Because letting people inside is again breaching personal security. Not talking about legality, just ethics. Letting people into areas where the general public couldn't access, I suppose.
not only did my Fakir gag go completely unacknowledged but now someone is quoting me to myself as "someone else". I'm of to live in a doorway somewhere i'll be appreciated.
how does the communal area beyond that door differ from an alcove at an access bottleneck of the property differ in terms of personal security?
More doors to break through and such. Otherwise why would they bother putting locks on outside doors?
Ha. Sorry, couldn't be bothered to go back and check who it was. "Someone else" basically meant "someone that wasn't me".
It's different from that in a pretty obvious way. They're trying to sleep outside a block of flats, not break into someone's living room. Not only are the spikes insulting and dehumanising, it's just a really callous way to pass off what is merely an inconvenience for you but a rather morbid situation for others. He's not legally or even morally obligated to help the homeless but to just shepherd them away and make them someone else's problem is pretty heartless, and this is exacerbated when loads of people start doing the same thing. More importantly it's indicative that not enough is being done to solve the problem at its source. It seems to have become a conversation about the property owner's rights for a few posts now. I don't know why that happened.
it's rare to have an alcove like that on that street from what I can see. most doorways have an overhanging roof and a door flush with the exterior wall. whether it's common or not, it's the purpose.
they can sleep outside the property. they can't sleep in that alcove, creating a security risk for the users of that doorway. this is a wonderful tangent, it really is.
So young, yet so cynical Perhaps Human Rights was a tad over the top, but I think it's a terrible shame that someone has thought of an inhumane way to solve a human problem. It's the job of those organisations to help in these matters and if someone tried them they might be pleasantly surprised.
It's got nothing to do with security, it's about property value. The difference between sleeping in the alcove and sleeping on the side of the road for a homeless person is getting rained on or not getting rained on, getting trodden on or not getting trodden on, getting moved on by police or not getting moved on by police. He doesn't want to get in that alcove so he can stab you when you leave for work in the morning. If he did want to do that he could do it with or without the alcove.
I know what you mean. The number of blindingly, coffee shooting at the computer screen, comments and puns I hide away in my posts so well that they get ignored, astonishes me.
I think the homeless people will find a way round it. A nice bit of plywood over the top of the spikes and hey presto, if it rains, any water will run underneath keeping them dryer than if they were just on the ground. If it's really heavy rain, a few tins of Tennants super under each corner will lift it even higher.
well your argument is. one follows the other tbh. There are places for legitimately homeless people to go. If the homeless person can't get legitimately sheltered, i sure as hell don't want to find out why or have them loitering in my doorway. the first one might not. the second one might not. the third one or the unsavouries who are looking for him might. I'm sure you'll love the comparison, with the human rights uber alles theme, but you don't leave litter or graffiti about or it accumulates.
