Please stop me from going around to the neighbours

[DuckyMcDuck]

And give them a piece of my mind. (Wine might have been taken!)

We have a lot of ivy growing on the fence at the back of our garden, there is a narrow passageway on the other side of the fence. This time last year, the neighbours asked to cut it back and we explained that it is always full of sparrows' nests and we would cut it back in the winter - which we did.

So this year, the sparrows have been there as usual. It's been lovely watching them fly in and out and we've been feeding and watering them as usual.

So, yesterday, the neighbours have decimated cutback the hedge. There are huge gaps and when we went into the passageway earlier I saw at least 6 nests and a few bodies of the baby birds.

I'm so cross, I understand that the access is tricky with the ivy at the moment but it's not damaging their property in any way and they know we'll cut it back once the fledglings have gone. But they've basically murdered the babies. Sparrows are becoming less common.

I don't know if they have actually done anything legally wrong but I'm so tempted to go and tell them they're a bunch of murdering fucking wankers.

@heartsonacake well said

@heartsonacake well said

@heartsonacake well said 👌

Unlike me 🤣

OP did say that’s she had the ivy cut down.

RTFT.

Also, it’s nothing to do with liking or disliking birds.

Nesting birds are protected by law, like it or not. It’s just some people won’t be happy until there’s nothing but concrete everywhere.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

OP did say that’s she had the ivy cut down.

RTFT.

No, OP said that they asked her to cut it because it was a nuisance and she said they had to wait months. She cut it in the winter. She last saw it in may and at that time it was already enough of an obstacle that they had to push it out of the way to get into theie garden. That was 2 months ago, ivy grows incredibly fast and was likely way out of control by now.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

OP did say that’s she had the ivy cut down.

RTFT.

Was that supposed to be addressed at me? Because if so, I did RTFT.

Perhaps you need to re-read my actual post, where I said:

You know how fast it grows so knew it would be a problem again come the summer despite cutting it in January.

Ivy grows fast, which OP is well aware of. Cutting it in January is useless by the time it gets to July. The only safe way for those birds—and the only reasonable neighbourly action—is to move the tree. Best of both worlds.

@heartsonacake
It’s very upsetting of course, but your lack of action has led this to happen.
So you're blaming OP for her neighbours illegal activity? Do they have no personal autonomy?

They can’t spend two months struggling to get to their garden because you like birds.
Actually it's a month, and the answer is yes they can push ivy to one side for a month because it's illegal not to. Or if trimming the ivy was a 'dire emergency' perhaps they could actually communicate and use their words so that OP could have done it sensitively.

They made a deliberate choice to break the law and destroy wildlife because it was inconveniencing them. The OP is not to blame for the choices of other adults and it's bizarre that you're suggesting their actions are her responsibility

Veterinari The OP has proven she won’t take proper action, presumably because she’s stubborn “but why should I move it?”. But if she actually cared about those birds at all then she would.

I completely get why you're upset op. I would, too. Bastards.

That's not true. They have the right to cut off anything that overhangs into the shared space. A hedge cutter was an appropriate tool for the job so I'm not sure why that makes any difference at all.
Not when there are nesting birds there they don't. It's clearly illegal.

Interesting the number of people on this thread determined to utterly disregard the law and happy to destroy wildlife when it becomes slightly inconvenient. No wonder the planet is fucked, there are clearly plenty of selfish people around.

The neighbours knew from experience that she wouldn't do anything about the overhanging ivy until winter.

The OP knows from experience her ivy causes a nuisance every summer, but does nothing to stop that happening.

They're both unreasonable - the neighbours for harming the birds, and that's disgusting.

But she is too, for not controlling her hedge properly and keeping it manageable before the birds nest, when she knows it becomes an obstruction and nuisance year on year.

I had no idea ivy was a tree as some are saying.

Op cut back the ivy in January, birds start looking for nesting sites in February, of course she is not to blame.

It is irrelevant anyhow as nesting birds are protected irrespective of the inconvenience (bats as an example).

@heartsonacake

OP's actions or otherwise are irrelevant. Yes I understand it may be annoying. But she's still not responsible for the actions of other adults. It was their choice to deliberately destroy nesting birds and that is both a shitty and illegal thing to do. Then being slightly inconvenienced is not an excuse for it, and doesn't make their decision-making OP's responsibility.

Veterinari I agree, it was a shitty thing to do on the part of the neighbours and no, it isn’t something I’d do myself. But after repeatedly showing she won’t do anything about it, they probably felt she left them no choice.

So I stand by my comment that her lack of action has led this to happen.

To be fair to the neighbours , if in May they had to move it out of the way to get by, I can only imagine what it's like by now. They know from last year that you won't do anything about it till winter and then they'll have the same issue again from next spring and so on. They were completely wrong to destroy the nests but you're actions have totally contributed to their actions.

The act states that it’s an offence to intentionally kill all birds.

However, the clause against disturbing nests only covers schedule 1 birds.

Ffs, it doesn't matter one bit whether the ivy was blocking their access, because IT'S ILLEGAL TO DESTROY NESTS WHILE IN USE. OF ANY BIRD. YES EVEN SPARROWS!

Did anybody not get that?!

If the OP had cut it down when they requested last year, SHE would have been breaking the law.

Obviously pushing some ivy out of the way is so much worse than killing baby birds and breaking the law!

@YardleyX is the word you are arguing about "intentionally"?

I would suggest that they have killed those birds intentionally as OP informed them of the nests previously, so they were well aware the ivy was being used by nesting birds. That rather implies they removed the ivy with the birds with the intention of killing them.

However, the clause against disturbing nests only covers schedule 1 birds.

Gosh this is tedious and you're clearly struggling to understand.

@YardleyX
The clause against disturbing nests (at any time) only covers schedule 1 birds.

The clause against taking destroying or disturbing the nest of ANY wild bird that is in use or being built applies to ANY wild bird as clearly stated in the Act article 1b

Please stop insisting you're right and that all major bird and animal welfare charities (and the Act) are wrong. It's tedious

But after repeatedly showing she won’t do anything about it, they probably felt she left them no choice.

So I stand by my comment that her lack of action has led this to happen.

Good job the law disagrees with you @heartsonacake
Autonomous adults are legally responsible for their own actions unless mentally incapacitated. I don't think that's the case here.

I guess by 'repeatedly' you mean they spoke to here once and she responded by trimming the ivy in winter? Interesting interpretation. Fortunately, 'inconvenience' is not an acceptable legal defence, and most people don't consider it a moral one either. Otherwise where do you draw the line? It's ok to break the law and kill animals that inconvenience you - what if the OP had a barking dog or a cat that pooed in their garden? Ok to kill those animals because the OP's lack of action results in inconvenience?

[quote 1point21gigawatts]@YardleyX is the word you are arguing about "intentionally"?

I would suggest that they have killed those birds intentionally as OP informed them of the nests previously, so they were well aware the ivy was being used by nesting birds. That rather implies they removed the ivy with the birds with the intention of killing them.[/quote]
And in any case once one nest came down you’d pretty quickly realise that you were making a mistake.

What normal person would walk away leaving baby birds on the ground FFS?

Move your ivy. If it’s blocking their access you’re at fault. Killing the birds was outrageous behaviour though. If you already knew your ivy was in any way blocking their access or just getting in the way I think you were on notice that you should have moved it in January when you had to cut it back to nothing. Cos you clearly know that even if you cut it back to ‘nothing’ it’s still going to grow out of control and get in the way. Yes, they did a despicable thing, I’m not excusing that at all. Poor wee birds.

It's not "outrageous behaviour", it's illegal behaviour. FFS are people on this thread being deliberately dense?! I am astonished!