Barking mad relatives!

thorsoak

I hope you have been able to explain sufficiently to lodger that she has blocked "wee lass's" phone - not to mention Aunt! Hope you have done the same!

Elinore

The lodger used the frog in boiling water analogy - it ramped up so subtly that she hadn't realised it was upsetting her.

The lodger has her own lovely flat up country and a very good career. So the Aunt was heavily pushing Wee Lass not being so fortunate, that Lodger could have her pick of places rather than, you know taking it from more people with more limited resources at their disposal....she didn't actually say the word selfish it was implied.

Yes, they are now blocked.

kerri_gt

Elinore wrote: »

My sense of humour at the situation has taken a nose dive. It appears that wee lass got really chatty with the lodger and exchanged numbers (ostensibly for pictures of staypuft)

Aunt has been messaging over the course of the week, started all nice - thanking her for letting Wee Lass sleep in her bedroom and slowly been ramping it up...... slowly but surely. Started hinting about Wee lass being homeless, then homeless and destitute you get the idea. Ended up getting rather nasty in a passive-aggressive way accusing her of being selfish, and so on.

This came out of the blue after I got an emotional wattsapp from the Lodger handing in her notice. That's all smoothed out now, though she still really does feel bad and really awkward.

Grrrrrr - I thought this was all water under the bridge but apparently not.

Blimey, Wee Lass sounds either incredibly naive or very manipulative. Who on earth swaps phone numbers with a random lodger (whom I am sure is very lovely) she has known for 24hrs, then starts sharing photos of her small child with said person. Whilst many people would take these photos entirely innocently, there see those who would use them for 'darker purposes' (not suggesting your lodger is such a person but Wee Lass barely knows said Lodger).

So Wee Lass was suggesting Lodger should make herself homeless so she could have her room or Aunt...or both? I'm not entirely convinced Wee Lass does not have a hand in this.

Pollycat

Elinore wrote: »

The lodger used the frog in boiling water analogy - it ramped up so subtly that she hadn't realised it was upsetting her.

The lodger has her own lovely flat up country and a very good career. So the Aunt was heavily pushing Wee Lass not being so fortunate, that Lodger could have her pick of places rather than, you know taking it from more people with more limited resources at their disposal....she didn't actually say the word selfish it was implied.

Yes, they are now blocked.

If it were me, they'd stay blocked. Permanently.

kerri_gt wrote: »

Blimey, Wee Lass sounds either incredibly naive or very manipulative. Who on earth swaps phone numbers with a random lodger (whom I am sure is very lovely) she has known for 24hrs, then starts sharing photos of her small child with said person. Whilst many people would take these photos entirely innocently, there see those who would use them for 'darker purposes' (not suggesting your lodger is such a person but Wee Lass barely knows said Lodger).

So Wee Lass was suggesting Lodger should make herself homeless so she could have her room or Aunt...or both? I'm not entirely convinced Wee Lass does not have a hand in this.

Lodger sounds naive too.

Gloria_Steeth

Pollycat wrote: »

Why on earth didn't the lodger say something to you when things started to get nasty?
TBH if I were the lodger, my response to the Aunt would have been ' none of my business, I'm blocking your number'.
I'm bemused why the lodger was accused of being selfish (unless I've misunderstood).

I'm bemused why the lodger was even there on a Saturday night when Wee Lass arrived, since OP mentioned in the opening post that she was their "lovely Mon/Fri lodger"... Sure, the lodger could have just happened to be there on that particular weekend but methinks this story is becoming somewhat piscine...

Elinore

Because shes lovely, causes us absolutely zero hassle so occasionally she stays a weekend when pre-agreed. She travels a lot so spend swathes of time not in residence, so I feel its fair - means she gets to enjoy weekends out in London.

We both exchanged numbers with wee lass, we are nice people who wanted to make sure she got home ok. The giggle monster was universally adored and I'm not quite sure what to do with the 'darker purposes comment'

being looked after, put up and cared for by people you don't know. Shown kindness usually does bond people as I'm sure if we had 'darker purpose' in mind we had plenty of opportunities.

Pollycat

Elinore wrote: »

Because shes lovely, causes us absolutely zero hassle so occasionally she stays a weekend when pre-agreed. She travels a lot so spend swathes of time not in residence, so I feel its fair - means she gets to enjoy weekends out in London.

We both exchanged numbers with wee lass, we are nice people who wanted to make sure she got home ok. The giggle monster was universally adored and I'm not quite sure what to do with the 'darker purposes comment'

being looked after, put up and cared for by people you don't know. Shown kindness usually does bond people as I'm sure if we had 'darker purpose' in mind we had plenty of opportunities.

If I was in the lodger's position, I'd be content knowing her relative was making sure she got home OK.
I also consider myself to be a caring person but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have bonded with some random relative of my landlady who just turned up uninvited on the doorstep.

But then again, I guard my mobile number as a lioness does her cub and would never have given it out to said random stranger.
Maybe I'm not as nice as I think...:rotfl:

kerri_gt

Elinore wrote: »

We both exchanged numbers with wee lass, we are nice people who wanted to make sure she got home ok. The giggle monster was universally adored and I'm not quite sure what to do with the 'darker purposes comment'

Shown kindness usually does bond people as I'm sure if we had 'darker purpose' in mind we had plenty of opportunities.

I wasn't making any suggestion either you or your lodger would have any ulterior motive with the photos - however as a mother 'Wee Lass' doesn't actually know Lodger from Adam having met Lodger for less than 24hrs by all accounts. I was merely suggesting that it is somewhat naive of her to be sharing photos of her child with someone who is basically a stranger. In the same way parents post multitudes of photos of their children on FB and Instagram with public profiles and no thought for who may be able to access, download an distribute those photos.

Pollycat

kerri_gt wrote: »

I wasn't making any suggestion either you or your lodger would have any ulterior motive with the photos - however as a mother 'Wee Lass' doesn't actually know Lodger from Adam having met Lodger for less than 24hrs by all accounts. I was merely suggesting that it is somewhat naive of her to be sharing photos of her child with someone who is basically a stranger. In the same way parents post multitudes of photos of their children on FB and Instagram with public profiles and no thought for who may be able to access, download an distribute those photos.

I understood your point, Kerri.

Redlady.....

Gloria_Steeth wrote: »

I'm bemused why the lodger was even there on a Saturday night when Wee Lass arrived, since OP mentioned in the opening post that she was their "lovely Mon/Fri lodger"... Sure, the lodger could have just happened to be there on that particular weekend but methinks this story is becoming somewhat piscine...

Oh fgs, Elinore AND her lodger sound like really nice people. Trust someone to try and take it down a dark route. They both acted thoughtfully and kindly to Wee Lass, and any criticism belongs totally to the Aunt, and Wee Lass to a lesser extent.