It's not a one-off I'm afraid. And I didn't know that about sloping benches but now that annoys me too.
Exactly, it obscures the bigger issue. You can tell it's meaningless because Boris Johnson, a man with the actual power to help homeless people, would rather talk about this hot topic (and would rather you do too) than actually feel pressured to do something.
I hadn't considered those examples but it is pretty annoying now. Slightly more understandable as benches and bus shelters need to be used rather than this superfluous alcove, but still I don't agree with doing it.
And I guess therein lies the good of having a "treat people like pigeons" example, as it drives home the point and gets people discussing the wider issues (and examples) which is positive. Focussing on this one building block of luxury flats, meh, it's neither here nor there in terms of consequence.
Let's not just focus on the one example then. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image Don't worry though, this just means they'll go live in the woods where we don't have to see them. Out of sight, out of mind.
Surely the principle thing would be to try and help these people. Mind you having said that...I have been on the streets of a few places trying to help these homeless people in the past. There was a fair proportion of them that refused help and actually preferred to live rough. That included by the way London and Southampton......
Sadly PTF is doing the usual argument against people who side with the vulnerable in a discussion and that's to question the integrity of the people he disagrees with instead of talking about the issue at hand. Hitler could say that Spikes are a bad idea and he would be correct. Instead we have the next rung down in Boris Johnson
There's a little coin slot to make them go away. Perfect system because the homeless don't have coins.
I presume the box has a switch that the park keeper can put th up or down and lock in place either way. It made me look twice.
Let me guess, you put money into that slot and the spikes go down for a bit. A pay for seat bench. It must play a tune or something to warn you when they are about to pop up again.
Having just seen some of those horrible spikes......how long is it before some body is going to wise up a bit, get a bit of an injury, then sue the ass off one of these councils for allowing them. surely they are a danger to the public let alone the homeless.
Interesting Joe - I wasn't aware it was more widespread. Strange how a single instance gets jumped upon and then people notice these others too. Back in the hideous days of my corporate existence, I worked at Andersen Consulting who used to be based in Temple - there was a thing in the paper today about how that building used slightly subtler dissuasion techniques to keep homeless away (I must admit I never noticed them, but then was likely too depressed going to work to lift my eyes up!) I guess in some ways it's about ownership. My next door neighbour (who has two entries to her house) used to let a homeless guy called Joe camp out in the other doorway she had. He was a lovely chap, but the streams of piss that ran down the pavement, and the stench down the road was pretty unpleasant every morning. He used to be a lawyer who found out his wife was shagging his best mate and he basically gave up. He was still independently very wealthy, could have lived in a flat, but chose to live on the streets. Now would I have felt comfortable with him sleeping, staying and pissing in my doorway. Honestly, hand on heart? No. Because it would have been unhealthy, unpleasant and inconvenient. I'd have asked him were there somewhere else he could stay, or base himself. Does that make me inhumane or heartless? Or a nimby? No, I don't think so at all.
I'm questioning the integrity of Boris yes. With good reason might I add. You're going to win the argument, I'll happily concede that. Those spikes will get removed and everyone will pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for making a difference. Meanwhile exactly the same number of people will be sleeping rough, except one if then will be in that doorway. I admire the idealism I really do, but it's poorly focused and will achieve nothing.
So it's better to just not give a **** about the principle on the whole? Neat, fine by me. **** giving to African aid companies because my money won't end poverty.
