Mary Fisher wrote:

Trust a man to veer from the point.



RELY on a woman to always veer from the point. About the only thing you
CAN...

Seeing how quickly your innocent little question came close to starting
WWIII on this forum (from Llelandei to weapons of mass destruction in three
easy steps), just imagine the result if you were to trim off everything on
your side of the fence and just toss it over. If I were your neighbour I
would feel inclined to toss a dead cow over in return -- and I'm part
pacifist.

You are certainly within your rights to trim up to the boundary line, and
you are required to offer the debris to its owner. But why not start with a
"good neighbour" approach instead of a confrontational one? Tell them you
intend to trim your side of the fence, and ask if they want the trimmings or
would they prefer you to take them for recycling.

I'm not sure how you tell whether or not people are "gardening types" from
their appearance, but I am sure that a person doesn't have to be a gardening
type to give a positive response to a polite neighbour who wants to tidy up
his own garden.

If the height is also an issue then the law is on your side there, too...
but before you line up the mortars, I recommend OG's 1038 post -- except
that I wouldn't be quite as quick to offer to dig in to my own pocket.

imo you got off to a bad start with the assumption that "they will refuse to
trim them".

I do hope you will post to tell us what approach you took, and what response
you received.


"4square" wrote in message
...
I have a 40 foot row of dreaded conifers across end of garden, just
on the neighbours garden. Now about 30 feet tall, and overhanging my
side by about 6 feet in places. I have not yet approached them, but
feel they will refuse to trim them, do not appear to be gardening
types. If I cut them back my side only, am I within the law to pass
the cuttings back onto their land?

Bruce wrote:
"OG" wrote:

No but the approach is rational.


Well said, OG.


Do you honestly think that "I have not yet approached them, but
feel they will refuse to trim them" is the best basis for getting all
aeriated and legalistic is the best approach?


It is slightly better than calling in the Army, I think. Using NATO
forces to overthrow the dictator with the conifers is overkill.

Does the neighbour have a brother called Conifer Ali though?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:36:04 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Andy Cap wrote:

Clearly you have an extreme unwillingness to see other people's points
of view, through an extreme willingness to believe that only your
point of view is valid because you are always right, of course.

After my next door's lads were repeatedly coming into my back garden to
retrieve
their football, I compromised by saying they could do so just three times
a day.

Ah right, so you negotiated with them.

Do you believe I was being unreasonable or do you think I should have
given them
unlimited access. My point being that you have to set a limit somewhere,
else it
becomes a public park and not your garden.

You mean you didn't get a restraining order against them and an ASBO for the
parents? How disappointing.

Mary Fisher wrote:

Trust a man to veer from the point.


That's the trouble with women. Always generalising.

Andy

Andy Cap wrote:

After my next door's lads were repeatedly coming into my back garden to retrieve
their football, I compromised by saying they could do so just three times a day.

Do you believe I was being unreasonable or do you think I should have given them
unlimited access.


Seems reasonable to me. But my view hardly matters.

What really matters is whether *they* thought it was reasonable. And
it really isn't up to me to comment, because I don't know you, I don't
know them, I don't know your house or theirs, I know very little about
the situation and I don't know anything about what your relationship
with your neighbours is like.

Unlike you, I don't think there is a predetermined solution for every
problem. I talk to my neighbours. We get on very well and we talk
any problems through. But we made an effort to get to know each other
at the earliest opportunity, because the worst thing is to find that
the first proper contact you ever have with your neighbour is to
discuss a contentious issue.

Anyone who knows me would say that I am a gentle person who is never
likely to take the law into is own hands, and no-one would have reason
to fear me. So I have to rely on getting on with people to the best
possible extent, and negotiating with them in a reasonable manner,
accepting that they have a different view.

Perhaps if I was a member of the armed forces, a policeman, or just
one of the neighbourhood thugs, people would be more afraid of me and
I could ride roughshod over them in asserting what I believed to be my
"rights". But that just isn't me, I'm afraid.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:



Bruce wrote:
"OG" wrote:

No but the approach is rational.


Well said, OG.


Do you honestly think that "I have not yet approached them, but
feel they will refuse to trim them" is the best basis for getting all
aeriated and legalistic is the best approach?


It is slightly better than calling in the Army, I think. Using NATO
forces to overthrow the dictator with the conifers is overkill.

Does the neighbour have a brother called Conifer Ali though?


No, but he's a close personal friend of General Ratko Mladic. ;-)

Tony Blair wasn't lieing because he believed that Saddam had
nuclear/biological weapons..

But perhaps its worse that the Government were deluded and made such a
mistake of judgement
over interpretation of the secret service's intelligence assessments,
and believed what George Bush and his cronies told them..

xxxxxxx

Any peacekeeping mandate for this force is therefore invalid.

Agreed. We WERE lied to but that doesn't mean in future situations we
should or
would be able to do nothing.

Godwin's Law kicks in now?


oo whats that, ive never heard of it, clickety click - oo...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage
formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the
use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often
conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or
comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts
that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a
comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4]
that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it
robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early
forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5]
the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing
lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads
and wiki talk pages.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:29:35 +0100, Bruce wrote:


Unlike you, I don't think there is a predetermined solution for every
problem.

I have never maintained there is a predetermined solution to most problems. Only
that there were some boundaries I would not be prepare to cross.

I talk to my neighbours.

A desirable and ideal situtation but not always the case I'm afraid, however
reasonable you try and be. Fortunately I am presently in the same position but
it wasn't always the case. One guy treated his elderly mother like dirt, hung
birds from the clothes line and then shot them with an air rifle and revelled in
owning a very nasty scary rottweiler.

I could ride roughshod over them in asserting what I believed to be my
"rights". But that just isn't me, I'm afraid.

It's really not a question of riding roughshod over anyone but ensuring a
quality of life for MOST parties. You seem to assume asserting your rights
equates to violence. You were the first to use the word "war". I perhaps then
added to the idea of a violent response by using the word "fight", but I didn't
mean you rush round there and set about them.

Say for example a new neighbour moves in and moves the boundary fence 50cms onto
your property. Do you just accept it? Unless you "draw a line in the sand", you
are asking to be taken advantage of and there are plenty of unpleasant
characters willing to accept the chance in all walks of life.

All I was picking up on, was the idea that there is always room for negotiation,
I simply don't accept that principle. I mean how many hour during the night are
your neighbours allowed to play loud music. I maintain none. ( Allowing for the
odd special party) Presumably you are open to negotiation on the subject.

I really didn't intend any unpleasantness but I actually believe it is your
gentlemanly tolerance that inadvertently exacerbates the anti-social attitudes
and behaviour you understandably despise.

It really isn't "my way" I'm advocating but what has become the accepted norm as
prescribed in law.

Hope that sorts any misunderstanding.
Andy

Andy Cap wrote:

I really didn't intend any unpleasantness but I actually believe it is your
gentlemanly tolerance that inadvertently exacerbates the anti-social attitudes
and behaviour you understandably despise.


What was it you said at the start of that sentence?

"I really didn't intend any unpleasantness BUT"

That's like saying, "I don't want you to take offence BUT" or I really
didn't want to annoy you BUT" ...

I think everyone knows exactly what you really meant. So it's time to
add your name to my kill file. Bye bye.

Bruce wrote:
Andy Cap wrote:

After my next door's lads were repeatedly coming into my back garden
to retrieve their football, I compromised by saying they could do so
just three times a day.

Do you believe I was being unreasonable or do you think I should
have given them unlimited access.


Seems reasonable to me. But my view hardly matters.

What really matters is whether *they* thought it was reasonable. And
it really isn't up to me to comment, because I don't know you, I don't
know them, I don't know your house or theirs, I know very little about
the situation and I don't know anything about what your relationship
with your neighbours is like.

Unlike you, I don't think there is a predetermined solution for every
problem. I talk to my neighbours. We get on very well and we talk
any problems through. But we made an effort to get to know each other
at the earliest opportunity, because the worst thing is to find that
the first proper contact you ever have with your neighbour is to
discuss a contentious issue.

Anyone who knows me would say that I am a gentle person who is never
likely to take the law into is own hands, and no-one would have reason
to fear me. So I have to rely on getting on with people to the best
possible extent, and negotiating with them in a reasonable manner,
accepting that they have a different view.

Perhaps if I was a member of the armed forces, a policeman, or just
one of the neighbourhood thugs, people would be more afraid of me and
I could ride roughshod over them in asserting what I believed to be my
"rights". But that just isn't me, I'm afraid.

You seem to be saying that members of the armed forces and policemen are on
the same level as neighbourhood thugs? Many would find that offensive, me
included.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

George (dicegeorge) wrote:
Tony Blair wasn't lieing because he believed that Saddam had
nuclear/biological weapons..

Which he did, he killed thousands of Kurds with biological weapons.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

George (dicegeorge) wrote:
Tony Blair wasn't lieing because he believed that Saddam had
nuclear/biological weapons..

Which he did, he killed thousands of Kurds with biological weapons.

No he didn't.

Also it's odd how it's very naughty for Saddam to kill thousands of
Kurds, but apparently perfectly OK if those nice guys the Turks do it.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying
something like:

I think you are in grave danger of confusing an individual's
relationship with his/her next door neighbour with the issue of
whether and/or how the international community should deal with a
despot such as Robert Mugabe.

I've heard Mugabe never cuts his conifers, the *******.
--

Dave

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

George (dicegeorge) wrote:
Tony Blair wasn't lieing because he believed that Saddam had
nuclear/biological weapons..

Which he did, he killed thousands of Kurds with biological weapons.


Did he kill more Kurds than the British did with poison gas (a
biological weapon) in the 1920s, when *we* were in charge of Iraq?

In any case, Saddam's biological weapons were supplied to him by the
US, the UK and Germany.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:01:21 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Andy Cap wrote:

I really didn't intend any unpleasantness but I actually believe it is your
gentlemanly tolerance that inadvertently exacerbates the anti-social attitudes
and behaviour you understandably despise.


What was it you said at the start of that sentence?

"I really didn't intend any unpleasantness BUT"

That's like saying, "I don't want you to take offence BUT" or I really
didn't want to annoy you BUT" ...

I think everyone knows exactly what you really meant. So it's time to
add your name to my kill file. Bye bye.

Well in case you didn't - It's sad that you're so closed to other opinions,
just the very thing you accused me of being. Also choose to completely ignore
the content and pick up on the phraseology when the intention was quite clear !

ATB
Andy

(Steve Firth) wrote:

Also it's odd how it's very naughty for Saddam to kill thousands of
Kurds, but apparently perfectly OK if those nice guys the Turks do it.


It's apparently "doing wonders" to bomb insurgent villages. This was
said of a Royal Air Force bombing campaign - in the 1920s:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...itishindex.htm

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying
something like:

I think you are in grave danger of confusing an individual's
relationship with his/her next door neighbour with the issue of
whether and/or how the international community should deal with a
despot such as Robert Mugabe.

I've heard Mugabe never cuts his conifers, the *******.


No wonder Thabo Mbeki is afraid of criticising him. ;-)

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

You seem to be saying that members of the armed forces and policemen are on
the same level as neighbourhood thugs?


No, merely that their positions in society mean that people tend to
fear them, for different reasons.

I would not dare to suggest that some members of the police or armed
forces are thugs. That couldn't possibly be true.

On 2008-04-22 06:30:38 +0100, Bruce said:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying
something like:

I think you are in grave danger of confusing an individual's
relationship with his/her next door neighbour with the issue of
whether and/or how the international community should deal with a
despot such as Robert Mugabe.

I've heard Mugabe never cuts his conifers, the *******.


No wonder Thabo Mbeki is afraid of criticising him. ;-)

Then Kolokolo Bird said, with a mournful cry, "Go to the banks of the
great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever-trees,
and find out".

It really is grey-green, greasy - amazed me when I saw it.

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-04-22 06:30:38 +0100, Bruce said:

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying
something like:

I think you are in grave danger of confusing an individual's
relationship with his/her next door neighbour with the issue of
whether and/or how the international community should deal with a
despot such as Robert Mugabe.

I've heard Mugabe never cuts his conifers, the *******.


No wonder Thabo Mbeki is afraid of criticising him. ;-)

Then Kolokolo Bird said, with a mournful cry, "Go to the banks of the
great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever-trees,
and find out".


Ah, yes. The fever-tree is a fast growing African conifer, named
after the effect leaving it untended can have on the neighbours. ;-)


It really is grey-green, greasy - amazed me when I saw it.


God alone knows what must be in it.

On 2008-04-22 07:47:08 +0100, Bruce said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Then Kolokolo Bird said, with a mournful cry, "Go to the banks of the
great grey-green, greasy Limpopo River, all set about with fever-trees,
and find out".


Ah, yes. The fever-tree is a fast growing African conifer, named
after the effect leaving it untended can have on the neighbours. ;-)


It really is grey-green, greasy - amazed me when I saw it.


God alone knows what must be in it.

It is quite polluted with nitrates etc. but the appearance isn't new if
Kipling wrote about it. I've seen it at different times of the year
and at different places and there are fish as well as vegetation. It's
supposed to be quite silted when flooding so that may be part of the
story. Certainly there is mining in parts of the basin, but the area
is mineral rich naturally anyway. It's not quite a Parys
Mountain run-off.

Andy Hall wrote:

It is quite polluted with nitrates etc. but the appearance isn't new if
Kipling wrote about it. I've seen it at different times of the year
and at different places and there are fish as well as vegetation. It's
supposed to be quite silted when flooding so that may be part of the
story. Certainly there is mining in parts of the basin, but the area
is mineral rich naturally anyway. It's not quite a Parys
Mountain run-off.


Fascinating, Andy. Thanks.

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:09:52 +0100, "Mary Fisher"

wrote:


"Andy Cap" wrote in message
. ..

...
We have been privileged to enjoy possible the longest period of peace
in history.

No.

Nobody is fighting us here but our troops have been involved in war after
(illegal invasion) after war when there was no threat to us.

You're in the armed forces of course so you know, I only have a serving
son

Trust a woman to personalise the argument !

Right, before you go to the great kf in my pc I'll say that you ignored my
contradiction of your assertation that "We have been privileged to enjoy
possible the longest period of peace in history."

Your ignorance is matched only by your belligerence.

You also, somewhere else, said that some things were worth fighting for and
mentioned Mugabwe. But you won't risk your own life to fight him ...

You do tend to ignore pertinent points when they show that your arguments
are flawed.

"Mary Fisher" wrote:

Your ignorance is matched only by your belligerence.


Strong words. Alas, your analysis is perfectly accurate.

Bruce wrote:

Did he kill more Kurds than the British did with poison gas (a
biological weapon)

Tsssk, no. "Poison gas" is a chemical weapon, not a biological weapon.
The Halabja poison gas attack started with unpleasant conventional
weapons (napalm and HE rockets) and proceeded to a variety of chemical
weapons. It's difficult to know exactly which chemical weapons were used
but one certainty is mustard gas and it is probable that others used
included sarin, tabun and VX as well as hydrogen cyanide.

A hint was that the general in charge of operations was known as
"Chemical Ali".

In any case, Saddam's biological weapons were supplied to him by the
US, the UK and Germany.

The suppliers for the chemical weapon precursors were Singapore, the
Netherlands, Eqypt, India, West Germany and the USA. No UK company has
been implicated.

The UK (Oxoid) supplied culture media for the growth of anthrax. It
would be surprising if anyone at Oxoid involved in the deal was unaware
of the purpose that the media would be used for. However there's no
evidence that Saddam ever got production of weaponised anthrax going.

(Steve Firth) wrote:

Bruce wrote:

Did he kill more Kurds than the British did with poison gas (a
biological weapon)

Tsssk, no. "Poison gas" is a chemical weapon, not a biological weapon.

Accepted.

In any case, Saddam's biological weapons were supplied to him by the
US, the UK and Germany.

The suppliers for the chemical weapon precursors were Singapore, the
Netherlands, Eqypt, India, West Germany and the USA. No UK company has
been implicated.

The UK (Oxoid) supplied culture media for the growth of anthrax. It
would be surprising if anyone at Oxoid involved in the deal was unaware
of the purpose that the media would be used for. However there's no
evidence that Saddam ever got production of weaponised anthrax going.

That seems to indicate that a UK company was involved in Saddam's
weapons programme. The fact that Saddam did not produce anthrax
doesn't get that company off the hook - they still supplied the media.

Ignorance of what it might be used for does not make them innocent.
Matrix Churchill tried to claim they didn't know what their precision
machined metal tubes were to be used for (the supergun project) but
their directors were still convicted.

[snip]

The UK (Oxoid) supplied culture media for the growth of anthrax. It
would be surprising if anyone at Oxoid involved in the deal was unaware
of the purpose that the media would be used for. However there's no
evidence that Saddam ever got production of weaponised anthrax going.

That seems to indicate that a UK company was involved in Saddam's
weapons programme. The fact that Saddam did not produce anthrax
doesn't get that company off the hook - they still supplied the media.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

Ignorance of what it might be used for does not make them innocent.

I don't think they were ignorant of the use of the media. The type of
media ordered and the huge quantities are a bit of a giveaway.

Matrix Churchill tried to claim they didn't know what their precision
machined metal tubes were to be used for (the supergun project) but
their directors were still convicted.

As far as I am aware no one at Oxoid has ever faced prosecution.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:29:01 +0100, "Mary Fisher"

Right, before you go to the great kf in my pc I'll say that you ignored my
contradiction of your assertation that "We have been privileged to enjoy
possible the longest period of peace in history."

Your ignorance is matched only by your belligerence.

Because for the VAST majority of people in Britain, that is true. If you want to
concentrate on your personal interest story, that's your right of course.

You also, somewhere else, said that some things were worth fighting for and
mentioned Mugabwe. But you won't risk your own life to fight him ...

Childish in the extreme. Zimbawe is not my problem. It's called an
"illustration", that there are issues where negotiation hasn't worked and
fighting is fully justified, which was my initial issue with Bruce, who seems to
believe everyone is as reasonable as him.

It was more a warning, that the real world is a harsh place. As for the kf,
that's a pity. There are far worse things in the world than a NG disagreement.

ATB
Andy

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes


George (dicegeorge) wrote:
Tony Blair wasn't lieing because he believed that Saddam had
nuclear/biological weapons..

Which he did, he killed thousands of Kurds with biological weapons.

Not at the time he had to produce a list of his weapons / the
"coalition" invaded

I have a 12 page "proof" somewhere of why he couldn't have had active
BCN weapons - I can send it to you if you want


--
geoff

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember (Steve Firth)
saying something like:

In any case, Saddam's biological weapons were supplied to him by the
US, the UK and Germany.

The suppliers for the chemical weapon precursors were Singapore, the
Netherlands, Eqypt, India, West Germany and the USA. No UK company has
been implicated.

Istr the difference between one of the nerve agents (Sarin?) and
organophosphate pesticide is the presence of one OH molecule.
I also str that Germany sold Saddam a complete turnkey package of a
pesticide plant sometime in the early 80s.
I'd be very surprised if there were no skilled chemists in the Iraq of
the time.
--

Dave