Neighbours from Hell

poet123

ow

coolcait wrote: »

I realise I am being repetetive, but I have no idea how many posts people have read at this stage.

The OP has an issue with the noise. She has a right to report that issue.

It may be that her report is investigated, and the result is that the OP is over-reacting.

It may be that an investigation finds that the OP is over-reacting about the noise, but there is an issue to be looked into.

And various other permutations.

If the OP makes no report, solely on the basis that an internet thread says she shouldn't - purely on the evidence of 4 extant posts by the OP, and a quote of one which appears to have been delelted.

I'm uncomfortable with that.

I suppose she does have a "right" to report a noise even though it is obviously emanating from a disabled child. The issue for me is why she is reporting it, I would expect reasonable people only to exercise a "right" when it is also morally justified.

If she believed or even entertained the notion that the noise stemmed from mistreatment absolutely she is justified, but if, as appears to be the case here, she accepts that it stems from the inherent disability then I find it morally questionable to go down that route.

To what end would she be doing it? Ultimately, to get rid of the noise. So, where does that leave the family?

There was a post last night, now removed, that baldly stated that she had to do "whatever she had to do" to make it go away, and that included reporting all kinds of fictitious events, and she was advised to make sure that the reports had a coherence and validity about them to make them stick.

Looking for issues that fall into this remit without any validity is to me almost the same thing covered with a thin veneer.

If the OP had even hinted at an underlying mistreatment issue the thread would have been very different, she didn't, and really you need look no further than the thread title to tell you how the OP views the issue and where her concerns lie.

All the above is academic however, as the OP has exercised her "right" to report the noise and it has been investigated and dismissed by those in a position to take it further if it was warranted.

Rather than be applauded for taking that tack I think this thread has rightly questioned the humanity of it under the specific circumstances outlined.

poet123

coolcait wrote: »

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...

Are you suggesting that someone is using an AE to bolster one side of the argument?

I know it happens, I have seen it happening but I don't have the sense of that happening on here.

I found Rozmeister's posts (a poster whom I have never come across before) to be incisive and have an air of knowledge of the subject matter.

To be fair, I didn't particularly think anyone was actively trolling either, rather, I thought they were just giving their opinion, albeit one, that in some cases, I was disgusted to read. That said, I certainly didn't report them.

However, as many posts of that ilk were removed it would appear the abuse team thought that such opinion/advice was not acceptable. I agree with them.

phoebe1989seb

Nicki wrote: »

Well clearly if the downstairs tenants are in the m@fia then OP is correct to report them to the antisocial behaviour team. Thanks for clearing that up

Not sure where I mentioned *the m@fia*, lol! There are, however, two sides to every story, it's a free country and everyone (including the OP) is entitled to voice their opinion (although I agree their opening post was less than sensitive).......all I'm saying is that people shouldn't assume that disabled children are only born to nice, well-behaved parents and none of us here know which category these particular parents fall into.

I was merely illustrating this point with my own experience just as other posters on this thread have quoted theirs......from the limited information given we of course have no real idea what the child in question's parents are actually like - they may merely be unfortunate in having a friend who got regrettably drunk and let slip some bad language to the OP when confronted by him/her

Vicky123

One last time, OP is not complaining about the parents, read the 1st posting.
She is specifically complaining about disabled child making animal noises that disturb her peace, no concern over welfare of the child, she seems to accept it as part of the childs condition, drunken friend is an add on, just one incident.
She has complained to all the relevent authorities and neighbours, finally coming here for opinions.
All this and it's most likely just a troll, but that's the gist of it.

rozmister

poet123 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that someone is using an AE to bolster one side of the argument?

I know it happens, I have seen it happening but I don't have the sense of that happening on here.

I found Rozmeister's posts (a poster whom I have never come across before) to be incisive and have an air of knowledge of the subject matter.

To be fair, I didn't particularly think anyone was actively trolling either, rather, I thought they were just giving their opinion, albeit one, that in some cases, I was disgusted to read. That said, I certainly didn't report them.

However, as many posts of that ilk were removed it would appear the abuse team thought that such opinion/advice was not acceptable. I agree with them.

I currently work in social housing for vulnerable adults (older people and adults with learning disabilities) in a Head Office role so I would like to think I have a reasonable understanding of learning disabilities, safeguarding, anti-social behaviour procedures, etc. That is what is expected from me in my job role so I hope so!

I don't know what an AE is but you can see from my post history that I do post in other areas of the forums and have been on here for some time. I only posted because I felt with my experience and knowledge I could possibly contribute something to the discussion.

rozmister

coolcait wrote: »

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.

And once more I will say SHE HAS ALREADY REPORTED HER CONCERNS TO THE 'RELEVANT AUTHORITY' - to her letting agent, to the police and to the anti-social behaviour team. They have all told her there is no reason for concern or action, the noise is a disabled child and nothing can be done. To continue to encourage reporting it over and over is not helpful for the situation. It could be classed as harassment and will only inflame what is quite probably a tense situation.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

have you seen the waiting list for local authority schools that cater for severe diasabled children? even private school special educational needs have huge waiting lists.

theres no law that says children must attend a school outside of home, you CAN home tutor if a parent see's fit to and can PROVE they are providing A education.

fluffnutter

lostinrates wrote: »

This is certainly true.

Fluff utter, its come up in this thread, and somewhere else ...are you misophonic?

No, I don't think so. I just find it very stressful. Others seem to be able to tune stuff out that I find distracting and irritating. My own particular version of hell was a job I had a few years ago where they insisted on playing the radio all day, a commercial station at that (ads are the worst!). In fact, it was so bad I left. Fifteen years at the same company but I was out of there.

It's an interesting condition though. This is from wiki:

People who have misophonia are most commonly angered, and even enraged, by common ambient sounds, such as other people clipping their nails, brushing teeth, eating, breathing, sniffing, talking, sneezing, yawning, walking, chewing gum, laughing, snoring, typing on a keyboard, whistling or coughing; certain consonants; or repetitive sounds.

I definitely have a problem with people whistling. It makes me want to kill them. I'm also very averse to people slurping drinks, chewing gum and that nervous throat clearing that some poor souls have

Perhaps I have it mildly after all

fluffnutter

You know what though... I wish I'd known about misophonia when I worked in that office with the radio. At the time HR advised me that they'd only intervene and either ask that the radio was turned off or that I was allowed to work in a different office if I had a 'health condition' that meant sound was particularly distressing or painful, e.g. tinnitus.

I could have said I had misophonia. Perhaps that would have solved the problem

lostinrates

fluffnutter wrote: »

You know what though... I wish I'd known about misophonia when I worked in that office with the radio. At the time HR advised me that they'd only intervene and either ask that the radio was turned off or that I was allowed to work in a different office if I had a 'health condition' that meant sound was particularly distressing or painful, e.g. tinnitus.

I could have said I had misophonia. Perhaps that would have solved the problem

The radio saves me at times. I often turn the radio on at meal times, because then I can enjoy meals with my family who, it appears to me, eat like various zoo animals. (They don't particularly). One has a mild ENT condition which makes it very difficult for me to relax around. I have to say, I have never felt moved to violence about it (some misophonics talk about punching and stuff) but I do feel irrationally and very unfairly cross, which in turn makes me feel very shabby about myself. Listening to music over a meal....or making sure the conversation flows noisily and fluidly, is for me, the best solution.

I love it when I am alone and I turn everything off and the house is silent:o