On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:16:09 -0000, "Brian Watson"
wrote:


"PhEaSaNt PLuCKeR" wrote in message
...
How can I stop the kids next door keep coming round every 5 mins asking if
they can
go into my garden to get their ball back?

Remember you were a child once too. Then it won't matter.

This ploy often works:-)

Glad I'm not the only one:-)

Liz

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:23:34 GMT, "ex WGS Hamm"
wrote:


"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...
Ehhhh, I have two young kids of my own already who play in the garden. If
balls come in, the kids just deal with it themselves. If they make a
mess,
I ask them to be careful. They are nice kids (mine and the neighbours').
I think one is more tolerant when one has children. I am a crabby middle
aged woman who's son is adult and lives away :0)
I have smashing neighbours too which is great. But not everyones garden is
safe for kids. If the people whos garden the ball goes into do not have
kids, they might have all kinds of chemicals stored in all kinds of
containers (pop bottles) and a barel of toxic homebrew in the shed. Who
knows what kids would do if they had the chance for a nosey about if nobody
was in. I know I would have when I was a kid ;0)


The trouble these days is the kids might just be kids from your street
or they might be scr*t*s from (wherever). The nice kids will drink the
weedkiller, then you'll have to move house and hang your head in shame.
The "chavs" (as people who have no dealings with them call them) will
find your spare key in that fake stone, burgle your house, cr*p in your
fridge and all before you get home from work (you think the school cares
if they skive?)

Liz

"Cereus-validus..." wrote in message
om...
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Cereus-validus..." wrote in message
. com...
Yeah, that Theft act is a bit convoluted. It protects the stupid
and
punishes the victim. Must have been written up by a republican
judge.

There are no republican judges in the UK.

The
neighbor should have returned the balls deflated with punctures
in
them!

You son is obviously a dyslexic dumb jock meat head. Don't want
to
know
anything more about your dimwit spawn. His not being able to
keep
his balls
out of neighbor's yards six times (or more) is all the proof one
needs of
how inept the dullard is. He's so dumb, he could be president
some
day!

We are not cursed with objects of scorn like presidents in the UK.

Sure Franz, maybe not republican in name but certainly republican in
spirit!

Tony Blair may belong to the Labor Party but he is a closet
Conservative
chicken hawk just like Dubya!! They both served the same amount of
time in
military service!!!!

You have it the wrong way round.
Blair subverted the Labour Party, and it is now his personal fiefdom.
Of course he is further to the right than the Conservative Party.

Sure Franz, you are just cursed with object of scorn Prime Ministers
like
Tony Blair. Not much of a difference at all!!!

Regrettably you are right.

Franz

"ex WGS Hamm" wrote in message
...

[snip]
Actually no I would not. There is no law against keeping a
dangerous dog as
long as certain precautions are made. The precautions I make are
keeping
them in a secure garden behind high hedges and 6 foot high gates
which
cannot be opened from the outside.

Dear me, do you live in a jail?

[snip]

Franz

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"ex WGS Hamm" wrote in message
...

[snip]
Actually no I would not. There is no law against keeping a
dangerous dog as
long as certain precautions are made. The precautions I make are
keeping
them in a secure garden behind high hedges and 6 foot high gates
which
cannot be opened from the outside.

Dear me, do you live in a jail?

Nope, just a secure remote cottage.

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...

Well now, let's see. We live way out in the sticks and have no street
lighting but no parrots, either. Or 'pikeys'. At the time I had those
particular dogs in that particular situation, I had several neighbours and
lived in a house fronting onto a lit main road. Luckily, I have never
seen
the reason to have a vicious dog on my premises to 'protect' other animals
or me.
Well obviously. You have never had lots of valuable parrots, nor opportune
pikeys (the fens has many pikey sites around) so you never had a 'need' to
protect your property. If you had got parrots and pikeys you might well have
had 'reason' to protect yourself.


All I can say is that it is a good job Kip never came to you as a pup.
You
would not have seen the need to keep him and would no doubt have had him
put
down.
Good job we aren't all the same. I could not abide a dozy bugger of a
dog
who would not protect me and mine.

I think it's a very good job that *most* people don't see the need to keep
vicious dogs in the manner you describe, yes. Not even people who keep
parrots - and yes, I do know someone who does parrot rescue, lives on a
main
road, has neighbours and does not keep vicious dogs.
And I know parot breeders with large aviary blocks. They need to live
fairly remote because of the noise nuisacne or large numbers of parrots
screaming at dawn every morning. All of them has several dogs. Most of them
have dogs which would bite intruders. When you are talking about tens of
thousands of pounds worth of parrots, you need to protect them. It is a
different case for someone who has a couple of parrots in their home which
is in a populated busy area. One of my friends has a single pair of parrots
which are worth around £5000 just for the one pair. In total his collection
is worth in the region of £80,000. You still don't see the need to have
large bold guard dogs??

I was making a point to someone who maintained it was ok for the kids
firstly to kick the ball over, and then to simply go and fetch it
without
asking permission. The garden owner might have a dog who hated kids, he
might also have had a shed with chemicals in or a greenhouse with
brittle
glass, or a fall in-able pond for the little darlings to drown
themselves
in.
The point I am making is that nobody should enter someone's property
unless
they have permission.

Then it's a shame you don't read properly. Because my post - which you
quoted - suggested that the OP give the children permission to come onto
his
property. I did NOT suggest going onto anyone's property without
permission. Not even yours.
You are correct then as I didn't read that the OP had told the children to
go in when they felt like it. I misunderstood and thought that the person
who posted was saying that kids didn't need to ask permission to go into
someone's garden.

The message
from "ex WGS Hamm" contains these words:
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "suspicious minds" contains these words:

Sorry about the long reply but this is the actual law and I have
underlined
the parts which could apply to the keeping of balls and fruit etc

However, you have not mentioned conversion.

Depriving someone of their property without legal right, but with no
intention of depriving them of it permanently (legal right might be for
instance, the police removing evidence) is a civil offence, and usually,
a criminal offence, too.

I would have to argue that one. My brothers ex girlfriend stole everything
out of his house when he was away on holiday. When the police turned up she
said she took most of it 'by mistake' and would eventually give it back to
him. 6 months later and it still wasn't returned and the police would do
nothing. He even when to the chief of police to see if this was correct and
to dayte she still has his stuff, apparently in storage and plans to return
it 'eventually'.

Quite - it's not theft, so long as there really is an intention of
returning it, and the police can't take action.

The only recourse your brother has is of threatening (or actually
beginning) a civil action for conversion.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
"ex WGS Hamm" writes:
|
| You and I are reading the same thing and interpreting it differently. If
| someone told my neighbour's kids that they didn't have to ask my
permission
| to come into my garden but to just come and get the ball, that to
me means
| they are being incited to trespass.

Nonsense. Trespass requires damage. Merely entering someone else's
land is not trespass.

Going onto someone's land unbidden is trespass. It only becomes a crime
if damage is done or if the trespass is committed with unlawful intent,
and is now, I believe, called 'aggravated trespass'.

For instance, if you take your car on the road to visit your Great Aunt
Agatha, there is no unlawful intent (unless you intend to put rat poison
in her tea caddy). However, under fairly recent legislation, if you
drive your car on the road with the intention of shooting your
neighbour's pheasants, you are committing the tort of trespass on the
public highway, as well as the crimes of armed trespass and aggravated
trespass.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

AC/DC - Big Balls

I'm upper, upper class high society
God's gift to ballroom notoriety
And I always fill my ballroom
The event is never small
All the social papers say I've got the biggest balls of all

CHORUS
I've got big balls
I've got big balls
And they're such big balls
Dirty big balls
And he's got big balls,
And she's got big balls,
But we've got the biggest balls of them all!

And my balls are always bouncing
My ballroom always full
And everybody comes and comes again
If your name is on the guest list
No one can take you higher
Everybody says I've got great balls of fire!

CHORUS

Some balls are held for charity
And some for fancy dress
But when they're held for pleasure,
They're the balls that I like best.
And my balls are always bouncing,
To the left and to the right.
It's my belief that my big balls should be held every night.

CHORUS

And I'm just itching to tell you about them
Oh, we have such wonderful fun
Seafood cocktail
Crabs
Crayfish

In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades writes:
|
| Going onto someone's land unbidden is trespass. It only becomes a crime
| if damage is done or if the trespass is committed with unlawful intent,
| and is now, I believe, called 'aggravated trespass'.

Sigh. No. Merely entering and not doing damage is not trespass,
and you may even have a right to do so. There are both statutory
and common law rights to enter other people's property, though
collecting balls is not one of them.

Doing damage is NOT a crime, but a civil offence, and it is the
combination of entering without permission and doing damage that
is trespass.

The Game Laws, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and others
make certain types of trespass crimes, but that is another matter.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Cerumen" wrote in message
...

"PhEaSaNt PLuCKeR" wrote in message
...
How can I stop the kids next door keep coming round every 5 mins asking
if
they can
go into my garden to get their ball back?

Tell them they don't need to ask and just get it without doing damage. Be
thankful they are polite enough to ask.


--

Chris Thomas
West Cork
Ireland

Do we all remember the term "Shithouse Lawyers". I think they have all made
a comment here. The problem is between neighbours and if they can't resolve
it then it may require "REAL" lawyers and they are off on holiday spending
the money they squeezed out of other people who failed to solve simple
things using common sense.

On 11/11/04 12:45, in article , "ex WGS
Hamm" wrote:

snip
You are correct then as I didn't read that the OP had told the children to
go in when they felt like it. I misunderstood and thought that the person
who posted was saying that kids didn't need to ask permission to go into
someone's garden.

No, no, no. I'm not getting into the rest of this argument with you re your
vicious dogs and parrots and all the rest of it because I am not living in
your circumstances. But NO, I did NOT suggest anyone goes into anyone
else's garden without permission. I would never do such a thing. Read my
post again, if you will.
I suggested that the OP told the children that they could go into his garden
at any time - in other words, that they have his blanket permission to
retrieve the ball and do not have to keep ringing his door bell and asking
his permission.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

In article , Sacha
writes

I wrote the sentence which suggested telling the owner of the garden should
tell the children they don't need to ask. I followed it up by saying it
worked fine for me. We are not 'interpreting it differently' because *I*
wrote it.

Sacha - she was replying to me, not you! It was me that was interpreting
it differently

I have no idea how YOU can *possibly* interpret that as me suggesting that
'someone'- who is not you - tells other peoples' children that it's fine to
come into *your* garden. Why on earth would I incite others to trespass? Why
would I suggest the OP's friends and neighbours should create one nuisance
on top of another?

Personally, I agree - but then I would, since that is how I read your
post in the first place!

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On 11/11/04 18:37, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

I wrote the sentence which suggested telling the owner of the garden should
tell the children they don't need to ask. I followed it up by saying it
worked fine for me. We are not 'interpreting it differently' because *I*
wrote it.

Sacha - she was replying to me, not you! It was me that was interpreting
it differently

Yes. That was why I said *I* wrote etc..

I have no idea how YOU can *possibly* interpret that as me suggesting that
'someone'- who is not you - tells other peoples' children that it's fine to
come into *your* garden. Why on earth would I incite others to trespass? Why
would I suggest the OP's friends and neighbours should create one nuisance
on top of another?

Personally, I agree - but then I would, since that is how I read your
post in the first place!
Yes.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:52:15 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Cereus-validus..." wrote in message
.com...
Yeah, that Theft act is a bit convoluted. It protects the stupid
and
punishes the victim. Must have been written up by a republican
judge.

There are no republican judges in the UK.

The
neighbor should have returned the balls deflated with punctures
in
them!

You son is obviously a dyslexic dumb jock meat head. Don't want
to
know
anything more about your dimwit spawn. His not being able to keep
his balls
out of neighbor's yards six times (or more) is all the proof one
needs of
how inept the dullard is. He's so dumb, he could be president
some
day!

We are not cursed with objects of scorn like presidents in the UK.

We are not cursed with objects of scorn like the monarchy in the UK.

Touche

Franz