I find talking to people tends to be an awful lot nicer and more effective (Joe was/is a fascinating guy. Always reading, though always refused books when I tried to give them too him, as he never wanted to receive gifts).
I don't think he's saying that Dan, he's saying that Boris resolving this one instance and claiming great credit, will ultimately not be terribly impactful. Though I don't want to put words in your mouth PTF!
If he's talking specifically about Boris, sure, but he's clearly got an issue with the little people like us caring about spikes so I figured it's referring to that.
No that's totally right. Dan by all means give money to whatever causes you like, but I doubt there is one homeless person who cares more about the fact they can't sleep in that doorway than the fact they can't sleep in a bed under a roof. This is tokenism, pure and simple.
I was referring more to your soup kitchen remark earlier and agree that Boris Johnson should be questioned more on this subject because as an elected official and in charge of a substantial public budget he has more power than most to be able to make a significant difference. Even more of a life changing experience than Adam Lallana could give someone. I appreciate what you're saying and it's true this is the vogue discussion in the news and we won't do anymore about it other than post our views here or talk about how bad it is, but it's still important that public opinion is voiced on this subject and it's deemed wrong to put Spikes down. How else do we know if anything is right or wrong unless we seek agreement or counsel with others?
So by unhappy quirk of architecture it falls upon that building to bear the burden of either the system's incapacity to provide shelter or the rough sleeper's election not to seek shelter through the system, and so should it be for all time? I don't think it hurts to remind people that the human species are just animals with an overblown sense of our own importance, and a social construct that we are hopelessly reliant on. Except Ray Mears. When the system falls he will kill and eat us all.
Doesn't that go back to the original point of "homes not spikes"? I think everyone who is against these spikes would want to see more done for the homeless than just getting rid of them.
Of course. And perversely, by getting people to debate, consider, and perhaps act on this, the spikes in this instance will have done a LOT more good than harm. Weird eh?
(I reckon Cortese planted them via Neil Ashton in an attempt to undermine the Mayor of London before undergoing a process of asset stripping London's most expensive properties, thereby freeing up space for his Mega-Stadium-Complex-Cinemarket for his newly formed club, Swiss Cottage City).
but as we've discovered, the authorities responsible for providing shelter aren't responsible for the spikes or the doorways that have been misused. I think that guy is getting ahead of himself with the word home anyway. shelter is what he should seek first. it's a shame his sign doesn't elaborate on why he's not been allocated somewhere to legitimately shelter. he's not sleeping rough because he can't get a mortgage on a three bed semi.
So maybe it's not pointless for people to speak up about how treating homeless people like this isn't very humane after all. Still, I'm amazed at how passionately some people can disagree with those who dislike human pest control.
"Homes not spikes" is a false dichotomy. The spikes have no impact on availability of homes and removing them will not mean anyone is housed (and the reasons people are homeless are much more complex than a lack of homes).
Some day I'll learn not to bother replying to you, pass the football. Obviously that's not the literal point and you know it.
Isn't it? I look forward to hearing all the other proposals then, because so far I've only heard people talking about removing spikes.
