SIGN to stop intruders.

[TygerChild]

So. I live in a block of 6 flats owned by a housing association. We have had intruders, and together we decided we wanted to put up this notice on our front communal door. However, the H.A. (quite a prestigious one actually), has reported that someone outside our block - a resident, not a tenant - has complained that this notice is RACIST (eh?!) because of the last line: "No Religious Bodies". After much to-ing and fro-ing of e mails with my H.A., finally I have asked for a compromise to taking the post-card down. I have suggested either changing the last line to 'No Religious Propagandists', or cutting the last line off altogether. I have now got to the point, where, however absurd I think the accusation is, clearly no more argument is going to get me anywhere. The last Hex that came up about the situation resulted in Hex 54, The Marrying Maiden, unchanging.... Duh! .... And the final one, after climbing down a bit from my initial indignation and resistance is Hex 41. 5.6. 60.

The whole situation is shrouded in mystery. The H.A. won't give me much information about how they came to see this as racist.... I can only imagine that someone local, who has some influence on them, has complained, and the H.A. are simply jumping to attention.

Be happy to hear anyone's comments on the readings and the principle of this issue!?

 

[Trojina]

We have had intruders, and together we decided we wanted to put up this notice on our front communal door.

Intruders are not people who knock the door or ring the bell and ask you to open it, intruders come in whether you like it or not. Therefore if a person is bent on intruding what impact would the sign have? It's like putting up a sign saying 'no thieves here' a real thief, well any thief, is not going to be deterred.

Whilst the sign may stop the cold callers how would it stop intruders? Intruders intrude.

The last Hex that came up about the situation resulted in Hex 54, The Marrying Maiden, unchanging.... Duh! .... And the final one, after climbing down a bit from my initial indignation and resistance is Hex 41. 5.6. 60.

There's no question here?

I can't see that the sign is racist since there's no mention of race at all, that is no religion is specified it's just general. Having said that the only religious bodies I can think of that call door to door/knock the door would be Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Liselle]

People have lost their ever-loving minds.


Do you think religious door-knockers are sufficiently covered under "cold callers," maybe?

What was your question for the 41 reading? If it was about the compromise you mentioned, Yi seems to endorse it. Everyone will agree - 41.5. A measure everyone can live with - 60.

I'm not sure what the last phrase of 41.6 is getting at. Out of what you said, it seems to match changing the sign as opposed to having no sign at all, but "not a dwelling" bothers me since that is the whole point, to have a dwelling free of intruders.


...Bradford Hatcher (https://www.hermetica.info, scroll down to "Yijing Studies") translates it this way:
'Avoiding decrease increases one
Not a mistake
Persistence is opportune
Worthwhile to have somewhere to go
But one gains servants rather than family'

"Family" - that might work. You'll gain something serviceable, even if the various parties still won't see eye to eye.

ETA: aha, yes. Brad has a word-for-word translation using Chinese characters, and the character he translates as "family" is the same, jia, as the name of hexagram 37 (which can just as well be translated "home" or "dwelling"). So what you gain is not anything 37-ish, but it'll still help, if I understand right.

 

[Liselle]

Well, unless what Trojina said is true, that if people are determined to pester, a sign won't necessarily stop them.

I'd hope religious callers of any stripe would be more respectful than that, but you never know. But it might at least give you something to point to if you'd ever have to go further like calling the police. Take a time-stamped photo when you put it up.

Anyway I don't think the reading says it's no use, quite the contrary. You'll sacrifice something but still end up with something that will help.

(But yes, if we could know what question 41 was for, please.)

 

[TygerChild]

Intruders are not people who knock the door or ring the bell and ask you to open it, intruders come in whether you like it or not. Therefore if a person is bent on intruding what impact would the sign have? It's like putting up a sign saying 'no thieves here' a real thief, well any thief, is not going to be deterred.

Whilst the sign may stop the cold callers how would it stop intruders? Intruders intrude.

There's no question here?

I can't see that the sign is racist since there's no mention of race at all, that is no religion is specified it's just general. Having said that the only religious bodies I can think of that call door to door/knock the door would be Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Yes, I agree, Trojina ,-- on the whole. Thank you for your comment.

We have a Tradesman button which means the door is unlocked at certain times, thus at those times, ANYONE can gain access. Furthermore, the meaning of 'intruders' was not specifically of the 'malevolent' kind, but anyone who does not have a right to enter our block - and in response to the notice being put up, they would then come under that category! So I get the nuance you point out, but it is really, here, just a question of being perhaps a bit more particular with words on this site? Whilst you are correct, nevertheless, I think the notice does make a person realise we are a bit vigilant - just the fact that we put the notice up there. It speaks: 'Be aware that we are aware'.

Yes, the accusation of 'racism' is, as I have said, rather weird. I have tried to get clarity from our H.A. and argued my point like you have - to no avail! And I agree with you, the usual suspects who want to come in and dragoon people are the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact these two groups very rarely try to visit anyway, so they are not really a problem. And since my degree is in Theology and Religion, I am okay with some discussion ---when it is convenient, ---but others are not so at ease with it.

The question that received the 54 answer? Just "What's going on here"? Hence not so pertinent perhaps to spell it out? The response to "What if I sent this letter?" was the 41. 5.6. 60

Thanks again.

 

[TygerChild]

People have lost their ever-loving minds.


Do you think religious door-knockers are sufficiently covered under "cold callers," maybe?

What was your question for the 41 reading? If it was about the compromise you mentioned, Yi seems to endorse it. Everyone will agree - 41.5. A measure everyone can live with - 60.

I'm not sure what the last phrase of 41.6 is getting at. Out of what you said, it seems to match changing the sign as opposed to having no sign at all, but "not a dwelling" bothers me since that is the whole point, to have a dwelling free of intruders.


...Bradford Hatcher (https://www.hermetica.info, scroll down to "Yijing Studies") translates it this way:
'Avoiding decrease increases one
Not a mistake
Persistence is opportune
Worthwhile to have somewhere to go
But one gains servants rather than family'

"Family" - that might work. You'll gain something serviceable, even if the various parties still won't see eye to eye.

ETA: aha, yes. Brad has a word-for-word translation using Chinese characters, and the character he translates as "family" is the same, jia, as the name of hexagram 37 (which can just as well be translated "home" or "dwelling"). So what you gain is not anything 37-ish, but it'll still help, if I understand right.

Thanks Liselle. I think the 'not a dwelling' simply means that what I do is 'not for personal gain' ---but for the good of everyone.

 

[TygerChild]

People have lost their ever-loving minds.


Do you think religious door-knockers are sufficiently covered under "cold callers," maybe?

What was your question for the 41 reading? If it was about the compromise you mentioned, Yi seems to endorse it. Everyone will agree - 41.5. A measure everyone can live with - 60.

I'm not sure what the last phrase of 41.6 is getting at. Out of what you said, it seems to match changing the sign as opposed to having no sign at all, but "not a dwelling" bothers me since that is the whole point, to have a dwelling free of intruders.


...Bradford Hatcher (https://www.hermetica.info, scroll down to "Yijing Studies") translates it this way:
'Avoiding decrease increases one
Not a mistake
Persistence is opportune
Worthwhile to have somewhere to go
But one gains servants rather than family'

"Family" - that might work. You'll gain something serviceable, even if the various parties still won't see eye to eye.

ETA: aha, yes. Brad has a word-for-word translation using Chinese characters, and the character he translates as "family" is the same, jia, as the name of hexagram 37 (which can just as well be translated "home" or "dwelling"). So what you gain is not anything 37-ish, but it'll still help, if I understand right.

Yes, 'cold callers' could possibly cover it. If my H.A. are not happy with the final line on the card, then I will simply remove that, and as you say, hope 'cold callers' alone, is sufficient. Thank you!

 

[rosada]

I have a sign on my gate:

We can’t afford to buy anything.
We know who we are voting for.
We have found Jesus.
So unless you are giving away free beer,
Please go away.

Works so far.

Also this just in…
”I scared some Jehovah’s Witnesses today by showing up at the door completely naked. I don’t know what scared them more - that I was completely naked or the fact that I knew where they lived.”

 

[moss elk]

One time the JW's came to my door and wouldn't walk away so, I invited them in for tea. After 3 hours of me pointing out how their brains were broken (with a smile) , they couldn't wait to leave and never came back.

And then there was the evangelizing retired actual Ambassador who kept coming over for tea. After he 'performed a spontaneous exorcism' on me, I stopped letting him come over. His brain was even more broken than the JW's.

 

[Trojina]

Well, unless what Trojina said is true, that if people are determined to pester, a sign won't necessarily stop them.

I didn't say that reread my post you must have misunderstood it.

The point was abut intruding as that was the word used not pestering there is a great deal of difference. If I say there is an intruder in my home I mean someone broke in not someone pestered by knocking my door. My point was an actual intruder, that is someone who breaks in such as a thief will not be especially put off by a sign.

Those who want to sell etc would likely take note of a sign but they aren't intruders as such.

However Tyger explained when he used the word 'intruder' it wasn't meaning someone who breaks in.

intruders come in whether you like it or not.

So I get the nuance you point out, but it is really, here, just a question of being perhaps a bit more particular with words on this site?

Where I live we wouldn't call nuisance callers etc intruders, having an intruder in your home means you have been broken into. But he meant it more loosely than that

 

[TygerChild]

I didn't say that reread my post you must have misunderstood it.

The point was abut intruding as that was the word used not pestering there is a great deal of difference. If I say there is an intruder in my home I mean someone broke in not someone pestered by knocking my door. My point was an actual intruder, that is someone who breaks in such as a thief will not be especially put off by a sign.

Those who want to sell etc would likely take note of a sign but they aren't intruders as such.

However Tyger explained when he used the word 'intruder' it wasn't meaning someone who breaks in.






Where I live we wouldn't call nuisance callers etc intruders, having an intruder in your home means you have been broken into. But he meant it more loosely than that

SHE!! xxx

 

[Trojina]

Ah, I was subconsciously influenced by your avatar of a male lion I guess, the males have manes.

The H.A. won't give me much information about how they came to see this as racist.... I can only imagine that someone local, who has some influence on them, has complained, and the H.A. are simply jumping to attention.

Is it also possible that the individual who is 'handling' all this is not terribly bright as in someone who is just taking the word 'racist' and assuming if someone said it it must be true. If that were the case then going above that person might work, I mean going up a level beyond them. I'm not saying that because of the reading although the 54 might have some relevance to that idea.

The question that received the 54 answer? Just "What's going on here"? Hence not so pertinent perhaps to spell it out? The response to "What if I sent this letter?" was the 41. 5.6. 60

For the 'what is going on here?' is it possible you have hit on someone secondary, someone who is following policy while not thinking very much themselves ? Or maybe you have already connected with a number of people there? But if not my first thought is 'go higher up'...this response could be from someone down the scale who is as they say 'not paid to think'. Also I would assume it wouldn't be too much trouble from someone at the HA to give a sensible reason for their objection and the fact there is just refusal makes me wonder if you have someone inexperienced handling this. Could you take it higher to ask for reasoning ?

You asked what if you sent the letter, do you mean this one

, finally I have asked for a compromise to taking the post-card down. I have suggested either changing the last line to 'No Religious Propagandists', or cutting the last line off altogether. I have now got to the point, where, however absurd I think the accusation is, clearly no more argument is going to get me anywhere.

41.5.6>60 seems a good answer for reducing things in line with the measures of 60 yes. That would favour just leaving out the line about religion I think since you have 41 here. Also religious propaganda can come under cold calling

 

[Trojina]

Also, living in a block of 100 flats we never get cold callers at all, well about once a year someone comes round trying to sell mattresses and there is some junk mail but apart from that people cannot get in unless trailing behind someone else or someone who has the door code for building which would be repairs, workmen etc etc.

41.6 made me think there could be a better solution than the sign, the sign is an interim measure while the HA come up with some better security maybe. The problem in the end is not whether they let you put the sign up but the overall security of the building and together you have case there perhaps. 41.6 says no more decrease making me think there is an opportunity for gain in this somewhere if you can get to communicate with someone who is more on the ball as it were

 

[TygerChild]

Ah, I was subconsciously influenced by your avatar of a male lion I guess, the males have manes.


Is it also possible that the individual who is 'handling' all this is not terribly bright as in someone who is just taking the word 'racist' and assuming if someone said it it must be true. If that were the case then going above that person might work, I mean going up a level beyond them. I'm not saying that because of the reading although the 54 might have some relevance to that idea.


For the 'what is going on here?' is it possible you have hit on someone secondary, someone who is following policy while not thinking very much themselves ? Or maybe you have already connected with a number of people there? But if not my first thought is 'go higher up'...this response could be from someone down the scale who is as they say 'not paid to think'. Also I would assume it wouldn't be too much trouble from someone at the HA to give a sensible reason for their objection and the fact there is just refusal makes me wonder if you have someone inexperienced handling this. Could you take it higher to ask for reasoning ?

You asked what if you sent the letter, do you mean this one



41.5.6>60 seems a good answer for reducing things in line with the measures of 60 yes. That would favour just leaving out the line about religion I think since you have 41 here. Also religious propaganda can come under cold calling

Hi Trojina,

Yes, I see! I was just thinking of Aslan.... Thank you for your further comments!

Well, I know it was a new housing coordinator who took it down initially, and did not make contact me before doing so - which I felt was not very helpful. I have been told that he tried my door but I was out. But I replied that it was hardly life or death, so could he not have waited, or even phoned me?

I took this issue to the lady who is in charge of housing officers, but she is simply reinforcing the interpretation of it being 'racist '- at least saying that it was a 'resident's perception', (not a tenant's), and that that is enough for the H.A. to insist that I take it down.....

I have absolutely no idea who this resident complainant can be.

I suggested a compromise, as I have outlined, but I still feel unhappy about that...

What you say about someone not really understanding what 'racism' is, is what I have felt about this as well.

I suppose I could take it to the CEO, but am I making too much fuss about it?

I do feel very niggled!

Another matter is that the Head of housing officers - or whatever her title is - made some comment in her reply that they do not encourage tenants to take responsibility in regard to actions etc in communal area, hence my response, which actually includes stopping doing all the cleaning, vacuuming and tidying up junk mail. (We do not have a cleaner, (no service charges), and are supposed to do this, and organise the cleaning of communal area ourselves, but no one else does it, just Moi.)

If you are still interested so far, and have not all fallen asleep, here is the letter ( e mail), I have prepared for the head of housing officers but not yet sent. It is rather cheeky, but to the point.. and this is the letter that evoked the I Ching reading What If I Send This Letter to 'Head of Housing Officers'? : 41. 5.6. 60

"
Dear -------

The reason I responded again was simply because I had continued to reflect, and continued to feel very disturbed by (H.A). decision which simply lacks transparency, logic and fairness – and everyone else I have spoken to, feels is bizarre.

And I think this decision of (H.A.) is very unhealthy, and to me, anyway, feels oppressive. (Is that perception (MY perception/most people’s perception) ---not as valid as the mysterious, moaning resident’s?)

I wanted to say a lot more here, but I think my words will continue to fall on deaf ears, and I cannot really see what else I can offer.

I know I am seen as a pretty insignificant little dot in the (H.A.) universe, and this, to me, is the only explanation I can make any sense of, to explain the odd decision you have made in favour of some clearly delusional (must be more illustrious) local complainant.

Apart from just ruining the little poster by cutting off the line which holds ‘No religious bodies’, I want to suggest another alternative.

Does this pass (H.A.)’s censorship cabal?

If not this version, then maybe I must revert to cutting off the bottom of this card, or even taking it down altogether?

In the future, however, I will take note of your words regarding individual tenants not taking any action in communal spaces ------ and in order to comply with that, I will desist from today!

Thank you."

 

[Trojina]

I see the 54 of it more clearly

The last Hex that came up about the situation resulted in Hex 54,

The question that received the 54 answer? Just "What's going on here"?

Another matter is that the Head of housing officers - or whatever her title is - made some comment in her reply that they do not encourage tenants to take responsibility in regard to actions etc in communal area, hence my response, which actually includes stopping doing all the cleaning, vacuuming and tidying up junk mail. (We do not have a cleaner, (no service charges), and are supposed to do this, and organise the cleaning of communal area ourselves, but no one else does it, just Moi.)

Re the bolded bit they are basically saying it is not the tenant's place to put signage up, tenants aren't in charge of that. That's very 54ish

I can see that if I think of where I am. One could not put up such a sign here because official signs have to be put up by employees of the HA/Council etc. You can put up some stuff like notices of events or something but that's just temporary unofficial notice board stuff. If it's going to be viewed by others as official council policy it has to be done by them. They must be seeing the notice as an official statement which they haven't authorised which is getting them into trouble with the public. In other words they see you as too big for your boots and they are saying 'get back in place' kind of thing. It's absurd in this instance but I think it's just part of the system and you are part of the system.

That phrase "they do not encourage tenants to take responsibility in regard to actions etc in the communal area" is something I understand. They're basically saying it's not your and the other tenants place to erect the notice. It's about the system and how it's controlled and so even if tenants want to do something that is responsible and helpful they crack down on it because well then they would sort of be giving permission for anyone to erect notices etc. I don't see a way round that.

If they have no cleaner and you do it well it goes against them in the end (when you stop cleaning etc) that they won't allow tenants any responsibility for communal areas.

To me it still feels worth sending the letter although you probably need to acknowledge you understand this is a system thing not a personal thing. Someone has decided 'we can't have tenants putting up notices like this if it hasn't been endorsed by us'. Jointly I guess you need to stress your reasons and their responsibility in protecting the block. There's no harm in them being clear that you and other tenants have security concerns that you wish to act on. Seems to me the 41 >60 is a reasonable answer for communicating about this and exploring further options. That is opening the debate out to see where it goes (41.6). You could say you are in the process of policy making. That is you don't make the policy but you are working towards a creative solution from them rather than a flat refusal.

41 also says to reduce passions so perhaps taking the charge out of it helps to get to that line 6 place where you may not get the sign you want but you get other options.

 

[TygerChild]

I see the 54 of it more clearly







Re the bolded bit they are basically saying it is not the tenant's place to put signage up, tenants aren't in charge of that. That's very 54ish

I can see that if I think of where I am. One could not put up such a sign here because official signs have to be put up by employees of the HA/Council etc. You can put up some stuff like notices of events or something but that's just temporary unofficial notice board stuff. If it's going to be viewed by others as official council policy it has to be done by them. They must be seeing the notice as an official statement which they haven't authorised which is getting them into trouble with the public. In other words they see you as too big for your boots and they are saying 'get back in place' kind of thing. It's absurd in this instance but I think it's just part of the system and you are part of the system.

That phrase "they do not encourage tenants to take responsibility in regard to actions etc in the communal area" is something I understand. They're basically saying it's not your and the other tenants place to erect the notice. It's about the system and how it's controlled and so even if tenants want to do something that is responsible and helpful they crack down on it because well then they would sort of be giving permission for anyone to erect notices etc. I don't see a way round that.

If they have no cleaner and you do it well it goes against them in the end (when you stop cleaning etc) that they won't allow tenants any responsibility for communal areas.

To me it still feels worth sending the letter although you probably need to acknowledge you understand this is a system thing not a personal thing. Someone has decided 'we can't have tenants putting up notices like this if it hasn't been endorsed by us'. Jointly I guess you need to stress your reasons and their responsibility in protecting the block. There's no harm in them being clear that you and other tenants have security concerns that you wish to act on. Seems to me the 41 >60 is a reasonable answer for communicating about this and exploring further options. That is opening the debate out to see where it goes (41.6). You could say you are in the process of policy making. That is you don't make the policy but you are working towards a creative solution from them rather than a flat refusal.

41 also says to reduce passions so perhaps taking the charge out of it helps to get to that line 6 place where you may not get the sign you want but you get other options.

Thanks Trojina. I think you are 'spot on' there!

One question - I don't know what your take on this, is? Why does it seem the case, that those who live in this H.A's bungalows and this H.A's houses around here, have these same notices on their doors, but this block of flats (there are a number down our road that are the same), somehow attracts, apparently different rules?? How is it, that just because we live in a block of flats (6 - so not particularly a large complex), this putting up, of this particular notice ----which each tenant here has supported - is disallowed....? It's almost like they don't see those who live in flats..........as quite grown up, and so unlike those who live in bungalows and houses, we need to be supervised, controlled, and, if necessary, given a smack!?

 

[TygerChild]

Thanks Trojina. I think you are 'spot on' there!

One question - I don't know what your take on this, is? Why does it seem the case, that those who live in this H.A's bungalows and this H.A's houses around here, have these same notices on their doors, but this block of flats (there are a number down our road that are the same), somehow attracts, apparently different rules?? How is it, that just because we live in a block of flats (6 - so not particularly a large complex), this putting up, of this particular notice ----which each tenant here has supported - is disallowed....? It's almost like they don't see those who live in flats..........as quite grown up, and so unlike those who live in bungalows and houses, we need to be supervised, controlled, and, if necessary, given a smack!?

 

[Trojina]

Yes, if you live in flats it's much more collective in every way than an HA house or bungalow. The corridors, lifts, lobbies and gardens are communal spaces so not belonging to any tenant whereas in a bungalow the whole place belongs to the person and hence is more of an expression of them. The public aren't walking through any communal spaces in a bungalow saying 'ah that notice is what is endorsed by the HA'

Take for example putting tents out in the garden in the summer. In a bungalow why not, it's that person's own space and if they want to sleep outside or the kids want to play but in blocks of flats if everyone started leaving tents out for 3 months of the year the grass would wither and it would all get very messy. I have seen this myself. Those who want to do it say 'why shouldn't I it's my garden and I pay rent' but the other 50 flats or whatever may not want to gaze upon that person's makeshift sort of beach home for months at a time and so policies might developed and a sign from the HA go up saying 'do not leave tents in the garden'. But a tenant wouldn't be able to leave such a sign as they don't have authority to do so. However their opinions will certainly shape policies. Where policies are developed they have to be applied indiscriminately and unfortunately this can lead to nonsense at times as it does in your case.


I think when tenants get together they can impact on policies

 

[TygerChild]

Yes, if you live in flats it's much more collective in every way than an HA house or bungalow. The corridors, lifts, lobbies and gardens are communal spaces so not belonging to any tenant whereas in a bungalow the whole place belongs to the person and hence is more of an expression of them. The public aren't walking through any communal spaces in a bungalow saying 'ah that notice is what is endorsed by the HA'

Take for example putting tents out in the garden in the summer. In a bungalow why not, it's that person's own space and if they want to sleep outside or the kids want to play but in blocks of flats if everyone started leaving tents out for 3 months of the year the grass would wither and it would all get very messy. I have seen this myself. Those who want to do it say 'why shouldn't I it's my garden and I pay rent' but the other 50 flats or whatever may not want to gaze upon that person's makeshift sort of beach home for months at a time and so policies might developed and a sign from the HA go up saying 'do not leave tents in the garden'. But a tenant wouldn't be able to leave such a sign as they don't have authority to do so. However their opinions will certainly shape policies. Where policies are developed they have to be applied indiscriminately and unfortunately this can lead to nonsense at times as it does in your case.


I think when tenants get together they can impact on policies

Thank you very much Trojina, for your help with this!

 

[Liselle]

This is just from looking at this exchange between you and Trojina, not from the readings that I know of, but what would you think of sending a letter signed by all six of you (all six households)? Would that have more weight with the HA, do you think? Unless the HA already knows you speak for the group.

 

[TygerChild]

This is just from looking at this exchange between you and Trojina, not from the readings that I know of, but what would you think of sending a letter signed by all six of you (all six households)? Would that have more weight with the HA, do you think? Unless the HA already knows you speak for the group.

Thanks Liselle, for the suggestion. I have sent the email now for the person in charge of housing officers, and will wait to see what the response is to that. What you suggest might be a next step. It is interesting because one of my neighbours said to me 'I don't think there was a resident who complained. I think the H.A. have just made that up...They just want to exert their power.' He may be right! But I am (trying) to be humble and negotiate with my H.A. because I think Trojina was right, - I probably present to them as a bit too big for my boots, and that has got up their noses? Ha ha! all these metaphors!!