Selfridge's installs anti-homeless spikes outside store

[zamb]

No, I wouldn’t appreciate a homeless person sleeping in my yard or on my porch. But rather than installing spikes to deter them, I’d call the authorities and let them deal with it.
.

Depends on where you live..........in some places the best course of action if you care for the homeless is to NOT CALL the Authorities.

[Sombre]

Depends on where you live..........in some places the best course of action if you care for the homeless is to NOT CALL the Authorities. t

Very good point. I was so angry I wasn't even thinking straight when I wrote that. Calling authorities is still an aggressive response to a non-violent crime. The truth is, if you actually have a conversation with homeless people, the vast majority of them are quite reasonable and amicable. Many of them are just happy to be spoken to as equals instead of scum, which is sadly the status quo.

Regarding the part of my post you quoted, I'd say talking to the person reasonably will guarantee the best outcome in the majority of cases. Authorities need not be involved.

[eleves]

Do you really think this has anything to do with the aesthetics of the spikes?


The safety and disease argument is just fear mongering. How much do you think the homeless really contribute to diseases in a city? You should be more afraid of your fellow commuters. And your point on violence is incorrect. I’m not saying they’re totally harmless, but they’re not really affecting numbers to the extent you think. In fact, they’re under-represented in the statistics.


Let’s call a spade a spade. This is a disgusting move by Selfridges, and like Shucks I won’t be giving them my money either. I think people are missing the message this is sending: store that sells $2,000+ shoes and coats can’t stand the sight of the homeless (who would love $2 coats and shoes) so much that they make it damn near impossible for them to sleep outside. It treats human beings as an eyesore to be removed from the décor rather than like, idk, human beings. It has nothing to do with any ethical move on Selfridges' part.

I can't believe some of these responses. The installation of the spikes is bad enough, but it's worse that people here are actually defending it.

The whole thing about the aesthetics makes sense: if Selfridges put up something like a new permanent art installation or created a piece with giant artistic spikes while secretly having the anti homeless agenda, I don't think anyone would have said anything because it wasn't blatant but the intent/result is the same. They had to have been making it obvious I guess then. In terms of safety and disease, I was purely speaking out of personal experience. I've seen people get hit, pushed, screamed at by homeless people. I have nothing against anyone, but why do any of that regardless of your situation? It definitely makes me a bit more wary. I've seen homeless people sexual harass women, and homeless person who sat across from me in an empty subway car and started masturbating. I've also been on a packed subway car and a homeless person gets on and just shits on a seat, and on a packed bus, someone starts smoking crack, both again uncalled for. Obviously these are single cases and I in no way intend to judge the entire homeless community based on it but it definitely does give me some personal perspective and tells me that it happens more than what I am seeing. In a perfect world, everyone will have somewhere clean to use the restroom but in a world that lacks that luxury, there are still public restrooms, and homeless shelters. It really sucks and I get that there isn't always a place that would let homeless people in to use the restroom but don't shit on a subway car with other people there. And trust me, I am very wary of other non homeless commuters and the diseases that they can spread.

I've never shopped at Selfridges and I definitely won't start now but then again, it's so much bigger than putting some spikes down that it almost doesn't matter. I donate what I can to the homeless, I have even assisted in the set up of various drives and initiatives, albeit small. It's very much like Zamb mentioned, the guys at Selfridges obviously feel like their way of life is being affected. Is it a good look? Not at all but they have lives too and I guess they did what they thought they needed to do. One could hope they are doing something else to positively affect their community though, and I would love to hear about it if anyone has any knowledge concerning this.

[Sombre]

I think that we ought to reason with greater depth than this
there is no necessary correlation between installing the spiked and a conclusion that those who did it cannot stand the homeless.
I care about the homeless and the poor. I give tons of money to all different kind of causes for the poor and homeless, for children in schools and to different charities that help the less fortunate. However, If i was running a high end store where image and such are a part of my success in business i do nit want homeless people making their beds in front of it. Simple.

there is a time and place for everything, and in front of a designer boutique is simply NOT the place for the homeless to sleep. ought to do more for these people so they dont have to resort to make thier beds wherever and whenever they see fit.........I think the greater issue is WHAT are we are Human beings and a society doing to help minimize these issues rather that what a store is doing about something that might make (some) shoppers think twice about coming to shop.

Of course the two are not necessarily related, but the message it sends is aggressively anti-homeless. So it's not unreasonable to assume the store (those in charge of that decision) cannot stand the homeless. Or more specifically, cannot stand what the presence of the homeless does to their decor and/or revenue.

It's essentially balancing the negative effect of homeless people occasionally sleeping outside the store (in terms of loss of revenue) against the positive effect of them having a place to sleep. I can't imagine they'd lose more than a couple thousand dollars per month from that, probably less. Along these lines, the store essentially decided that that money was worth more than a human being having that place to sleep. I still find that disgusting.

[Sombre]

Maybe it is time for the torches and pitchforks to come out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4790205.html

Based on my responses above apparently I'd be leading the march .

[DudleyGray]

Every place that I have ever worked has had security guards, and if any homeless people were creating a disturbance or lingering too long outside, they'd be asked to keep it moving. So yeah, there would be an occasional bum here and there outside the building, but never for too long. It's not like Selfridges doesn't have a security team.

And is this really affecting their revenue? Has any customer of Selfridges ever thought 'I was going to buy shoes there, but that homeless person lingering outside the store hasn't been asked to move along just yet. What if the neighbors saw me buying from such a hobo store? I'll just go to LN-CC instead.'

[guardimp]

the store essentially decided that that money was worth more than a human being having that place to sleep. I still find that disgusting.

No, they decided that they did not want homeless people to sleep on their storefront. You cannot blame all the things that result in the people being homeless on this store. Same as how train stations don't like having homeless people live there during the winter.

And is this really affecting their revenue? Has any customer of Selfridges ever thought 'I was going to buy shoes there, but that homeless person lingering outside the store hasn't been asked to move along just yet. What if the neighbors saw me buying from such a hobo store? I'll just go to LN-CC instead.'

Is it that absurd that people avoid having to deal with homeless people? It's just minimizing your exposure to potential issues. Many people try to avoid areas of high crime or unpleasant sights, if you are selling thousand dollar items of clothing why not try to make the shopping experience as nice as possible?

[Sombre]

No, they decided that they did not want homeless people to sleep on their storefront.

So much so that they resorted to measures to make it very uncomfortable for one to do so. A decision like this takes money into account because it costs money to implement. Implicitly or explicitly they decided that having homeless people sleeping there was worth less to them than the cost of installation and potential lost revenue.

You cannot blame all the things that result in the people being homeless on this store. Same as how train stations don't like having homeless people live there during the winter.

Nowhere did I blame any of the things resulting in people being omeless on the store. I only said the action was disgusting.

[Icarium]

It's essentially balancing the negative effect of homeless people occasionally sleeping outside the store (in terms of loss of revenue) against the positive effect of them having a place to sleep. I can't imagine they'd lose more than a couple thousand dollars per month from that, probably less. Along these lines, the store essentially decided that that money was worth more than a human being having that place to sleep. I still find that disgusting.

I don't think people make moves like this out of fear for a couple thousands of dollars of lost revenue a month. They probably at least have some awareness of the message this sends and the trade-offs/ramifications. My experience is these sorts of decisions aren't just made by some random employee but some analysis and research is involved. They probably modeled the impact of losing the Shucks crowd and sadly the math made sense.

I remember a case study some speaker went over at some work thing I went to and it was about Tiffany's (Or some other higher end jewelry retailer) and how it wanted to capture the mid-market. So it created product lines for that market -- and it was wildly successful and popular.

However, it didn't end up being a gain because they began rapidly losing their high end customers who didn't want to shop alongside the less-moneyed riff-raff -- end solution was they couldn't find a set up that made both happy. It was largely mutually exclusive and the only way they could address both markets was by creating separate brands.

So with that in mind... I can see how having homeless folks around might make a significant impact into your revenue.

What if the article was "Struggling Selfridges makes Bizarre Desperation Anti-Homeless Move to Counter Freefalling Sales #s"? Would it be more kosher then or would the right move be accept business suicide?

[Shucks]

What if the article was "Struggling Selfridges makes Bizarre Desperation Anti-Homeless Move to Counter Freefalling Sales #s"? Would it be more kosher then or would the right move be accept business suicide?

i'm not sure they have done their cost/benefit analysis properly. the loss of goodwill from all the press around this must be huge. (for instance, there's also a petition going with like 6000 signatures already...) it just has to really hurt their image. cruelty and selfishness is not really a good look for a 'sophisticated' luxury brand.

as for the choice between business suicide or not, i personally feel if u can't run an ethical business, u shouldn't run it at all. but there are of course always difficult trade-offs when it comes to ethics. the only general rules i've been able to figure out are:

1. you have to try your hardest to be as ethical as possible, and
2. if it doesn't cost you anything you are not trying hard enough.

pretty sure selfridges isn't trying hard at all here. if they are, they need to communicate it better before i will ever give them more business or before i stop spreading the word about how disgusting their business approach is.

[Shucks]

from thedailymash.co.uk

Manchester to be completely covered in spikes
17-02-15



THE city of Manchester is to cover all pavements, walls and street furniture with metal spikes to stop locals getting soft.

The move follows the installation of pavement spikes outside Selfridges, which are packed 24 hours a day by dozing Mancunians proving that their rain-hardened skin feels nothing.

Mayor of Manchester Bill “Macca” McKay said: “The more pain you can take, the more Manc you are.

“These needle-like spikes can burst a dropped melon so they are perfect for doing one-handed press-ups in front of your mates.

“They go well with the constant freezing sleet, the noonday darkness, and the unbearable itching caused by the Scousers being less than 40 miles away.

“From now on the city will be as open and welcoming to outsiders as a Judas Priest jacket turned inside-out, though obviously that’s still a lot less hostile than our evil twin Salford.”

[apathy!]

Removing a few metres of sleeping space is ridiculously inconsequential but as others have said, the move betrays an ugly attitude.

What if we redesigned Abu Ghraib to look like disneyland?

2. if it doesn't cost you anything you are not trying hard enough.[/B]

[eleves]

Removing a few metres of sleeping space is ridiculously inconsequential but as others have said, the move betrays an ugly attitude.

That's a pretty good way to put it. Now regarding the petition, it's pretty likely that it will get the amount of signatures necessary but does anyone know if it has worked in the UK in the past? And does Selfridges cover the cost of removal too?

[Rick-A-Doodle]

I couldn't give less of a fuck about these. Homelessness is a problem, and it's not always the government's fault, and it isn't Selfridges.
It's a private space, let them do whatever they want. If people have complained, or perhaps there was some fucking assault caused by a homeless person outside, then they have the obligation to do something about it.

[Shucks]

That's a pretty good way to put it. Now regarding the petition, it's pretty likely that it will get the amount of signatures necessary but does anyone know if it has worked in the UK in the past? And does Selfridges cover the cost of removal too?

public pressure worked in getting tesco's in the uk to remove theirs a while back...