Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Site policy on identifying individual people and properties
A couple of issues arose recently where I've had to think about whether it is right to identify either a specific person or a specific property in connection with a neighbour problem. The site code of conduct seeks to deal with this as follows:
5. Neighbour Disputes & Issues
From time to members use the site to ask for support in resolving issues that arise with neighbouring properties where the issues require particular knowledge and expertise or action by local public services. HoL can be useful as an information exchange and means of neighbourly support at time like this. We welcome the site being used in this way. However, we have concluded that it is best if members do not use the site to pursue disputes or resolve problems on the site by identifying particular people or properties. Please discuss the issue in general terms by all means, but avoid mentioning specific individuals or properties.
Whilst I totally empathise with the instinct to identify a particular neighbour in a 'neighbour problem' post, I've had to think about this issue on and off recently and I've concluded that there may a real downside to doing so. Most posts that do so may be fine; some will cross the line. There may also be legal issues involved for the site too if libellous statements are allowed. So it seems to me that a universal policy asking people not to do this is the only choice.
I'd really welcome your thoughts.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Growbag on
-
My 2p: right to ask people not to do this. A lot of people who cause problems have issues of their own and may well be vulnerable. Pinpointing the location of, for example, a mentally ill person is just asking for someone to take advantage.
-
Permalink Reply by Takaokagiejin on
-
the policy is very sensible and I support it
-
Permalink Reply by Louise Nazeraj on
-
I agree, a very sensible policy.
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
Sorry, but I don't understand how this policy would work (and I've exchanged emails with Hugh in detail about it). To illustrate, here's 6 sample posts, some of which are real. Which of the following do people think of these should not be permitted (because they'd all be caught by the above policy):
1. There's a clearly mentally disturbed man screaming outside no.55 [x] Road. Does anyone know him? What can we do to help? [based on the post that prompted the new policy]
2. I've just spotted a dodgy looking guy rooting about in my front garden through bags of builder's rubble (Woollaston Road/Umfreville Road). [an ongoing thread in which people posted as recently as yesterday about dodgy people looking into front gardens]
3. Did anyone hear the ridiculous noise coming from sandero last night. The music was playing until 1.30am, it sounded like a rave and then there was a huge fight amongst the party that had been in the restaurant. . . I can’t believe this is being allowed to carry on. [Complaints about Sandero. In case you weren't sure where that was, Hugh has an earlier post in which he points out its address]
4. I don’t know if you are aware but work has started (illegally) on the ex authority garages behind 97 - 103 Effingham Road. . . We need to act now, as they are progressing quickly and planning need to be contacted on a daily basis for them to act. I would urge you to lodge a complaint with the council, which can be done anonymously. [An actual post which resulted in a concerted effort by local residents to object to and prevent a breaker's yard operating on their street]
5. I'm desparately trying to stop the application for a Certificate of Lawfulness to convert no.[x] in [x] Road to 2 flats. If you have any evidence that it was a house until recently, please let me know. [Hypothetical]
6. On Saturday night, there were a bunch of young guys shouting and fighting outside no.[x] in [x] street before the police turned up. Has anyone see them before? Any idea if they're local and what the fight was about. [Hypothetical but is that about a specific property or individuals?]
I'm not saying that HOL shouldn't be careful about what gets posted and the harm it may cause (whether to HOL as a result of legal action or to individuals identified in posts). I'm just saying that maybe this policy and a blanket ban on using the site "to pursue disputes or resolve problems by identifying particular people or properties") may not be the best way to go about it.Be careful for what you ask for, people.
-
-
And while I'm at it, one more which is a perfect illustration of what will happen if this policy is properly enforced:
7. "Outside XX Wightman Road" (thread title). Followed by:
O.k. so I've had a party. Now I'll put all the bagged up rubbish out for the bin men - and block the ******* pavement.
Ignorant, selfish, stupid, inconsiderate, vermin - and they're my neighbours!Comments from other poster in this thread included:- Mentioned my suspicions the other night that this chap has been running a second-hand vehicle-sale business from home, judging by the number of vehicles I've seen 'FOR SALE' on the pavement opposite XXX over the past year. Always a single vehicle only, ranging from minibus to people-carrier to saloon. Today's featured bargain is a plush dark-blue Mercedes, Reg. NUI 1396. A case for Enforcement or local police? Or do we just make a list over a few months? Presumably you can be a serial car-seller with impunity if you can show you're just advertising your current vehicle. Any suggestions?
- I know I keep harping on a bout fines, but I really believe that's the only language these ignorant twits will understand.
-
-
You make some good points Bushy, a blanket policy may not be the best approach after all. I was not happy about the shouty man being identified outside his specific house but there are other instances where identification is warranted such as Sanderos.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks for the comments.
It seems those of us that have posted are probably in the same ballpark. This seems to be about avoiding identifying vulnerable people and, for me, not naming/identifying neighbours with whom the author is in dispute.
So, looking at Bushy's examples, I'd have no hesitation in anonymising examples 1 & 7 (in fact I have now anonymised 7, both in Bushy's example and on the original posting). The other examples are issues that are either liable to be the subject of a public process (planning and/or licensing) or reference unnamed people unlinked to specific properties.
Sound about right?
As you may all know, this site is not moderated. Issues are picked up as and when. When Liz or I do use our edit fingers, it's not unusual for the 'editee' to be upset and in some extreme cases, as very recently, seek to enter into protracted dialogue about, sometimes inconsequential edits. I hope you can begin to see the temptation of a blanket policy. We can end up spending hours on one or two people, justifying our actions and soothing wounded pride. As much as we love every dear HoL member, those situations can kinda end up getting in between us and our lives. In extreme circumstances we use the 'member delete' button, but we do that only as a last resort.
I think it's the right thing to be selective, but I'd welcome two things in return:
1. Helping us identify any instances that need editing as we go along (as I said the site is not moderated).
2. I really welcome discussions such as this where policy is shaped, but I'd ask for support for the acceptance of our editorial decisions on a day-to-day basis (cos we REALLY don't have time to be justifying decisions by email). :o)
Howzat sound?
-
-
Very reasonable, as usual! Sounds good.
-
Permalink Reply by Germana on
-
Sounds reasonable. You could add the wording "particularly in cases where vulnerable people are involved" to make it clearer where priorities are....
-
-
OK, so how about:
5. Neighbour Disputes & Issues
From time to members use the site to ask for support in resolving issues that arise with neighbouring properties where the issues require particular knowledge and expertise or action by local public services. HoL can be useful as an information exchange and means of neighbourly support at times like this. We welcome the site being used in this way. However, when posts concern neighbour disputes or concerns/problems with vulnerable neighbours we do not allow specific people or properties to be identified. In these cases, please discuss the issue in general terms, but avoid mentioning specific individuals or properties.
Any suggested edits? Going, going ..............
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I think "don't" will give you less trouble than "avoid". Nothing else to add.
-
-
I'm a little confused. Does this prohibit posts concerning neighbour disputes with vulnerable neighbours only? Or does it prohibit all neighbour disputes that identify a specific individual or property, regardless of whether the neighbour is vulnerable or not? If the former, then the amendments made to my example 7 above are not consistent. If the latter, I don't agree because it would anonymise (and therefore make irrelevant) examples 3, 4 and 5 above. Which I really don't think is what people want.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
