In article ,
Soup wrote:

I didn't say ban Holly I just said be careful of it.
Holly may well be "easy" to look after but the person who had this
house before us was an old widower who had no interest in his garden,
talking to the other next door neighbour she said the hedge was
planted by the original tenants wife to spite the local children
(grown up with children of there own now)
Must admit to being biased as having two kids of my own I was
continually scared of them falling/being pushed into this 'hedge' and
scratching
themselves or poking eyes out, and the leaves didn't seem to biodegrade
when off the parent plant, just lay wherever they had been blown 'jagging'
the unwary.
Had lots of scrapes/cuts/bruises as a child seemed to hurt myself
a million ways, wouldn't ban these things just because they might
be dangerous, however I see no percentage in deliberately courting danger,
by planting one of these things.
NOTE this minor rant isn't against Holly per se but putting in plants with
no regard for what they will grow into or how they will grow if untended.

Holly is actually LESS likely to take eyes out than apparently 'safer'
plants. The reason is that it is the dead or sharp twigs that are
the danger and not prickles. Children should be encouraged to fall
into nettlebeds and holly hedges, regularly, to teach them that not
everything is cuddly. Don't let them learn on pyracantha or many
berberis, or they might well lose an eye.

Chillis are also good for teaching children not to eat unidentified
berries. Every garden should have a pot of those nice, brightly
coloured things to attract determinedly disobedient toddlers into
a safe and effective learning experience :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.