- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,133
- Reaction score
- 58,868
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Tesco has agreed to remove the 'anti-homeless spikes' from outside of one of its stores after activists threatened days of protests.
A row of one-inch-high studs, which protesters claimed were designed to prevent people sleeping rough, were spotted outside a Tesco Metro on London's Regent Street just days after a similar strip of spikes were photographed outside a luxury block of flats in Southwark.
The supermarket denied the spikes were an anti-homeless measure and said the studs on a ledge outside the convenience store in central London were installed to deter anti-social behaviour like smoking and drinking - which the firm said intimidated customers.
The images of both sets of studs prompted a furious Twitter row earlier this week with activists claiming that the spikes were an attack on the most vulnerable people in society.
Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro store after activists threaten days of protests over measure
Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro store after activists threaten days of protests over measure - Home News - UK - The Independent
Two thoughts
1. Tesco screwed up, they should have put a planter or a nice display there to make it both visually attractive (thus increasing their store value) and achieving their goal.
2. Good, until society can figure out how to better deal with the homeless issue, putting obstacles that may result in injury in the way is barbaric. I hope protests continue until spikes are gone from all locations.
They should have some of those spikes in my downtown area.Right now they arm rests in the middle of benches in order to discourage the homeless from sleeping on them.
Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro store after activists threaten days of protests over measure
Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro store after activists threaten days of protests over measure - Home News - UK - The Independent
Two thoughts
1. Tesco screwed up, they should have put a planter or a nice display there to make it both visually attractive (thus increasing their store value) and achieving their goal.
2. Good, until society can figure out how to better deal with the homeless issue, putting obstacles that may result in injury in the way is barbaric. I hope protests continue until spikes are gone from all locations.
I don't see how that counts as Tesco screwing up. They were just unlucky enough to get caught on the sharp end of this week's internet trend. They could have used a different (more expensive and more prone to vandalism and theft) method to stop people loitering by their windows but they didn't.1. Tesco screwed up, they should have put a planter or a nice display there to make it both visually attractive (thus increasing their store value) and achieving their goal.
And then the protesters can all go to the warm comfortable homes, content that they've won homeless people the right to sleep on steps, window ledges and porches (though not their own of course). Wouldn't it be better if this effort in a sudden popularist protest was directed to actually achieving something to actually help get homeless people off the streets? There's no quick-fix gratification from that though.2. Good, until society can figure out how to better deal with the homeless issue, putting obstacles that may result in injury in the way is barbaric. I hope protests continue until spikes are gone from all locations.
Good point. Disguising the barriers as Art and nobody would have noticed the intent (until the email surfaced).
But do explain, what a store should do, if there is an unwashed drunk defending it from custom? Pay the guy to go away?
I fully agree that they are within their rights to discourage loitering by causing discomfort to the loiterers. However, I disagree with this method and the message being that it's ok to potentially cause harm to people with dangerous landscaping features. That thing is a serious tripping and injury hazard. Also it sends a message that a fellow human can be subject to lesser animal style herding techniques, which I have a problem with as well
That's not the message. Nobody is saying it's OK to cause anyone harm and frankly it'd be quite difficult to cause yourself serious harm on these things. Compared to the spiked fences, barbed wire and glass-topped walls people have been happy to have for so many years, they're pretty harmless.However, I disagree with this method and the message being that it's ok to potentially cause harm to people with dangerous landscaping features.
The on the Tesco store (not pictured) certainly isn't - it is (was!) on a window frame about a meter off the ground. The one in the porch of the private apartment building (which is in mist the pictures), possibly though that's a slight stretch.That thing is a serious tripping and injury hazard.
Like fences, gates and doors you mean? I'm practically sat in a cage right now.Also it sends a message that a fellow human can be subject to lesser animal style herding techniques, which I have a problem with as well
I fully agree that they are within their rights to discourage loitering by causing discomfort to the loiterers. However, I disagree with this method and the message being that it's ok to potentially cause harm to people with dangerous landscaping features. That thing is a serious tripping and injury hazard. Also it sends a message that a fellow human can be subject to lesser animal style herding techniques, which I have a problem with as well
I tend to agree with that. But what do you do, where you cannot be unobtrusive with the herding techniques?
I fully agree that they are within their rights to discourage loitering by causing discomfort to the loiterers. However, I disagree with this method and the message being that it's ok to potentially cause harm to people with dangerous landscaping features. That thing is a serious tripping and injury hazard. Also it sends a message that a fellow human can be subject to lesser animal style herding techniques, which I have a problem with as well
Did Tesco install these on public property or am I missing something?
Private property, but it's an irrelevant detail in my opinion. How we treat humanity can often be more important than property concerns from a moral perspective.
Private property, but it's an irrelevant detail in my opinion. How we treat humanity can often be more important than property concerns from a moral perspective. While the homeless are often the subject of personal problems and can present a danger to others, there is no reason to dehumanize them further.
What do you mean "How we treat"?
Do you think the store has some kind of responsibility to provide a sleeping place for homeless people in front of their stores?
You obviously have not read my discussion up to this point as I already answered your question
Do you have a bed and bath in your front yard to better treat humanity?
Well answer it again please, but more directly this time.
There's a difference between inviting something and creating hostile landscape. A not equivelent question would be whether I set up bear traps
If they put a cactus there, would that be considered a hostile landscape as well?
The point here is that the store in question did not want to "invite" homeless people to sleep outside their door. The spikes were there to make sure they did not, I guess you could call it making that spot "hostile" to that demographic. Frankly I think the store screwed up, should have kept the spikes there as they were obviously doing their job. I suspect that here in the very near future we will see something placed in that spot that will achieve the same results as the spikes. Likewise I predict that a group of vocal hand wringing teeth gnashing howls of protest will follow that decision too.There's a difference between inviting someone and creating hostile landscape. An equivelent question would be whether I set up bear traps
How is it a tripping hazard?
The point here is that the store in question did not want to "invite" homeless people to sleep outside their door. The spikes were there to make sure they did not, I guess you could call it making that spot "hostile" to that demographic. Frankly I think the store screwed up, should have kept the spikes there as they were obviously doing their job. I suspect that here in the very near future we will see something placed in that spot that will achieve the same results as the spikes. Likewise I predict that a group of vocal hand wringing teeth gnashing howls of protest will follow that decision too.
A cactus has a function other than determent. So no
Not really. Cactus are butt ugly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?