crimson5pheonix said:
Well as point of fact, the tribunal said they couldn't, and then the supreme court agreed. Though she says she'll appeal again.
Are you suggesting that in order to act "reasonably", a person has to know the outcome of an event, for example a court case, before it actually happens? Because that's a rare skill. In fact, it's a non-existent skill.
There's also a detail you left out, which is
weird because again I specifically mentioned it previously in regard to the ruling made in the tribunal, which is that said ruling was made after the neighbours had made efforts to address some of the complaints made, and that their doing so was specifically acknowledged as a factor in the outcome.
How many times are these goalposts going to move? Because I can't help but notice that we're down to the question of whether or not an individual woman was justified in believing her individual neighbours had breached residential laws, and no part of me is capable of understanding why it's in any way "reasonable" for you to care.