Azira

It's an adjacent postcode so I'd imagine that would still be regarded as relevant, Singalto.

I requested whether you could cite an authority. You couldn't - and still haven't, as the cases you've cited explicitly state that the decision hasn't been tested in case law. I can see you've got a keen interest in the topic but, with all due respect, if you knew what you were talking about you would realise that obiter statements aren't binding and what you've cited doesn't constitute authority. If you are genuinely interested in human rights law, I'd be very happy to send you some of my old textbooks (which are getting a bit out of date now but would give you a good idea of how it all works) as it is a very complex and fascinating area. My reference to lecturing was to this statement "Not the first time SSW and their supports have used the logic of Alberto Brandolini asimmetry, based on their past behaviour neither will it be the last." and I think that was a mild characterisation of your response. I made a civilised request for further information, having clearly stated I am ambivalent on the topic, which request based on professional and personal interest in Article 8 and the HRA/ECHR unrelated to this farce of a debate. You instead chose to make false inferences as to my "allegiance", effectively accused me of talking bullsh*t" based on the Alberto Brandolini quote and generally been unnecessarily hostile and rude. Thank you for unwittingly proving my earlier point that both sides of this debate are capable of behaving badly and leaping to conclusions about anyone they perceive as "the other side".

You'll break your knees leaping to those conclusions. I am not connected with SSW, nor did I make any claim about the HRA at all in their favour, so before you start lecturing me about logic try actually reading what I've said on this thread. I was asking out of genuine interest in the scope of the Article. I am very well aware of what Article 8 covers. What I asked for was whether you are aware of any authority (i.e. a judicial decision) that extends to your interpretation of it. Your failure to do so suggests that you are just theorising about a possible interpretation, which in my experience of the HRA appears to be utter bollocks. Looks like both sides are entirely capable of making things up to suit their POV.

EDAus Wrote: - > > What about the right to a 'private life' under the > Human Rights Act e.g. mourning the loss of a > family member or loved one within a reasonable > commuting distance of your home? > Again, is there any authority that Article 8 covers this? I've never seen a decision that suggests this and it strikes me as a pretty broad interpretation of the ECHR, but happy to stand corrected.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nasty neighbours who don't like their neighbours > improving their homes are truly sad small brained > selfish ignorant people. Bit harsh!

I don't think anyone has suggested she wsa combative. And, yes, it would be nice if the neighbours played nice first, but if you spend your life thinking about what other people "should" be doing rather than being constructive and proactive, you're liable to be very disappointed. This is definitely not directed at the OP or you Tex, but it has reminded me of an observation. I've been very struck since moving to the burbs how defensive a lot of neighbourly relations seem to be. A lot of people seem to be thinking about how they are affected by things rather than thinking of how they might also affect people around them. I wonder if having that bit more space impacts people's perception of how they infringe on each other?

I don't think it is Sue. I have to deal with ongoing noise several hours a day and sometimes into the night for what seems like the next several years. It's significant enough that I can hear it even through noise-cancelling headphones, and it significantly disrupts my work (which I do from home). I've also lived next to major building works that took place over 9 months on one side, then started up on the other at the same time, so can also sympathise with that. We could get into debate whether significant noise over the years is better or worse than noise, mess and temporary light restrictions over a period of months, but that would be missing the point. The point is that, yes, it is irritating to have that type of disruption, but if you get worked up about the fact that someone is using their property in a way they are completely entitled to do only hurts you in the long run. For the sake of your sanity, it's best to focus on those things you can control.

soyamocha3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Obviously I don't want them to hate me > but I am not feeling the love for them right now. > > > To be honest, we will have endure months of > builders, noise, disruption, moving our three full > sheds, paperwork, calls, emails, dirt, dust, lack > of privacy, lack of security and possible damage > because we have quite a old pipes in that area > under the paving - all to eventually end up with a > brick wall right outside our kitchen window and an > additional 40cm of brick is quite a bit when it is > directly in your face. If all they have to do is > find ?1k, I don't think that is much to ask. It does sound a bit like you are aggrieved because they are doing this at all, regardless of whether they infringe your legal rights- particularly with the comments that they are going to be away during this, which really hasn't got anything to do with your property. I completely get that it's irritating. I am sandwiched between houses with young kids on either side where the little cherubs scream and thunder up and down their halls for hours on end. When I'm trying to concentrate on work it pisses me off too (and even worse I have to live with this for years), but I also accept that there's nothing I can do about it because it's their property and they are legally entitled to act in the way they are. Try to separate your annoyance that they are using their property in a way that you'd rather they don't, and the issues about the need to protect your own property.

EDAus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'as it breaks both Human Rights Law and > Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty > under the Equality Act 2010.' > > What about the right to a 'private life' under the > Human Rights Act e.g. mourning the loss of a > family member or loved one within a reasonable > commuting distance of your home? > Could you point me to the authorities that show Art. 8 covers this? Not a stir - I'm genuinely curious.

Permitted development doesn't cover your right to an easement of light so that could be seperate grounds for objection. Not everyone appreciates the lacuna, so if it is under permitted development you want to make sure you know what they are doing before they start to give you time to do something about it if necessary (from memory, it would involve an injunction rather than action via planning, but get proper legal advice if its an issue, natch). Definitely worth early and hopefully friendly discussions with your neighbour so you can see exactly what is involved. And try not to fear the worst - these things happen all the time without disaster.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Azira Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sue, I read HOPone as objecting to you making > the > > assumption that anyone doing the "you lot must > > have a vested interest" line was part of the > > "group" i.e. SSW. > > > > How did I make that assumption? > > I certainly never used the words "you lot", for a > start!!! I didn't say you did Sue - hence the use of the workd "line" to indicate a view point/type of argument. You've very neatly and unintentionally highlighted the fact that its very easy to misinterpret what someone says when they use vernacular or are less than precise - as I was above and you were as well. Surely you can see that when you responded to Laur's comment by talking about "this group", it is pretty easy for someone to interpret that as suggesting that either Laur or that anyone who expressed an opinion is part of SSW?

Penguin, I think you're missing the point that, notwithstanding the hyperbole, misinformation, PR stunts, etc., some people may still object to the decision. You seem to see anyone who opposes your view as doing it on unfounded grounds - which whilst not an atypical view doesn't mean it is objective.

As an ambivalent observer, it looks like some members both the pro- and con- sides of this argument are apt to throw about blanket statements, set up straw men, make unhelpfully emotive statements and/or make uncorrelated inferences (not pointing the finger at anyone in particular). Even some of those who seem to think they are sticking to the facts. As those who oppose this project don't appear to be likely to ever be swayed by the arguments of those against and vice versa, and the factual forest is once again getting lost in the trees for those of us who are undecided, just wondering what the point of this discussion is now?

Sue, I read HOPone as objecting to you making the assumption that anyone doing the "you lot must have a vested interest" line was part of the "group" i.e. SSW.

How helpful do they think they are being by giving him a moniker like the Croyden Rip-purr?? Bloody journos.

As pointed out above, the hostility might relate to a concern this is going to be a beat-up of insurance claim stats to draw potentially incorrect inferences as to the comparative level of crime. My guess is that folk don't want the potential adverse effect on house prices. I don't live in SE22 and am a knit-your-own noodles type. I just know enough about how hacks work to think there might be some substance in the concerns of a beat-up.

Indeed Sue. If GG means making up statistics to support his POV, then that's definitely true!

Phil. Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ease up on the BBC-hate. If it wasn't for the > likes of the Guardian and BBC we'd all be thinking > Farage is Jesus reincarnate! I don't know about you, but I'm entirely capable of making decisions without the guidance of journos. If I hadn't thought before that journalism is primarily about fitting the facts to the angle rather than actually investigating then coming up with a conclusion, a few years living with a journo confirmed the reality.

Thanks!

Anyone know anywhere that collects new bedding for charity in this neck of the woods? I've got a couple of duvets that I realised were too heavy for me after I took them out of the packet, but unfortunately my other half threw the packaging away before I could return them. Never been used so seems a real waste to throw them out.

Who knew that football supporters could be such a chippy, aggressive bunch? Oh wait...

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Let's see, that was about, what, > 60/70/80 years ago, that is to say, the club was > there before you. If you think this is remotely relevant, you probably should do some research. > MORON (psychology meaning). Poeple in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I think you may need to look up the word "troll". I also still don't understand why you're asking these people to look at your post on an internet forum. Wouldn't a direct conversation, even via a note, be far more productive rather than pointing out that you've complained about them publically to the world and his wife? These people may be genuinely ignorant of the distress they've caused you, so why the passive aggression?

Karinoushka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- This > message it's me chatting. If they want to reply, > discuss the situation, they are free to do so, and > all the block can be updated. With respect, this message isn't you chatting to them. Who knows if they even read this forum? If you've got an issue with their behaviour, the only way you can be sure they know is if you, you know, talk to them.

IVAN EDAKE Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > > > > What a very unpleasant post. > I am entitled to have my own viewpoint. It is what > is known as a democracy. You might want to buy yourself a dictionary and see what democracy means. It certainly doesn't include an entitlement to troll a fellow poster on any unrelated thread just because she has a different view to you.