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?

4square wrote:
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?
When you cut conifers they do not regrow, so you will be left with a
brown and ugly mess.

4square wrote:

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?


If you really want to stir up trouble, that's certainly a good way of
doing it, whether it is legal or not. It's no wonder that disputes
between neighbours are such a big problem in Britain.

If you were joking, I apologise.

4square wrote:
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?

Take a look here. You should be able to get the them taken down at the
expense of the owner. Note that you have to try and get them to do it
voluntarily first.

http://freespace.virgin.net/clare.h/hdg1Curr.htm

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planni...es/highhedges/

Peter Crosland

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
4square wrote:

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?


If you really want to stir up trouble, that's certainly a good way of
doing it, whether it is legal or not. It's no wonder that disputes
between neighbours are such a big problem in Britain.

If you were joking, I apologise.


Sure, there are better ways to start but the poster would be within his
rights to trim to the boundary, and *must* pass the cuttings back (otherwise
it could be construed as theft).

"newshound" wrote:


"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
4square wrote:

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?


If you really want to stir up trouble, that's certainly a good way of
doing it, whether it is legal or not. It's no wonder that disputes
between neighbours are such a big problem in Britain.

If you were joking, I apologise.


Sure, there are better ways to start but the poster would be within his
rights to trim to the boundary, and *must* pass the cuttings back (otherwise
it could be construed as theft).


Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in pursuit
of what they believe to be their "rights".

That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small)
and individuals. And especially to neighbours.

Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone loses.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
4square wrote:
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?
When you cut conifers they do not regrow, so you will be left with a brown
and ugly mess.

The law is pretty clear ... you are allowed to trim any tress that overhang
your property, as long as they do not have a preservation order on them.
You must offer the cuttings back to the owner, as they are not your
property.

Can't see many wanting them, but that is the law.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:38:13 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in pursuit
of what they believe to be their "rights".

That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small)
and individuals. And especially to neighbours.

Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone loses.

Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise - and lobbing
cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you have to
fight to preserve your rights.

Like being able to express a view in a newsgroup like this one. Only pacifists,
who wouldn't exist if others weren't prepared to fight on their behalf, are
stupid enough not to understand that.

Andy

Andy Cap wrote:

Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise - and lobbing
cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you have to
fight to preserve your rights.


Your language displays hostility, which is not a good place to start
from. The use of the word "compromise" means you are automatically
assuming that the neighbours have opposing objectives, and that each
must give up some of those objectives in order to avoid conflict with
the other.

In fact it would be better to try to find common ground based on
shared objectives, by communicating with them.

For example, just because the neighbour hasn't cut the conifers
doesn't mean that they will stoutly defend their "right" not to. It
may well be that they would be quite happy to cut them, or even
actively want them to be lower, but the hedge has grown beyond the
point where it is simple and inexpensive to do it themselves. Or
perhaps it hasn't occurred to them that their tall hedge is not liked
by the neighbours, because they are not keen gardeners.

Instead of starting a conflict without even speaking to the
neighbours, why not try to understand them and even get to know them?
Treating people with suspicion and avoiding contact with them is a
guaranteed was to ensure that unnecessary problems will occur.

If the first real conversation you have with your neighbours is about
something they do that upsets you, then stand by for fireworks. I
repeat, with emphasis:

"Assert your "rights" and you make enemies.

In the end, everyone loses."

newshound wrote:

Sure, there are better ways to start but the poster would be within his
rights to trim to the boundary, and *must* pass the cuttings back (otherwise
it could be construed as theft).

Nearly right. You must offer to give back the cuttings. If the neighbour
doesnt want them, then it is up to you to get rid of them, you cannot
chuck them over the fence/boundary.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

"A.Lee" wrote in message
...
newshound wrote:

Sure, there are better ways to start but the poster would be within his
rights to trim to the boundary, and *must* pass the cuttings back
(otherwise
it could be construed as theft).

Nearly right. You must offer to give back the cuttings. If the neighbour
doesnt want them, then it is up to you to get rid of them, you cannot
chuck them over the fence/boundary.
Alan.

What does the law say about chucking your next door neighbour over the
boundary when they object about the pruning and try to stop you pruning?

Adam

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:31:37 +0100, Bruce wrote:

In fact it would be better to try to find common ground based on
shared objectives, by communicating with them.

Of course, I agreed with you, I made that perfectly clear, but if they refuse ?

The point I was making is that sometimes you can not come to an agreement.
You then resort to law. If the other party isn't law abiding, then you must turn
to brute force.

As in the case of Mugabe for example, do you just wait for him to die? Meanwhile
millions of people are condemned to have utterly miserable lives.

Some things ARE worth fighting for.

Andy

Andy Cap wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:31:37 +0100, Bruce wrote:

In fact it would be better to try to find common ground based on
shared objectives, by communicating with them.

Of course, I agreed with you, I made that perfectly clear, but if they refuse ?

The point I was making is that sometimes you can not come to an agreement.
You then resort to law. If the other party isn't law abiding, then you must turn
to brute force.


"Brute force" seems to occupy your mind more than perhaps it should.

There is another alternative, which is to weigh up whether the stress
of an adversarial relationship with your neighbour makes resorting to
law worthwhile. Then just forget about it.


As in the case of Mugabe for example, do you just wait for him to die? Meanwhile
millions of people are condemned to have utterly miserable lives.


I am not going to fight Mugabe, and (I suspect) neither are you.


Some things ARE worth fighting for.


Some people just enjoy fighting. Others resort to it because they are
not intelligent enough to find an alternative.

For whatever reason, the threshold where "brute force" starts to be
used seems to get lower and lower with each passing year.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
4square wrote:
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?
When you cut conifers they do not regrow, so you will be left with a brown
and ugly mess.

It depends how you do it.

Each year, for a Christmas tree, we cut off the leader from our c.leylandi
and other branches grew to take its place. We don't do it any longer for
logistical reasons but we intend taking down a large limb this year after
the birds have finished rearing young. We're confident that he rest of the
tree will be fine.

Mary

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:40:50 +0100, Bruce wrote:

There is another alternative, which is to weigh up whether the stress
of an adversarial relationship with your neighbour makes resorting to
law worthwhile. Then just forget about it.

So you are simply prepared to gradually surender your garden to the neighbours
and then when you come to sell it, no one is interested. Very charitable, I'm
sure.

I am not going to fight Mugabe, and (I suspect) neither are you.

That doesn't surprise me. I live in a country which exists because people were
prepared to lay down their lives, at least we could be grateful.

Some people just enjoy fighting. Others resort to it because they are
not intelligent enough to find an alternative.

Some people simply avoid the issue by not answernig the question !

For whatever reason, the threshold where "brute force" starts to be
used seems to get lower and lower with each passing year.

Rubbish. We have been privileged to enjoy possible the longest period of peace
in history. The trouble with that is that some choose to stick their head in the
sand and pretend that there are not those, who would have things differently.

Andy

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:31:37 +0100, Bruce wrote:

In fact it would be better to try to find common ground based on
shared objectives, by communicating with them.

Of course, I agreed with you, I made that perfectly clear, but if they
refuse ?

The point I was making is that sometimes you can not come to an agreement.
You then resort to law. If the other party isn't law abiding, then you
must turn
to brute force.

As in the case of Mugabe for example, do you just wait for him to die?
Meanwhile
millions of people are condemned to have utterly miserable lives.

Some things ARE worth fighting for.

Are you fighting for Mugabe's victims?

Mary

Andy

"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

Andy Cap wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:40:50 +0100, Bruce wrote:

There is another alternative, which is to weigh up whether the stress
of an adversarial relationship with your neighbour makes resorting to
law worthwhile. Then just forget about it.

So you are simply prepared to gradually surender your garden to the neighbours
and then when you come to sell it, no one is interested. Very charitable, I'm
sure.

I am not going to fight Mugabe, and (I suspect) neither are you.

That doesn't surprise me. I live in a country which exists because people were
prepared to lay down their lives, at least we could be grateful.

Some people just enjoy fighting. Others resort to it because they are
not intelligent enough to find an alternative.

Some people simply avoid the issue by not answernig the question !

For whatever reason, the threshold where "brute force" starts to be
used seems to get lower and lower with each passing year.

Rubbish. We have been privileged to enjoy possible the longest period of peace
in history. The trouble with that is that some choose to stick their head in the
sand and pretend that there are not those, who would have things differently.


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.

As for the UK going to war in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan,
that has only served to make the UK into far more of a terrorist
target than it ever was before, or would have been had our armed
forces not become involved. There can now be no doubt that the
invasion of Iraq was in breach of international law. The legal
position in Afghanistan is also very uncertain, as what was a NATO
peacekeeping force is now fighting a ferocious war. Any peacekeeping
mandate for this force is therefore invalid.

If wars are being fought to prevent breaches of international law by
despots such as Saddam Hussein, it is doubly important to make sure
that any action our country takes does not itself breach international
law, otherwise we are in danger of becoming the problem.

Coming back to the neighbour issue, the onus is on everyone to behave
reasonably. Your starting point is to advocate violence ("brute
force") even before any negotiations have begun. That doesn't seem
reasonable to me, and I thank God that I don't live next door to you.

In message , Broadback
writes
4square wrote:
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?
When you cut conifers they do not regrow, so you will be left with a
brown and ugly mess.

I believe Leylandi are an exception to this rule. I have topped several
isolated trees here when they were threatening the gutters and found
that the remaining top branches turned upwards and became new leaders.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:38:13 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in pursuit
of what they believe to be their "rights".

That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small)
and individuals. And especially to neighbours.

Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone loses.

Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise - and
lobbing
cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you have
to
fight to preserve your rights.

Martin Luther King didn't 'fight'
Gandhi didn't 'fight'
The Dalai Lama isn't 'fighting'

The IRA 'fought'
The Tamil Tigers and ETA are 'fighting'

"OG" wrote:


"Andy Cap" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:38:13 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in pursuit
of what they believe to be their "rights".

That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small)
and individuals. And especially to neighbours.

Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone loses.

Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise - and
lobbing
cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you have
to
fight to preserve your rights.

Martin Luther King didn't 'fight'
Gandhi didn't 'fight'
The Dalai Lama isn't 'fighting'

The IRA 'fought'
The Tamil Tigers and ETA are 'fighting'


Please be more careful with your attribution. I did not write the
above text starting "Whilst I ..."

In fact I agree with you!

In message , OG
writes

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:38:13 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in pursuit
of what they believe to be their "rights".

That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small)
and individuals. And especially to neighbours.

Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone loses.

Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise - and
lobbing
cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you have
to
fight to preserve your rights.

Martin Luther King didn't 'fight'
Gandhi didn't 'fight'
The Dalai Lama isn't 'fighting'

The IRA 'fought'
The Tamil Tigers and ETA are 'fighting'

Bit of a bugger, boundary disputes, eh ?

--
geoff

"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?

What is the problem?
Who has the problem?
Is it possible that other people share the problem?

What possible solutions exist to the problem?
Are you making some assumptions about the problem that are restricting the
range of solutions available?
What other solutions might be available if you discard some of the
assumptions?

OG wrote:
"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?

What is the problem?
Who has the problem?
Is it possible that other people share the problem?

What possible solutions exist to the problem?
Are you making some assumptions about the problem that are
restricting the range of solutions available?
What other solutions might be available if you discard some of the
assumptions?

Have you been reading those self help books?


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

geoff wrote:
In message , OG
writes

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:38:13 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in
pursuit of what they believe to be their "rights".

That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small)
and individuals. And especially to neighbours.

Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone
loses.

Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise -
and lobbing
cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you
have to
fight to preserve your rights.

Martin Luther King didn't 'fight'
Gandhi didn't 'fight'
The Dalai Lama isn't 'fighting'

The IRA 'fought'
The Tamil Tigers and ETA are 'fighting'

Bit of a bugger, boundary disputes, eh ?

Amazing how a few trees can get Mugabe, ETA & the Tamil Tigers involved.
Where is this garden?


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

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"OG" wrote:


"Andy Cap" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:38:13 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in pursuit
of what they believe to be their "rights".

That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small)
and individuals. And especially to neighbours.

Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone loses.

Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise - and
lobbing
cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you have
to
fight to preserve your rights.

Martin Luther King didn't 'fight'
Gandhi didn't 'fight'
The Dalai Lama isn't 'fighting'

The IRA 'fought'
The Tamil Tigers and ETA are 'fighting'


Please be more careful with your attribution. I did not write the
above text starting "Whilst I ..."

I don't have a problem with that; I responded to Andy Cap

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...


OG wrote:
"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?

What is the problem?
Who has the problem?
Is it possible that other people share the problem?

What possible solutions exist to the problem?
Are you making some assumptions about the problem that are
restricting the range of solutions available?
What other solutions might be available if you discard some of the
assumptions?

Have you been reading those self help books?

No but the approach is rational.

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?

Since the OP hasn't even talked to them, why not go around to say,
"Hi, I'm your neighbour - can we talk about the trees, because they are a
bit too tall for the situation and I'd be happier if we took them down about
15 ft, is that a problem?
I'll be happy to halve the cost since i'll be benefitting as much as you
would. Otherwise I don't mind doing it myself if you're OK with me coming in
your garden one weekend"

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 !

I do believe that servicemen should sign up separately for international
conflicts i.e. be a member of a UN force, rather than at the behest of the
British governement for foreign forays. However presently, if you sign the forms
you accept the liablity.

Having said that, like so much of modern advertising, I do accept that advert
that concentrate on a career and travel, should be banned.

It's also true that the British people in general have been extremely fortunate
to have live during the few preceding decades.

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:07:45 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


Some things ARE worth fighting for.

Are you fighting for Mugabe's victims?


No, but my point was that I wouldn't condemn anyone who chose to
i.e some things ARE worth fighting for, like freedom of expression, which we too
readily take for granted. Negotiation simply doesn't always work.

Andy

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:29:26 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Martin Luther King didn't 'fight'
Gandhi didn't 'fight'
The Dalai Lama isn't 'fighting'

The IRA 'fought'
The Tamil Tigers and ETA are 'fighting'


Please be more careful with your attribution. I did not write the
above text starting "Whilst I ..."

In fact I agree with you!

It's true that where there is mass injustice, there is more chance of an
eventual resolution.

Clearly many have never had the experience of an iintransigent neighbour, who is
quite willing to make you life a misery and seriously damages the prospect of a
sale either directly through neglect or by havnig to admit the conflict.

Andy

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:37:51 +0100, Bruce wrote:

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.

If wars are being fought to prevent breaches of international law by
despots such as Saddam Hussein, it is doubly important to make sure
that any action our country takes does not itself breach international
law, otherwise we are in danger of becoming the problem.

Agreed. There should be an International Force, which people can sign up to,
separate from their National Services.

Coming back to the neighbour issue, the onus is on everyone to behave
reasonably. Your starting point is to advocate violence ("brute
force") even before any negotiations have begun. That doesn't seem
reasonable to me, and I thank God that I don't live next door to you.

I think you have a serious problem with reading and avoiding questions.

Me: "Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise - and
lobbing cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you have
to fight to preserve your rights."

Me: "Of course, I agreed with you, I made that perfectly clear, but if they
refuse ?"

You: "Your starting point is to advocate violence"

You: "and I thank God that I don't live next door to you."

Believe me, you could do a LOT worse.

Andy

On 2008-04-21 00:26:23 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:



geoff wrote:
In message , OG
writes

"Andy Cap" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:38:13 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Wars start because people are prepared to ignore all logic in
pursuit of what they believe to be their "rights".

That applies to whole countries, groups of people (large and small)
and individuals. And especially to neighbours.

Assert your "rights" and you make enemies. In the end, everyone
loses.

Whilst I agree that neighbours should always try and compromise -
and lobbing
cutting over a fence is not a good start - there are times when you
have to
fight to preserve your rights.

Martin Luther King didn't 'fight'
Gandhi didn't 'fight'
The Dalai Lama isn't 'fighting'

The IRA 'fought'
The Tamil Tigers and ETA are 'fighting'

Bit of a bugger, boundary disputes, eh ?

Amazing how a few trees can get Mugabe, ETA & the Tamil Tigers involved.
Where is this garden?

Next to Hitler's bunker. He needed to be brought into this sometime.

Andy Hall wrote in
480c3956@qaanaaq

On 2008-04-21 00:26:23 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:
snip

Amazing how a few trees can get Mugabe, ETA & the Tamil Tigers
involved. Where is this garden?

Next to Hitler's bunker. He needed to be brought into this sometime.

Godwin's Law kicks in now?

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"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 !

I do believe that servicemen should sign up separately for international
conflicts i.e. be a member of a UN force, rather than at the behest of the
British governement for foreign forays. However presently, if you sign the
forms
you accept the liablity.

Having said that, like so much of modern advertising, I do accept that
advert
that concentrate on a career and travel, should be banned.

It's also true that the British people in general have been extremely
fortunate
to have live during the few preceding decades.

Trust a man to veer from the point.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:47:03 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Trust a man to veer from the point.

ALL I was saying, was that compromise is not ALWAYS an option.

If you think diferently, then we can agree to differ.

Andy

Andy Cap wrote:

Clearly many have never had the experience of an iintransigent neighbour, who is
quite willing to make you life a misery and seriously damages the prospect of a
sale either directly through neglect or by havnig to admit the conflict.


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.

It is an attitude that is entirely typical of the military, the
ex-military and members of paramilitary organisations such as the
police.

It should be no surprise that ex-military personnel are heavily
over-represented among the failed members of society, requiring a
wholly disproportionate level of support from social services, drug
rehabilitation services and the NHS.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

Amazing how a few trees can get Mugabe, ETA & the Tamil Tigers involved.
Where is this garden?


It is in Andy Cap's mind, ITYF.

"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.

A.Lee wrote:
newshound wrote:

Sure, there are better ways to start but the poster would be within his
rights to trim to the boundary, and *must* pass the cuttings back (otherwise
it could be construed as theft).

Nearly right. You must offer to give back the cuttings. If the neighbour
doesnt want them, then it is up to you to get rid of them, you cannot
chuck them over the fence/boundary.
Alan.

I few times I've been approached about trees on my land. so far I have
agreed to them carrying out the work and said "please dispose of the
trimmings". They have always been put back onto on my land.

Contrawise, when working on other peoples plants overhanging my land, I
ask whether they want them back or if I should dispose of them and
always get told to get rid of them.

According to the hedging laws they are (and remain) the property of the
landowner.

http://handbooks.btcv.org.uk/handboo...nt/section/262

Yes, his plants are overhanging your land, and you are within your
rights to trim back to the boundary, and you must return his wood to him
if there is no other arrangement.

I think the best thing to do is to talk to your neighbour. He may be
quite happy for you to proceed; he may even be willing to share the
cost, but he doesn't have to. If you don't even talk to him you are
bound to cause resentment and conflict.

Consider how you would feel if the situation was reversed and you found
that a neighbour had pruned overhanging trees and then left the prunings
on your drive.

As Churchill said, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war". I don't think he
avoided confrontation if it was necessary. This one just doesn't sound
necessary yet.

The problem with most conifers is that if you trim them back on one
side, they take a very long time (if at all) to grow back, so you will
probably be better off trimming them back progressively over a few years.

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.

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.

I would suggest YOUR limit, would have been somewhat lower.

If you are suggesting, as appears to be the case, that you do not have a limit
to such invasive activity, then Sir, I suggest you are a liar.

Andy