Trees and Trespass...

[Jesse]

I'm all for education, every day is a school day here on Arbtalk. I can't say that my postings are any more right than other folks', most of the time, but there is a lot of rubbish talked and things cited as facts by people on Arbtalk but they are factually incorrect or don't reflect the true state of the law. Some of them are backed up by stubborn attitides, and at that point objectivity of perspective disappears and it just becomes vindictive. I think that all you can say about what's on Arbtalk is generally well-intended and based in some understanding of the law but it isn't entirely reliable and for sure isn't a substitute for structured learning through an authoritative source. Personally I can't easily stand by and see erroneous information passed off as correct.

 

I think where the great strength of arbtalk lies is in gving a collective overview of the pragmatic approach that can be taken day-to-day in tree work. That doesn't mean it's 'right', but commercially we all have to cut corners or make compromises and more generally have to get on with things without stopping to take legal advice every time a twig might fall into a neighbour's garden. I expect the reason why there are not court precedents covering trivial encroachments and trespasses is that the courts do not concern themselves with them (de minimus non curat juris) and quite right too. Ordinary behaviour will always rely on ordinary ethics and attitudes towards other people, and the law only gets involved when the consequences of unreasonable behaviour are significant.

 

So reliance on what is presented as acceptable on Arbtalk could lead someone into a situation where they are legally and technically in the wrong but the consequences have got to a scale that results in them being on the wrong end of a court decision. Not too late to un-learn the wrong version of the law, but it won't be a defence to say that someone on Arbtalk said it was OK however nice his watch and shoes were.

 

I have no comment on your LA saga, I do work for LA's and I see both sides of the story. It probably merits a separate posting.

 

Your spot on with everything you said, i was off on one yesterday after hearing what my LA had been trying to worm out of, my LA have very big problems with double standards and procedure following, I won't do a separate post , best just to let them carry on digging a very big hole.

[Jon Heuch]

I could be wrong but I kinda thought parenthesis was brackets ... (parenthesis ) ?

 

You might want to do some research - parenthesis refers to the explanatory text added, not to the punctuation at the beginning or end of the text."Within the parentheses" is a term used that implies that the word parenthesis refers to the punctuation....incorrectly.

 

And you can use commas, instead of brackets, if you wish. "Instead of brackets" is an example of a parenthesis.

 

Jon

[Stubby]

You might want to do some research - parenthesis refers to the explanatory text added, not to the punctuation at the beginning or end of the text."Within the parentheses" is a term used that implies that the word parenthesis refers to the punctuation....incorrectly.

 

And you can use commas, instead of brackets, if you wish. "Instead of brackets" is an example of a parenthesis.

 

Jon

 

I don't need to do any research as you have put me right . Thanks Jon . I was not sure as I said " I could be wrong " ( and I was ) . Thanks for explaining .

Edited August 25, 2015 by Stubby