Homeless "spikes" being put down at London establishments

urabell wrote: »

Benefit the public doesn't mean benefit young idealists who are happy for the homeless to encroach on the property of large city establishments because they feel sorry for them.

It also doesn't mean benefit the public as a whole.
It does benefit the customers and staff of such establishments who don't have to deal with drunk, loud, homeless people. Like it or not those sleeping on the streets are those on the streets are usually those with far reaching mental and social problems who don't mix well with others.

Like I said ( and really don't like saying Matthew 6:1-4) but it seems relevant here is that I do help the homeless but allowing them to sleep in the doorway of a business isn't helping anyone.

the customers will have to deal with them, the problem isn't going away no matter what the gerry-manderers do

lolosaur wrote: »

I think this is a very good idea.

The faux outrage on people is rediculous.

If you are so dead set against them, why did you let such a problem arise in the first place.

these should be along the hapenny bridge and all around temple bar.
Talbot street should also just be covered in them from one end to another.


Imagine buying a flat to see some homeless lad has pi*sed and sh1t himself in the doorway. how awful. cider cans, rubbish, filth littering your pavement. being in fear of going out incase you were robbed by the beggar outside. always worrying about your place because there is a hobo living right outside. Even worse, he could get in when you are asleep and rape you.

My god, the more i think about this, the more i feel the homeless should be rounded up at night and brought to community halls to wait out the night.

jesus, what if you stood on a junkie needle and it went through your foot. you could et aids or anything.

I really dont see how anyone wouldnt want this. great if you live in a suburb where homeless peoplr woth thread, this wouldnt be an issue to you.

benefit, some lad is dry for the night. there are plenty of places to do that though.
Drawbacks however are 10 fold.

this post sounds like something on joe duffy

lolosaur wrote: »

Why help people that dont want to be helped?

They dont arrive at being homeless overnight.


The ones that seek help will find it for the most part.

The ones thatdont look for the help and assistance are habitual, they are there, as someone said, in a cycle, they have been offered help but chose the path that led them to where they are.

you don't want them to be helped, then put up shut up and get over the fact they will be there, shoving them out of sight out of mind is a failed policy

If anyone has a problem with the spikes, why not advertise for the homeless to sleep on their property or door step - problem solved.

Its not a tenants, home owners or buisness owners job to provide a sleeping area for the homeless. That why i pay taxes to the government, people should be bashing the government for not doing more about the homeless, not the people who dont want violent, puking, smelly, mentally unfit etc living on their doorstep. Im all for my taxes being spent on housing the often mentally ill homeless. Im not all for having them living on my doorstep.

If people are so morally outraged by these spikes, go out and provide shelter for their local homeless and stop whinging about the people who have no interest in providing space/shelter for the homeless.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

If people are so morally outraged by these spikes, go out and provide shelter for their local homeless and stop whinging about the people who have no interest in providing space/shelter for the homeless.

YES, YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS!!

I find it saddening and amusing that people calling the homeless degenerates etc are dehumanising their fellow human beings, people who experience pain and suffering on a daily basis because they're too fcked up to function in society to the extent that they can't afford the bare minimum of housing. Nice bit of empathy, or should I say lack of. Hell in the view of the assholes they might as well be vermin. It's not like I don't see a problem with homeless people sleeping around condos, the issue is that the spikes are an extremely petty, vicious, mean spirited way of signalling contempt for them, so by saying nothing to see here, all is good with the status quo, one is supporting said petty, vicious and mean spirited reaction to the problem of homelessness. The homeless in being treated as a problem rather than people with problems are denied their humanity. To follow such a banal Social Darwinist line of the weak must necessarily suffer by virtue of their weakness is limited and simplistic and a failure to live up to the standards set by one's condition of being as a human, ie the noble and higher minded principles that come part and parcel of being human, well for most of the species. Also the gentrification of London is equivalent to its blandification too, music/art scenes have disappeared to be replaced by utterly boring corporate substitutes.

urabell wrote: »

Holy run on sentence batman.

Private property owners have the right to stop encroachments on their land. End off. Being wealthy doesn't infringe on your property rights

The government should be doing more but private property owners should react any encroachment with aggressive action, less they be taken advantage of.

"[T]he law regards with deepest suspicion any remedies of self-help, and permits those remedies to be resorted to only in very special circumstances. The reason for such circumspection is clear - necessity can very easily become simply a mask for anarchy."

Lord Justice Edmund-Davies

you can keep quoting pointless nonsense all you like, property owners have no right to "react any encroachment with aggressive action," the only right they have is to buy a gate, if they have to use spikes then they aren't a responsible owner and will be a burdin on the tax payer when a case goes to court and they claim free legal aid