Neighbours from Hell

coolcait

Nicki wrote: »

.... I cannot recall anyone on the thread other than you expressing any concern that the child is being ill treated or anyone saying that even if there is reason to believe this to be so that it should not be reported.

...

I leave it for others to decide where this thread stands in terms of twlight zone moments.

I made a veiled reference to its possible troll status in my first post on the thread.

In my first post on the thread tonight, I dropped that veil. I pretty much said 'J'accuse - troll!'

Since then, my posts on this thread have all been increasingly futile attempts to rebut misrepresentations of what I have allegedly said.

I don't believe that I have said that the child is being ill-treated. I have said - basically - that we do not know why the child is making noises. Because the OP doesn't know.

I have no idea how many pages the thread has reached now.

How many of those posts on the thread encourage the idea of reporting concerns about the noise made by the child - whatever the reason for the report?

How many of the posts actively discourage any report? How many of those discouraging posts use emotive language to stop any report?

Given the number of views on the thread, that might influence people apart from the OP. People who may be feeling the harsh crticisms directed against the OP. (To use a diluted version of some of the emotive arguments used on this thread )

May I also ask why some posters who were new to the thread were accused of simply joining to cause problems. Whereas others were welcomed, applauded, and quoted with apparent glee?

If only MSE were able to check who was the real person behind any given user-name...

coolcait

Copied and pasted, as the 'Quote' function doesn't pick up everything. This is quoted from a post by rozmister, at 11.33 pm yesterday, who quoted me.

[Originally Posted by coolcait
Let's reign this in a bit, and stick to what has been posted.

The OP has been told - in frank, open, and sometimes emotional terms - that she should not report the noise issues which she has told us about.

One or two posters have alluded to the fact that the child's parents may not necessarily be taking every measure possible to safeguard the child's wellbeing. We don't know enough to say either way. One or two posters have alluded to the fact that the child's noises may in fact be signs of distress, and an indication of lack of care by the parents.

I took those gentle allusions, and turned them into direct 'what if' questions.

[Rozmiter said] Those gentle allusions were not at any point made by the OP and so I'm afraid if you are picking up on 'gentle allusions' and turning them into 'what if questions' you are fueling the speculation about a topic no one on here knows anything about and is diverting completely away from what the OP actually had to say.

[My reply] If everyone else wants to explicitly back away from speculation by deleting speculative posts, I am happy to do so too.


At no point have I suggested reporting the family to social services. I have forwarded the daring idea that the OP could report her concerns about noise to the relevant authorities.

"From the child protection point of view, why would it be a bad thing if she reported the noises she's hearing - even if she does so for selfish reasons?" - That's a quote from you - who are the relevant authorities when reporting noises from a child protection view if not social services?

Environmental health? Others?

]The reporting is a result of the noise. From the child protection point if view - or any protection point of view - why wouold it be a bad thing if a report was made (about noise)? Even if it was for selfish reasons?
The police? They're the only two agencies who deal with child protection.

See above

If she's just reporting the noises because they irritate her she's already done that.

If the relevant authorities find that they are not satisfied with the explanation that the noises are an inherent part of the child's disability, and cannot be managed, then that's another issue.

Loosening the reins again, and going back to the bigger picture..

I don't personally agree with the idea that - where someone has genuine concerns about something - those concerns should not be reported to the relevant authorities because the person should "think of the effect which the report will have on the people you're talking about".

If you have 'genuine concerns' about anything, then I think that those concerns should be reported. It's not that difficult to find real life examples of issues where people didn't report a concern because they were afraid of the 'effect'. And were subsequently pilloried for not reporting.

The above also holds true in cases where I personally don't necessarily agree with the 'genuine concerns' held by another.

Or in cases where someone raises a 'genuine concern' about one thing (e.g. noise) which is unsubstantiated, but the investigation turns up a 'genuine concern' about another thing (e.g. 'neglect'/'abuse' etc)

"I told the local police about being sworn at as, being a woman here alone, I now feel very vulnerable." - taken from the first post by the OP. The police have been made aware of the swearing and the fact the retired vulnerable OP has been made to feel vulnerable. They will send someone out to her property to speak to her in a case like this as part of the neighbourhood policing even if it is just a PCSO

'just a PCSO?'

and I'm sure she will have taken the time to tell them about the rest of the noise seeing as she's more than happy to tell a forum full of strangers.

If you take the time to actually read my posts I have already stated that people with GENUINE CONCERNS should report these to the relevant authorities.

I think we are probably in agreement on that point, as I know that I have already stated that people with 'genuine concerns' should report these to the 'relevant authorities.

No-one on this thread has any real knowledge of the situation, other than the information in the OP's posts, as they remain. As it stands, the 'relevant authorities' would be those who deal with noisy neighbours. It lies with them to decide whether or not there may be protection issues too.

None have been expressed in this thread by anyone with any knowledge of the situation at any point so discussing contacting the 'relevant authorities' because of the potential safeguarding issues is a moot point.

As above.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

plane crazy thread.

those who advised to do whatever has now been deleted, but revived is simply shoking and enlightening us in the kind of personality they have just sick!.

Nicki

Rozmister made sensible well thought out posts and did not resort to abuse. This is why people engaged with her.

Route 66 made offensive posts which have now been removed by the abuse team and caused upset. Hence why he was regarded as trolling. Does that answer the question? For the avoidance of doubt I didn't report Route 66 so this is an objective view on the nature of his posts.

Enterprise_1701C

Having re-read the post, I know it is currently school holidays, but it sounds like this has been going on for some time. Even disabled children are meant to be in school.

shegirl

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Having re-read the post, I know it is currently school holidays, but it sounds like this has been going on for some time. Even disabled children are meant to be in school.

*sighs* No,children,all children,are meant to have an education...there are quite a few disabled children who don't go to school due to carp schools,illness,other reasons that cannot be helped and sometimes because their parents don't think school is right for their kids.

Nicki

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Having re-read the post, I know it is currently school holidays, but it sounds like this has been going on for some time. Even disabled children are meant to be in school.

We don't know where the OP lives though.

I am in England and we are in the fourth week of the school holidays here (they broke up mid week) and trust me that is more than enough time to be overwhelmed by it all . Only 3 more weeks to go...

In Northern Ireland, the schools break up almost a full month earlier though so if the OP lived there she could be 6 or 7 weeks in to the holidays. Not sure if its the same in Scotland.

aliasojo

Nicki wrote: »

Not sure if its the same in Scotland.

Daughter goes back to school in under 2 weeks. Yay.

poet123

coolcait wrote: »

I don't personally agree with the idea that - where someone has genuine concerns about something - those concerns should not be reported to the relevant authorities because the person should "think of the effect which the report will have on the people you're talking about".

If you have 'genuine concerns' about anything, then I think that those concerns should be reported. It's not that difficult to find real life examples of issues where people didn't report a concern because they were afraid of the 'effect'. And were subsequently pilloried for not reporting.

The above also holds true in cases where I personally don't necessarily agree with the 'genuine concerns' held by another.

Or in cases where someone raises a 'genuine concern' about one thing (e.g. noise) which is unsubstantiated, but the investigation turns up a 'genuine concern' about another thing (e.g. 'neglect'/'abuse' etc)

I agree with you, but at no point has the OP (who is the only one who has first hand and specific knowledge of this particular case) stated that she has a concern about the welfare of the child.

Her concerns were entirely centred on her own well being.

princessdon

poet123 wrote: »

I agree with you, but at no point has the OP (who is the only one who has first hand and specific knowledge of this particular case) stated that she has a concern about the welfare of the child.

Her concerns were entirely centred on her own well being.

I don't think she had any knowledge of whether or what would or should cause a concern. I think her experience is limited to children and certainly disabilitues.

There are certain things she has said that would raise an eyebrow we me, eg being outside late in the evening, parties etc. but the child may not be present during parties (therefore no concern), or the late night a one off. There isn't enough to go on, but my point is that OP probably doesn't have any idea what is normal or not, so any concerns she may have are likely misdirected.

I genuinely get the impression she has very limited experience with social aspects outside of her own.