Warring neighbours spend ten years feuding over a tree that blocks the sun out of one's garden... So, who do YOU think is in the right?
A pair of neighbours are embroiled in a ten year feud because a tree in one's garden is blocking the sun out of the others.
With sunnier days fast approaching, most UK citizens are looking forward to enjoying some much-appreciated vitamin D.
However, for one unlucky Briton, the prospect of sunbathing in their garden is looking slim due to their neighbour's tree preventing sunlight from entering their garden at certain points of the day.
An anonymous UK-based TikTok user has created a profile on the platform under @shadyneighbourtree to reveal the dilemma, which has been ongoing for the past ten years.
'My neighbour's tree doing its best to keep my garden a secret,' the user wrote, adding, 'We need some sun!'
Initially, the video attracted countless comments telling viewers to ask the neighbour to trim the tree.
However, they explained that their attempts to request the change have gone unsuccessfully.
'Yes, I have asked my neighbour to trim the tree (not chop it down). [I] just want to soak up some sun like they do in their shadeless garden,' they wrote.
Another viewer pointed out that the shade moves throughout the day, but the frustrated TikTok user explained, 'This is very true... but its shade when I get home from work and [I] want to enjoy the sun'.
The dilemma divided viewers in the comment section, with many conflicted over the best course of action.
One wrote, 'Roots may go under the fence, move some dirt, drill hole, pour in stuff trees don't like, fill hole...worked for a friend, just saying.'
Another with a similar perspective joked, 'I'd be paying someone with no name cash in hand'.
A third added, 'Garden trees should be kept at a certain height even just for safety. What if it fell in a storm caused damage or injury? It's inconsiderate, blocking all the light and the leaves that would fall in autumn would be a nightmare to keep tidy.'
However, others thought differently. One said, 'This is on you. Fed up with people thinking they have a say in other people's property and want to cut everything down. That tree has been for there years and deserves to be. Don't like it, move. Simple.'
A second agreed, adding, 'Do not cut that tree down. The sun moves throughout the day.'
'I love the shade rather that the sun blaring at me. It's an old tree, end of discussion,' said another.
It comes after a UK 'mumfluencer' boasting more than 27,000 followers on TikTok posted a video in which she complained that her neighbour's fence was 'the wrong way round' and argued that 'technically we should have the good side of the fence'.
By 'the good side of the fence', the influencer, Samantha (@samanthaproudmama), means the smooth side - as opposed to the side with the extra posts that support the structure.
Viewed more than 900,000 times, the minute-long clip entitled 'Are we about to fall out with our neighbours?' saw Samantha tour her garden and point out the troublesome fence before asking viewers to share their opinions on whether she should ask next-door to 'turn the fence round'.
Explaining first that the fence she shares with the neighbours in question is too small, denying her family privacy, she added that they had already agreed to 'put some trellis up' to extend it.
She then got to the heart of the matter, telling viewers: 'Now you will notice that the fence is actually the wrong way around - technically we should have the good side of the fence.
'They're about to put the trellis up but do we say anything? Should we be asking them to turn the fence around so that we get the nice side?'
In the caption, she even claimed that there are 'rules' in her area which state: 'If you own the fence you have to give the neighbour the "good" side of the fence!'
Yet Samantha's clip, which amassed almost 4,000 comments, appeared to backfire, with some TikTokers asking 'who is the nightmare neighbour?' and others assuming the influencer's fuss over the fence was 'a joke'.
Viewers took to the comment section to share their thoughts on the matter - and there was a lack of consensus
One person wrote: 'Glad I'm not your neighbour. Jeeeez'. Another commented: 'Here's me wondering who is the nightmare neighbour.'
A third TikTok user asked: 'This has to be a joke?'
A fourth was equally critical, calling Samantha 'petty'. They wrote: 'I'm with you on the height of the fence for privacy but you lost me when it came to which side you get.
Another person mocked: 'Ask them to turn the fence? If my neighbour asked me to do that, there would only be one response; a massive LOL and door closed!'
Someone else added: 'Personally I think it's cheeky to expect neighbours to give you the nice side of their fence'.
But not everyone was critical - some TikTok users were simply bemused while others volunteered potential solutions to the problem.
One person was baffled by Samantha's predicament and wrote: 'Who knew there was a good and bad side of a fence'. While another TikToker commented: 'Life is too short to stress about fences'.
In a bid to be helpful, someone else suggested: 'Just put your own fence in front of it - literally back to back'.
Yet supportive responses like this one were few and far between, with the majority of commenters failing to see the matter from Samantha's point of view.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Brian Bond obituary: pioneering academic at war studies school
English and geography once struggled to gain acceptance as degree subjects but war studies struggled longer. In 1966 Brian Bond joined the newly formed department at King's College London (KCL) as a lecturer, giving up his more 'respectable' post in the history department at Liverpool. A department of military science had existed at KCL since the college's early years in the 19th century but it was not until 1962 that a separate, permanent department was established for the study of war and its impact on the world. Sir Michael Howard (obituary, December 2, 2019) was its founder and, thanks in the main to his support, Bond would go on to become reader and then professor of military history, writing numerous books and papers specialising in the late 19th century and the two world wars. He was first encouraged in the subject by no less a figure than Sir Basil Liddell Hart, the former Great War soldier, interwar strategist and apostle of 'the indirect approach', although perhaps studied more in Nazi Germany than in Britain. While reading history at Worcester College, Oxford, in the late 1950s, Bond met Liddell Hart at home in Buckinghamshire, where the latter had recently settled and Bond's father had become his gardener. At Oxford, Bond had elected to take the special subject paper on Napoleonic military history taught by Norman Gibbs, Chichele professor of the history of war. Liddell Hart, impressed by his gardener's son's scholarship, gave him access to his library and private papers and introduced him to visiting prominenti including Howard, who encouraged him to take an MA in war studies. This he completed in 1962 while lecturing at Exeter and then Liverpool. Brian James Bond was born in Marlow, Buckinghamshire, in 1936 to Edward Bond and Olive (née Sartin). He was an early beneficiary of the 1944 (Butler) Education Act, gaining a free place at Sir William Borlase's Grammar School in 1947. Leaving school in 1954 he elected to do his two years' National Service first, rather than deferring it to take up his place at Oxford, and was commissioned into the Royal Artillery. Although hardly the same as Howard's decorated active service in Italy with the Coldstream Guards, it did at least give him an insider's understanding of military culture and some credibility with serving officers looking to KCL for professional development. In 1962 he married Madeleine Joyce Carr. She died in 2023. They had no children. Bond's first book, as the editor of Victorian Military Campaigns, with each campaign written by a different historian, including Sir John Keegan, was published in 1967. Next came a serious study of the Victorian army and the staff college before two books on the Second World War and a highly regarded study of British military policy between the wars. He was disappointed not to be Liddell Hart's official biographer, the job going instead to one of his former doctoral students. Evidently Liddell Hart's widow, Kathleen, had wrongly believed that Bond had said that her husband had been a fascist. To an extent, honour was satisfied when, with the diplomatic intervention of Howard, he was allowed to write an interim study of Liddell Hart's ideas, but not touching on his life as a whole: Liddell Hart: a Study of His Military Thought (1977). Unfortunately, two reviews focused not on the book but on Liddell Hart himself — and disobligingly — which further upset his widow. Bond then turned, as eventually all British military historians must, to the First World War and in particular to the Western Front, which meant Field Marshal Haig. Undoubtedly the pendulum had swung beyond all balance with the publication in 1961 of Alan Clark's The Donkeys, a book that Howard dismissed as being almost entirely worthless. Some rebalancing was needed but Bond's revisionism was considered by many to be almost as unbalanced as Clark's diatribe. It was ironic, too, that Bond's revisionism disputed Liddell Hart's own assessment of the British high command in the First World War. One review of Haig: A Reappraisal said that Bond wrote with blinkers on: '[His] Haigiography testifies to the power of British patriotism and loyalty into which, as a British general, Haig tapped. Bond's defence of Haig's asininity horsed cavalry convictions is only exceeded by defence of Haig when he was faced by the evidence that his major push into the Somme had failed.' A later book, The Unquiet Western Front: Britain's Role in Literature and History (2002), which tried to unpick the myth, as he saw it, from the 'reality', brought a sharp retort from the other side of the Atlantic that Bond was trying to 'set up traditional military history in the mansion while relegating art to the little shed out back'. Disappointed not to have become head of the war studies department, Bond knew that his strength lay principally in teaching, which he did at KCL for 35 years. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Western Ontario, visiting lecturer at the US Naval War College, visiting fellow at Brasenose and briefly at All Souls colleges, Oxford, and for 20 years was president of the British Commission for Military History. In 2001 he retired to Buckinghamshire to watch cricket, a lifelong passion, to tend his garden and to visit country houses. He was, too, a strong supporter of wildlife conservation, especially of foxes, not a species usually thought to require protection, unlike Field Marshal Haig. Brian Bond, pioneering war studies academic, was born on April 17, 1936. He died on June 2, 2025, aged 89
Edinburgh Reporter
an hour ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Reset supporting refugees in Edinburgh
A warm welcome, the Scottish way – powered by people like us. In a quiet corner of Fountainbridge, one Edinburgh family is thriving — going to school, making friends, playing football in the park. Just a few years ago, they arrived in the UK through the Community Sponsorship scheme, a national programme that empowers local people to take the lead in resettling refugees. Now, the grassroots group that welcomed them, Edinburgh Refugee Sponsorship Circle, is breaking new ground again. Faced with the news that the family's rented flat was being sold, the group decided not to let instability undo years of community-building. Instead, they've launched a radical new housing project — purchasing the property themselves through a community-led trust, ensuring the family can stay rooted in the neighbourhood they now call home. 'We knew what losing that flat would mean for the family — and we were really motivated to create an alternative path, not just for them, but hopefully for others too,' says Fae, one of ERSC's founding volunteers. Community Sponsorship is a UK-wide scheme that enables everyday people — faith groups, book clubs, neighbours, colleagues — to come together and welcome a refugee family to their area. With support from Reset the UK's national charity for Community Sponsorship, groups like ERSC receive training, guidance and peer support to walk alongside families as they rebuild their lives. ERSC's model is particularly inspiring because it shows what's possible when ordinary people take bold, practical steps — even in the middle of a housing emergency. They remain entirely volunteer-run, powered by shared values and a belief that welcome should last longer than a warm hello at the airport. Now they're inviting others to get involved. Whether you want to join or form a sponsorship group, contribute to their housing trust, or simply learn more, ERSC is showing Edinburgh what solidarity looks like in action. Because welcome isn't abstract. It's about homes, schools, neighbours — and people like you. ➡ Learn more or support the project: ➡ Interested in Community Sponsorship? We've just launched a new online introduction – find out more ADVERTORIAL FEATURE Like this: Like Related
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Criticising mispronunciation is ‘hypocritical snobbery'
People who criticise mispronunciations are often guilty of snobbery towards regional dialects, a top linguist has claimed. In response to a debate among Telegraph readers, Dr Amanda Cole, a linguist at Essex University – and self-avowed 'Essex woman' – said mispronunciation is part of how the English language evolves. Many mispronunciations such as 'an apron' from the middle English 'napron' had become the accepted norm in the English language because they were so prolific, she said in an article for the paper. And she warned that 'linguistic puritans' who attempted to stand on the shore wagging their finger at the 'incoming tide' of changing pronunciation would 'eventually be enveloped'. The debate was sparked by Susie Dent, Countdown 's lexicographer, when she said that she now come to regard the common mispronunciation of mischievous as 'mischiev-i-ous' as acceptable. It sparked a debate where Telegraph writers identified their biggest bugbears of mispronunciation such as the letter h being pronounced 'haitch', 'expresso' for espresso and 'hyberbowl' for hyperbole. Dr Cole said part of the backlash was tied up with 'accent prejudice' where people 'nitpicked' over the ways people from different backgrounds spoke, such as Essex men and women who dropped their 'ts' in water, so it became 'wor-arrrrr' or turned proper into 'propaaa'. 'As a linguist but also a proud Essex girl (or, better put, woman) I take objection. Our accents reflect where we are from and who we are,' she said. 'In particular, in the UK, accents are closely linked to social class. Those with the strongest regional accents tend to be working class. Accent prejudice is a smokescreen for broader societal prejudices particularly class snobbery and middle-class gatekeeping dressed up as a light to protect and serve the English language. 'Many may cry, 'but the spelling! There is a t in water for a reason!' but there is a certain hypocrisy at play. These people also tend to be those who break out in an angry sweat at the pronunciation of hyperbole as 'hyperbowl'. 'There is a famously loose relationship between English spelling and pronunciation. I call for an end to the prevailing thinking that the English language is being used and abused but instead for a greater understanding that language changes over time and naturally varies between people from different backgrounds.' Dr Cole's research has revealed how the King's English and Cockney have all but disappeared among young people as three new accents have emerged. Voice analysis found the traditional two accents had been overtaken by standard southern British English, as articulated by Ellie Goulding; estuary English, as spoken by Adele; and multicultural London English, as voiced by Stormzy. 'In this country the current thinking on the English language is that there is an ancient stone tablet atop a mountain on which the divine pronunciation of each and every English word is etched. Deviation from this text is sacrilege or at least wilful traitorship to our fine land and the language we share,' said Dr Cole. 'In reality, the English we speak is like a snapshot of the sea: it will never look the same at any two points even if it is recognisably the same body of water. 'There are swells, tides and sometimes transient ripples on the surface. Linguistic puritans may stand on the shore wagging their finger at the incoming tide but will eventually be enveloped. The last of the nadder-sayers undoubtedly sounded like a stubborn fool and perhaps the same will one day be true of 'aitch' for h in British English.' The English language is always in a state of change By Dr Amanda Cole Last month, Telegraph writers and editors wrote about the 'mispronunciations' that most peeve them such as the letter h being pronounced 'haitch', 'expresso' for espresso and 'hyberbowl' for hyperbole. But are 'haitch', 'expresso' and 'hyperbowl' wrong or are they just alternative pronunciations? How many people must pronounce a word a certain way and for how long before we accept the new pronunciation as correct? The English we speak today includes many pronunciations that would have horrified or mystified speakers from previous times. Prior to the 15th century, vowels were pronounced very differently to present times, meaning that, for example, words such as bite and name would once have sounded more like 'beet' and 'nahm'. In fact, English has changed so dramatically that an Icelandic speaker might have a better chance of understanding Old English than a modern-day monolingual English speaker. At times, the English language has changed because of mispronunciations so prolific that they became the accepted norm. The word apron actually comes from the Middle English napron. Over time people turned 'a napron' into 'an apron', resulting in the word we know today. In the same way, nadder became adder and oche became notch. It is also little wonder that cows, which follows the regular English pattern for plurals, has won out against kine for more than one cow. In the same way I would not be surprised if yous, a plural form of you which is used in many dialects of English, one day became widely accepted. The English language has always been in a state of change, and so too there have always been those who bemoan such change. In 1440, friar and poet Osbern Bokenam wrote with dismay that the English language had been corrupted by Norman French after the arrival of William the Conqueror – something that we now consider to be foundational to modern-day English. In perfect irony, he expressed his concerns using words with French or Latin origins such as famylyar (now, of course, written 'familiar'), demonstrating the futility in policing language. Linguists aim to describe and not prescribe language. We consider the English language to be defined by how people use it, not a set of ideals for how we feel it should be used. Most lexicographers also take the same approach. For example, although it really grates on linguistic pedants, most dictionaries now include figurative definitions of literally ('I laughed so hard I literally died') because there is a sizeable body of evidence that many people use the word in this way and have done for a long time – even literary greats such as Charles Dickens, James Joyce and Charlotte Brontë. You may think I am pushing linguistic wokery – a term I just made up that would certainly have been uninterpretable for English speakers born a hundred years ago, let alone in times of Old English. Indeed, a prominent newspaper columnist once called me a proponent of linguistic anarchy. But I do believe that there are, dare I say it – take a breath – incorrect pronunciations. I won't forget the time my Italian friend pronounced the r in iron (as in: I, Ron, do solemnly swear…). I instinctively corrected her pronunciation – for which she was glad – and another linguist in earshot gently chided me for prescribing how a word should be pronounced. There are, of course, rules and collective understandings that govern the English language and I am in no way challenging this. But I do call for a wider awareness of how language works. In this country, the current thinking on the English language is that there is an ancient stone tablet atop a mountain – although, surely, it should rightfully be homed in southern England where apparently exemplary English is spoken, so perhaps it is just atop a sizeable hill in the Chilterns – on which the divine pronunciation of each and every English word is etched. Deviation from this text is sacrilege or at least wilful traitorship to our fine land and the language we share. In reality, the English we speak is like a snapshot of the sea: it will never look the same at any two points even if it is recognisably the same body of water. There are swells, tides and sometimes transient ripples on the surface. Linguistic puritans may stand on the shore wagging their finger at the incoming tide but will eventually be enveloped. The last of the nadder-sayers undoubtedly sounded like a stubborn fool and perhaps the same will one day be true of 'aitch' for h in British English. Having said that, I do think it is okay and only natural to have an opinion on language. I, for one, openly dislike being called a 'girl' – something women, even those deep into adulthood, commonly experience while the equivalent is rare for men. But the motivation behind any commentary on language is important. Calling women 'girls' is literally infantilising but 'haitch', 'expresso' and 'hyperbowl' are pretty harmless and any criticism seems to come from a place of lofty linguistic idealism. Much nitpicking on language devalues regional dialects. In the original Telegraph article, aim was taken at the Essex accent in which, apparently, proper becomes 'propaaa' and water is 'wor-arrrrr'. As a linguist but also a proud Essex girl (or, better put, woman) I take objection. Our accents reflect where we are from and who we are. In particular, in the UK, accents are closely linked to social class. Those with the strongest regional accents tend to be working class. Accent prejudice is a smokescreen for broader societal prejudices particularly class snobbery and middle-class gatekeeping dressed up as a light to protect and serve the English language. Many may cry, 'but the spelling! There is a t in water for a reason!' but there is a certain hypocrisy at play. These people also tend to be those who break out in an angry sweat at the pronunciation of hyperbole as 'hyperbowl'. There is a famously loose relationship between English spelling and pronunciation. I call for an end to the prevailing thinking that the English language is being used and abused but instead for a greater understanding that language changes over time and naturally varies between people from different backgrounds.
