Selfridge's installs anti-homeless spikes outside store

[Icarium]

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.

And you are likely right. Having done risk or cost/benefit analysis before in the past. It's of course impossible to model accurately and really it's just a method of considering various factors and reassuring oneself such that you can move forward with some sort of decision that is based on something.

I'm just uncomfortable with folks trying to fill in the blanks as to motive/decision making process to fit a "villain" narrative. The "villain" narrative may be the correct one. Certainly businesses haven't had a stellar ethical history up to this point, but fundamentally we don't know and if we don't know for sure -- is full blast outrage justified?

I have this suspicion that politically correct pile-ons are more related to what moves cyber-bullying than most of us believe.

And while this sort of thing may come from a much better place -- we seem to be trending to a society where a single thoughtless comment may summon a brutal pile-on that may destroy your career, family life, community place and follow you for the rest of your life.

It's my hope that people realize that we all make thoughtless comments from time to time and while I'm thoroughly anti-religious -- I think we could all benefit a little from "let he without sin cast the first stone" and it'd be nice to differentiate between true malicious hate vs thoughtless move.

I'm just curious if folks look back at all the times they went into politically correct outrage mode -- what was the net result? Oneself being upset, maybe some righteous hi5s with your politically correct bros?

Or did most of the time public opinion win and your side got what you wanted? And did you continue to follow the story past the outcome you were railing for to see if the outcome was as beneficial and corrective as you believed when fighting the good fight?

Not really speaking to anyone in particular, but I feel like in most cases after the outrage pile-on resolves -- most people stop caring about what actually happens and move on to the next thing to be outraged about.

It just feels like a giant mob that lurches from one cause to another being angry without focusing on real change.

[Fuuma]

And you are likely right. Having done risk or cost/benefit analysis before in the past. It's of course impossible to model accurately and really it's just a method of considering various factors and reassuring oneself such that you can move forward with some sort of decision that is based on something.

I'm just uncomfortable with folks trying to fill in the blanks as to motive/decision making process to fit a "villain" narrative. The "villain" narrative may be the correct one. Certainly businesses haven't had a stellar ethical history up to this point, but fundamentally we don't know and if we don't know for sure -- is full blast outrage justified?

I have this suspicion that politically correct pile-ons are more related to what moves cyber-bullying than most of us believe.

And while this sort of thing may come from a much better place -- we seem to be trending to a society where a single thoughtless comment may summon a brutal pile-on that may destroy your career, family life, community place and follow you for the rest of your life.

It's my hope that people realize that we all make thoughtless comments from time to time and while I'm thoroughly anti-religious -- I think we could all benefit a little from "let he without sin cast the first stone" and it'd be nice to differentiate between true malicious hate vs thoughtless move.

I'm just curious if folks look back at all the times they went into politically correct outrage mode -- what was the net result? Oneself being upset, maybe some righteous hi5s with your politically correct bros?

Or did most of the time public opinion win and your side got what you wanted? And did you continue to follow the story past the outcome you were railing for to see if the outcome was as beneficial and corrective as you believed when fighting the good fight?

Not really speaking to anyone in particular, but I feel like in most cases after the outrage pile-on resolves -- most people stop caring about what actually happens and move on to the next thing to be outraged about.

It just feels like a giant mob that lurches from one cause to another being angry without focusing on real change.

We're talking about a business here not a person. Re-read what you've written and see that it makes no sense (in that specific case) although I somewhat agree with the general sentiment.

[Icarium]

I think there is a tendency to think of organizations as people because it's simpler and more relatable and that's how people handle complexity in most cases, e.g. "deficit spending is blanket bad" because people should be responsible when it comes to money.

I think it oversimplifies the situation and makes certain things seem black/white where when you add back in the complexity things are much more grey.

So I was trying to move away from that with my posts. I probably failed, not the best written communicator.

I largely don't believe that evil as a motivator exists and most of what we interpret as evil stems from a series of cumulative short-sighted and convenient decisions. I believe this is true for individuals and when you group individuals in the form of a business then it's extra-true.

Combinations of peoples' short-sighted decisions lead to unexpected consequences by each of the individuals involved.

So fundamentally I don't hold groups of people, businesses or otherwise, to a higher standard than individuals. Add complexity and shit gets hard.

Fuuma, are you saying my post didn't make sense because businesses should be held to a higher or different standard than individuals or that they aren't comparable in an apples/apples sense? Sorry not the quickest of cats this morning, but definitely hoping you elaborate since you are much more informed than I.

[TheThief]

PAY & SIT: the private bench (HD) from Fabian Brunsing on Vimeo.

[guardimp]

That seems interesting from a coin rigging perspective, it's easy enough on arcade machines without someone watching.

[treasurehoard]

What happens when that bench malfunctions ...

[malaesthetique]

Postscript on the Societies of Control

[nvsnli]

Refraining from installing spikes outside their store is not “taking care of” or “offering” the homeless anything.

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.

I rather see authorities doing something more useful than dragging homeless people away from high-end stores and such.

Asking authorities to take care of them and drag them away is like they are some sort of criminals etc.
This is much more humane solution and does not cost as much for society since authorities can use the time of taking of homeless people in better way.
Maybe even solving actual crimes.

[Faust]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/lntv3q/the-homeless-homed

This was a good report about the program in Salt Lake City (out of all places!) about housing the homeless, which not only gives them dignity but also costs less than taking care of homelessness.

[Sombre]

I rather see authorities doing something more useful than dragging homeless people away from high-end stores and such.

Asking authorities to take care of them and drag them away is like they are some sort of criminals etc.
This is much more humane solution and does not cost as much for society since authorities can use the time of taking of homeless people in better way.
Maybe even solving actual crimes.

The first part of your post is right; zamb pointed that out and I admitted calling authorities was a stupid solution in a subsequent post, but didn't change the original since it was already quoted.

I don't think the spikes are in any way humane though.

[Nickefuge]

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ln...homeless-homed

This was a good report about the program in Salt Lake City (out of all places!) about housing the homeless, which not only gives them dignity but also costs less than taking care of homelessness.

Seeing this video made me happy, thanks for posting it!

[Irara]

It's a private space, let them do whatever they want.

From an architectural point of view the space facing the street is public even though the building is private.
Anyway, it speaks so much about current attitudes towards private/public, when the owner is allowed to plunder the community rather than contribute to it. Let's say, in Middle Ages and Renaissance Italy the owner of a private building inside the city was obliged to take care of the piece of public street near the house: from sweeping the ground to building a bench or a fountain with drinking water.

[Shucks]

from manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Selfridges agree to remove controversial 'anti-homeless spikes' after outrage from campaigners

20:19, 24 February 2015
By Yakub Qureshi

The store says it will now remove the fixtures after facing a barrage of criticism accusing them of targeting rough sleepers and branding the spikes 'inhumane'


Selfridges has agreed to remove controversial studs from its flagship Manchester store after being accused of targeting rough sleepers.

The department store faced a barrage of criticism after installing raised metal studs outside its city centre store late last year. But a petition signed by thousands of people claims the fixtures ‘anti-homeless spikes’ - similar to those controversially used in London to deter rough sleepers - and brands their use ‘inhumane’.

Store bosses insist the spikes were installed to discourage their own staff from smoking outside the store - but tonight announced they would now seek to remove the fittings. Their comment came just hours after church leaders and a poverty charity announced plans to demonstrate outside the upmarket store on Thursday.

A Selfridges spokesman told the M.E.N: “As a business we value all feedback and it was certainly never our intention to cause any offence. As a business Selfridges cares a great deal about its local community – we employ over 1,500 team members in Manchester and as such are involved in a number of local and charitable initiatives. We have reached out to those whom have expressed concern on this issue and the store manager at Selfridges Exchange has met with Coun Pat Karney. We have now made the decision to remove the studs and look at alternative designs to address the issue of smoking and littering by the side entrance of the store.”

The spokesman added that no timetable for removing the spikes had been set but would be decided following further talks.

Earlier today, plans for a demonstration outside the shop were revealed by the Church of England and the charity Church Action on Poverty.

Speaking earlier today, organiser Rev Adam Dickson, of the William Temple church in Wythenshawe, said he was unconvinced by the explanation given for the studs, of which similar designed fixtures had been deployed across a number of businesses in the capital.

“We feel that the official line given by Selfridges is not very believable,” he said. “If the spikes really were there as a deterrent for their own staff from smoking, it would suggest that Selfridges have no control over their own staff. But regardless of their intention, these spikes clearly represent a problem. It’s not just homeless people - it’s an inhospitable form of architecture.”

A petition started earlier this month by Manchester lecturer Cathy Urquhart calling for the removal of the spikes on change.org gathered over 10,000 signatures in just a few weeks.

A similar petition launched in London last June when metal spikes were planted outside a London apartment also attracted support from thousands and led to the eventual removal of the spikes. Even the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, conceded they were “terrible” for rough sleepers.

The move prompted supermarket giant Tesco to remove metal spikes from outside one of its Regent Street stores. At the time, Tesco said they had initially installed them after customers complained of anti-social behaviour.

Homeless charities have long condemned the spikes for punishing some of the most vulnerable people in society. Back in June, Jacqui McCluskey, director of policy at Homeless Link, said: “It’s shocking to see the use of metal spikes to discourage rough sleeping and hardly helps to deal with the rising number of people who are forced to sleep on our streets."

[guardimp]

"The spokesman added that no timetable for removing the spikes had been set but would be decided following further talks."

So basically they are agreeing to do nothing?

[Shucks]

"The spokesman added that no timetable for removing the spikes had been set but would be decided following further talks."

So basically they are agreeing to do nothing?

actually, they have removed the spikes already.

i'm still gonna boycott them forever though. fucktards.