Neighbours ignore us - thoughts?

makeitstop

pollypenny wrote: »

Ok, while dad cook or irons.

Makeitstop, you missed key conjunction 'or' in your efforts to be clever,

Polly, trying to be clever.?

Do you mean my post on the sexist rubbish.?

I'm sure you can see that was doing nothing but taking the mick out of sexist attitudes.

It was certainly not aimed at anyone in particular, and certainly not at you or any of your posts here.

alias*alibi

Neighbours can move in to a neighbourhood and instantly wind up people who have lived in the street for years; either by not realising or taking the approach 'this is my house, tough'. For example, house next to ours was rented out for 8 years. Nice quiet Bulgarian couple and their son who goes to my DD's school. Que landlords daughter being pregnant, tenants kicked out, house gutted and done up (including new heating so banging all through the day when DH was trying to sleep as was on nights), two huge 40ft plus trees (one that we had saved in high winds which leant mostly in to our garden) were ripped out; the other overhung the neighbours the other side who have now lost all their privacy; wouldn't mind but they've done nothing with the garden since and weeds have grown where the trees once stood and it looks bluddy awful. They also wanted to rip out a hedge which would had meant leaving a 3ft fence only and then asking us if we would put up a new fence! Then baby shower was held a week into moving in, which I have no problem with, but then all the guests turned up to our tiny cul-de-sac with allocated parking and had nowhere to park so were just dumping their cars outside the front of everybody's houses and blocking in parked cars.

Now if the landlord had had the decency to tell us what his proposals were then we could had told him DH was on nights etc; but he didn't and DH had limited sleep for 2 weeks due to noise. They have moved in and it's all wham bam and have changed the outlook of 2 neighbouring gardens with no consideration to loss of privacy. So now they have neighbours both sides !!!!!! off with them due to their actions. Not a great start on all parties accounts and nobody acknowledges each other now.

However, even if the OP's neighbours may also feel like this they have taken things to the extreme. I'd definitely tell them to shove it regarding where my kids played!

missbiggles1

monkeychops wrote: »

Please tell me these two posts are not serious.


Why if you have children and a garden would you be taking them to the park to play? Maybe sometimes you would but most of the time they would play in the garden or, if the street is quiet enough, in the street.


I don't have children but I would never expect any neighbours' children not to play outside. If they were continually screaming or kicking balls into my garden I may have a problem with it but otherwise not. Children play, often for quite a lot of the day, is a parent really meant to go to the park with them for all that time?


There are a lot of grassed areas where I live and they all have notices on saying "no ball games" as there is a park close by. In nice weather there are often children playing on these areas and, sometimes, they will be playing with a ball. To my knowledge no one has every complained and why should they? The only time I thought it was a problem was when a group of about 12 men were playing football, shouting and swearing extremely loudly

Why would a parent need to go to a local park with children unless they're tiny?

The OP has chosen to move to a "nice" rural are with a park so why would he want his lads riding their bikes round the street when there's somewhere specifically for them? Obviously little ones need to be supervised but older (and particularly noisier) children can go off and enjoy their freedom.

We were living in a village (smaller than the OP's) when we had kids of 6 and 8 and we hardly saw them except for meals as they were out playing freely with the other village children who were aged between 4 and 10. That was childhood as it should be and as it was for many of us when we were younger.

FatVonD

If you *want* to get involved with the community things even though you are working (and I don't think I would) could you have, say, a glut of tomato plants that you'd like to donate to the village fete even though you can't attend yourself or some home grown vegetables for the church at harvest festival?

Personally, if they insisted my children went to the park instead of playing in the back garden I'd have been tempted to say you'd have loved them to but it always has the teenagers from the grammar school hanging around drinking and smoking

Old_Git

throw a party and invite all the neighbours.
If they dont turn up throw another party and say sorry you couldnt come to the last party maybe you could come to the next one

greenwoodlad

Reams wrote: »

You just don't get it and the dancing whatever above proves it.

Go and read the etiquette rules for using the forum - then post something nice and constructive

makeitstop

Peter333 wrote: »

Wow, hark about making something out of nothing. I saw Jaylee's post (No.9) as actually a rather pleasant one. And it was very supportive of the OP. She was just saying that the OP's neighbours who are acting snobby are probably just working class who got lucky. I know some people like this myself. She is probably right. She didn't say that all snooty people in bigger houses are working class made good; it was just a suggestion that the OP's neighbour may be.

And as for her comments that 'some people live in very expensive housing,' and there are '50 homes that are social housing' and they all seem to get along fine; that was clearly just a way of saying that all the people from different backgrounds mix where she lives.

She was merely just putting things from her point of view, and you and a couple of others have made it out to be a laughable and rude and nasty post. It clearly was not.

I think this is more about attacking the poster than the post.

Peter,

I don't think anyone is claiming Jaylee's post was rude or nasty.

I did actually say that it was clear that the intentions were coming from the right place, and so, could see that she was offering suport to the OP. That was not in question. However, the way in which that support is offered tells us something of the attitudes people may possess. Of course, I may well be wrong in my assumption of what these attitudes are, but the wording of the first paragraph of that particular post was not great.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that working class people who make decent money and progress, are more likey to posses or develop bad attitudes than those from more affluent / educated backgrounds. For anyone to feel that IS the case, then their views have been coloured in a way which (to my thinking at least) is less than perfect. This is what that first paragraph sounds like. Why on earth was the "working class get lucky" bit, the first thing she suggested as an explanation for their "apparent" attitudes towards the OP.?

Furthermore.... no one is claiming she said that "all snooty people in bigger houses are working class made good". But, why even think that's what it could be.? Could it not equally be that these are "true" middle class people who hold a disapproving view of those who drive VW camper vans, keep chickens or wear their hair in dreadlocks.? It takes all sorts, and so to pigeon hole people's attitudes simply on the basis of their "apparent" class, can be massively misleading and incorrect.

And... as for the "knowing people like this yourself" bit, well good for you. I also know many different people from all walks of life, don't we all. People who send their kids to schools (yes, private schools too) which are very desireable places to have your children educated, but, have exposed these children to cocaine use (amongst other substances) and the sort of behaviour that most of us would be mortified at our children being influenced by. This knowledge does not encourage me to feel that most / all kids from middle class families who attend such schools must be running riot, doing all sorts of class A drugs and pi$$ing away their parents attempts to give them a good start in life. I'm not that stupid or bigotted to think that. Many of us will know people from all walks of life, poorer and wealthier. I know people who have nothing, and struggle to buy their kids new shoes, to those who live on farms worth millions, to professional sports people who earn a small fortune. These people's behavioural patterns and attitudes are not cast in stone simply because of where they grew up, were educated or where they ended up in life. There are a myriad of reasons why people are like they are, as I know you will know.

Jaylee sounds like a decent sort, and I have no axe to grind there at all. The post in general was supportive and was not mean in any way. It could have been worded a little better that's all. Perhaps my initial post was a bit reactionary, and if so, I apologise for that, but I do stand by what I write here.

Look again at the first paragraph below, and tell me those parts highlighted in bold are not judgemental and blinkered. To me anyway, it suggests a narrow perception of class and what the character of people within that class is likely to be, and is just plain wrong.

Here....

Wow, snobville central! What horrible, arrogant stuck-up people these sound. These do NOT come across to me as middle class, but maybe working class who made a few bob/got lucky etc. They sound like people who are trying to be something they're not to me. I know many (genuine) middle class people, and upper class too, and they are lovely.

greenwoodlad

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

It's definitely the noise issue, not the physical act of playing. Some children shriek and scream, whilst others play without this need.

My children are quiet, always have been , the neighbours are noisy

greenwoodlad

makeitstop wrote: »

Peter,

I don't think anyone is claiming Jaylee's post was rude or nasty.

I did actually say that it was clear that the intentions were coming from the right place, and so, could see that she was offering suport to the OP. That was not in question. However, the way in which that support is offered tells us something of the attitudes people may possess. Of course, I may well be wrong in my assumption of what these attitudes are, but the wording of the first paragraph of that particular post was not great.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that working class people who make decent money and progress, are more likey to posses or develop bad attitudes than those from more affluent / educated backgrounds. For anyone to feel that IS the case, then their views have been coloured in a way which (to my thinking at least) is less than perfect. This is what that first paragraph sounds like. Why on earth was the "working class get lucky" bit, the first thing she suggested as an explanation for their "apparent" attitudes towards the OP.?

Furthermore.... no one is claiming she said that "all snooty people in bigger houses are working class made good". But, why even think that's what it could be.? Could it not equally be that these are "true" middle class people who hold a disapproving view of those who drive VW camper vans, keep chickens or wear their hair in dreadlocks.? It takes all sorts, and so to pigeon hole people's attitudes simply on the basis of their "apparent" class, can be massively misleading and incorrect.

And... as for the "knowing people like this yourself" bit, well good for you. I also know many different people from all walks of life, don't we all. People who send their kids to schools (yes, private schools too) which are very desireable places to have your children educated, but, have exposed these children to cocaine use (amongst other substances) and the sort of behaviour that most of us would be mortified at our children being influenced by. This knowledge does not encourage me to feel that most / all kids from middle class families who attend such schools must be running riot, doing all sorts of class A drugs and pi$$ing away their parents attempts to give them a good start in life. I'm not that stupid or bigotted to think that. Many of us will know people from all walks of life, poorer and wealthier. I know people who have nothing, and struggle to buy their kids new shoes, to those who live on farms worth millions, to professional sports people who earn a small fortune. These people's behavioural patterns and attitudes are not cast in stone simply because of where they grew up, were educated or where they ended up in life. There are a myriad of reasons why people are like they are, as I know you will know.

Jaylee sounds like a decent sort, and I have no axe to grind there at all. The post in general was supportive and was not mean in any way. It could have been worded a little better that's all. Perhaps my initial post was a bit reactionary, and if so, I apologise for that, but I do stand by what I write here.

Look again at the first paragraph below, and tell me those parts highlighted in bold are not judgemental and blinkered. To me anyway, it suggests a narrow perception of class and what the character of people within that class is likely to be, and is just plain wrong.

Here....

Wow, snobville central! What horrible, arrogant stuck-up people these sound. These do NOT come across to me as middle class, but maybe working class who made a few bob/got lucky etc. They sound like people who are trying to be something they're not to me. I know many (genuine) middle class people, and upper class too, and they are lovely.

Thanks , very honest and open post - by the way I don't have dreadlocks(!):D

makeitstop

greenwoodlad wrote: »

Thanks , very honest and open post - by the way I don't have dreadlocks(!):D

Yes Greenwoodlad, it is honest.

As I said, I may have overreacted to Jaylee's post, and that was perhaps foolish of me.

I fully support your position to be accepted in your neighbourhood, whether you keep chickens, have dreadlocks, have white skin, black skin, green skin, are an immigrant, always wear dresses or whatever. Or...even if you decide to buy VW.

TOLERANCE is what it's about, especially when it's something we are unfamilar with, at least until we can find out a bit more and become familar. Amazing how preconceptions disappear then.