The neighbour from hell

I'm always fascinated by those acrimonious neighbour disputes that just go on and on for years, disputes that surely could have been easily resolved a long time ago with a bit of common sense and compromise.

This one is a splendid example. Yoga teacher Kristyna Robinson endured seven years of misery from her upstairs neighbour Sandra Eveno, until the landlord, the local council, obtained a repossession order on Ms Eveno's flat and she was forced to leave.

Ms Eveno had shouted and screamed unremittingly, had tried to take over their shared garden, had accused Ms Robinson of drug dealing and gang violence, and had made false allegations to her other neighbours and her employer.

Ms Eveno was ordered to pay £15,000 towards the council's legal bills.

Hopefully this will end Ms Robinson's seven-year ordeal - unless Ms Eveno continues to pester her former neighbour despite having moved out.

Clearly Ms Eveno's irrational behaviour suggests serious mental health issues, but I can't see her seeking therapy. More likely she'll persecute her new neighbours just as badly and get evicted again.

We had a similar neighbour dispute when we moved into a London flat in 1993. The young lads downstairs held late-night parties every few days. We asked them to have fewer parties but they took no notice and in the end the local council imposed a huge fine for noise nuisance and they moved out.

We had another neighbour dispute in a previous flat. One of the downstairs occupants had a persistent hacking cough, and when we tentatively told him it was disturbing us, his response was to let our car tyres down.

Which is why we're now glad we live in a detached house with no neighbour nuisance whatever.

Unwanted busybodies

The mysterious disappearance of Lancashire woman Nicola Bulley has brought dozens of amateur detectives out of the woodwork, convinced they know something the police don't know and confident they can find her.

These hot-headed vigilantes are proving to be a total nuisance, upsetting Nicola's family and friends, obstructing the police and pestering local residents. The police have had to issue a 48-hour dispersal order for the village of St Michael's on Wyre and have warned people about their behaviour. A private security firm is now patrolling the village.

The wannabe sleuths have been breaking into derelict houses looking for signs of Nicola's presence. They've been taking intrusive videos. They've been speculating wildly about Nicola's whereabouts. They've been abusing witnesses. And they've been trespassing on private land.

Nicola's friend Heather Gibbons said "We are at the point where people coming to help look for Nicki are actually doing the complete opposite."

What prompts people to be such a pain the neck, persistently getting in the way of the police and having to be warned off? Who invited them to barge in and air their wild theories about Nicola's disappearance? And why do they think they know better than the professional investigators?

If they had a grain of common sense and tact, instead of making a distressing situation even more distressing for those directly affected, they would content themselves with following the inquiry in the rest of the media like the rest of us. But no, they have to get in on the act, no matter how much of a nuisance they're causing.

At this rate, the police will have to seal off the entire village to keep out the unwanted busybodies.

Update: Nicola's body was pulled from the River Wyre on February 20

Pic: the spot where Nicola was last seen

Dogged heroes

The popular idea of a hero or heroine is someone who has done something brave and life-threatening, but to me the real heroes are those who persist in something they believe in, or simply stay true to themselves, despite relentless harassment and persecution from other people.

They just stick to their chosen path with quiet determination, refusing to compromise and refusing to give in to the bullies and bigots.

To my mind, that can be more heroic than a person doing something that's courageous and risky but which is generally supported and applauded by the public and they aren't also fighting for the right to do what they're doing.

Certainly rescuing someone from a burning house is heroic, but what about insisting on your own identity in the teeth of violent opposition? Opposition you may have to endure for decades? Opposition that may extend to death threats and murder? Isn't that heroic too?

I think of people like Manal al-Sharif, who has campaigned in Saudi Arabia against the ban on women drivers, and has been hounded by the government and forced out of her job.

Or Karen Silkwood, who investigated claims of dangerous practices at a US nuclear plant and died in mysterious circumstances.

Or Amy Lees, stalked for nine months by her ex-boyfriend, who put her details on a sex website so strangers kept pestering her.

Or Paris Lees (no relation), the transsexual campaigner who has been constantly abused and attacked simply for rejecting her given gender.

Or Lydia Cacho, the Mexican journalist who writes on sex trafficking, prostitution and pornography and has been physically attacked, raped, tortured and had numerous death threats.*

These are my heroes, these are the people I really admire for their dogged persistence in the face of seething hostility and repeated attempts to shut them up.

In short, people who refuse to take the easy way out.

* Yes, they're all women. It just happened to be women who sprang to mind.

PIC: Manal al-Sharif

The media squirms

How wonderful to see the media on the defensive for a change, forced to admit their sadistic and illegal hounding of anyone they don't like the look of or who isn't "normal" enough. Or just happens to be a celebrity.

For years they've been able to get away with their relentless bullying, lying and smearing not only through the usual journalistic methods but through phone-hacking, the use of private detectives, searching people's refuse and permanently watching their homes.

They've got away with it because usually the victims don't have the time or energy to pursue complaints, because they're afraid of prompting even worse treatment, or because the damage has already been done.

Now however, with the start of the Leveson Inquiry into UK press standards, the spotlight is being shone firmly onto the media's behaviour, one appalling revelation after another is coming to light, and the media instigators are squirming with embarrassment and furious that all of a sudden they aren't calling the shots.

Hugh Grant said the only way certain information about his relationships with women could have been known (like the woman with the "plummy" voice) was through the Mail on Sunday hacking into his mobile phone.

Now Steve Coogan has explained how the Sun and the News of the World tried to trick him into revealing "lurid" details of his sexual relationships, and how reporters and photographers beseiged his home, searched his rubbish bins, blamed him for an actor friend's overdose and offered his friends cash for juicy stories.

A whole string of high-profile witnesses is lined up to give a barrage of damning evidence against the media, to the daily chagrin of the usually unrestrained hacks, who are feebly requesting their "right to reply".

After it has finished hearing evidence, the Leveson Inquiry is expected to come up with some radical and far-reaching measures for muzzling the media's increasingly intrusive behaviour.

The Press Complaints Commission, which is meant to regulate the press, has been endlessly criticised as toothless and ineffectual, frequently watering down complaints or making excuses for the media. Time and again victims have had to do the job themselves, taking legal action or demanding retractions.

It's sheer delight to see the media cringing for a change instead of their hapless targets. They might just begin to understand the misery they so casually inflict on others.

Pic: Steve Coogan at the Leveson Inquiry

Camera rats

If there's any bunch of people who deserve contempt it's the paparazzi, whose only aim is to harass and humiliate public figures for the benefit of whatever voyeuristic media outlet is prepared to publish their pictures.

Their continual spying has forced Lily Allen to install a £60,000 state-of-the-art security system at her new home in the Cotswolds to keep them out. Now she is taking legal action against the Daily Mail for publishing extensive pictures and details of her home, including the property's name, address, location, precise layout, fixtures and fittings, and details of its private gardens and rear exterior.

The paparazzi are willing to use any method at all to get their salacious and intrusive pictures. Nothing is out of bounds. Breaking into houses, chasing cars, telescopic lenses, doorstepping, following people to holiday resorts, you name it.

The usual bogus excuses are endlessly trotted out by the media. They're public figures so they're not entitled to privacy. It's what the public wants. They like all the publicity really. If they behave badly, they must expect attention.

In my opinion, total bollocks. Everyone is entitled to privacy and a personal life without unwanted intrusion, whether they're household names or the milkman. Constant invasion of privacy is not only prurient but extremely stressful and emotionally disturbing for those on the receiving end.

The only exception, to my mind, is those in responsible public positions who have done something that jeopardises their ability to do their job properly. In that case they deserve to be exposed.

How telling it is that the media bosses themselves guard their own privacy and off-duty lives so religiously. You won't see the paparazzi following them. So don't expect to find out any time soon about the newspaper editor who's hooked on prostitutes or the tabloid mogul who beats his wife.

They may dish the dirt on others, but they don't want their own dirty laundry laid out for inspection.

Stalkers

I can't begin to understand stalkers. I fail to see what warped sense of enjoyment there could be in harassing someone day in and day out until they're terrified out of their wits.

But stalking seems to be increasing*, so much so that a new national helpline, Stalking Helpline, has been set up for those on the receiving end.

Who can explain it? Sometimes it's a romantic delusion, with the stalker seeing someone as so perfect, so unique, so special that they become obsessed with them. They also imagine that sooner or later the person will see the stalker as equally perfect and special and a wonderful relationship will result.

If onlt they send enough letters and gifts, and wait outside their heart-throb's home often enough, eventually all the attention will pay off.

Then again it may be all about power. The stalker's aim is to gain total control over the person's life and make them feel trapped and helpless. They want the victim to be aware of nothing but the stalker and what he (and it's usually he) will do next to disrupt their life. An extreme form of bullying in other words.

Some people still don't take it seriously. They say a woman should be flattered or amused by all the attention, or that the stalker is just some passionate admirer who's going too far. They fail to recognise the sheer distress and humiliation the victim is going through.

Yes, to begin with, the unwanted pestering is simply annoying and puzzling, but as it continues relentlessly day after day, sapping energy and making normal life impossible, it becomes a hideous nightmare.

One of the new helpline's founders is Tricia Bernal, whose 22 year old daughter Clare was shot dead by her ex-boyfriend after months of harassment and threats.

Flattering? Amusing? I don't think so.

* It is estimated that over a million women in the UK are victims of stalking every year.

See also: The Network for Surviving Stalking