Two sides to every story?
June 1st, 2008You may recall that at the back end of last year I blogged on the subject of Cllr. Christian Vassie standing for parliament at the next general election after having a very public court case with his neighbour.
Well Cllr. Vassie has been in touch with me asking to give his side of the story and, while I am not in possession of enough facts to pass judgement myself, his version does indeed make interesting reading.
Rather than paraphrase Cllr. Vassie I will let you read his email (which he is happy for me to do), in order that you, the public, can make up your own minds - or at least understand, like I have, that maybe not everything is a clear as it seems.
Here is the email - minus some parts that are irrelevant to the issue of the neighbour dispute.
Steve hi,
Thanks for your email.
In response to your questions: I WOULD hugely appreciate it if you were to acknowledge on your blog that I have contacted you and that sometimes things are more complicated than they are painted. I would be happy for you to report that the Rawlinsons signed an agreement in August 2007 accepting that they knew our extension to have been built entirely on our own land and that, therefore, the claims on the Morning Flight website are ill-informed or disingenuous.
We still have far too much petty harassment from our neighbours. For example, they have recently erected a fence some four inches from several of our windows to block light to our rooms and to make it impossible for us to maintain the windows. We are seeking legal advice on this.
I would also be happy for you to report that the City of York Council’s Head of Legal Services involvement was restricted to perfectly legitimate concerns about the civil rights issues relating to a CCTV camera the Rawlinsons had installed to snoop on the entirety of our front garden. The city council was concerned that residents should be free to visit their ward councillor without being spied on by a CCTV camera installed by a third party. Following this intervention and letters from ourselves the offending camera was reoriented [a fact that is confirmed in a letter from the neighbour’s solicitors, which you could see a copy of]. The police also visited the Rawlinsons to check that the camera was no longer illegally monitoring our garden. The matter was investigated by the Standards Board of England who found no merit in the Rawlinsons’ claims.
More important than what people think of me, however,is the broader issue. You write that ‘Regardless of the rights and wrongs of your court case etc, all it says to me, as member of the public, is that yet another politician is involved in an ugly, public, scandal that paints a poor impression to the electorate. My ‘trust’ issue was an attempt to demonstrate this point.’
You are, of course, right - stories of this type do exactly as you say. ‘Poor pensioner bullied by nasty councillor’ is a great story that panders to people’s assumptions and prejudices. It suited my neighbour and a fringe fundamentalist religious group to claim a boundary dispute was a public scandal but boundary disputes are very common, they happen to all sorts of people and they are nearly always a tragic waste of time, energy and money. In any event, court papers show this dispute was started by the Rawlinsons - not the other way around - and he eventually admitted that his claim that our extension was built on his land was without foundation.
Does feeding the general cynicism about politicians encourage better politicians or simply drive anyone who wants to challenge orthodox thinking away from politics? The more you want to change things the more you generate enemies, as you know yourself.
Christian
Fair play to Cllr. Vassie for at least having the nuts to stand up for himself and challenge me on what I write rather than resorting to sly, backhanded, methods favoured by other councillors who put themselves in the kitchen yet can’t handle the heat. Eh “Barnaby”?
Now I really am going on holiday!
See you soon…

