If you really care about this issue, and that goes for everyone else too, you'd be doing something more than getting faux-outraged about some pretty much entirely inconsequential spikes and acting holier-than-thou to people who see them for what they are: a way of keeping a doorway clear, not a symbol of oppression.
You've dodged the main question but that answer suggests you think spending a lot of money to stop someone sleeping there would be okay but spending a smaller amount isn't. Which seems an odd distinction.
Said gate would either be easily opened or would prevent the postman from doing his job. There is an implied right of access up to your front door.
you can revoke the right of the postman to access the property tbh. there's usually rights of acces to adjoining properties and utility companies for things such as maintenance or sewerage works etc though. not always free access though.
I've lived in more than one property where I've needed a code to open a gate and get in. The local emergency services and postmen are given the code so they can get in when they need to.
You can, yes. I suppose a fence and a mailbox would do the trick, and it would be far less demeaning to the homeless at least.
so it's about boosting their self esteem by having to use a more intrusive and expensive method of keeping them from misusing a doorway.
Not odd, I highlighted the main motivation behind the spikes which is the property and rental value of the premises. The property owner has tried to solve the issue in the cheapest and most efficient way he could. If it makes you feel better. You're right nobody would question it if he had installed a gate or bricked over the alcove
The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to everyone involved while denouncing them for the same thing.
I don't think spending any sort of money to push the problem of homeless people onto someone else is particularly justifiable, but I prefer the method which isn't like a giant middle finger to the poor sods.
And how do you know we're not? Love the notion that it must be faux-outrage as well. Because it's just not possible that it might actually get to some people if it doesn't bother you.
Even if you are (and I'm sure you're all posting from the soup kitchen as we speak) that doesn't give you the right to tell other people they're heartless just because they disagree with you about some trivial red herring.
I would have the right to say that even if I wasn't making a contribution at all. As for that snarky soup kitchen backhander, people don't do things for the less fortunate just to justify themselves to judgemental tossers. What I do or don't do is none of your business.
Well here's a strange one for you - I kinda get where PTF is coming from here - this is a bit of a red herring. It's a one off case by a bit of a ****y landlord. If we're bothered by this, should we not be more offended, and offended ages ago, by sloping seats at bus stops, and dividers on benches? They're there for the same reasons, and done by public companies. Nobody has got in a terrible fuss about then, but this singular, rather more blatant example has us raising petitions? There's some good in that it raises the complex issues regarding homelessness into the public eye more prominently, but getting specific about this one example, blatant or not, is a little bit misguided.
If someone was exaggerating this much talking to you, I'm sure you'd go ****ing mental and run around the doorways of houses strangling the homeless in your outrage.
