I fear it takes a long time to overcome early conditioning. Although I have long since removed myself from the influence of Catholicism and the Jesuits, that nagging imperative to seek fulfilment in placing the needs of others ahead of my own remains deep rooted. I suspect I may never be entirely free of the internal conflict and guilt that can come from attempting (and failing) to reconcile the perceived demands and expectations of others with one’s own needs.
I suppose this is an area of dissonance addressed by the notion of personal boundaries; a concept with which I have previously had little familiarity. Recently, though, I’ve become increasingly aware that establishing and maintaining these boundaries is essential in protecting a core sense of self-worth and identity. So this is a post about boundaries; both personal and physical; for each should offer a place of safety, and violation of either constitutes an act of emotional violence. And I trust any reader might bear with my returning to specific events here, since it is only in speaking of objective facts that the validity of my perceptions may emerge.
In all of this it has been impossible to ignore the resonance of ongoing events in the US which so clearly demonstrate the impact of an extreme pathology. Just the other day I watched the address by Gabriel Sterling, election officer for the State of Georgia. This man was angry and despairing almost beyond words:
“It’s got to stop!” he repeated over and over:
“It’s got to stop!”
This wasn’t a partisan diatribe – the man votes Republican; it was a cry for an end to the bullying threats and obscene invective that now characterises the unsubstantiated resistance to the current election outcome. We’re all entitled to our views and to press and argue them with reason and evidence. We cross boundaries though when we seek to impose these through violence and abuse.
And he was addressing more than the perpetrators. From the President down, all those who seek to lead but choose to look the other way and say nothing, with their silence, collude in the abuse. Theirs is the tacit approval of the bystander. “Not getting involved”; “not taking sides”; “non-judgmental”; and so it goes – but for any victim neutrality is a betrayal, a complicit sanction of mistreatment.
So I wonder why you might prefer to overlook objective facts and evidence and cling to a more convenient narrative? Fear of encountering a disconcerting reality? comfort in the reassuring consensus? a reluctance to entertain “the discomfort of thought”? All convenient pleas in the evasion of responsibility. But there again, why should you feel responsible?
It can be handy to find scapegoats; so much easier to place the blame with those that don’t quite fit in; the “others”. And there are always those quite skilled in diverting attention in that direction. There was a time when these awkward individuals might even be popped in a ducking stool for a “just” dispatch. And pity the poor woman (it would have been so); her boundaries, even her life, a forfeit to indifferent expedience. We’re all responsible for the world we inhabit; silence, whatever the reason, just enables. We don’t necessarily get what we ask for but we will get that which we don’t challenge.
Lawyers are experts in transgressing boundaries. It’s their stock in trade. Departure from the accepted standards of decent discourse to shock, humiliate and alarm. A process of softening up to facilitate the imposition of their clients’ demands. Flaunting an air of assumed authority and with an intimidating formality they go to work. A letter is despatched with absolutely no regard for the reality of underlying issues or for any potential consequences of their actions. Out of the blue the victim is assaulted:
Our analysis of your title supported by. . . clearly shows (the location of a boundary).
It is advised that proceedings are now to be raised in the Sheriff Court and ‘Court papers’ are to be served.
It is further advised that a new fence will be erected which shall run along the correct boundary line and any attempt to impede will be met by interim interdict
The next paragraph identifies a further encroachment of 58m2 at a different boundary also to be addressed as part of imminent court action. An order ad factum praestandum is to be sought. .
To one who wished only for complete legitimacy the above was shocking. The threat of imminent legal action horrified. Extensive correspondence and consultation with Registers of Scotland had previously secured definitive advice regarding the proper location of all boundaries according to the title. Steps had been taken to ensure full compliance. A copy of the Registers’ email confirming precise dimensions had been forwarded to neighbour and lawyer. Despite this, alternative locations were now to be imposed on pain of frightening legal process.
Worse was to follow. Several paragraphs now outlined allegations of behaviour perceived to be pathetic and infantile and which must stop now (bold,underlined). This included; shouting, waving arms, car horns. amongst other things and general intimidation each and every time the clients seek to assert their ownership rights. An astounding fabrication cast with demeaning intent, and it didn’t stop there:
Failing an undertaking by return of post, to immediately cease and desist, the court would be approached to grant an interim interdict with a power of arrest.
To someone who wouldn’t dream of conducting themselves in anything other than a responsible and decent fashion, this was beyond belief and a deeply traumatising assault.
But this is the “softening up”. Threats of arrest, of legal action on a scale beyond contemplation – all designed to terrorise into compliance. Perpetrated with a complete indifference for any facts, for any emotional or psychological injury, for any accepted standards of social interaction.
Experts in crossing boundaries; yet if you were to complain to any authority you would simply be advised to get a lawyer to send a return letter – remember, the power to intimidate is a “key part of a lawyer’s armoury”. It would be different if the injury was physical – broken bones or bruises are so much more visible – no return match here; but it’s the emotional trauma that will persist.
We have allowed this uncouth, bullying behaviour by the legal profession to become normalised. There are those who seem to feel an entitlement to violate boundaries; for a fee they will savage anyone in the service of a client’s whim. And it’s an unholy alliance; the client will excuse themselves of any responsibility for the practitioner’s techniques, the lawyer will claim to be legitimately following instructions. But this is an abuse of power and an abuse of the judicial process and the harm extends beyond the intended victim to us all by discrediting the legal system and thus denying an essential component of civilised life.
I do wonder what sort of individual can justify to themselves their deliberate abuse of complete strangers with no concern as to the wrongs or harm inflicted. Their “right” to take the client’s word at face value is no other than a self-proclaimed bully’s charter. Little wonder there is recognition of an above average display of psychopathic behaviour within the profession. Wrongful accusation, especially delivered with public dissemination and specious but alarming formality, strikes and wounds deep into the psyche. Those mercenaries that make a living out of the practice do us all a disservice.
Of course the lawyer didn’t offer any evidence in support of his lurid and unfounded allegations of intimidation but there is certainly that which will attest to his clients’ aggressive transgressions. Perhaps with more significance (and objective fact), I can conclusively address the ridiculous claims in regard to the location of boundaries, and here I will go into some detail regarding their definition within a Scottish Registered Title. Initially, though, there is a clear and overriding logical deficit informing the lawyer’s actions.
In response to a request, the lawyer had stated that the concern lay with the interpretation of the Land Certificates. A definitive interpretation had already been sought from, and provided by, the Registers of Scotland. The claims and threats of legal action were intended to impose an alternative interpretation.
This is a logically defective position. The 2012 act placed a statutory duty on the Keeper of the Registers to define the boundaries to every registered plot. The plan attached to the Land Certificate simply manifests the fulfilment of that obligation. Any interpretation which departs from the Keeper’s determination will necessarily cease to be representative of the title. Anyone (including the Sheriff) may interpret a document as they see fit, but it will only serve to define the boundaries to a Registered Title in so much as it represents the Keeper’s discharge of her statutory duty. To declare otherwise is a logical absurdity.
For clarity I do, of course, acknowledge the right to challenge the Keeper’s determination but that is a different matter and this lawyer’s cruel violations remain completely groundless; merely a testament to barbaric incompetence and dishonesty. There’s a grim irony in that it is the practitioners within the justice system that are so well placed to subvert justice.
The woman had bought her home in good faith, and when a new neighbour arrived and challenged her boundaries she sought only legitimacy and to continue with her quiet life. She had no ambitions regarding the exact extent of her plot and consulted at length with the Registers wishing only to ensure compliance with her title.
As a consequence her boundaries have been literally trampled. She awoke one morning to find her garden fence being removed. She has been subject to a so-called ‘chartered surveyor’ accompanied by her neighbour entering onto her property, without warning, in the course of measuring all her boundaries. She has been threatened by a revving engine and forced onto the grass verge. She has had telephoto images taken of her in her garden posted on social media with derogatory comments. And she has suffered the emotional injury and material loss occasioned by this outrageous and baseless legal onslaught.
These are just a few instances from an ongoing litany of incidents which, in a further attempt to socially isolate, have been extended to legal threat and false accusation against those that have offered support.
It had been my intention to conclude this post with some detail regarding the methodology employed by the Registers of Scotland in defining boundaries. The aspirations informing the 2012 act may have been laudable in this respect but the implementation has its shortcomings. There are, however, certain principles and conventions designed to overcome any limitations. Unfortunately this lawyer not only flew in the face of an overriding logical imperative but also demonstrated a wanton and incoherent neglect of these principles too. One example (the ‘red edge’) was illustrated in an earlier post.
However, I’m anxious that these pieces remain elevated above some sort of personal vendetta – there are important issues at stake and recent years have revealed an apparent and alarming decline of integrity in public life. I’ve no taste for conflict, especially when there is so much more on offer than wading through the backwash of those constantly navigating an advantage. So I’ll return to this topic later but having witnessed such cruel mistreatment and abuse of power at first hand; felt the shock, the despair; I’m not about to look the other way.
As always I maintain the view that robust, equitable and accountable institutions are our best protection from the excesses of the human temperament. There’s a need for vigilance and a crucial need for diligence and rigour in the design and drafting of legislation. Loose ends are an invitation for certain professionals to unpick holes where reason and good intention leaks out and vermin can creep in.
I was told by a lawyer in rural Scotland that “there are lots of boundary disputes around here”. He didn’t seem too bothered – and I’m not too surprised. . In a subsequent post I’ll return to that aspect of the Registered Title; the methodology, principles and conventions and an underlying shortcoming – a loose end that needs attention.
Meanwhile I’ll close with a quote from her book (Trauma and Recovery) by Judith Herman M.D.
“All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering. . .”
Outing The Pathology 