Woman evicted after complaints about loud parties, arguments and noisy visitors

Anti-social tenant evicted

Anti-social tenant evicted

First published in News by , Senior Reporter

A WOMAN has been evicted from her Basingstoke home after neighbours complained about loud parties, arguments and noisy visitors.

The woman, in her 20s, was evicted after her landlord, Sovereign Housing Association, successfully sought a court order.

In a statement, the association said the woman and her partner moved into the top-floor bedsit in Stag Hill, South Ham, in April last year.

The first complaints about noise came shortly afterwards, when the couple hosted a house-warming party with around 35 guests.

Neighbours also complained about the couple having loud arguments, items being thrown about in the bedsit, and visitors running up and down the communal stairwell, day and night.

Sovereign said it offered the woman support to settle in, which she did not take up, and she continued to change her contact number and ignore letters.

She was served with a tenancy caution, to which she agreed, but she broke the terms of it in October last year, and was served notice on her tenancy.

When she refused to move out, the housing association launched possession proceedings, and the eviction was granted this year by Basing-stoke County Court.

Maryanne Yesil, housing officer at Sovereign, said: “If a resident isn’t willing to work with us, we have to take action to protect their neighbours and ensure they can continue living peacefully.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:55pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Alfie The Dog says...

And now she has been put into emergency housing by another Housing Association until a permanent property can be found for her within the local area.

Then the whole cycle can start again.
And now she has been put into emergency housing by another Housing Association until a permanent property can be found for her within the local area. Then the whole cycle can start again. Alfie The Dog
  • Score: 8

3:38pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Mr_Right says...

Alfie The Dog wrote:
And now she has been put into emergency housing by another Housing Association until a permanent property can be found for her within the local area.

Then the whole cycle can start again.
Difficult one, because you're probably right - but she's got to live somewhere..!
[quote][p][bold]Alfie The Dog[/bold] wrote: And now she has been put into emergency housing by another Housing Association until a permanent property can be found for her within the local area. Then the whole cycle can start again.[/p][/quote]Difficult one, because you're probably right - but she's got to live somewhere..! Mr_Right
  • Score: 1

4:41pm Mon 9 Jun 14

laurence86 says...

Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent?
Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent? laurence86
  • Score: 14

6:48pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Mighty Antar says...

laurence86 wrote:
Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent?
What rules of society are you talking about? if they had given her a detached house on the outskirts of the town, the neighbours wouldn't hear the noise and wouldn't have been complaining. Besides which, what evidence is there that this unnamed "woman in her 20s" has been given another place other than some anonymous poster.
[quote][p][bold]laurence86[/bold] wrote: Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent?[/p][/quote]What rules of society are you talking about? if they had given her a detached house on the outskirts of the town, the neighbours wouldn't hear the noise and wouldn't have been complaining. Besides which, what evidence is there that this unnamed "woman in her 20s" has been given another place other than some anonymous poster. Mighty Antar
  • Score: -10

9:17am Tue 10 Jun 14

laurence86 says...

Mighty Antar wrote:
laurence86 wrote:
Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent?
What rules of society are you talking about? if they had given her a detached house on the outskirts of the town, the neighbours wouldn't hear the noise and wouldn't have been complaining. Besides which, what evidence is there that this unnamed "woman in her 20s" has been given another place other than some anonymous poster.
I am talking about a basic level of respect for your neighbours as well as the tenancy caution she was served with.

Most people would love to have a detached house on the outskirts of town. Your suggestion of moving her out to a detached house hardly seems fair. Alfie the Dog’s statement is in actual fact in line with housing association policies.
[quote][p][bold]Mighty Antar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laurence86[/bold] wrote: Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent?[/p][/quote]What rules of society are you talking about? if they had given her a detached house on the outskirts of the town, the neighbours wouldn't hear the noise and wouldn't have been complaining. Besides which, what evidence is there that this unnamed "woman in her 20s" has been given another place other than some anonymous poster.[/p][/quote]I am talking about a basic level of respect for your neighbours as well as the tenancy caution she was served with. Most people would love to have a detached house on the outskirts of town. Your suggestion of moving her out to a detached house hardly seems fair. Alfie the Dog’s statement is in actual fact in line with housing association policies. laurence86
  • Score: 7

12:38pm Tue 10 Jun 14

jonone says...

laurence86 wrote:
Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent?
Perhaps the new place should be a prison - at least she'd be housed and fed.

But the Labour voters who support her type would be upset by this, so she'll just have to go on being allowed to make people's lives a misery.
[quote][p][bold]laurence86[/bold] wrote: Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent?[/p][/quote]Perhaps the new place should be a prison - at least she'd be housed and fed. But the Labour voters who support her type would be upset by this, so she'll just have to go on being allowed to make people's lives a misery. jonone
  • Score: -1

2:05pm Tue 10 Jun 14

CrossofLorraine says...

Behaving so irresponsibly is unusual for someone in their 20’s unless they have some sort of substance dependency or mental health issues - as a normal person would have usually wised up by this point, and realised that they’ll be homeless unless they abide by the Welfare/Housing Associations terms of residency.
But it’s nice to know that without any real knowledge of this troubled soul, people are ready to believe she deserves to be removed from society and made homeless or locked up in prison without breaking any law.
And they say that we Conservatives have no heart.
Behaving so irresponsibly is unusual for someone in their 20’s unless they have some sort of substance dependency or mental health issues - as a normal person would have usually wised up by this point, and realised that they’ll be homeless unless they abide by the Welfare/Housing Associations terms of residency. But it’s nice to know that without any real knowledge of this troubled soul, people are ready to believe she deserves to be removed from society and made homeless or locked up in prison without breaking any law. And they say that we Conservatives have no heart. CrossofLorraine
  • Score: -2

2:38pm Tue 10 Jun 14

laurence86 says...

CrossofLorraine wrote:
Behaving so irresponsibly is unusual for someone in their 20’s unless they have some sort of substance dependency or mental health issues - as a normal person would have usually wised up by this point, and realised that they’ll be homeless unless they abide by the Welfare/Housing Associations terms of residency.
But it’s nice to know that without any real knowledge of this troubled soul, people are ready to believe she deserves to be removed from society and made homeless or locked up in prison without breaking any law.
And they say that we Conservatives have no heart.
If the case is as you suggest then perhaps she should be taken into care for her benefit and her neighbours benefit.
If she is sound of mind then she has made a choice to ignore the housing associations reasonable requests and should have her access to subsidised rent cut. She can then rent at full private rates like most other twenty something year olds in Basingstoke.
[quote][p][bold]CrossofLorraine[/bold] wrote: Behaving so irresponsibly is unusual for someone in their 20’s unless they have some sort of substance dependency or mental health issues - as a normal person would have usually wised up by this point, and realised that they’ll be homeless unless they abide by the Welfare/Housing Associations terms of residency. But it’s nice to know that without any real knowledge of this troubled soul, people are ready to believe she deserves to be removed from society and made homeless or locked up in prison without breaking any law. And they say that we Conservatives have no heart.[/p][/quote]If the case is as you suggest then perhaps she should be taken into care for her benefit and her neighbours benefit. If she is sound of mind then she has made a choice to ignore the housing associations reasonable requests and should have her access to subsidised rent cut. She can then rent at full private rates like most other twenty something year olds in Basingstoke. laurence86
  • Score: 4

3:15pm Tue 10 Jun 14

CrossofLorraine says...

I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.
I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh. CrossofLorraine
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Folkestone Saint says...

CrossofLorraine wrote:
I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.
That is why this is called comments section, we can only base our comments on the information given, but do you not think that her treatment of her neighbours was also harsh, my sypathies go to them after all even a 5 year old knows right from wrong
[quote][p][bold]CrossofLorraine[/bold] wrote: I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.[/p][/quote]That is why this is called comments section, we can only base our comments on the information given, but do you not think that her treatment of her neighbours was also harsh, my sypathies go to them after all even a 5 year old knows right from wrong Folkestone Saint
  • Score: 5

5:04pm Tue 10 Jun 14

jonone says...

CrossofLorraine wrote:
I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.
She can come and live next to you then.
[quote][p][bold]CrossofLorraine[/bold] wrote: I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.[/p][/quote]She can come and live next to you then. jonone
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Sam_Walker123456 says...

CrossofLorraine wrote:
I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.
You are correct that we do not know the full story, but I believe Sovereign are a responsible landlord and they would not evict somebody without having exhausted all other solutions. The neighbours might claim that Sovereign have been too tolerant. The clue to the evicted tenants attitude is in given by: 'Maryanne Yesil, housing officer at Sovereign, said: “If a resident isn’t willing to work with us, we have to take action to protect their neighbours and ensure they can continue living peacefully.”' Note the use of the phrase, 'not willing', not 'unable' or incapable' but showing a lack of will to work with the landlord.
[quote][p][bold]CrossofLorraine[/bold] wrote: I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.[/p][/quote]You are correct that we do not know the full story, but I believe Sovereign are a responsible landlord and they would not evict somebody without having exhausted all other solutions. The neighbours might claim that Sovereign have been too tolerant. The clue to the evicted tenants attitude is in given by: 'Maryanne Yesil, housing officer at Sovereign, said: “If a resident isn’t willing to work with us, we have to take action to protect their neighbours and ensure they can continue living peacefully.”' Note the use of the phrase, 'not willing', not 'unable' or incapable' but showing a lack of will to work with the landlord. Sam_Walker123456
  • Score: 6

4:37pm Wed 11 Jun 14

jonone says...

Sam_Walker123456 wrote:
CrossofLorraine wrote: I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.
You are correct that we do not know the full story, but I believe Sovereign are a responsible landlord and they would not evict somebody without having exhausted all other solutions. The neighbours might claim that Sovereign have been too tolerant. The clue to the evicted tenants attitude is in given by: 'Maryanne Yesil, housing officer at Sovereign, said: “If a resident isn’t willing to work with us, we have to take action to protect their neighbours and ensure they can continue living peacefully.”' Note the use of the phrase, 'not willing', not 'unable' or incapable' but showing a lack of will to work with the landlord.
Exactly. Too many times, obnoxious behaviour is written of as "troubled life"

I have had plenty of stressful moments in my life, moments of depression, moments of fiancial worry, but have not felt the need to make my neighbour's lives a misery.
[quote][p][bold]Sam_Walker123456[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CrossofLorraine[/bold] wrote: I don't know what the case is, nor does anyone else who has commented on this news item thus far. My only point is unless we know the all the circumstances (not excuses) for this individuals appalling behavior, to conclude what should become of this individual without understanding all the facts is a bit harsh.[/p][/quote]You are correct that we do not know the full story, but I believe Sovereign are a responsible landlord and they would not evict somebody without having exhausted all other solutions. The neighbours might claim that Sovereign have been too tolerant. The clue to the evicted tenants attitude is in given by: 'Maryanne Yesil, housing officer at Sovereign, said: “If a resident isn’t willing to work with us, we have to take action to protect their neighbours and ensure they can continue living peacefully.”' Note the use of the phrase, 'not willing', not 'unable' or incapable' but showing a lack of will to work with the landlord.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Too many times, obnoxious behaviour is written of as "troubled life" I have had plenty of stressful moments in my life, moments of depression, moments of fiancial worry, but have not felt the need to make my neighbour's lives a misery. jonone
  • Score: -1

6:18pm Wed 11 Jun 14

purple-ferret says...

Mr_Right wrote:
Alfie The Dog wrote:
And now she has been put into emergency housing by another Housing Association until a permanent property can be found for her within the local area.

Then the whole cycle can start again.
Difficult one, because you're probably right - but she's got to live somewhere..!
Its the price we pay for living in a civilised society
[quote][p][bold]Mr_Right[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alfie The Dog[/bold] wrote: And now she has been put into emergency housing by another Housing Association until a permanent property can be found for her within the local area. Then the whole cycle can start again.[/p][/quote]Difficult one, because you're probably right - but she's got to live somewhere..![/p][/quote]Its the price we pay for living in a civilised society purple-ferret
  • Score: 2

3:24pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Ambivalent says...

jonone says...


laurence86 wrote:
Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent?
Perhaps the new place should be a prison - at least she'd be housed and fed.

But the Labour voters who support her type would be upset by this, so she'll just have to go on being allowed to make people's lives a misery.

Sorry jonone, are you actually concerned about these issues? So why do you consistently refer to Labour voters who support her type? Are you just using these examples as to score political points? seems to me your views have more to do with politics than social issues.
Such sweeping generalisations you continue to make, only indicates you are happy to regard whole sectors of society as 'all the same'.
Were I to make such statements - all tory politicians are only interested in screwing the system and looking after their mates, you would no doubt disagree, however you are doing the same thing!
I know that there are many Labour voters who have a whole range of views and not all, probably not many would support 'her type', however many would also have a social conscience. I am happy to admit some Conservative voters also have a social conscience. Whichever political persuasion, many people hold a range of similar views but believe in perhaps different ways of resolving problems or how society should be best served.
Your comments continue to be such that could be deemed offensive and judgmental, it shows a lack of respect and to be honest a very ignorant and self centred attitude. I'm sure many people of whichever party you support would be pretty embarrassed by your comments and wouldn't want to be associated with them.
I actually think the biggest problem with this country is people like you, who demand a society that fits your perceptions and anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or a Labour supporter, people who have little understanding of reality, and people who don't want to understand reality.
Have a good day!!
jonone says... laurence86 wrote: Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent? Perhaps the new place should be a prison - at least she'd be housed and fed. But the Labour voters who support her type would be upset by this, so she'll just have to go on being allowed to make people's lives a misery. Sorry jonone, are you actually concerned about these issues? So why do you consistently refer to Labour voters who support her type? Are you just using these examples as to score political points? seems to me your views have more to do with politics than social issues. Such sweeping generalisations you continue to make, only indicates you are happy to regard whole sectors of society as 'all the same'. Were I to make such statements - all tory politicians are only interested in screwing the system and looking after their mates, you would no doubt disagree, however you are doing the same thing! I know that there are many Labour voters who have a whole range of views and not all, probably not many would support 'her type', however many would also have a social conscience. I am happy to admit some Conservative voters also have a social conscience. Whichever political persuasion, many people hold a range of similar views but believe in perhaps different ways of resolving problems or how society should be best served. Your comments continue to be such that could be deemed offensive and judgmental, it shows a lack of respect and to be honest a very ignorant and self centred attitude. I'm sure many people of whichever party you support would be pretty embarrassed by your comments and wouldn't want to be associated with them. I actually think the biggest problem with this country is people like you, who demand a society that fits your perceptions and anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or a Labour supporter, people who have little understanding of reality, and people who don't want to understand reality. Have a good day!! Ambivalent
  • Score: 4

4:29pm Thu 12 Jun 14

jonone says...

Ambivalent wrote:
jonone says... laurence86 wrote: Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent? Perhaps the new place should be a prison - at least she'd be housed and fed. But the Labour voters who support her type would be upset by this, so she'll just have to go on being allowed to make people's lives a misery. Sorry jonone, are you actually concerned about these issues? So why do you consistently refer to Labour voters who support her type? Are you just using these examples as to score political points? seems to me your views have more to do with politics than social issues. Such sweeping generalisations you continue to make, only indicates you are happy to regard whole sectors of society as 'all the same'. Were I to make such statements - all tory politicians are only interested in screwing the system and looking after their mates, you would no doubt disagree, however you are doing the same thing! I know that there are many Labour voters who have a whole range of views and not all, probably not many would support 'her type', however many would also have a social conscience. I am happy to admit some Conservative voters also have a social conscience. Whichever political persuasion, many people hold a range of similar views but believe in perhaps different ways of resolving problems or how society should be best served. Your comments continue to be such that could be deemed offensive and judgmental, it shows a lack of respect and to be honest a very ignorant and self centred attitude. I'm sure many people of whichever party you support would be pretty embarrassed by your comments and wouldn't want to be associated with them. I actually think the biggest problem with this country is people like you, who demand a society that fits your perceptions and anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or a Labour supporter, people who have little understanding of reality, and people who don't want to understand reality. Have a good day!!
Wow, you seem to be taking very close attention to my posts. Stalker material!

You carry on defending anti-social behaviour - hopefully this individual will be your next neighbour and you can "help her with her issues" first hand!

As for the judgements of my "social conscience" - yes I do object to people needing food banks whilst my taxes subsidise some people to have lots of kids, nice houses and Sky TV - a scenario that certain types continue to deny despite its absolutely and undeniably existing.

And let us overlook the "me making generalisations about people" whilst the sneering "some Conservative votes also have a social conscience" comes from you!
[quote][p][bold]Ambivalent[/bold] wrote: jonone says... laurence86 wrote: Where is the deterrent stopping her from playing up if she just gets moved to a new place? After that many warnings and official notices she should just be cut from the housing association system. This whole process has cost the tax payer a lot of money and caused her neighbours a lot of agro, if she doesn’t want to adhere to the basic rules of society why should society subsidise her rent? Perhaps the new place should be a prison - at least she'd be housed and fed. But the Labour voters who support her type would be upset by this, so she'll just have to go on being allowed to make people's lives a misery. Sorry jonone, are you actually concerned about these issues? So why do you consistently refer to Labour voters who support her type? Are you just using these examples as to score political points? seems to me your views have more to do with politics than social issues. Such sweeping generalisations you continue to make, only indicates you are happy to regard whole sectors of society as 'all the same'. Were I to make such statements - all tory politicians are only interested in screwing the system and looking after their mates, you would no doubt disagree, however you are doing the same thing! I know that there are many Labour voters who have a whole range of views and not all, probably not many would support 'her type', however many would also have a social conscience. I am happy to admit some Conservative voters also have a social conscience. Whichever political persuasion, many people hold a range of similar views but believe in perhaps different ways of resolving problems or how society should be best served. Your comments continue to be such that could be deemed offensive and judgmental, it shows a lack of respect and to be honest a very ignorant and self centred attitude. I'm sure many people of whichever party you support would be pretty embarrassed by your comments and wouldn't want to be associated with them. I actually think the biggest problem with this country is people like you, who demand a society that fits your perceptions and anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or a Labour supporter, people who have little understanding of reality, and people who don't want to understand reality. Have a good day!![/p][/quote]Wow, you seem to be taking very close attention to my posts. Stalker material! You carry on defending anti-social behaviour - hopefully this individual will be your next neighbour and you can "help her with her issues" first hand! As for the judgements of my "social conscience" - yes I do object to people needing food banks whilst my taxes subsidise some people to have lots of kids, nice houses and Sky TV - a scenario that certain types continue to deny despite its absolutely and undeniably existing. And let us overlook the "me making generalisations about people" whilst the sneering "some Conservative votes also have a social conscience" comes from you! jonone
  • Score: -7

5:24pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Ambivalent says...

Hey, not stalking jonone! It's called comments, thought that's what this was about! If I see something I don't agree with, then I reserve my right to make my own comments as do you.
Nowhere in my posts do I defend anti social behaviour, to the contrary, I'm only defending my right to disagree with your comments without accusations of being some handwringing left wing Labour supporter! I actually agree with some of your points, and what was quite clear is that I appreciate different people have different views and which party they support doesn't automatically make them blinkered in their views or attitudes.
You refer to 'sneering' some Conservative voters have a social conscience'. Sorry, that is not a sneering comment. That is saying that I, having voted Conservative for the past thirty odd years, have a social conscience and don't blindly agree with whatever the Conservatives do, regardless. Again, you're making judgements based on perceptions without knowing the full picture.
Mind you, I'm afraid my support for the Conservatives may not be long lived!!!!
Hey, not stalking jonone! It's called comments, thought that's what this was about! If I see something I don't agree with, then I reserve my right to make my own comments as do you. Nowhere in my posts do I defend anti social behaviour, to the contrary, I'm only defending my right to disagree with your comments without accusations of being some handwringing left wing Labour supporter! I actually agree with some of your points, and what was quite clear is that I appreciate different people have different views and which party they support doesn't automatically make them blinkered in their views or attitudes. You refer to 'sneering' some Conservative voters have a social conscience'. Sorry, that is not a sneering comment. That is saying that I, having voted Conservative for the past thirty odd years, have a social conscience and don't blindly agree with whatever the Conservatives do, regardless. Again, you're making judgements based on perceptions without knowing the full picture. Mind you, I'm afraid my support for the Conservatives may not be long lived!!!! Ambivalent
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree