A question of morals vs confidentiality vs legals vs good neighbourliness

orraloon

Right. This has come up today.

Family member is in process of buying a new build house, with part exchange of their current property. Through off the record chat with the selling agent working for the developer, not for the current owner, handling the on-sale of the current house, seems the prospective purchaser is someone who has been convicted of some spectacularly bad violent and life endangering crimes. I'm surprised the individual has not been banged up for life. Not current owners' problem, they'll be out of there.

I'm sitting here thinking sh1t if that was me, would I feel morally obliged to alert the neighbours to what is due to happen in the immediate future? I know for sure I would not want that total d1ckhead living next door to me. And no doubt as and when the truth comes out, all hell will break loose anyway.

Yeah this is a cycling forum, where some appear unable to 'forgive' David Millar. But Millar is Mother Teresa of Calcutta compared to this k-nob.

Not my problem. But, as I say, I'm pondering what would I do in these circumstances?

timothyw

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd want to know if a complete nutter was moving in next door.

The thing is there isn't a lot they can do about it is there?

Pross

TimothyW wrote:

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd want to know if a complete nutter was moving in next door.

The thing is there isn't a lot they can do about it is there?

This pretty much. Even convicted murderers have to live somewhere once released. Also, if it's known this person has committed a crime presumably they been punished as the law sees fit, maybe they are remorseful and trying to start afresh? Added to all that there's no way you should even know about their past and it's possible someone prepared to gossip like that may have got their facts wrong.

slowmart

It seems the individual concerned can potentially raise a mortgage which points to financial stability and whilst there’s no causal link to stability elsewhere in the individuals life it’s a good outlier.

He’s done his time and moved on, so should every once else otherwise we aren’t going to rehabilitate anyone.Ever.

Stevo_666

As mentioned above - you don't know all the circumstances. Better be sure of the facts as well; as I recall some poor bastards have been strung up in the past on the basis of hearsay which turned out to be wrong.

orraloon

Yeah, is difficult isn't it. Not my problem but family member is worried. Trying to reassure by saying not your decision, you are not the seller, is the developer, you will move on. But family member has 'good' values, socially responsible, concerned about impact on neighbourhood after they leave. I'm thinking the most they can do is just say to neighbours that they are moving, say is a part exchange deal on their new build house, and leave it there.

Btw I cannot divulge nature of events, but suffice to say was not Texas but England. Did not kill anyone, but that was by good fortune only. Not that many years ago. And I, family member, and everyone else who will in time become aware are v surprised this individual appears already to be released back into society. As I said, would have thought sentenced to life without parole

lesfirth

I have no evidence to back this up but I would bet that the odds of a violent offender reoffending are far greater than chance of the average Joe Public committing a violent crime.
Just a thought.

Pross

lesfirth wrote:

I have no evidence to back this up but I would bet that the odds of a violent offender reoffending are far greater than chance of the average Joe Public committing a violent crime.
Just a thought.

By definition every re-offender had to originally be an average Joe Public before committing their first crime though.

mfin

House buying is stressful enough. I would say to your family member not to worry, it is of course natural to be concerned, but it's not something for them to control or get involved with. Looking into a crystal ball for bad scenarios is something to knock on the head. Make a decision to leave all that thinking behind and move on.

meursault

I wouldn't have David Millar moving in next to me, with his Maserati's and Bromptons pffft.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

As mentioned above - you don't know all the circumstances. Better be sure of the facts as well; as I recall some poor bastards have been strung up in the past on the basis of hearsay which turned out to be wrong.

I agree with that :shock:

My first house, I lived next to a couple of diagnosed paranoid schizophrenics who were in the habit of terrorising the neighbourhood. Funnily enough I never had the slightest problem with them apart from some nights when it sounded as if they were throwing furniture around.

One Saturday the local mobile grocer had turned up just as some 'friends' knocked on their door. They wouldn't answer and said friends started kicking the door then bombarding the house with fruit and veg (which they hadn't paid for of course!).

Then they left and the police arrived and insisted they open the door and put their knives away. It seems they were into the drug scene that was rife at the time and had upset someone.

Not long after they moved out and just before I had a knock on the door, one of them, the woman wanted to sell me their carpets. Being polite I said I'd take a look and went inside their house. As expected the carpets were the shabbiest most threadbare looking things and they had almost no other furniture. Rather carefully, after discussing the weather and so on, I made an excuse, thanked her and left. No problem.

Later I heard they were both dead having moved to some squalid seaside town.

webboo

Having a diagnosed mental illness is not in the same class as being a convicted violent criminal and is classed as a disability but I’m sure you knew that..

DeVlaeminck

It really does depend - some quite nasty criminals are no bother to their neighbours - so without knowing what they've done nobody can really advise.

That said if your family member considers the person moving in a threat then I think they should let the neighbours know what they know. I mean if I knew my neighbour had been convicted of violent crime it may alter my reaction should said neigbour get into a dispute with me.

tangled_metal

I found out a guy I used to work with was out after killing someone. I didn't know that for years, to me he was just a sound guy. I found out and he was still that same guy but I felt my working relationship had changed by knowing about it. Compared to yule other guys at work he was relatively stable send sober. Might have something to do with parole conditions means he can't go to any drinking establishment in the city we live in / or near.

Years before a new kid at my school was pending a manslaughter charge. He was 16 years old. He'd been drinking in a bar with his older brother. His brother accuse accidentally split a guy's beer who then launched at my class mate's brother. Being a close family he punched three guy but with a glass in his hand. Being a bit kid of outhouse proportions the guy died pretty quickly. The kid was a really nice guy.

The OP described a nasty piece of work though. IMHO by getting the story secondhand we can't be sure how much is true. If you can hide the issue from your family it might be better. The person might not want to cause trouble in his own neighbourhood. If they know about his violence and history it'll not give him a chance.

robert88

Webboo wrote:

Having a diagnosed mental illness is not in the same class as being a convicted violent criminal and is classed as a disability but I’m sure you knew that..

Sarcastic little bugger aincha!

The point is that they had a reputation for violent, threatening behaviour in the neighbourhood and were also drug abusers.

They probably did have convictions, the police clearly knew them well.

If they were violent towards my then neighbours it's probably partly due to the neighbours ignorance and failure to make allowances. I think it fortunate that I was warned and was able to make allowances.

Matthewfalle

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I mean if I knew my neighbour had been convicted of violent crime it may alter my reaction should said neigbour get into a dispute with me.

in what way?

DeVlaeminck

Matthewfalle wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I mean if I knew my neighbour had been convicted of violent crime it may alter my reaction should said neigbour get into a dispute with me.

in what way?

In the way that if I were cut up by a car I'd be less likely to respond if I knew Kenneth Noye was driving it.

Matthewfalle

so you'd be happy to get verbal and square up to someone you knew wouldn't kick seven bells out of you? the minute someone is "harder" you'd change your approach?

you'd be happy to have a pop at me (meek mild cyclist) and not, for example, Fat Les the well known football hooligan?

sounds a bit bullying/cowardly unless i'm i'm reading it wrong.

DeVlaeminck

Matthewfalle wrote:

so you'd be happy to get verbal and square up to someone you knew wouldn't kick seven bells out of you? the minute someone is "harder" you'd change your approach?

you'd be happy to have a pop at me (meek mild cyclist) and not, for example, Fat Les the well known football hooligan?

sounds a bit bullying/cowardly unless i'm i'm reading it wrong.

Where did I say I'd square up and kick 7 bells out of anyone? So yes you are reading it wrong, or trolling to get a rise.

I suspect if you knew I had been convicted murdering 2 people for trying to wind me up on this forum you wouldn't have posted that - most people including me will moderate their response to something if they suspect it may result in violent death.

Matthewfalle

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

so you'd be happy to get verbal and square up to someone you knew wouldn't kick seven bells out of you? the minute someone is "harder" you'd change your approach?

you'd be happy to have a pop at me (meek mild cyclist) and not, for example, Fat Les the well known football hooligan?

sounds a bit bullying/cowardly unless i'm i'm reading it wrong.

Where did I say I'd square up and kick 7 bells out of anyone? So yes you are reading it wrong, or trolling to get a rise.

I suspect if you knew I had been convicted murdering 2 people for trying to wind me up on this forum you wouldn't have posted that - most people including me will moderate their response to something if they suspect it may result in violent death.

not in my book - always treat everyone fairly, politely and the same.

seems that by using the phrase "moderate their response to something...." it means that you're happy to scream and eff and blind at someone unless you think you'll get a dose of your own medicine/worse.

or are you trolling?

orraloon

Oi, pack it it you 2, or else...

DeVlaeminck

Matthewfalle wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

so you'd be happy to get verbal and square up to someone you knew wouldn't kick seven bells out of you? the minute someone is "harder" you'd change your approach?

you'd be happy to have a pop at me (meek mild cyclist) and not, for example, Fat Les the well known football hooligan?

sounds a bit bullying/cowardly unless i'm i'm reading it wrong.

Where did I say I'd square up and kick 7 bells out of anyone? So yes you are reading it wrong, or trolling to get a rise.

I suspect if you knew I had been convicted murdering 2 people for trying to wind me up on this forum you wouldn't have posted that - most people including me will moderate their response to something if they suspect it may result in violent death.

not in my book - always treat everyone fairly, politely and the same.

seems that by using the phrase "moderate their response to something...." it means that you're happy to scream and eff and blind at someone unless you think you'll get a dose of your own medicine/worse.

or are you trolling?

Again where did I mention screaming, effing, kicking 7 bells out of someone?

Let me give you an example. If I met you I would ask you why you had nothing better to do than troll people on a cycling forum. We both know you spend a fair amount of your time doing just that.

If I thought that you were likely to take offence at that and in taking offence you would pull a knife on me I'd probably not broach the subject.

If you call that cowardice fine - I'd call it common sense - not wanting to sacrifice my life to call out someone for acting in an immature way. In short your behaviour gives ke the right to take reasonable offence and express that in a reasonable way ( note not kick 7 bells out of you). However it doesn't impose a duty on me to do so whatever the consequences.

darkhairedlord

The whole thing looks like a scam to me. Builder offers below market rate, sells to accomplice to show what a good deal he gave you, neighbours terrorised into selling up way below market, whole lot redeveloped into giant HMO.

Matthewfalle

sorry - i'm not understanding your parameters for broaching/not broaching a subject.

i also presume your use of the word "broaching" means to address someone verbally and confrontationally.

surely if a subject is worth broaching with meek mild cyclist such as me or someone who looks like Rick (5'2, 60kg) or a lady its not worth broaching with Fat Les?

If the subject was that important you'd broach it with everyone surely?

And how do you know if someone is going to be violent? After all, you may feel confident being bigger and taller than Rick or meek me to broach a subject but how do you know Rick isn't going to pull out a blade?

orraloon

darkhairedlord wrote:

The whole thing looks like a scam to me. Builder offers below market rate, sells to accomplice to show what a good deal he gave you, neighbours terrorised into selling up way below market, whole lot redeveloped into giant HMO.

Nah. Currently family member lives on well established 90s built estate in a different location to the new build in progress purchase.

A bit more digging para mi suggests that individual was sectioned under mental health rather than jailed, perhaps now, way too soon in my opinion but hey, perhaps being 'helped' back into society. I doubt local society will want or indeed accept such a 'kin a-hole given the magnitude of his offences.

Now in pure hypothesis territory. I can understand desire on part of the public sector authorities responsible for reintegrating such a basket case out of the looney bin back into real world. However at what impact and cost, financial / social / fear and loathing on the unfortunate new neighbours is acceptable? One very very troubled nut-job vs a wide circle of unwitting new neighbours in a currently stable domestic world.

Me? Execute. Problem sorted. But not my problem, fortunately.

webboo

orraloon wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

The whole thing looks like a scam to me. Builder offers below market rate, sells to accomplice to show what a good deal he gave you, neighbours terrorised into selling up way below market, whole lot redeveloped into giant HMO.

Nah. Currently family member lives on well established 90s built estate in a different location to the new build in progress purchase.

A bit more digging para mi suggests that individual was sectioned under mental health rather than jailed, perhaps now, way too soon in my opinion but hey, perhaps being 'helped' back into society. I doubt local society will want or indeed accept such a 'kin a-hole given the magnitude of his offences.

Now in pure hypothesis territory. I can understand desire on part of the public sector authorities responsible for reintegrating such a basket case out of the looney bin back into real world. However at what impact and cost, financial / social / fear and loathing on the unfortunate new neighbours is acceptable? One very very troubled nut-job vs a wide circle of unwitting new neighbours in a currently stable domestic world.

Me? Execute. Problem sorted. But not my problem, fortunately.

I suspect if you were to use those terms and that language at the person in question it would be you getting a visit from the old bill not them.

orraloon

Yebbut. I know what individual did. Not good. Shall we say not a positive contributor to society at large. As individual should not be.

webboo

orraloon wrote:

Yebbut. I know what individual did. Not good. Shall we say not a positive contributor to society at large. As individual should not be.

That may be so but as an individual with mental illness they are classed as disabled therefore to abuse them becomes a hate crime. Which is ironic given the the title of the thread.

orraloon

Webboo wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Yebbut. I know what individual did. Not good. Shall we say not a positive contributor to society at large. As individual should not be.

That may be so but as an individual with mental illness they are classed as disabled therefore to abuse them becomes a hate crime. Which is ironic given the the title of the thread.

No abuse. Statement of fact, of public record, coloured by opinion. Abuse for sure is what individual delivered to multiple random individuals. All fine now though, was x (not a large number) years ago, cop of plea of mental instability, do a few years in 'care', play the system and get away with it. Oh and get 'assisted' in your rehabilitation into society. Were you to know what this (my view) bellend did, I reckon you would go ...oh. That. Right.

webboo

It doesn’t matter what I think or believe but the use of bellend, loony, nut job and basket case and suggest they are executed hardly fit in with title of the thread or probably the law.

sungod

orraloon wrote:

Yebbut. I know what individual did. Not good. Shall we say not a positive contributor to society at large. As individual should not be.

there're millions in the uk who are "not a positive contributor to society at large"

why single out one?