• IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      🙄 or like, you could admit you were wrong, remove the propaganda, and not resort to your head cannon 🤷‍♂️

      Seems extremely reasonable for dealing with aggressive homeless individuals.

      • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        “aggressive homeless individuals”

        There it is.

        There’s the problem.

        You’re assuming this will be used when needed, and not used in excess, trampling down people who are already underfoot.

        All cops are bastards, no exceptions for location.

        If they CAN abuse a law, they WILL abuse it. At every opportunity.

        • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          I know. There are issues with the police, so now we can’t have laws on the books either. Despite circumstances many homeless don’t take no for an answer and threaten people. There needs to be a law to detain those people. That’s regardless of the help they will or wont get or accept before or after.

          • HumanPenguin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yep you can have the laws.

            By keeping them precise in what they allow police to apply.

            When the gov use terms like nuisance. It is intentionally verge.

            If its about aggressive begging or homelessness. Define it as such. Don’t intentionally leave it to a stressed officer to decide.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Slippery slope? All it does is provide an enforcement option for orgs who don’t want people begging on their property.

      • tetris11@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        you don’t see that as an avenue for more and more orgs to do this by default, and given the lack of public spaces in our cities, essentially making it impossible to beg anywhere?

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Bro wtf are you on about? There’s tons of public spaces in the UK, cities included.

          • tetris11@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            At least where I live, you’ll be hard pressed to find a spot in the city where a homeless person can sleep unnacosted, either by spikes being put down on flat surfaces, parks being closed at night, and benches that aren’t on a main road.

          • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I don’t think you’ve ever been to the UK. Most of those “public” spaces are corporate property and if you and your homelessness damage their brand they’ll escort you off.

            The homeless camps on high street ken during the pandemic had this happen to them all the time, as if the cruel irony of rough sleepers next to wholefoods and dyson shit blower 3k ads wasn’t enough to make humanity unevolve powered solely by cringe alone and let trilobites, or some particularly feisty proto-moss take the top spot instead.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’ve lived up and down the UK for nearly 30 years. In both the north and the south you can basically bump into public spaces that can be used by the homeless. Just because your city ain’t got them doesn’t mean it’s the same for the rest of the UK.

              • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                lived north and south

                So have I and your “can” gives away that you don’t actually know, you’re just assuming so.

                • 520@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  My “can” includes infrastructure that I’ve actually seen being used by the homeless and setups that can feasibly be used by the homeless.

                  Stop pulling things out of your ass. It doesn’t make your argument stronger.

                  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Ah yes the classic strategy for when you get caught pulling stuff out of your ass: accuse the other person of doing the same, the wordier equivalent of simply going “no u”.

                    You can stop now, it’s just embarrassing