Neighbours kid kicking his ball on my car
ianhopkins
Basically the neighbour kid (4 years old) is playing in the road kicking his
ball which continually hits my car. I have asked him and his so called
mother who lets him run riot at home and in the street if he she could tell
him not to. That has not worked, usually a day passes where he stops but
then he gets back to it, the mother seems reluctant to parent.
My wife got quite agitated with it all today and when his ball hit her car,
she went outside picked it up said if it touches her car again she will pop
it, his mother was sitting right there did nothing at the time, then 5
minutes later his mother and him were in the road playing football to make a
point perhaps ? we couldn't care less if she played ball with him in the
street which is stupid, but have fun. This is the first time we have seen
her play with any of her many children to be honest. He could play in the
garden which is safer considering his age but she feels it nescessary
perhaps to inflict him on all of us.
I don't want to sound like some old arse, I'm not, I remember being a kid,
one thing I did as a child was to respect other peopls property and not play
ball next to peoples cars.
I've done the usual thing spoken to her, even the kid nicely, although my
wife was harsh which probably was a shock to him but it worked well for now.
Just wondering is there anything I can do now ?
Mrcheerful
get a garage to keep it in. We had this problem when the DSS decided to put
two problem families into our privately owned road. They are just scum that
would be most at home living on a dump. Most of the street have complained
to all and sundry and want to move. My wife's Lexus has had the roof
damaged by the scum throwing eggs about. Every car has ball marks on it,
the two homes have been comprehensively wrecked. Thefts and damage occurred
almost everyday, I got to the stage of not wanting to go outside. The
Police have been here on a regular basis. Shopping trolleys keep appearing
in the street and get rolled down the hill and into the side of cars, you
name it, it has happened, after years of peaceful living it is turned into a
shithole by just two families (no fathers) Now peace again after two years,
one family has been evicted (it took a year) The other has had all four of
her children removed by social services over sexual abuse by visitors to the
house and she is keeping very quiet.
steve robinson
Call the social services and plod a child of four playing ball in the
road is bloody stupid
Zapp Brannigan
> Call the social services and plod a child of four playing ball in the
> road is bloody stupid
Good suggestion.
The Revd
wrote:
Perhaps run the kid over discreetly when nobody's looking?
Nkosi (ama-ecosse)
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:29:37 +0100, "ianhopkins" <n...@host.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
A bit final, and certainly not politically correct, probably the right
solution because of that.
:)
Nkosi
Nigel Oldfield
> two problem families into our privately owned road. They are just scum that
> would be most at home living on a dump.
There is no DSS.
WM
Richard McKenzie
wrote:
Who's being pedantic. How is your Daewoo or Chevvy Matiz?
Mrcheerful
I wouldn't know, it certainly used to be called the DSS or DHSS a few years
ago. What ever acronym 'the social' uses now. Do-gooders supporting scum
with my taxes. A present from the post war labour government.
allantracy
> Basically the neighbour kid (4 years old) is playing in the road kicking his
> ball which continually hits my car. I have asked him and his so called
> mother who lets him run riot at home and in the street if he she could tell
> him not to. That has not worked, usually a day passes where he stops but
> then he gets back to it, the mother seems reluctant to parent.
>
> My wife got quite agitated with it all today and when his ball hit her car,
> she went outside picked it up said if it touches her car again she will pop
> it, his mother was sitting right there did nothing at the time, then 5
> minutes later his mother and him were in the road playing football to make a
> point perhaps ? we couldn't care less if she played ball with him in the
> street which is stupid, but have fun. This is the first time we have seen
> her play with any of her many children to be honest.
If she's a single mother, claiming benefits or tax credits, then it
should be very easy to get some shit on her and make her life hell.
For a start, has she got a bloke staying there because if she has I
bet she's not been declaring it to the DSS or the IR.
We had it in our road, a 4x4, teenagers hanging around all day,
parties every weekend. She dressed as though she was still twenty and
her social life seemed to revolve around kids that age including the
bloke she had living there.
I few discrete phone calls and it turned out she'd been claiming
single mother tax credits on four kids and all the time her bloke had
been living with her for four years.
They threw the book at her and the house ended up being repossessed as
she could no longer afford the mortgage payments.
Then did she ever pile on the sob story and how spiteful the
neighbours had been but the stupid cow should have a kept a low
profile if she was on the take.
Paul Cummins
wrote:
> We had this problem when the DSS decided to put
> two problem families into our privately owned road.
The DSS hasn't existed for over 10 years.
The DWP has nothing to do with Housing whatsoever.
> The other has had all four of
> her children removed by social services over sexual abuse by
> visitors to the house and she is keeping very quiet.
If she's quiet about it, Social Services won't have told you, so how can you
possibly know this?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Mrcheerful
> In article <umRIp.1886$G14...@newsfe11.ams2>, nbk...@hotmail.co.uk
> (Mrcheerful) wrote:
>
>> We had this problem when the DSS decided to put
>> two problem families into our privately owned road.
>
> The DSS hasn't existed for over 10 years.
>
> The DWP has nothing to do with Housing whatsoever.
>
>> The other has had all four of
>> her children removed by social services over sexual abuse by
>> visitors to the house and she is keeping very quiet.
>
> If she's quiet about it, Social Services won't have told you, so how
> can you possibly know this?
Luckily I have spies.
Jimmy
More like Godwins law than spying.
Mrcheerful
What? mentioning the SS?
NM
I hope you feel proud.
Cynic
<nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The other has had all four of
>>> her children removed by social services over sexual abuse by
>>> visitors to the house and she is keeping very quiet.
>> If she's quiet about it, Social Services won't have told you, so how
>> can you possibly know this?
>Luckily I have spies.
Unless there was a criminal case that came from it (which if what you
say is correct there certainly would have been), you are almost
certainly repeating malicious and unfounded rumours that have
absolutely no basis in fact.
--
Cynic
Nigel Oldfield
>
> > WM
>
> Who's being pedantic. How is your Daewoo or Chevvy Matiz?
Not at all, The DSS/DHSS does not exist. So 'Social Security', 'Dole',
'Unemployed' etc do not exist either.
The change in propaganda emphasis (via names etc i.e. Department for
Work and Pensions, Job-Seekers) is very important, in how the
vulnerable and the underclass are now treated and manipulated.
WM
The Revd
wrote:
He should be. The VAT you pay on petrol goes to support people like
her.
Mrcheerful
Hopefully a criminal case will occur, the info. has come from the horse's
mouth as well as others.
Logician
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:30:16 -0700 (PDT), NM <nik.mor...@mac.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
And he gets huge subsidaries from HM Treasury I feel sure to make sure
he gets a cheap mortgage and he probably had a free education, all
paid for by HM Treasury.
The Revd
And where does HM Treasury get its money? From the taxpayers like
him, of course.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
It borrows.
The Revd
<sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
And where does it get the money to pay interest on those loans and
repay the capital? From taxpayers, of course.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your view is very uninformed.
Basically the Government borrows against its name and money is issued
in the world as money moves around.
The Revd
<sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
You are very naive. Loans have to be repaid. With interest.
Graham Murray
> Not at all, The DSS/DHSS does not exist. So 'Social Security', 'Dole',
> 'Unemployed' etc do not exist either.
Nor I suppose does the UB40.
Paul Cummins
Murray) wrote:
> > Not at all, The DSS/DHSS does not exist. So 'Social Security',
> 'Dole',
> > 'Unemployed' etc do not exist either.
>
> Nor I suppose does the UB40.
Only in the sense of the Popular Beat Combo.
The unemployment signing "book" is now the ES40JP, and made of 70gsm paper.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do a finance course.
The Revd
<sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
Sounds like YOU need one. The Government in no different than any
other borrower.
allantracy
>
> > We had it in our road, a 4x4, teenagers hanging around all day,
> > parties every weekend. She dressed as though she was still twenty and
> > her social life seemed to revolve around kids that age including the
> > bloke she had living there.
>
> > I few discrete phone calls and it turned out she'd been claiming
> > single mother tax credits on four kids and all the time her bloke had
> > been living with her for four years.
>
> > They threw the book at her and the house ended up being repossessed as
> > she could no longer afford the mortgage payments.
>
> > Then did she ever pile on the sob story and how spiteful the
> > neighbours had been but the stupid cow should have a kept a low
> > profile if she was on the take.
>
> I hope you feel proud.
She wasn’t actually my neighbour, thank goodness, and no I didn’t feel
proud what I actually felt like was pissing myself laughing when I
found out.
In the summer, every Saturday, it was a barbecue complete with her
f**king patio doors wide open and the stereo cranked up.
I couldn’t even sit quietly in my garden, four doors away.
It was a joint plot by all the neighbours.
The elderly couple attached to her, husband in ill health, hardly
needed that till two in the morning, every weekend, so we decided to
f**k with her and thankfully she had left herself wide open to be so
treated – that’s called a result.
I've passed this advice on several times now, with result, and we
should hardly be surprised that s many of these anti-social bastards
are also the most likely to be on the fiddle - fight fire with fire.
Silk
>>> There is no DSS.
>>
>>> WM
>>
>> Who's being pedantic. How is your Daewoo or Chevvy Matiz?
>
> Not at all, The DSS/DHSS does not exist. So 'Social Security', 'Dole',
> 'Unemployed' etc do not exist either.
In that case, the dole scrounging lazy bastards across the road are a
figment of my imagination. That makes me feel a lot better about paying
my taxes now. I thank you.
> The change in propaganda emphasis (via names etc i.e. Department for
> Work and Pensions, Job-Seekers) is very important, in how the
> vulnerable and the underclass are now treated and manipulated.
In what way?
Silk
They're nowhere near as good as they were in the early 80s.
Nigel Oldfield
> Nigel Oldfield <wmcriticalestop...@googlemail.com> writes:
> > Not at all, The DSS/DHSS does not exist. So 'Social Security', 'Dole',
> > 'Unemployed' etc do not exist either.
>
> Nor I suppose does the UB40.
No, gone too.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> > 'Unemployed' etc do not exist either.
>
> In that case, the dole scrounging lazy bastards
Emotive, ill-informed, ranting.
>across the road are a
> figment of my imagination. That makes me feel a lot better about paying
> my taxes now. I thank you.
Good, doing so is your contribution to The Social Contract, as long as
you are lucky enough to be able to do so.
> > The change in propaganda emphasis (via names etc i.e. Department for
> > Work and Pensions, Job-Seekers) is very important, in how the
> > vulnerable and the underclass are now treated and manipulated.
>
> In what way?
Because it allows false and inequitable mission creep (via systems and
propaganda), from entitlement to enforcement, amongst other things.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> >> 'Unemployed' etc do not exist either.
>
> > Nor I suppose does the UB40.
>
> They're nowhere near as good as they were in the early 80s.
No, many 'perks' are long gone or diluted ;)
WM
NM
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:30:16 -0700 (PDT), NM <nik.mor...@mac.com>
I wouldn't feel good about being instrumental in getting anyone thrown
out of their home
The Revd
wrote:
>On Jun 14, 4:37�pm, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
Why do anti-social scum deserve a home? Besides, they'll just move
here elsewhere and it becomes someone else's problem.
Silk
> Good, doing so is your contribution to The Social Contract, as long as
> you are lucky enough to be able to do so.
Doesn't this same "contract" mean that those who can contribute do so
instead of sitting on their fat lazy arses watching (or staring in)
Jeremy Kyle?
Cynic
<pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>Why do anti-social scum deserve a home?
What is and what is not anti-social is often in the eye of the
beholder. One person considers their neighbour to be antisocial
because they play music on a Sunday afternoon when they want to nap.
That person considers the other to be antisocial for demanding that
they cease playing music at what they consider to be a reasonable
volume at a reasonable time.
So, to some people *you* will be the antisocial scumbag who does not
deserve a home.
--
Cynic
bolta...@boltar.world
cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:59:54 -0600, The Revd
><pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>
>>Why do anti-social scum deserve a home?
>
>What is and what is not anti-social is often in the eye of the
>beholder. One person considers their neighbour to be antisocial
>because they play music on a Sunday afternoon when they want to nap.
>That person considers the other to be antisocial for demanding that
>they cease playing music at what they consider to be a reasonable
>volume at a reasonable time.
Playing music at a volume that irritates other people is never being
reasonable whatever the time of day. If someone wants to listen to music
loud then there are devices called "headphones" that can be used for this.
B2003
pissedorf
wrote:
>It may sound a bit petty but its annoying the hell out of me.
>
>Basically the neighbour kid (4 years old) is playing in the road kicking his
>ball which continually hits my car. I have asked him and his so called
>mother who lets him run riot at home and in the street if he she could tell
>him not to. That has not worked, usually a day passes where he stops but
>then he gets back to it, the mother seems reluctant to parent.
>
>My wife got quite agitated with it all today and when his ball hit her car,
>she went outside picked it up said if it touches her car again she will pop
>it, his mother was sitting right there did nothing at the time, then 5
>minutes later his mother and him were in the road playing football to make a
>point perhaps ? we couldn't care less if she played ball with him in the
>street which is stupid, but have fun. This is the first time we have seen
>her play with any of her many children to be honest. He could play in the
>garden which is safer considering his age but she feels it nescessary
>perhaps to inflict him on all of us.
>
>I don't want to sound like some old arse, I'm not, I remember being a kid,
>one thing I did as a child was to respect other peopls property and not play
>ball next to peoples cars.
>
>I've done the usual thing spoken to her, even the kid nicely, although my
>wife was harsh which probably was a shock to him but it worked well for now.
>
>Just wondering is there anything I can do now ?
>
>
stop using the public highway to store your cars
Mike
that would be a criminal offence.
Regards Mike.
Bod
I would say, that it's the parent/s that need the thrashing, for not
teaching and ensuring that the kid shows respect to other peoples
property. The child obviously knows no better.
GT
news:itcq08$1co$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Its a fuzzy area...
What if there are 6 people who all want to listen to the same music while
they enjoy their Sunday afternoon barbecue in the garden. The volume is only
raised enough for them to enjoy the music in their small group, but can be
heard in the neighbour's garden.
There are dB levels and time periods that are considered anti-social. I
don't recall the exact details.
Under those regulations its deemed unsuitable to keep a cockerel in your
garden because their 'crow' is louder than acceptable!
GT
news:95ua7m...@mid.individual.net...
Wouldn't it be a shame if the ball 'bounced back off the car' and hit him in
the face???
The Revd
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:59:54 -0600, The Revd
><pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>
>>Why do anti-social scum deserve a home?
>
>What is and what is not anti-social is often in the eye of the
>beholder.
Not really. Most reasonable people know it when they see it. There
are well defined factors. For instance, being young and black is
anti-social.
> One person considers their neighbour to be antisocial
>because they play music on a Sunday afternoon when they want to nap.
>That person considers the other to be antisocial for demanding that
>they cease playing music at what they consider to be a reasonable
>volume at a reasonable time.
How can that possibly be "anti-social"?
>So, to some people *you* will be the antisocial scumbag who does not
>deserve a home.
Absurd.
The Revd
wrote:
If you're black, you don't use headphones. You want to 'share' your
taste in music with everyone in a 200 yard radius.
bolta...@boltar.world
The Revd <pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>If you're black, you don't use headphones. You want to 'share' your
>taste in music with everyone in a 200 yard radius.
It seems to me thats the case for most youths, especially on buses, whatever
their colour. And I think you forgot the quotes around "music".
B2003
The Revd
wrote:
Indeed. The old yardstick of what the "man on the Clapham omnibus"
would think no longer applies, as that man would probably now be a
young black from Battersea.
The Revd
It would give him a well deserved lesson in fundamental physics.
Cynic
wrote:
>>What is and what is not anti-social is often in the eye of the
>>beholder. One person considers their neighbour to be antisocial
>>because they play music on a Sunday afternoon when they want to nap.
>>That person considers the other to be antisocial for demanding that
>>they cease playing music at what they consider to be a reasonable
>>volume at a reasonable time.
>Playing music at a volume that irritates other people is never being
>reasonable whatever the time of day.
People can be *unreasonably* irritated by music at volumes that are
not excessively loud at all. If I were irritated by your posts, would
you consider it unreasonable of you to continue posting?
>If someone wants to listen to music
>loud then there are devices called "headphones" that can be used for this.
Many people like to have background music while they carry out
everyday chores, and do not want to be constrained by wires or have
their hearing impaired with headphones.
Even if a person *is* making excessively loud noise, whether or not
that is antisocial will depend on how often they do so and at what
time of day. I don't begrudge my neighbours having a late-night loud
party over a weekend once every few months, even if it is a little
annoying at the time. Some people however get upset at a
once-in-a-blue Moon wedding party taking place in the afternoon.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>> One person considers their neighbour to be antisocial
>>because they play music on a Sunday afternoon when they want to nap.
>>That person considers the other to be antisocial for demanding that
>>they cease playing music at what they consider to be a reasonable
>>volume at a reasonable time.
>
>How can that possibly be "anti-social"?
Preventing people from doing things they enjoy is anti-social to the
people being prevented.
>>So, to some people *you* will be the antisocial scumbag who does not
>>deserve a home.
>Absurd.
Yes, you very often are.
--
Cynic
The Revd
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:30:32 -0600, The Revd
><pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>
>>> One person considers their neighbour to be antisocial
>>>because they play music on a Sunday afternoon when they want to nap.
>>>That person considers the other to be antisocial for demanding that
>>>they cease playing music at what they consider to be a reasonable
>>>volume at a reasonable time.
>>
>>How can that possibly be "anti-social"?
>
>Preventing people from doing things they enjoy is anti-social to the
>people being prevented.
If "doing the things they enjoy" annoys everyone else, then it's
anti-social and needs to be prevented.
>>>So, to some people *you* will be the antisocial scumbag who does not
>>>deserve a home.
>
>>Absurd,
>
>Yes,
I'm glad you agree.
> you very often are.
Predictably, you stand up for the 'rights' of anti-social scumbags.
Are you one? Do you have huge nigger speakers in the back of your
car?
bolta...@boltar.world
cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>People can be *unreasonably* irritated by music at volumes that are
>not excessively loud at all. If I were irritated by your posts, would
>you consider it unreasonable of you to continue posting?
No, because its pretty bloody easy to ignore them. Try ignoring music
thumping through your wall short of wearing industrial grade earmuffs.
>Many people like to have background music while they carry out
>everyday chores, and do not want to be constrained by wires or have
>their hearing impaired with headphones.
If they like their music so loud that it would impair their hearing through
headphones then that tells you all you need to know.
B2003
The Revd
wrote:
He doesn't understand. He's all for people's 'rights' but not
'responsibilities'.
Cynic
>>People can be *unreasonably* irritated by music at volumes that are
>>not excessively loud at all. If I were irritated by your posts, would
>>you consider it unreasonable of you to continue posting?
>No, because its pretty bloody easy to ignore them. Try ignoring music
>thumping through your wall short of wearing industrial grade earmuffs.
If it is at a reasonable volume, it's easy to ignore - or drown out
with sounds you find more pleasant in your own house.
>>Many people like to have background music while they carry out
>>everyday chores, and do not want to be constrained by wires or have
>>their hearing impaired with headphones.
>
>If they like their music so loud that it would impair their hearing through
>headphones then that tells you all you need to know.
Really? Headphones impair your hearing even when there is *no* sound
coming from them.
In any case, some people have music for the benefit of everyone
present, not just themselves.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>>>People can be *unreasonably* irritated by music at volumes that are
>>>not excessively loud at all. If I were irritated by your posts, would
>>>you consider it unreasonable of you to continue posting?
>>
>>No, because its pretty bloody easy to ignore them. Try ignoring music
>>thumping through your wall short of wearing industrial grade earmuffs.
>>
>>>Many people like to have background music while they carry out
>>>everyday chores, and do not want to be constrained by wires or have
>>>their hearing impaired with headphones.
>>
>>If they like their music so loud that it would impair their hearing through
>>headphones then that tells you all you need to know.
>
>He doesn't understand. He's all for people's 'rights' but not
>'responsibilities'.
By "responsibility" you mean "do exactly what *I* tell you to do"
--
Cynic
Cynic
<pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>Predictably, you stand up for the 'rights' of anti-social scumbags.
I am not standing up for *your* rights, so that is demonstrably
untrue.
>Are you one? Do you have huge nigger speakers in the back of your
>car?
My car has the speakers that it was fitted with by the factory. If
the speakers have any racial ethnicity at all, they are probably
Asian.
--
Cynic
The Revd
You see? You have no idea about responsibilities, only rights.
The Revd
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:40:25 -0600, The Revd
><pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>
>>Predictably, you stand up for the 'rights' of anti-social scumbags.
>
>I am not standing up for *your* rights, so that is demonstrably
>untrue.
Since I don't fall into the category, your statement is meaningless.
>>Are you one? Do you have huge nigger speakers in the back of your
>>car?
>
>My car has the speakers that it was fitted with by the factory. If
>the speakers have any racial ethnicity at all, they are probably
>Asian.
You mean you haven't 'upgraded' them to 200W nigger speakers?
How are you going to assert your rights to play loud music in public?
Ste
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:38:48 +0000 (UTC), boltar2...@boltar.world
Agreed, but I think more commonly people get upset when the noise
seems out of all proportion to what is necessary. Consider, for
example, those who not only play loud beating music on a regular
basis, but actually tend to open their doors and/or windows while
doing so, and refuse any reasonable accomodation that does not involve
enforcing the music onto everybody's ears. Most of us would take
exception, and recognise it for what it is which is wilful
inconsideration or attention-seeking.
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
What would happen if the car owner had a good thrashing?
bolta...@boltar.world
cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:54:30 +0000 (UTC), bolta...@boltar.world
>wrote:
>
>>>People can be *unreasonably* irritated by music at volumes that are
>>>not excessively loud at all. If I were irritated by your posts, would
>>>you consider it unreasonable of you to continue posting?
>
>>No, because its pretty bloody easy to ignore them. Try ignoring music
>>thumping through your wall short of wearing industrial grade earmuffs.
>
>If it is at a reasonable volume, it's easy to ignore - or drown out
>with sounds you find more pleasant in your own house.
So if you're being irritated by some music put yours on even louder.
Yeah, thats a terrific solution if you just wanted some peace and quiet.
>>>Many people like to have background music while they carry out
>>>everyday chores, and do not want to be constrained by wires or have
>>>their hearing impaired with headphones.
>>
>>If they like their music so loud that it would impair their hearing through
>>headphones then that tells you all you need to know.
>
>Really? Headphones impair your hearing even when there is *no* sound
>coming from them.
Ok pendant, are you now suddently switching the meaning of "impair" from
damages your hearing to muffles sounds because you think you'll score a
point?
>In any case, some people have music for the benefit of everyone
>present, not just themselves.
Why do I get the feeling you're one of those awkward gits who doesn't
give a shit about his neighbours but will do what you damn well please
regardless?
B2003
GT
news:k17kv69tq6ugj3g3r...@4ax.com...
I wasn't implying an accident!
GT
news:0f790117-c36b-40d1...@d14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
=== badly formatted, daft post ===
What would happen if the car owner had a good thrashing?
== reply ===
Nothing relevant to this discussion would happen - the kid would keep
kicking his ball against the car I expect.
Nigel Oldfield
> On 15/06/2011 11:18, Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>
> > Good, doing so is your contribution to The Social Contract, as long as
> > you are lucky enough to be able to do so.
>
> Doesn't this same "contract" mean that those who can contribute do so
> instead of sitting on their fat lazy arses watching (or staring in)
> Jeremy Kyle?
Not necessarily, it is about acceptance of law (rights and
responsibilities, as it is now often referred to) etc. If the law says
that they can "sit on their fat lazy arses", (as I am, presently,
doing, although I am far from lazy) then they have fulfilled their
part of the contract by obeying it. Do you think that those who are
"sitting on their fat lazy arses" (as I am, presently, doing, although
I am far from lazy) can get away with 'it' and still obtain benefit,
without sanctioned reasons ... and that there are no consequences if
there are no sanctioned reasons?
Some may be 'clinically lazy', but that would not be a JSA issue.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> >headphones then that tells you all you need to know.
>
> He doesn't understand. He's all for people's 'rights' but not
> 'responsibilities'.
Wear noise-cancellers and fulfil your responsibilities.
WM
Cynic
wrote:
>>>>People can be *unreasonably* irritated by music at volumes that are
>>>>not excessively loud at all. If I were irritated by your posts, would
>>>>you consider it unreasonable of you to continue posting?
>>>No, because its pretty bloody easy to ignore them. Try ignoring music
>>>thumping through your wall short of wearing industrial grade earmuffs.
>>If it is at a reasonable volume, it's easy to ignore - or drown out
>>with sounds you find more pleasant in your own house.
>So if you're being irritated by some music put yours on even louder.
>Yeah, thats a terrific solution if you just wanted some peace and quiet.
I'd like all sorts of things. My neighbours often like completely
different things. As we all share the same planet, we have to find a
compromise. People who demand that everyone else act in a way that
fulfills their every wish are selfish and antisocial.
What if, instead of music, the neighbour was using a petrol mower to
cut their grass? Far louder and more annoying than music, so would
you demand that they stop? After all, they could concrete their
garden so that they did not have to make such noise - it is entirely
their choice to have a garden full of grass.
>>>>Many people like to have background music while they carry out
>>>>everyday chores, and do not want to be constrained by wires or have
>>>>their hearing impaired with headphones.
>>>If they like their music so loud that it would impair their hearing through
>>>headphones then that tells you all you need to know.
>>Really? Headphones impair your hearing even when there is *no* sound
>>coming from them.
>Ok pendant, are you now suddently switching the meaning of "impair" from
>damages your hearing to muffles sounds because you think you'll score a
>point?
It is yourself who completely misconstrued my original point, which
was that a person's hearing is impaired whilst wearing the headphones
- meaning that they cannot converse with other members of the
household and may not hear the doorbell or telephone etc. It was not
my intention to suggest any *permanent* impairment.
>>In any case, some people have music for the benefit of everyone
>>present, not just themselves.
>Why do I get the feeling you're one of those awkward gits who doesn't
>give a shit about his neighbours but will do what you damn well please
>regardless?
I am completely opposite to that insulting description, and assist my
neighbours with all sorts of things. I also take steps to mitigate
any annoyance my neighbours might cause to me instead of demanding
that they stop enjoying themselves and live their lives in a way that
suits me.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>>My car has the speakers that it was fitted with by the factory. If
>>the speakers have any racial ethnicity at all, they are probably
>>Asian.
>
>You mean you haven't 'upgraded' them to 200W nigger speakers?
>How are you going to assert your rights to play loud music in public?
Sorry to disappoint you, and prevent you from asserting your right to
get annoyed at everyone who does not live their life according to your
wishes.
--
Cynic
The Revd
What sort of limp-wristed faggot attitude is that?
The Revd
This may not have ever occurred to you, but there are generally
accepted standards of behaviour. There is no universal 'right' to do
whatever you like.
Cynic
<pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>>Sorry to disappoint you, and prevent you from asserting your right to
>>get annoyed at everyone who does not live their life according to your
>>wishes.
>This may not have ever occurred to you, but there are generally
>accepted standards of behaviour. There is no universal 'right' to do
>whatever you like.
This may not have occurred to you, but there are people who object to
neighbours who are behaving well within the accepted norms of society.
There is no right to have neighbours who concede to your every whim.
You will find that there are in fact official limits on noise, which
is all we have in deciding whether someone is or is not behaving
acceptably. From memory there is no limit at all between the hours of
8 AM and 11 PM. Outside that time I think the limit is 9dB, measured
inside the complainant's property. I may have misremembered or be out
of date.
--
Cynic
The Revd
>On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:26:35 -0600, The Revd
><pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>
>>>Sorry to disappoint you, and prevent you from asserting your right to
>>>get annoyed at everyone who does not live their life according to your
>>>wishes.
>
>>This may not have ever occurred to you, but there are generally
>>accepted standards of behaviour. There is no universal 'right' to do
>>whatever you like.
>
>This may not have occurred to you, but there are people who object to
>neighbours who are behaving well within the accepted norms of society.
>There is no right to have neighbours who concede to your every whim.
This may not have occurred to *you*, but I do have a right to have
neighbours who behave within the accepted norms of society. Them
keeping relatively quiet is not a "whim".
>You will find that there are in fact official limits on noise, which
>is all we have in deciding whether someone is or is not behaving
>acceptably.
No, it isn't. Someone who stays at the official noise limit during
all the hours it is permitted is not behaving acceptably.
bolta...@boltar.world
Its the kind of attitude thats running Britain these days unfortunately.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
The Revd <pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>No, it isn't. Someone who stays at the official noise limit during
>all the hours it is permitted is not behaving acceptably.
Quite. No doubt its techinally legal to use a lawnmower for 12 hours a
day but I bloody well doubt many people would put up with it.
B2003
The Revd
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:24:30 -0600
>The Revd <pee...@degenerate.griks> wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:16:56 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>>>neighbours with all sorts of things. I also take steps to mitigate
>>>any annoyance my neighbours might cause to me instead of demanding
>>>that they stop enjoying themselves and live their lives in a way that
>>>suits me.
>>
>>What sort of limp-wristed faggot attitude is that?
>
>Its the kind of attitude thats running Britain these days unfortunately.
Running and ruining.
Cynic
It sounds very much as if what is acceptable to you, personally is
completely different to what is considered reasonable by society as a
whole. It is not at all unreasonable for many people to play music
during the day.
--
Cynic
The Revd
Not to me it doesn't.
> It is not at all unreasonable for many people to play music
>during the day.
It depends how loud the music is, whether the person(s) playing it are
black, the location etc etc.
The Revd
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:08:00 -0600, The Revd
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to sound like some old arse, I'm not, I remember being a
>>>>> kid,
>>>>> one thing I did as a child was to respect other peopls property and not
>>>>> play
>>>>> ball next to peoples cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've done the usual thing spoken to her, even the kid nicely, although my
>>>>> wife was harsh which probably was a shock to him but it worked well for
>>>>> now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wondering is there anything I can do now ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What that obnoxious little brat needs is a good thrashing but I suppose
>>>> that would be a criminal offence.
>>>> Regards Mike.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be a shame if the ball 'bounced back off the car' and hit him in
>>>the face???
>>
>>It would give him a well deserved lesson in fundamental physics.
>
>I can't possibly say when and where and who, but so did leaving boxes
>of matches lying around a brats gateway. Took a couple of months but
>sure enough the little bastard set fire to the house he and his foul
>mother and half brothers and sisters lived in. Damaged the place
>enough that they were rehoused elsewhere.
Excellent! That's what's known as a "result"!