It is very evident that the campaign against local rough sleepers is intended as a 'two-birds-with-one-stone' offensive, mounted by the local police and 'Borders & Security' agency, or however the Home Office is currently designated.
How convenient that a disproportionate [relative to national populations ratios] percentage of rough sleepers are apparently non-UK nationals. This allows for more opportunities to bump up deportation figures in relation to vulnerable people, who are least likely to access the legal services that would enable them to challenge initial refusals of asylum, often overturned on appeal and generally of appalling quality.
Clearly, some street homeless people can be and sometimes are threatening, violent, or abusive, but probably far less often than the 'respectable' City boys who routinely beat up, urinate on, and otherwise target this specific cohort after a hard day in the pub.
The answer is not social cleansing pogroms of parts of the city that are designated as prime investment sites by property developers, but an informed understanding of, and support in relation to, a range of acutely socially-excluding factors, from the need to escape various forms of domestic abuse, through substance misuse, to serious mental health problems.
At the same time as this group are stigmatised as violent, drunken, 'spongers', serving military personnel are lionised for defending the interests of the global rich. Ironic, then, that so many street homeless men are ex-military, traumatised by their participation in bloody campaigns against those states and factions deemed to be injurious to the Western powers, such as the UK.
One salient fact that was also missing from the campaign launched by Louise Casey, New Labour homelessness 'tsar' was that many street homeless people were not simply exercising a lifestyle choice in being on the streets, but often [despite the above threats] found that they were less dangerous than overnight hostels.
My evidence is anecdotal [unsurprisingly], based on testimony provided informally by rough sleepers and workers in the homelessness sector.
In general, rough sleeping is a very dangerous activity for both men and women, with only a proportion of the threat originating from within the cohort, and the 'balance' being apparently willingly and actively supplied by Joe Public.
This casual contempt for the poor was also manifested historically by attacks on buskers, when busking was a relatively autonomous 'self-regulated' street activity, and before the commercial sponsorship of busking sites. This was an experience regularly brought to my attention by street-musician friends.
It is little surprise that, generally, the highest concentration of anti-social activity by workers in the financial services sector are in and around stations such as Liverpool Street, Friday-night playground for drunk, testosterone-charged, and overpaid young males.
Hence the placement of 'crisis portakabins' by NHS outreach teams at such venues. These are of course funded by the public purse, an irony given the likely contempt that many of these social 'bottom feeders' are likely to have for equable taxation and public services.
I'm not entirely clear as to the point you're trying to make. But there you go again, 4th paragraph. You appear to have an issue with those who work in financial services or the City, and possibly drunk testosterone charged young malles near Liverpool street.
Don't know whether targeting the homeless by City boys happens routinely but I've been in plenty of situations where, through a misplaced sense of entitlement/superiority, supported by poor alcohol tolerance, some of the lesser members of that ilk felt compelled to demean themselves to aggressive misogynistic, racist and homophobic behaviour. Some of them are no better than drunk EDL supporters or football hooligans.
Point seems clear enough to me: Some City workers get pissed up esp around Liverpool Street on Friday night and do anti-social things which anecdotally includes hassling or inflicting violence on rough sleepers.
Do I have an issue with bevvied-up young men harassing vulnerable people? Er, yes.
Is there likely to be a degree of targetting involved based on the acquisitive culture associated with many employees of City of London firms dealing in the financial industry? Er, yes.
Homeless people are, after all, losers according to the values of the market - unable to sell their labour power, 'weak' because their use of substances such as alcohol or drugs happens without the the sanction of wider society, etc, etc.
Anyway, that's all from me, and bankers are safe from my hugs. :-)