Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

This forum is for Garden Law problems that don't fit into the other categories. Please treat it with respect.

Moderator: Angelisle

Post Reply
arborlad
Posts: 8349
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by arborlad » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:02 am

Morgan Sweet wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:22 pm
M'Lud, it would be dependant on the amount of surface water.



You are wrong.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

Collaborate
Posts: 1795
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:17 am
Number of Posts per Page: 20
Number of topics per page: 20

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by Collaborate » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:30 am

This is a message to Admin.

Is there any chance this thread can be locked? It's deviated so far from its original purpose it now seems to be the equivalent of two drunks squaring up to each other outside a pub, neither wanting to "leave it" and neither letting it die a natural death.

raymilland
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:18 am

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by raymilland » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:11 am

Collaborate wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:30 am
This is a message to Admin.

Is there any chance this thread can be locked? It's deviated so far from its original purpose it now seems to be the equivalent of two drunks squaring up to each other outside a pub, neither wanting to "leave it" and neither letting it die a natural death.
+1 from me

Morgan Sweet
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:47 pm

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by Morgan Sweet » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:07 pm

arborlad wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:02 am
Morgan Sweet wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:22 pm
M'Lud, it would be dependant on the amount of surface water.



You are wrong.
You continue to reply with quotes that are taken completely out of context. Please let me try and help you. You asked me how I would feel about surface water on by property. I replied, as above, that it would be dependant on the amount of surface water. You replied that I was wrong. How you presume to know how I would feel about surface water on my property baffles me. I think, as with many of your ill-informed rulings, that you are once again rather deluded. I will leave it there.

arborlad
Posts: 8349
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by arborlad » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:38 pm

Morgan Sweet wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:22 pm
M'Lud, it would be dependant on the amount of surface water.



I misread, you are correct.
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

arborlad
Posts: 8349
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by arborlad » Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:20 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:30 pm
Hi arborlad,

you: how would you [Morgan Sweet] feel about a neighbour who... ...sheds surface water onto it [your land]?

MS: it would be dependant on the amount of surface water

you: No - it wouldn’t, there is no amount of surface water you can shed onto your neighbours land.

I understand the point you’re trying to make, but the above makes no sense because your question never mentioned MS shedding water onto his neighbour’s land?!?

kind regards, Mac



Thank you for this much needed clarification, how could I have been so wrong when I posted this: 'By law, you have to deal with your own run-off, within your own curtailage, so those pipes would be illegal, unless they are emptying into an established ditch or watercourse, it doesn't sound like yours are.'
arborlad

smile...it confuses people

Rosenberg
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by Rosenberg » Thu Jul 04, 2019 11:06 pm

You seem to be all over the place again arborlad, jumping from one quote taken out of context to another.

I have already dealt with the question of water. It is, to all intents and purposes, the same as natural run-off which is NOT illegal. My neighbours are happy with the situation and there is no problem. It is only you that can't leave it alone Judge Arborlad.

You are also wrong in your accusation of me driving over my neighbours land. It is my land, not my neighbour's. Again, I have already told you, but, surprise surprise, Judge Arborlad can't understand that either. Maybe you should lay off the Campari for a while.

arborlad wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:40 pm
Rosenberg wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:00 pm
I've heard of "intelligence-led policing", if that's what you mean.
That's an interesting choice of words...
They aren't my words; this is a phrase dreamt up by the police themselves. I used it, as you know, to contrast with your style of assimilating facts where no intelligence at all is in evidence.

arborlad wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:40 pm
...the OP in that thread did the right thing by reporting it to the police and giving the details, if there's another incident involving a van with two occupants but no details, the police can join the dots and the scrotes will be apprehended more swiftly.
How can you possibly know what the police can, or can't do in a given set of circumstances - let alone what they would be willing to do? I can tell you from personal experience that it's unlikely to be much at all.

If the OP of that thread had reported the incident to the police, they'd probably just get fobbed off with "Sorry, it's not a crime." or "We can't record it" (despite their "evidence-led" mantra), or "We can't do anything about someone asking you the time." (If they didn't laugh in his/her face, they'd probably do so behind the desk.) Let me give you two real examples which illustrate the police's attitude when it comes to low-level crime (I'm not defending it; but it's a fact):

1. A neighbour entered my daughter's garden and chopped down three climbing plants which were growing up HER OWN fence. The cuts were made at ground level on my daughter's side of the fence. Police insisted it wasn't a crime because the plants would re-grow. One did, after five years. The other two died.

2. My cousin's son, a lad of 14 years, had an egg thrown at him from a moving car as he walked back from school. The incident was caught on CCTV, and reported to police, but they insisted that they couldn't record it as a crime as it would "wash out" of his school uniform. It didn't. I believe the real reason they wouldn't record it was that the CCTV didn't capture the number plate, so there was little prospect of identifying the perpetrator; and the police just don't want unsolved crimes - even minor ones - on their books. It's bad for the stats.)

And those are two instances of real criminal damage, not just "Oooh, somebody from the lower classes spoke to me in my middle-class garden". That OP did not say that the people whom you judge to be "scrotes" had done anything worse that asking for casual gardening work and checking the time. The police would probably just tell her to go and put up another layer of net curtains to hide behind.


Morgan Sweet wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:54 am
Rosenberg wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 12:04 am

Arborlad, I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked you 5 years ago. But you clammed up didn't you. I wonder why that was.
May I suggest Rosenberg, when dealing with any legal matters it is most important that you follow the accepted protocols. It is not (normally) the correct protocol to ask a question of a Judge and expect an answer, the predominant role of a Judge is to make rulings.
I will defer to my learned friend.


Collaborate wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:30 am
This is a message to Admin.

Is there any chance this thread can be locked? It's deviated so far from its original purpose it now seems to be the equivalent of two drunks squaring up to each other outside a pub, neither wanting to "leave it" and neither letting it die a natural death.
I've left this thread alone again for the last eleven days partly because it has diverged from the subject of quad-copters. In contrast, during that time, Judge Arborlad has continued to post - over and over again - on various other subjects at random. I guess that to a (ahem) 'legal professional' such as yourself Collaborate, the thought of a drunken judge shouting at shadows in a car park must be a bit of a disturbing thought.

Perhaps I can help by paraphrasing one element of your post: "Leave it Judge Arborlad. It ain't worth it!"

Rosenberg
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by Rosenberg » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:31 am

Judge Arborlad has continued his search for my supposed wrong-doing on a twelve-year-old thread as well. It's getting a bit silly now M'lud.:

arborlad wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:15 am
Rosenberg wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:07 pm

And by the way: as long as I'm not doing anything illegal, it IS my right to do as I please on my own property.
Your intransigence in this matter is quite simply astounding. What you regard as your rights on your property apply equally to the neighbour and his property!!!
What do you think is wrong with that statement, arborlad? It is a concise, factually correct, summary of the benefits of property ownership.

arborlad wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:52 am
andrew54 wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:36 pm
I will try to answer your question. If the 'slabs' are laid with the intention of being driven on, and all you do is drive on them, then I don't think you would be liable at all.

Paving flags often get disturbed and often break. These neighbouring ones might survive better if your drive is laid right up to them and at the same height.
I think this post has misled the OP into believing he has rights over the neighbours land or that the neighbour has any form of obligation(s) to the OP - which is simply not the case.
No it hasn't. It has nothing to do with our ownership of the land. My neighbour disagreed about the boundary line at the time of my first posts on the matter and I reluctantly believed him then. After the substantive part of my thread was complete - over a decade ago - we built our wall on the correct line.

Don't you understand that simple fact arborlad? I've told you about it before, but for some strange reason you seem to like picking over obsolete, twelve-year-old posts instead of assimilating new information.

Might I respectfully suggest that, if Judge Arborlad keeps going over the same ground in the ever-decreasing circles which he appears to favour, he'll one day end up disappearing into the "Judge's chamber", and all that will be left to dispense justice will be his home-made gavel and wig.

Rosenberg
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: Neighbour's quadcopter camera over my garden

Post by Rosenberg » Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:22 pm

On a different thread (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7307&start=15):
arborlad wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:47 am
Rosenberg wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:53 am
There is no requirement for us to install a drain. Nothing illegal is occurring.
.................which makes the above statement a lie!! There's nothing new about members being evasive and not answering questions - but you seem to excel at it...
Rosenberg wrote: What exactly do you regard as a lie?
arborlad wrote: The bit in blue - not in your wildest dreams can you install pipes into a hedgebank of unknown ownership* and consider it 'lawful' and 'natural'!!!

Please don't keep calling me a liar arborlad, especially as you continue to go over old ground to do so.

As I have already indicated, the hedge-bank is mine so there is nothing illegal going on in respect of ownership.

As far as the drainage itself is concerned, I have already dealt with that issue several times, the latest being:
Rosenberg wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:25 pm
1. If surface water were to flow naturally from my land, unobstructed by any boundary feature, that would be legal.

2. If all of my surface water were to be channelled through a single pipe onto neighbouring land, that would doubtless be problematic and illegal.

There is actually a continuum of scenarios between cases 1 and 2. In your world, arborlad, simply planting a tree or shrub on the boundary would disturb the water flow sufficiently to result in illegal drainage. Erecting a fence, likewise. In reality, the bar isn't set that low. Whether drainage is legal or illegal depends on the degree to which it differs from natural. In my case, it differs very little; the water is distributed along the whole length of the two affected boundaries, like it would be if there were just a row of fence posts there. The resulting water flow is not even noticeable - even in heavy rain. It is certainly not causing a problem to the current landowner...
To determine whether something is illegal requires a court decision (if you imagine the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, you might begin to understand the principle). As the pattern of water drainage is not significantly different from that which would pertain if there were no hedge-bank there at all, how do you think a court would react if my neighbour were to bring a civil action? (Not that he would, because he has already indicated that he can't see any water draining through anyway, and it is certainly not causing him a problem.) Without an official judgement, the situation cannot be declared illegal - even by you, M'lud.

Do you understand now Judge Arborlad? If so, maybe you'll finally give it a rest.

Post Reply