'supported living for challenging youngsters' being built next door.

[getyourselfchecked]

NC for this as could be outing. This is more of a WWYD really. I am at risk of sounding like a right NIMBY and I hate that its bringing this out in me but...
I am a single parent about to move to a new house. Building work has started on a 'supported living for challenging youngsters' development right next door.
Now, I have lived in some of the most gang-riven areas in the country without a thought but in my old age and with a child I admit I am worried about crime, drugs and ability to sell house on. I love the house and everything else is good.
WWYD? Still proceed with the purchase?

This is a genuine post, I don't have many people to discuss this with and I have never worried about house values etc in my life! I am genuinely surprised at my reaction to this.

Rebecca admitted to seeing disabilist comments, but refused to do anything about it. We do not think that is on.

Yes there were some deleted. But some have been allowed to stay and there were mistakes- someone's post was deleted when they were quoting someone else on another thread. MNHQ have ignored us since 8 this morning. They can't give us a straight answer as to their stance on casual disabilism that has been allowed to stand on this AND numerous other threads.

The op is still standing and the other posts saying nimby. Which shows indirect discrimination due to the fact that there will be a preponderance of youngsters with hidden disabilities in the accommodation as proposed.

HTH

Well there's a post for a start on the previous page to this one that breaks talk guidelines but hasn't been deleted. The thing is navy it's a moot point for you- you don't agree with us so you wouldn't agree which posts shouldn't be left to stand.

I am a Mum to a sen child.

I still wouldn't want to live next door to a house of 20 or so teens with possible (from experience) with drug and alcohol problems and aggression and fighting.

I wouldn't want to live next to any house full of teenagers, be they students, homeless people or Whatever. Because, you know, they're teenagers.

MNHQ have ignored us since 8 this morning

They are not your personal moderators though.

Do you not think it's fair to say that they might also have other things to do, at the moment?

You've made reports, you've contacted them. There is no point in continually bumping up this thread, which until earlier had almost fallen off the front page.

Now it just seems to be serving as a platform for people to re-hash the arguments and points made from last night.

If HQ feel they need to make more deletions, I'm sure they will when they get the time.

Navy do you recognise and understand what indirect discrimination is?

Part of what Rebecca said was that people who continued to break talk guidelines on this thread would be suspended. Given that in the last hour reports will have started rolling in again, I imagine there will be at least one suspension now.

I posted early on to say I'd be worried about negative equity so would pull out of the purchase. I found interesting the later discussion about the vast majority of children and young people living in supported accommodation such as this having a disability. It definitely led to a bit of soul searching for me so thanks to those taking the time to deepen the understanding of those of us who haven't thought about this issue as deeply.

Have to say, too, it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth when opinions like that are swiftly followed by continued goadyness towards those who expressed them. It seems to happen on every one of these threads.

How dare we care, eh Worra? How dare we keep this in your sight because it makes you uncomfortable?

Let's just put them all in somewhere far away lock the doors and make sure the normals don't have to interact with them, eh?

Well navy that's your lookout.

worra we never said they are our personal moderators fgs. This stuff has personally affected a lot of users of the site, hence why we are pushing it to be dealt with. It's not a bloody crime.

She should have thought before she posted then

I agree Worra

I don't think that's case- hopefully it will just make people more aware of disabilism and what is and isn't ok to say.

She should have thought before she posted then

Or maybe, instead of you scaring off anyone who dares ask a question, you could have discussed why is might be an ok situation to live next to, what benefits there are to having young people housed in the community, and various other aspects of the topic. Instead, there is a group of posters that just want to yell 'disablist' as loudly as they can anytime someone mentions a disability or even anything that could be linked to a disability.

You're actually doing more harm to your cause than good.

I agree Navy

No one is going to want to post anything. And I don't want to upset anyone without saying that but there it is.

You post something as innocent as this and you're accused of being disabilist.

That about sums it up, Navy.

All the shouting will do is stop people from discussing the issue at all, causing further covert disablism, a wider rift, more othering and a much more suspicious, closed mindset - on both 'sides'.

What is the expected outcome of such a concerted attack? What do the oft mentioned we actually want to achieve? If it is that people will listen, discuss and consider issues around disablism, especially that unintended disablism that makes life so difficult, then the outraged, shouty posters here have chosen a remarkably combative approach!

Maybe we have another end result in mind?

I don't think the OP was disablist and I think it's an unfair accusation. Other posts on this thread were vile and certainly disablist. Like others, I might think twice if a property being built specifically for many teenagers was being built right next to me as I'd want to know if it would impact on resale value.