’ll have to step on their necks and steal their wallets.

    1. And where do you keep your wallet? In your clothes, right?

      Now you see the genius of the system….

  3. Critics say it will just lead to racial profiling.

    What sort of racial profiling would cracking down on suspected criminals lead to, I wonder? They got a lot of Eskimo gangs over there in Holland? Chinese? Hispanics? Wouldn’t happen to be a “race” of people marked by the popularity of names like Mohammed would it?

  4. Critics say it will just lead to racial profiling.

    Not to mention public nudity.

    1. Public nudity on Mardi Gross is how many young people get jewelry in the first place. Please read my comment below about a ring.

  5. Something tells me police are profiting from this.

  6. Right. Because ‘the authorities’ can tell at a glance what your real income level is and can then judge whether or not you are using your income appropriately. Like anybody else can know your preferences better than you do.
    It will lead to profiling and no, not tied to any particular ethnicity. It will be used to go after whoever the ‘enemy du jour’ happens to be. That’s why it’s wrong — it puts the law’s meaning and enforcement at the discretion of those who enforce it. How could that possibly go wrong?

    1. You don’t go nearly far enough.

      How about “stealing is wrong” for a starting position.

      Or maybe “violation of personal property rights without due process”.

      “Racial Profiling” comes about 20 items down the list on this crapfest of a policy.

  7. Thus proving that the 1A and 2A aren’t the only amendments Europe is missing.

    Thank the Almighty we have a 4th Amendment that ensures our police can never dream of doing something like this.

    1. That’s some grade-a snark right there!

      Wouldn’t it be nice if we had a court system that would just read the law as written? “Shall make no law” really doesn’t leave much wiggle room. Or, in the case of the 4th, “Shall Not Be Violated”. Kinda a hard line position there. And kinda impossible to reconcile with our current regime of asset forfeiture.

      1. Obviously the intent of the written words are to be read as “unless an agent of the government really wants to.”

    2. Its almost as if the Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years.

      1. “A democracy, if you can keep it!”

        Also wise beyond their years.

        1. I believe he said a republic. But I could be wrong. But if I’m wrong so was he.

    3. Really? In the early days of civil forfeiture cops went right ahead and stole anything of value they could get their hands on, including cash in wallets. That’s how I lost my lunch money for walking to the Metro from the Navy Yard, back before the Green Line went that far.

      1. {croaker’s sarc meter shoots sparks, begins to smoke and dies}

        1. Should plug a 110v sarc meter into 220v sarc.

          1. Shouldn’t.

  8. I watched Good Fellas, and if those crooks were a part of Jimmy Burke’s crew, he would have whacked them for showing off like that.

    RIP Morry

  9. What does a person who can’t afford expensive stuff look like?


    1. Me, though in all honesty you could give me 10 million and I’d still dress like a bum.

  10. I suspect that a lot of blouses will be taken, but only from hot women, not ugly ones.
    Talk about a license to steal!

  11. According to the Human Freedom Index, I’m pretty sure The Netherlands is rated way better than the US, right? I suppose if a government is doing it to you for your own good it does not count against them.

    1. Just checked; the Netherlands is ranked number 10; US 23.

      1. What that says about the Netherlands is less than what it says about the US.

  12. Social security is based on the assumption that old people cannot afford to buy anything but cat food to eat. Given my grandmother’s employment history, the same logic behind this law could justify the cops taking her engagement ring if she was still alive.

      1. I think the point is about current earnings versus previous earnings. It’s an interesting point except we know the government would only target based on the spirit of the law, right? (taking out pesky criminals which generally aren’t octogenarians)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.