If you were just walking around the streets and spot a huge chunk of gold just lying around, waiting to be picked up, what would you do? Would you hand it over or would you keep it for yourself? Well, someone found a piece of 235,000 euros worth of gold in Utrecht last Friday, and he diligently handed it over to the police, reports NU.nl.
The piece of gold fell out of a delivery van. According to NU.nl, there are speculations that the driver of the delivery van left the side door open after he had loaded the piece of gold from the Royal Mint.
When it was found missing, the owner of the piece of gold put out an advertisement which said that anybody who would find it would get 25,000 euros. They also mentioned that it would be best to hand it over to the police as it cannot be sold.
Would you have done the same? Let us know in the comments below!
RTL Nieuws reports that people are regularly approached by the food delivery service, Thuisbezorgd, and asked to remove negative reviews of restaurants in return for refunds.
Previously, Thuisbezorgd had denied that this behaviour happened on a large scale. Last week, a Twitter user reported that he had been offered a full refund of a sushi order if he would take down his three-star review of the restaurant. After this was made public, spokesperson for Thuisbezorgd, Joris Wilton, insisted that this was “an exception” and that “it is also important for [Thuisbezorgd] that consumers can rely on reviews.”
Multiple people had the same experience
However, when RTL Nieuws reported on the incident, lots of their readers came forward with similar stories. Dozens of people reported that they had been approached by the website to take down reviews that gave a restaurant less than four stars. Whether it was down to the greasiness of the food or the time it took to arrive, it seemed like the response of Thuisbezorgd was uniform: get the review removed.
Restaurants ask Thuisbezorgd to do this
Thuisbezorgd itself is not necessarily fully to blame here: according to its statement, it will only undertake such an action when the restaurant owners contact them. Some of the people interviewed by RTL Nieuws mentioned that they were emailed or called by restaurant owners first, and only later received official emails from the website itself. But in any case, what this means is that reviews on Thuisbezorgd are not necessarily trustworthy. So maybe check out some other apps for food delivery in the Netherlands if you’re craving something low-effort this evening!
So, if you’re getting delivery this evening, be wary! Have you ever had an experience like this?
Rotterdam’s already-iconic cityscape will be getting a new addition in the form of a floating wooden tower. The building is designed by renowned architects Waterstudio, who have produced stunning floating buildings before.
How will the building float?
Now, you might be wondering how a solid building can float on water. The answer is deceptively simple: instead of its bulk being made out of concrete (which is, of course, very heavy) the new tower will be made mostly from wood. To be precise, it will be constructed using Cross Laminated Timber (CLT), a material that Waterstudio has prior experience with. Not only does this mean that the 130-foot-tall building will be light, it also means that it will be made out of a renewable resource. It will be a beautiful, environmentally-friendly addition to Rotterdam’s skyline.
The interior of the new tower. Image: Architect Koen Olthuis/ Waterstudio.NL
Plants, natural light, and a really cool shape
The wooden tower will mostly function as office space, but some areas of it will be open to the public, including a restaurant and a courtyard, according to Inhabitat. There will be plenty of greenery inside, which makes the plant-lovers among us very happy. A large expanse of glass will cover both sides of the building, allowing lots of natural light inside (which we need, with the everlasting grey of Dutch weather). According to Koen Olthuis, the leader of the firm, the design of the tower resembles a sheet of paper, whose edges have been pushed together to create a hill-shape in the middle.
So, get ready for a new addition to Rotterdam’s skyline! Are you excited? Let us know in the comments below.
Cheaper air fares, more money and endless social medias posts and adverts mean more travellers than ever are jet setting to cities that are struggling to cope with their own popularity. Overtourism is becoming an increasing problem, but what is it? How is it affecting Amsterdam? Are we all culprits? How can we counteract overtourism?
Wandering along the streets of Amsterdam, we snigger at groups of travellers debating the protocol for going to a coffeeshop and curse when tourists clog the cycle paths. We separate ourselves from the “basic tourists” by pretending we have more authentic experiences. We drink Amstel instead of Heineken and hang in De Pijp instead of Dam Square.
But we condemn and criticise others without reflecting on ourselves and acknowledging that perhaps we too, are part of the problem. Even if we do branch out from the touristy activities, our presence alone can be a problem for the city.
Why do so many tourists come Amsterdam?
Last year, 19 million tourists descended on Amsterdam. People flock to the capital city because for its stunning architecture, rich culture and history and the nightlife. Schiphol airport and frequent train connections make it easily accessible.
Like other capitals such as Prague and Barcelona, the government cleverly markets the Netherlands in effort to recruit tourists. Intense marketing campaigns, such as the latest rebranding scheme and launch of the new logo, secures its place on the international map.
The old versus new logo of the Netherlands. Source: rijksoverheid/nbtc
Why is overtourism a problem?
Tourism provides jobs, increases city development and boosts a country’s economy. In moderation, tourism enhances quality of life for the permanent residents. But overtourism damages the environment, puts pressures on the natural resources of the city and has a detrimental impact on resident’s lives. In the worst cases, overtourism completely exhausts the cities natural appeal.
But tourism is not a problem everywhere and in fact, some cities are struggling without it. Take Gorlitz, a city in Germany that has begun a “try before you buy” initiative where people can live for free in the Eastern German city before decided whether to move there or not. Or think of the Italian towns that are paying people thousands of Euros to move and open up business in the underpopulated villages.
Other cities, such as Amsterdam, are struggling with too much tourism. The World Tourism and Travel Council revealed that in 2018, 1.4 billion international tourist trips were made and more than 36% of these involved a visit to one of the world’s 300 most popular cities, CNN reports.
Many people protest tourism and graffiti signs like these around their home city. Source: Ted & Dani Percival/Flickr
The destruction that tourism can cause
The Netherlands, home to 17 million people, hosts 19 million travellers a year (including day-trippers and Dutch locals).
But many of these tourists cause bedlam and havoc in the country. They trample on Tulip fields and urinate on peoples’ houseboats. Picturesque villages, such as Zaanse Schans, are becoming inundated and biodiversity in De Biesbosch is being wrecked. People act boorish and entitled in the Red Light District.
Zaanse Schans is one of the most popular destinations in the Netherlands. Source: Mrs. Brown/Pixabay
But the tourism expenditure report from the last year shows tourists are spending more than ever in the Netherlands. In 2018, there were 19 million tourists and NBTC Holland Marketing anticipate this will increase by at least expects a 50% by 2030, reaching at least 29 million tourists.
“Instead of destination promotion it’s time for destination management”
A tourist board policy document states “We say that ‘more’ is not always better, certainly not everywhere. To be able to control visitor flows, we must take action now. Instead of destination promotion it’s time for destination management”, the Guardian reports.
Majority in the Lower House demand action from government
SP Member of Parliament Frank Futselaar, tells NOS “You see that there are a lot of tourists in a number of places in the Netherlands. In addition, there are other regions that would like a lot more tourists. But there is no central policy.”
Most of the tourism efforts are put into places like Amsterdam, Zaanse Schans, Giethoorn and Keukenhof. But many places in the Netherlands are equally as nice and promoting those lesser known areas will help spread tourism across the whole country.
The NBTC is funded by both private companies and through government subsidies. This means it is important to consider whether there are any conflicts of interest with a new policy about distributing tourism efforts.
To be fair and just, the NBTC will need to loosen ties with government parties.
Hoge Veluwe National Park on a frosty morning Source: Henk Monster/Wikimedia
How to counteract overtourism?
Spread tourists out
Jeroen Klijs, Breda University of Applied Sciences tourism researcher and professor, offers a solution to the overcrowding in cities like Amsterdam, RTL news reports.
“you have to move the Germans and Belgians who are coming for the third time and also the Dutch themselves to go to more unknown locations. That can be done with marketing, but also by making attractions more attractive and improve accessibility”
If you look at the statistics for what nationalities come for say, Easter weekend in the Netherlands, it reveals 65% of the tourists come from Germany and 25% from Belgium. Spreading frequent visitors out would help prevent the hotspots from getting bombarded.
Try and recruit “good” travellers
Many people come to the Netherlands for stag dos or a party weekend. Amsterdam has invested lots of time in trying to shake its sex, drugs and rock and roll reputation but in the words of Mark Twain:
“Give a man a reputation as an early riser and he can sleep ’til noon.”
There is still a lot of progress to be done but it is important to keep emphasising that “cities are not the playgrounds of tourists; we only want them because they make the city more liveable for residents”, Xavier Font, a professor of sustainability marketing at the University of Surrey, tells the Guardian.
With campaigns such as the Enjoy and Respect campaign, launched last year, the Dutch tourism board have also started making a stand against offensive behaviour in Amsterdam.
Market smarter, not more
Many tourism boards measure their success by numbers but perhaps it is time to change the tactic. Instead of recruiting as many tourists as possible, they should try and extend the length tourists visit for.
Initiatives such as Marry an Amsterdammer is part of a wider movement to get people to see a more authentic side to the Dutch capital, instead of using the city as a party escape.
Source: ANURAG1112/Pixabay
Connecting with a local will encourage people to be more respectful and dispel the notion that we are not accountable for our actions when we are abroad just because “we’re on holiday”.
If you are going to travel, consider less known destinations and discover hidden gems. Support local businesses and distribute your spendings. Remind yourself you are a visitor and make sure to respect the locals.
Europe’s top court ruled that goods produced in Israeli settlements must be clearly labelled as such, instead of carrying the generic “produced in Israel” tag.
In its ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) noted that European consumers must have access to information that enables them to “make informed choices, with regard not only to health, economic, environmental and social considerations, but also to ethical considerations and considerations relating to the observance of international law.”
The EU is Israel’s biggest trading partner. Israeli goods produced within Israel’s internationally recognised borders benefit from a preferential tariff and the ruling does not change that. It is estimated that only 1% of all Israeli imported goods come from settlements.
Understanding the case
The case came to the European Court of Justice after France’s top court asked for clarification form the ECJ when a winery based on an Israeli settlement, and the European Jewish Organisation, challenged France’s application of a previous ECJ ruling on the labelling of settlement products. That ruling supported the use of origin-identifying tags but did not make them legally binding. The current ruling is mandatory, but enforcement is left to each European Union member state.
The Palestinians celebrated the decision, calling it a “legal and political obligation”. Israel’s Foreign Ministry denounced the ruling, saying it set a “double standard” that singles out Israel while there are many other territorial disputes worldwide.
Understanding the Israeli settlements issue
Israeli settlements are Jewish colonies progressively being built on Palestinian land captured in 1967, during the Six Day War. They are mainly located in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the land where Palestinians claim their future state should be. There are also settlements in the Golan Heights, a piece of land that Israel took from Syria during the same war. Today there are around 700.000 Jews living in West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, completely cut off from the surrounding Palestinian communities and fully connected to Israel through a system of settler only roads also built on Palestinian land. Settlers comprise 10% of the Israeli population.
If you look at the map, built-up Israeli settlement areas occupy about 2% of the Palestinian West Bank but the land controlled by settlement activity, such as agriculture and roads, amounts to much more than that and requires a heavy military presence. pic.twitter.com/pXkJwvaUwW
The European Union considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law because they violate article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 states that: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The Geneva Conventions are the basis for International Humanitarian Law, or the Laws of War, which establishes the rules of armed conflict among all countries of the world in an attempt to limit the effects of war. All United Nations member countries have ratified all four Geneva Conventions, including Israel and the U.N non-member observer, Palestine.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights the settlements and their expansion pose a serious threat to the human rights of Palestinians. These threats come in the form of arbitrary land seizure, restrictive planning, permit and construction, placing many Palestinians under threat of displacement, and various forms of settler violence.
The Dutch reaction
In its official page, the Dutch government states that it “regards the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories as illegal. They are in conflict with international law and pose a serious threat to the peace process.” It also emphasises the good relationship it has with both governments as well as the commitment with the security of both nations.
On Tuesday, November 19th, a motion passed on the House of Representatives (the lower chamber of the Dutch bicameral parliament), pushing back against the ECJ ruling. The motion, which passed by 82-68, asked the government not to comply with the court’s decision, at least not until all territorial disputes have the same treatment. The motion is unlikely to have actual effect on the government’s policy and is mainly symbolic.
Conscious Consumption
In the capitalist society we live in more and more people are becoming aware of the power consumers have. The impact that certain economic dynamics have on humanity and the planet are becoming increasingly clear and from ‘cruelty free’ products to shopping second hand, there’s a growing movement of conscious shoppers.
The European Court of Justice decision is a highly politically charged one, but it should also be understood within the context of more transparency for consumers to spend their money according to their beliefs. Only buy into it if you are ok with it!
Are you from the north of the Netherlands? Have you been waiting for a faster train for better access the rest of the Netherlands? Well, your time has come! As of 2023, a high-speed train will launch and you’ll be able to travel to the Randstad in less time.
After testing the plan earlier this year, Dutch Railways have given the go-ahead on the project. The trains will come from the south, crossing the high-speed line in Amsterdam and then continue onwards to Leeuwarden and Groningen.
Just how fast will the trains actually be?
It currently takes just over two hours to get from Leeuwarden and Groningen to Amsterdam. However the new high-speed trains will travel at a speed of 200 kilometres per hour which will shave roughly 30 minutes from the journey time.
New tracks are being laid between Schiphol Station and Amsterdam-Zuid which allow trains to continue on to Leeuwarden and Groningen.
The only track that permits fast speeds is the Hanze line which runs between Lelystad and Zwolle. So Dutch Railways hope that if they start investing in faster trains, then the government will sort the tracks out.
“We are investing in more fast trains and hope that this is a reason for the Netherlands to invest more in more fast railways,” says Roger van Boxtel, CEO of NS, tells NOS.
With the current tracks, the new trains will only make the journey from the North to the Randstad minutes faster, unless they take the Hanze line.
Not impressed by that? Perhaps you’ll be intrigued by the new hyperloop currently being built in Delft in collaboration with Tesla and Elon Musk. The hyperloop is a snazzy train that drives through a tube with very little or no air resistance which allows incredible speeds of up to 700 kilometres per hour.
Nearly 47,000 Amsterdam residents packed their boxes, loaded their cars, and said ‘doei’ in 2018 to the city they had called their home. Despite residents ditching the city in droves, the capital’s population is still on track to hit one million people by 2031.
The data, released by Amsterdam’s Research, Information and Statistics Department, found it was the largest number of Amsterdammers to leave the city in a single year.
In particular, housing affordability was identified as having a huge impact on residents desires to remain in the city. The majority of the people abandoning Amsterdam are families with small children.
Yet, despite the departures, immigration has Amsterdam facing huge population growth. Almost 43,000 people moved to the capital city from abroad last year, in addition to Dutchies who were drawn to the city lights. Unsurprisingly, the British made up the largest number of immigrants. Thanks Brexit!
Overall, Amsterdam’s population increased by nearly 9000 people last year. That makes 862,987 living within the municipality limits. While it was expected that the city would breach one million residents by 2032, the huge growth has now moved that forecast forward to 2031.
Do you live in Amsterdam? Are you considering leaving, or will you stay? Let us know in the comments below!
A survey by Natuur en Milieu has revealed that 6 in 10 Dutch people are aware of the negative impact meat consumption has on the environment, and believe that in the future, people will eat much less meat. However, for the moment, meat consumption is actually remaining stable.
The average Dutch person eats about 40 kilos of meat each year. This number has not changed since 2005, according to Wageningen University, so it appears that while 62 percent of Dutch people are knowledgeable about the impact of meat on the planet, not many of them are changing their consumption practices. However, since last year, 10 percent more people are aware of the negative impact of meat on the environment, so some progress has definitely been made.
Helft van de Nederlanders vindt iedere dag #vlees eten niet meer van deze tijd. Een derde vindt dat #milieuschade moet worden doorberekend in de prijs van vlees. Onze #Vegamonitor 2019 is uit ??. Lees hier meer: https://t.co/8BOcxao3D9
Translation: The majority of Dutch people don’t think eating meat every day is ‘of our time’. And a third believe that the damage meat causes to the earth should be included in the price.
Why meat is bad for the environment
The figures of Natuur en Milieu show the same, but they believe that the awareness itself is good news, and maybe be a sign that things are slowly on their way to changing. The organisation itself is in favour of reduced meat consumption because of its harmful impact on the environment. For example, it takes 5 kilos of vegetable feed to produce a kilo of meat. This means, in practice, that a lot of land is needed to produce not a lot of food. Furthermore, cows emit methane, a greenhouse gas that causes far more warming than carbon dioxide.
De norm ten aanzien van vlees eten verandert. Het merendeel van de mensen beseft zich dat een dag geen vlees eten, helpt voor het klimaat en de natuur! #flexitarier
Translation: The norms around eating meat are changing. The majority of people are aware that not eating meat one day a week helps the climate and nature.
3 in 10 Dutch people want higher taxes on meat
Natuur en Milieu also found that a third of Dutch people believe that the damaging consequences of meat should be accounted for in its price, for example through a greenhouse gas tax. We have seen Dutch people become more vocal about their concern for the environment in recent months, so it’s not surprising that some are calling for stronger measures in this survey.
Do you think Dutch people will be eating less meatloaf in the future? Let us know in the comments below.
The rapporteur for child sexual abuse, Hermann Bolhaar, has admonished the Dutch government for failing to sufficiently tackle the sexual abuse of children, particularly through social media, reports RTL Nieuws.
Sexual abuse of children is a massive issue: half of girls will experience some form of punishable sexual abuse before they turn eighteen. One in five boys will experience the same. There are not currently enough resources being provided by the government to tackle this problem. Several individual initiatives exist, but they’re failing to work together, according to Bolhaar: and additionally, they’re failing to take social media into account.
What constitutes sexual abuse in the Netherlands?
Currently, in the Netherlands, the government’s definition of child sexual abuse is as follows: “sexual abuse consists of all sexual touches or acts that an adult forces on a child”. However, Bolhaar wants to change that definition, or at least change how the government reacts to it. Basically, issues like child-on-child sexual abuse fall outside of this definition, as do some abuses that occur over social media. That means that the government is much less effective in tackling them.
Bolhaar’s statement is embarrassing for the government
Bolhaar’s statement is embarrassing for the government, which has publicly stated that working to counteract and stop domestic abuse and child abuse is a big priority. In 2017-2018, a report released by Victim Monitor revealed that the government’s approach was still too fragmented to be effective. It seems that things have not improved since this report.
Vandaag verschijnt de Slachtoffermonitor seksueel geweld tegen kinderen 2017-2018, waarin we in kaart brengen hoe veel kinderen slachtoffer worden van seksueel geweld, welke hulp zij krijgen en wat de overheid doet om dit te voorkomen en te bestrijden. https://t.co/3X9kvvu7odpic.twitter.com/4Ba1ebWSuS
Translation: The Sexual Violence Against Children 2017-2018 Victim Monitor will be published today, in which we map how many children fall victim to sexual violence, what help they receive and what the government does to prevent and combat this.
Social media is unrecognised as a problem
Bolhaar’s main problem with the government’s approach is their failure to recognise sexual abuse via social media as just that- sexual abuse. This abuse often takes place over WhatsApp or Instagram, and is often perpetrated by children against other children. This is another area where the government often fails to act: sometimes, it does not recognise sexual abuse of children by children as abuse. “If we want to do something about it, we have to make a list of what is already happening and what is still missing. We must not overlook children,” says Bolhaar.
Figures are difficult to estimate
It is nigh on impossible to provide accurate figures on the number of children being abused: it is often not reported, not recognised, and even talking about it is difficult. Bolhaar’s report therefore assumes that there are far greater numbers of children experiencing abuse than we are aware of. A lack of general communication about the issue makes the problem worse: “[Talking about sexual abuse] is incredibly difficult, also for professionals, and children do not easily talk about it themselves.” He also notes that children often face consequences when they do talk about it.
How can we make coming forward easier for victims of child abuse? Let us know in the comments below.
State Secretary Van Ark of Social Affairs wants people who receive social benefits from the state to be obligated to either go to school or start working. According to RTL Nieuws, this could be an internship, volunteering work or even starting a language course.
Van Ark wants to lay down a national law and streamline how this should be uniformly implemented in all municipalities. Right now, there are a lot of differences in how this is running. For example, some municipalities do not require any counter-effort from beneficiaries of social assistance, while others regard a counter-effort as a commissioned activity. A few of them, and not all regard voluntary work as a counter-effort.
The government wants to change this and make it more organized. But how exactly do they want to do this?
How is the Netherlands going to determine what a “counter-effort” would be?
They want to lay down the law where they want to make sure that people receiving welfare are also giving something back. According to NU.nl, Van Ark believes that most of the people living in the Netherlands who receive social welfare would like to participate and contribute to society in some way or the other. But if they don’t want to do this, it should be made mandatory.
The municipalities can independently decide how exactly the person can fulfill this obligation. For example, this can be a work trajectory, informal care, or even Dutch language courses. However, it has to be determined according to what the person is capable of doing. Someone who is not very literate would take a longer time to learn Dutch or someone with a physical disability may not be able to some physically demanding work or volunteering.
What do you think of this? Let us know in the comments below!
