London SE1 community website

Homeless people in SE1

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6
Current: 6 of 6
Saturday 14 June 2014 10.32am
catflap wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
catflap wrote:
...not sure anyone should allow the precedent to be set that an internet lynch mob is o.k. it's very creepy.

Oh dear... Internet lynch mob? LOL!

ignorant little englanders then? pompous little englanders? internet warriors :-)

How about genuine people that were sincerely incensed by this, made their voices heard and were listened to? No need for all this animosity / hostility.
Saturday 14 June 2014 11.25am
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
catflap wrote:
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
catflap wrote:
...not sure anyone should allow the precedent to be set that an internet lynch mob is o.k. it's very creepy.

Oh dear... Internet lynch mob? LOL!

ignorant little englanders then? pompous little englanders? internet warriors :-)

How about genuine people that were sincerely incensed by this, made their voices heard and were listened to? No need for all this animosity / hostility.

my point exactly...putting someone's address on the internet because someone on twitter has accused them of something is hostile and completely irresponsible. this story has gone around the world and the only fact in it was there is some spikey stuff outside a front door...

you've picked one line out of what i've written and replied LOL...is that not animosity? you didn't really expect a sensible reply to that...why not just say you think people meant well when signing? You may well be right but it doesn't mean they don't also have their heads up their botties and an ability to join a baying mob based on hearsay, or eyeballsay, what ever twitter is.
Saturday 14 June 2014 12.02pm
catflap wrote:
you've picked one line out of what i've written and replied LOL...is that not animosity? you didn't really expect a sensible reply to that...

That one line sums up the hostility/animosity that pervades your post. And no, I didn't expect a sensible reply.
Saturday 14 June 2014 1.16pm
I think I have made my opinions clear (as mud probably) on how I feel the area has gone, but I can't have people picked on like this, I feel for those residents. These measures have been around for a while, why the fury now? I think those pics that show spikes under flyovers are worth complaining about.

When we were kids we used to do quite a bit for the local "tramps", we fed them. There was always parties going on and we used to load up with chicken legs, sausage rolls, cheese and....just cheese, the pineapple went, and gave it to them. They all had names which we'd given them.
Wouldn't of liked them camped outside our front doors though! I don't suppose anyone would.
Tuesday 17 June 2014 9.58am
boroughonian wrote:
JazzyQ wrote:
Surely the issue is about those spikes in that place at this time, and the message they send.

But what about the message separate entrances for social/affordable tenants send, i'm sure if the media decided to report that en masse there would be uproar...wouldn't there?

Take the point RE: at least they have some affordable/social properties.

Separate entrances are often insisted upon by the Housing Association managing the social housing element.

Otherwise they would have to pay maintence for communal areas controlled by the building manager. Separate entrances mean they control their own communal areas.
Tuesday 17 June 2014 12.29pm
Truthmonkey-home, something about the justification for this separate entrances business has me feeling deeply uneasy, and I can't quite put my finger on it. It sounds reasonable, doesn't it? But I think it is abhorrent to differentiate in this way between the affluent and the less so, and have them use separate entrances to the same building.
Tuesday 17 June 2014 3.27pm
I agree it's not ideal, but (and this explanation came from a friend who is a Trustee of a Housing Association) I can see why housing associations couldn't commit themselves to sharing costs out of their control.

My friend tells me that his particularly housing association actively avoids shared buildings. It prefers to be able to provide homes at its own specification and with the features and costs that suit its tenants.
Thursday 19 June 2014 5.23pm
I dont think its necessarily offensive to have separate entrances - what I would be curious in is comparing how they look side by side - and where they are in relation to the site. If the social housing entrance is tucked round the back with a significantly lower quality feel then I think this would offend my sensibility. Its not enough that people might not be as rich as the others they need to be treated like third class scum....
Thursday 19 June 2014 6.55pm
Usually the housing association leaseholders don't pay the same service charges as those who pay for 24 hour concierge etc hence the separate entrances. Its hardly apartheid and only in reality a different door
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6
Current: 6 of 6

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions