Store Installs Homeless Spikes

I think trolls should sleep directly on the spikes.

 

this whole thread is a troll

there is no spikes on the sidewalk...the spikes are on the privately owned window ledges...

anyone that doesnt like it should make the owner a cash offer and buy the place then they can let whoever they want sleep there






http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11417495/Anti-homeless-spikes-outside-Selfridges-Thousands-sign-petition-to-remove-metal-studs.html

 

Well, using a board might be a solution, but folks who are sleeping on the streets don't necessarily have easy access to boards

 

no dude, there's ground spikes and ledge spikes too

they're not on public property though. some public benches apparently have the spikes or arm rests to keep the homeless from sleeping there

 

Ok, so basically Goldman Sachs and the other wallstreet bankers who basically ass raped the whole world in broad daylight, and then manipulated the political process to get bailouts and not go to jail...people like that have the right to make decisions about how things work in the world, because they have the cash.

Anyone who got thrown out of their homes, fuck them.

 

Human beings....even the homeless are human beings. I'm tellin' ya...each one one of us...just by the grace of God or your higher power...or pure luck....that YOU aren't sleeping on the streets.

 

thats an entrace to a business...its still not a sidewalk


your argument is invalid

 

if they own the property then yes i'd have to say they have the right to make decisions about who gets to sleep in their doorways and window ledges

 

I got an idea? Instead of installing spikes on ledges and such, they install spikes to put up tents thus making the homeless not homeless anymore. I love the homeless and feel bad that they are homeless. Why cant humans take care of each other?

 

Homeless in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles are allowed to put up tents from 9:00 PM - 6:00 AM. It's illegal but activists, the city, and LAPD worked out an agreement to tolerate the tents. I drive through there all the time. Oddly enough there was actually a court case to define the boundaries of "skid row"

There are approx. 6,000 homeless people in that small little area. The sidewalks are lined with hundreds, possibly thousands of tents early in the morning. Bodies are laying everywhere, fast asleep wherever they dropped...in the gutter, street, wherever. There are mountains of garbage and the stench of feces can be overpowering. It looks like a war zone until they take down the tents, and even then mountains of trash and thousands of homeless walking around.

It's sad to see it. I guess on the good side they're safe from harassment and have access to soup kitchens and medical care. The downside is the filthy living conditions, ready access to drugs, and such a high concentration of sketchy people with nothing to lose.

A friend is a Sheriff's Deputy in NorCal. They let them set up camps on abandoned factory property up there. He brings a social worker and a doctor through the camps once a month, as well as gets the convicted sex offenders to register at their camps. Seems to work. They're safe, have access to food, and have a separate piece of property to call home.

Living in Boston was a little different because winter kills. Police would try to shuttle them to shelters but they all won't go. When that happened, they'd bring them down to the subway tunnels. It was always warm in the tunnels.

 

Yes, his argument is valid. This is the United States and our laws says the entrance to the business (that is open to the public with equality to all) is public property. There is a well known federal case on this. It is called The Pruneyard Shopping Center Case (California-9th Circuit) check it out. Even the inside of the mall is a public place, as it is open to the public.

 

.

 

I don't see any moral foundation to the notion of rights you are presenting.

If the foundation of Goldman Sachs' right to make decisions about a property stems from their ability to steal money and bribe the government, there is no moral element to it.

So if Goldman Sachs has the right to rob, so long as they can get away with it, then why don't the homeless have a right to rob Goldman Sachs of their property, so long as they can get away with it?

 

why dont you guys invite the homeless to sleep on your property.. .. lets see how far that goes.

 

I'm not in principle against the spikes, and I don't think that any individual or business should have the burden of caring for the homeless placed on them.

The problem comes when soceity just tries to deal with homelessness by getting them out of sight.

If there is a safe, decent place to sleep for the homeless, then I don't object to the spikes being used.

 

I can see both sides of this issue. While I do have empathy for the homeless and support better housing solutions for them, I also feel for those running a business who have to deal with this issue daily.

 

Someone should start a "cordless angle grinders and cutoff disks for the homeless" program.

 

They do something similar to keep birds from nesting on lamps and gutters. A pest is a pest. Feces is feces.

 

Well, I know one thing--there should NOT be ONE homeless vet on the streets. Let's just start stabbing the homeless. That would provide some entertainment for us successful people, plus fix the problem of those lazy,stinky layabouts after a while. Fun for all. (hope no one has relatives out there)


The governments, local or national can't spend some money to lease/buy some property and provide for those unfortunate enough to have lost at the capitalist game? With ALL the money being spent on war and war machines? Studies on the efficacy of the mating habits of the Mongoose? And other such bullshit? Priorities, I suppose. i hope the millionaires, billionaires sleep well at night.

 

Let's put this into perspective - where there is a (desperate) need - people will overcome (be it with cardboard, newspaper or just sufferance) - the 'Big Issue' is moreover that the genuine (for there are others!) folk that find themselves in such a position (by domestic/sexual abuse - or even through financial ('the banks') mismanagement) are being left without feasible alternative.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/selfridges-agree-remove-homeless-row-8713777
At least public outrage has seen a u-turn in this proposal - and there shows the power of the people
Yet still the overlying problem remains
"There but for fortune"