The Building On Angel Street Corner (Formerly Primark & C&A)

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

Kipping under a roof in a  ( as you call it ) shell,  with toilets, showers, wash bowls,  is better than kipping in shop doorways,   they have mats, sleeping bags ect and just outside there are plenty of eating outlets plus Cinemas, see ! Jobs a good un!  And don't even think asking me about putting anybody up,   with the dog we have got, I can only just get in the house.  Oh!  and If I moan about the dog,  I'll be joing the homeless.  

Got it right there mate   -   the streets aren't suitable for human habitation either but that doesn't seem to register with the,   "very comfortable thank you".

[HeHasRisen]

56 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

Kipping under a roof in a  ( as you call it ) shell,  with toilets, showers, wash bowls,  is better than kipping in shop doorways,   they have mats, sleeping bags ect and just outside there are plenty of eating outlets plus Cinemas, see ! Jobs a good un!  And don't even think asking me about putting anybody up,   with the dog we have got, I can only just get in the house.  Oh!  and If I moan about the dog,  I'll be joing the homeless.  

Why would an empty commercial building have a load of toilets, showers and wash bowls? 

 

As @The_DADDY said, it would cost a bomb, you can't just shove a person in a place like that and spend twenty quid on a fresh tin of paint.

 

Tell yer mate Organgrinder that it's nothing to do with me being comfortable, it's about the practicalities.  If it was fine just to let homeless people doss in empty commercial buildings every area would be doing it. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[PRESLEY]

1 minute ago, Organgrinder said:

Got it right there mate   -   the streets aren't suitable for human habitation either but that doesn't seem to register with the,   "very comfortable thank you".

I sure these type of temporary empty buildings would be a far better alternative to sleeping on the streets.

[HeHasRisen]

Just now, PRESLEY said:

I sure these type of temporary empty buildings would be a far better alternative to sleeping on the streets.

If so why isn't everywhere doing the same?

 

The simple answer is that it isn't legal to do so without spending a hefty sum on the building and then providing sufficient wraparound support. And obviously the landlord has to agree in the first instance, who pays the landlord? 

[PRESLEY]

2 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Why would an empty commercial building have a load of toilets, showers and wash bowls? 

 

As @The_DADDY said, it would cost a bomb, you can't just shove a person in a place like that and spend twenty quid on a fresh tin of paint.

 

Tell yer mate Organgrinder that it's nothing to do with me being comfortable, it's about the practicalities.  If it was fine just to let homeless people doss in empty commercial buildings every area would be doing it. 

Of  course the buildings have toilets ect,  obviously for the staff that worked there previously when occupied.  I think the homeless would be safer.

[HeHasRisen]

Just now, PRESLEY said:

Of  course the buildings have toilets ect,  obviously for the staff that worked there previously when occupied.  I think the homeless would be safer.

How do you know those werent in the section of the building that the Easy Hotel now occupies? How do you know they are still there and weren't ripped out when the building was returned to a "shell"?  

How many toilets? How many people are you wanting to move in there?  Showers? 

 

See, it's not as easy as you think. 

[PRESLEY]

3 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

If so why isn't everywhere doing the same?

 

The simple answer is that it isn't legal to do so without spending a hefty sum on the building and then providing sufficient wraparound support. And obviously the landlord has to agree in the first instance, who pays the landlord? 

This is feesible if proper thought was put into it, your talking like a doubting Thomas, and if everyone who had ideas and let certain teething problems  get in the way there would be no such thing as progress.

[HeHasRisen]

Just now, PRESLEY said:

This is feesible if proper thought was put into it, your talking like a doubting Thomas, and if everyone who had ideas and let certain teething problems  get in the way there would be no such thing as progress.

It's not feasible in the slightest for every reason I have given. This isn't to mention homeless people are some of the most chaotic members of society, especially when you lob in likely substance misuse into the mix, what do you think will happen when you place 30 of them (many of which will be actively choosing to live on the streets, lest we forget) in an empty building together? 

I dread to think.  

 

[PRESLEY]

4 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

How do you know those werent in the section of the building that the Easy Hotel now occupies? How do you know they are still there and weren't ripped out when the building was returned to a "shell"?  

How many toilets? How many people are you wanting to move in there?  Showers? 

 

See, it's not as easy as you think. 

MY GOD!   Its just an idea to an alterative to living on the streets. FLIPPINHELL. 

[HeHasRisen]

Just now, PRESLEY said:

MY GOD!   Its just an idea to an alterative to living on the streets. FLIPPINHELL. 

An unfeasible alternative.  

 

You may as well say they can build a ladder to the Moon and they can climb it and live there, it's equally as unworkable.