One local said: “The design of the property is self indulgence but to have a shrubbery shaped in the letters of his football club is beyond belief.His land. His plants. His choice.
“Why can’t he grow normal privet hedges like everyone else. This was once a traditional old farming community and now it looks like something out of Beverley Hills.”
Thursday, 19 March 2009
"Bring me....a shrubbery!"
But not one that spells out 'MUFC':
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
And a damn fine choice if I may say so.
Now if it had been Liverpool FC then no court in the land could fairly convict the angry mob...
I don't know why the quoted local is so surprised. Neville and the rest of them are overpaid (understatement of the century @ 90K a week) chavs with any opinions and tastes obtained off the telly or from 'Hello' magazine. I'm surprised Mrs Neville hasn't got her own tanning studio to go with everything else. Why 12 bedrooms and a zillion bathrooms for gawds sake? Pathetic!
The neighbours are free to write their own message in Hollywood letters.
I rarely disagree with you Julia, but I do here.
If it had said 'Fuck off' would that have been OK with you?
Logicially, your answer must be yes - 'His land. His plants. His choice' - but you cannot feel that is right.
If we adopt your 'his land, his choice' maxim to the full, that is to ignore the offence - or irritation - we might cause neighbours. That way lies the end of civilisation.
This is at one end of a long wedge; the other end is pushing pint pots into peoples' faces in pubs.
Any one with the SLIGHTEST interest in "football", indeed ANY sport, should automaticaly be declared an imbecile, and locked away in a secure unit for the publics safety, any way.
Von Brandenburg-Preußen.
"The neighbours are free to write their own message in Hollywood letters. "
Better not give him ideas... ;)
"If it had said 'Fuck off' would that have been OK with you?"
I expect that would be covered by Public Order statutes, as 'offensive' material. Not that I'm in full agreement with that, mind you...
"If we adopt your 'his land, his choice' maxim to the full, that is to ignore the offence - or irritation - we might cause neighbours."
We don't need to adopt it 'to the full' - the above covers any real offence to the neighbours.
The rest is taste, and I'm sorry, but they need to grow up and realise not everyone has the same taste in horticulture as they might do, but they are just as entitled to do what they want with their own property....
There was a short discussion on "Beauty" on Today this morning. Roger Scruton opined that contemporary Britain has turned its back on beauty and tolerates (or rather, in PC jargon, "celebrates") all kinds of ugliness of which this hedge is just one example.
Of course, Neville has a right to do (more or less and within legal limits) what he wants with and on his own land. That he chooses this kind of publicly visible "improvement" to his property is an indication of both his crassness and tasteless use of overwhelming wealth.
Another indication of the same phenomena - also connected with Man U - is the shameful response by other grossly over-rewarded international footballing chavs of Wayne Rooney's invitation to those attending his wedding to donate to (real) charities rather than sending him a gift.
"If it had said 'Fuck off' would that have been OK with you?"
Wasn't there a case a while ago of some young offenders planting daffodil bulbs as part of their community service to spell out "Fuck off"?
Ross said...
Wasn't there a case a while ago of some young offenders planting daffodil bulbs as part of their community service to spell out "Fuck off"?
They must have had help. Their sort can not read their own name, let alone WRITE.
Von Branfenburg-Preußen.
I expect that would be covered by Public Order statutes, as 'offensive' material. Not that I'm in full agreement with that, mind you...
So does that mean you personally would or would not be happy to allow people to write 'Fuck Off' with their hedges - or indeed, in huge painted letters on the fronts of their houses?
We don't need to adopt it 'to the full' - the above covers any real offence to the neighbours.
What covers 'any real offence'?
The law?
But I didn't think you were in 'full agreement' with the law?
It's not about the law, Julia. Civilised people try - generally - not to cause distress or annoyance to their neighbours. There's no law which forces you to say 'excuse me' when you bump into someone, or hold doors open for others - it's just what civilised people do.
Equally, civilised people who find that they have offended, or irritated, or annoyed others with the messages spelled out in their hedges are more likely to apologise and remove the messages; barbarians are likely to refuse to do so.
It's just not as simple as 'His land. His plants. His choice.' That way lies anarchy and chaos.
"So does that mean you personally would or would not be happy to allow people to write 'Fuck Off' with their hedges - or indeed, in huge painted letters on the fronts of their houses?"
I'd be happy to see agreed obscenities covered by the law, but the problem is that these kind of laws are abused - remember the 'Bollocks to Blair' t-shirt case?
"Civilised people try - generally - not to cause distress or annoyance to their neighbours."
By writing 'Fuck off!' on their front door? Sure.
But is a hedge spelling out the words 'M.U.F.C.' really causing distress or annoyance to the neighbours? Or are they just envious of his money and think it looks tacky?
Frankly, I think it looks tacky. But that should give me no right at all to infringe upon his right to have it, if he wants to.
"Equally, civilised people who find that they have offended, or irritated, or annoyed others with the messages spelled out in their hedges are more likely to apologise and remove the messages; barbarians are likely to refuse to do so."
Not just barbarians. People who believe that it is their right to have what they want on their own property - be that bushes that spell out the names of football teams, plastic flamingoes, pampas grass or garden gnomes.
Anyone 'offended, irritated or annoyed' by any of those is free to not have them in their own garden. But they are NOT free to impose their taste on anyone else.
Because that way lies something a lot worse than anarchy....
Well, I respectfully disagree.
Firstly, what's an 'agreed obscenity'? Recourse to an agreement as to obscenity just places the power to decide matters of obscenity in the hands of law and the lawyers.
I shudder at that (not least because of the way in which they are drifting, vis a vis obscenity!).
This hedge is obviously not obscene, but it falls within the same purview, in the sense that it does no physical harm and is really an issue of competing views as to aesthetics.
Your argument (unless I am wrong?) seems to be: The law allows it, so tough.
This is terrifying.
It's not about the law, and how many lawyers can be arranged on the head of a pin.
The only thing which can successfully regulate civil society - particularly over petty matters like this - is the people themselves.
The owner of this hedge should - if asked to do so by his neighbours - remove or alter it in a spirit of neighbourliness.
He cannot possibly demonstrate a 'need' for it; ergo, if it offends, annoys or irritates his neighbours, or spoils their view, he should remove it. Why on earth would he not? The same goes for rusting vehicle wrecks in a front garden, for instance. The law may allow them to remain; good manners should dictate that they are removed on request.
Quite how that would lead to a situation that is 'far worse than anarchy...' escapes me.
It's merely the kind of good manners and respect for the wishes of others which once characterised the English.
(I should say that I find this an interesting issue on purely theoretical grounds; I live nowhere near any MUFC hedges, or footballers generally, and am engaged in no neighbourhood disputes!)
Post a Comment