Keir Starmer

[sandGroundZero]

…I did say that most people are not interested in politics but I don't agree that it is because they find it dry and boring. I think it is because they see it as operating under a set of rules that has no equivalent in real life. …When politics was about something cared about (ie the referendum) there was massive engagement. A lot of the resentment afterwards was that people could see attempts to nullify their choice. …

Civics (and indeed, much else) in the elementary and/or secondary school curriculum amounts to indoctrination.

There will always be aspects of 'politics ' which residents are rightly concerned about. I suspect detachment is born of a sense that the decision makers are remote and NOT particularly impartial. Arrange it so that the engaging aspects enable effective citizen input. The civics lessons will be picked-up in the process of engagement.

Otto Dettmer/The WorldPost

[Toodles McGinty]

The teaching of civics is very important in schools but it is very difficult to create a curriculum that is politically neutral and to put a historical context to the history of this country without some drum or other being beaten to say nothing of the implicit political bias that all humans have, including teachers.

I'd say that civics is part of a set of life skills that should be taught in school, along with basics such as money management, cookery (an essential skill, not the old 'bring the ingredients in for a butterfly cake') and other social skills.

The current government has already forced a political bias in schools. The DfE has already categorised anti-capitalism as an 'extreme political stance' and equated it with opposition to freedom of speech, antisemitism and endorsement of illegal activity. Surely this, in turn, makes it illegal to refer to huge tracts of history.

But again, if Parliament was more representative of the electorate, such an authoritarian move would be quashed. So until we do have a fairer system, the whole system is undemocratic. I'd also like to see a written constitution where there are far greater punishments for lying in public office. It is a sad indictment that we need non-profit organisations such as the Good Law Project in order to ensure the government is held to account for breaking its own laws.

Yesterday's Queen's Speech has further stamped authoritarianism on our political processes. A crackdown on the right to challenge the government in the courts and the controversial police, crime, sentencing and courts bill means peaceful protest against the government is almost impossible. Then other forms of protest will supplant it. Then there's voter suppression, which isn't going down well.

Sadly reform has to be led by the public rather than politicians, and even though democracy is very much in peril, there is no particular majority for reform among the electorate. Which in turn goes back to education. It's a vicious circle.

[Hamble]

Post #233


Post #237


As I said, abundantly clear. I haven't made accusations against all Tories. I don't know all Tories. I'm sure there are decent, one-nation Tories with fairly central views as much as there are those heading fast into the far-right. Just as there are those on the left with fairly central views as much as those heading into far-left.

I've no obsessive hatred of all things Tory. There have been, historically, decent Tory politicians and PMs. There are even one or two current Tory MPs that I'd describe as decent folk. I'd cite Tracey Crouch as one. I could also list left leaning MPs that I have no time for whatsoever. I'm critical of politicians across the political spectrum. However, they aren't all in power. The government, regardless of colour, is (or should be) answerable to us. This one happens to be majorly venal and corrupt.

I've made no accusation that aren't in the public domain. Particularly regarding Johnson. It's all out there to be read. On the 'Hare Psychopathy Checklist' I'd rate him 34, just 5 short of Ted Bundy. Some put him at 38.

I could provide links for the rest, I already have, several times. Its fairly pointless though. Rather than discuss or debate the facts, in return you'll find a Guido link that says Diane Abbott bought a non-recyclable plastic bag 5 years ago.

'Hare psychopathy checklist'?

OMG!
The most I was hoping for is that you would hesitate to name and slander your victim in one sentence.

[Toodles McGinty]

'Hare psychopathy checklist'?

OMG!
The most I was hoping for is that you would hesitate to name and slander your victim in one sentence.

Oh, now you're dismissing science because it doesn't suit your narrative?

Having a good chuckle at mental health issues? Because you are supremely more qualified on mental health issues than a professor emeritus? You haven't clicked the link again, have you? You've seen the word 'psychopath' and jumped to a Victorian conclusion.

It's closely related to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In fact he displays most of the 'Dark Triad' of personality disorders, from a casual observer's viewpoint. Donald Trump very obviously displays the same. An article here from 'Psychology Today' applies it to world leaders. No wonder Biden calls Johnson 'Britain Trump'.

You do understand that a disproportionately large amount of CEOs display both psychopathic and sociopathic traits, don't you? Not a huge secret, it's been published extensively.

So yes, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. I take it you've neither heard of it or bothered to check. It doesn't mean anyone is stalking innocents with a butcher's cleaver. Once again, it isn't the 1920s. It has it's critics, but is still used extensively across the world. I've supplied a link, in it's basic terms.

As for 'slander' (I assume you mean 'libel'), as I said, I'll happily link to examples of the homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism, etc. I already have, many times. It's pointless, as I said. Even with evidence in font of you, even though you know the facts - primarily Johnson is a pathological liar - I suppose your input will amount to ''. Because you are pathologically obsessed with the divinity of anyone wearing a blue rosette.

Apparently it doesn't take one to know one.

Edit: to further explore the subject, here's a sample of the book 'Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths'. It's an interesting 20 or so pages.

[Hamble]

Oh, now you're dismissing science because it doesn't suit your narrative?

Having a good chuckle at mental health issues? Because you are supremely more qualified on mental health issues than a professor emeritus? You haven't clicked the link again, have you? You've seen the word 'psychopath' and jumped to a Victorian conclusion.

It's closely related to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In fact he displays most of the 'Dark Triad' of personality disorders, from a casual observer's viewpoint. Donald Trump very obviously displays the same. An article here from 'Psychology Today' applies it to world leaders. No wonder Biden calls Johnson 'Britain Trump'.

You do understand that a disproportionately large amount of CEOs display both psychopathic and sociopathic traits, don't you? Not a huge secret, it's been published extensively.

So yes, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. I take it you've neither heard of it or bothered to check. It doesn't mean anyone is stalking innocents with a butcher's cleaver. Once again, it isn't the 1920s. It has it's critics, but is still used extensively across the world. I've supplied a link, in it's basic terms.

As for 'slander' (I assume you mean 'libel'), as I said, I'll happily link to examples of the homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, sexism, etc. I already have, many times. It's pointless, as I said. Even with evidence in font of you, even though you know the facts - primarily Johnson is a pathological liar - I suppose your input will amount to ''. Because you are pathologically obsessed with the divinity of anyone wearing a blue rosette.

Apparently it doesn't take one to know one.

Edit: to further explore the subject, here's a sample of the book 'Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths'. It's an interesting 20 or so pages.

1.You did not put a link to click on.

2.Slander:
Also known as oral or spoken defamation, slander is the legal term for the act of harming a person's reputation by telling one or more other people something that is untrue and damaging about that person. Slander can be the basis for a lawsuit and is considered a civil wrong (i.e., a tort).

3. I don't do chick flicks.

[sandGroundZero]

…Edit: to further explore the subject, here's a sample of the book 'Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths'. It's an interesting 20 or so pages.

Toodles, are you recommending 'Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths' for forum readers?
Are you intending to acquire a copy for yourself?

Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths—And How We Can Stop! by Bill Eddy
High Conflict Personalities
Part I: How Narcissits and Sociopaths Get Elected
Part I first covers the patterns of high-conflict politicians, how their narcissistic and sociopathic traits can be extremely dangerous and extremely deceptive, and how you can spot them early on (Chapter 1). Next, I describe HCP's emotional warfare: how they seduce and attack and then divide and dominate whole communities and nations (Chapter 2). this is made possible because voters tend to split into four groups that fight with each other endlessly in response to this emotional warfare: Loving Loyalists, Riled-Up Resisters, Mild Moderates, and Disenchanted Dropouts (Chapter 3).
I then cover how the high-emotion media attracts high-conflict politicians from the fringes of society and launches them into leadership positions around the world, multiplying their emotional warfare thousands of times to reach millions of people (Chapter 4). Finally, I explain how the core secret of their narcissistic and sociopathic power is repeatedly promoting stories about a Fantasy Crisis Triad ("there's a terrible crisis caused by an evil villain that requires a super hero to solve—me!") as the only way to sell themselves to voters, because of their lack of skills for solving real problems (Chapter 5).
…
A Cautionary Note
The personality pattern information in this book may make you think of some people you know. Please make sure that you don't tell them that you think they are an HCP or have a narcissistic or sociopathic personality. This always makes things worse, whether you're right or not. Just keep this point of view to yourself and learn how you can adapt your own behavior [sic] to deal with them more effectively.
On the other hand, if you are talking with others about a public official or anyone who wants to be elected to a position of power, it can be very helpful to say that you believe the person may have a high-conflict personality. Then you can explain why this is such a big concern and describe the warning signs and pattern that you see.
Of course, you might wonder if you have some of these patterns of behavior yourself. This is normal when people are first exposed to high-conflict personality information. It's healthy to reflect on your own behavior (people with personality disorders don't do this) and consider changing it if you believe it is problematic (which they also don't do). If you continue to feel worried about anything you read in this book, I encourage you to talk about it with a counselor.

Are you a Loving Loyalist, a Riled-Up Resister, a Mild Moderate, or a Disenchanted Dropout? Or perhaps you are a High-Conflict Personality, yourself; are you?

[Toodles McGinty]

Toodles, are you recommending 'Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths' for forum readers?
Are you intending to acquire a copy for yourself?

Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths—And How We Can Stop! by Bill Eddy
High Conflict Personalities
Part I: How Narcissits and Sociopaths Get Elected
Part I first covers the patterns of high-conflict politicians, how their narcissistic and sociopathic traits can be extremely dangerous and extremely deceptive, and how you can spot them early on (Chapter 1). Next, I describe HCP's emotional warfare: how they seduce and attack and then divide and dominate whole communities and nations (Chapter 2). this is made possible because voters tend to split into four groups that fight with each other endlessly in response to this emotional warfare: Loving Loyalists, Riled-Up Resisters, Mild Moderates, and Disenchanted Dropouts (Chapter 3).
I then cover how the high-emotion media attracts high-conflict politicians from the fringes of society and launches them into leadership positions around the world, multiplying their emotional warfare thousands of times to reach millions of people (Chapter 4). Finally, I explain how the core secret of their narcissistic and sociopathic power is repeatedly promoting stories about a Fantasy Crisis Triad ("there's a terrible crisis caused by an evil villain that requires a super hero to solve—me!") as the only way to sell themselves to voters, because of their lack of skills for solving real problems (Chapter 5).
…
A Cautionary Note
The personality pattern information in this book may make you think of some people you know. Please make sure that you don't tell them that you think they are an HCP or have a narcissistic or sociopathic personality. This always makes things worse, whether you're right or not. Just keep this point of view to yourself and learn how you can adapt your own behavior [sic] to deal with them more effectively.
On the other hand, if you are talking with others about a public official or anyone who wants to be elected to a position of power, it can be very helpful to say that you believe the person may have a high-conflict personality. Then you can explain why this is such a big concern and describe the warning signs and pattern that you see.
Of course, you might wonder if you have some of these patterns of behavior yourself. This is normal when people are first exposed to high-conflict personality information. It's healthy to reflect on your own behavior (people with personality disorders don't do this) and consider changing it if you believe it is problematic (which they also don't do). If you continue to feel worried about anything you read in this book, I encourage you to talk about it with a counselor.

Are you a Loving Loyalist, a Riled-Up Resister, a Mild Moderate, or a Disenchanted Dropout? Or perhaps you are a High-Conflict Personality, yourself; are you?

I might read it, it looks interesting. The preview pages caught my attention. The 'Psychology Today' article was food for thought. I've often thought those that pursue power are the worst people to hold power.

Not being knowledgeable on the subject, I can only speak from experience. I have known local councillors and a couple of MPs. They generally fall into three types. Some genuinely want to help. Some see it as a path to power and glory. The third type is 'I can do that job better than that lot'. The third type realise very quickly that they can't.

One of the MPs is an idealist. Really wants to help. The other started with ideals, then got sucked into the trappings of office. The idealist was a Lib-Dem, the other Labour.

My type? Well I dropped out of party membership because I was disenchanted, so I'll go for that. As far as 'high conflict' is concerned, I don't mind a debate, but I find zealots frustrating.

[Toodles McGinty]

1.You did not put a link to click on.

I did:

It's all out there to be read. On the 'Hare Psychopathy Checklist' I'd rate him 34, just 5 short of Ted Bundy. Some put him at 38.

2.Slander:
Also known as oral or spoken defamation, slander is the legal term for the act of harming a person's reputation by telling one or more other people something that is untrue and damaging about that person. Slander can be the basis for a lawsuit and is considered a civil wrong (i.e., a tort).

Slander is an oral defamatory statement. Libel is written. But it was a petty point, and I apologise for making it. But as I said, nothing that isn't in the public domain.

3. I don't do chick flicks.

I have no clue what this means.

[sandGroundZero]

I might read it, it looks interesting. I've often thought those that pursue power are the worst people to hold power.
My type? Well I dropped out of party membership because I was disenchanted, so I'll go for that. As far as 'high conflict' is concerned, I don't mind a debate, but I find zealots frustrating.

Evidently, you regard our PM as a case in point; do you?
Instead of frustrating yourself debating zealots, why not turn your attention to constructive solutions?
I concluded years ago that wannabe MPs are for a variety of reasons not representative of the voting public. You'd have to be somewhat eccentric to contest an election for parliament in contemporary circumstances; even good hearted, civic minded individuals.
Out of curiosity, how does Damien Moore fit the pattern (in your view)?

__________________________________________________________________

I'm currently reading The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History by David Edgerton. The author offers an interesting account of the evolution of the political parties in the first chapter.
'Revisionist ' history is sometimes used pejoratively, but I'm finding this account fascinating.

Imprint: Penguin
Published: 04/04/2019
ISBN: 9780141975979
Length: 720 Pages

[Hamble]

I did:





Slander is an oral defamatory statement. Libel is written. But it was a petty point, and I apologise for making it. But as I said, nothing that isn't in the public domain.




I have no clue what this means.

Link pressed did not work.

Just because it is in the leftie public domain does not mean you can customise your own slander.

Bill Eddy has written another book you may be interested in.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/b...eddy-lcsw-esq/

[Toodles McGinty]

Evidently, you regard our PM as a case in point; do you?
Instead of frustrating yourself debating zealots, why not turn your attention to constructive solutions?
I concluded years ago that wannabe MPs are for a variety of reasons not representative of the voting public. You'd have to be somewhat eccentric to contest an election for parliament in contemporary circumstances; even good hearted, civic minded individuals.
Out of curiosity, how does Damien Moore fit the pattern (in your view)?

I don't think there is a finer example of the pursuit of power than our PM. A hack journo that lied for a living. Sacked from every job for lying. Lied to the Queen. Lies to Parliament over and over. Channelled public funds to whichever blond would open her legs. No principals barring that which he deems will make him popular (Brexit, anyone?). Caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths for popularity ('Boris Battles The Experts To Save Christmas') To keep power he's now changing the law. The only flaw in the plan is he might keep the party in power, but will they keep him? The ERG couldn't give a shiny one for him, nor he for them.

Constructive solutions? I like a good political discussion, but I doubt those stalking the corridors of power drop into QLocal for ideas. Besides, the frustration lasts for the length of time to read and respond to posts. Not much in the grand scheme of things.

Damien Moore? I think he's ambitious, always votes along party lines, because as an MP he's punching above his weight career wise. I've never heard of a constituent helped by him, but again I don't know everyone.

[local]

I don't think there is a finer example of the pursuit of power than our PM. A hack journo that lied for a living. Sacked from every job for lying. Lied to the Queen. Lies to Parliament over and over. Channelled public funds to whichever blond would open her legs. No principals barring that which he deems will make him popular (Brexit, anyone?). Caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths for popularity ('Boris Battles The Experts To Save Christmas') To keep power he's now changing the law. The only flaw in the plan is he might keep the party in power, but will they keep him? The ERG couldn't give a shiny one for him, nor he for them.

Constructive solutions? I like a good political discussion, but I doubt those stalking the corridors of power drop into QLocal for ideas. Besides, the frustration lasts for the length of time to read and respond to posts. Not much in the grand scheme of things.

Damien Moore? I think he's ambitious, always votes along party lines, because as an MP he's punching above his weight career wise. I've never heard of a constituent helped by him, but again I don't know everyone.

Your recollections are somewhat muddied if Boris simply courted popularity then why support Brexit as the Polls consistently put it as being behind Remain.

Might this be yet another example of you confusing yourself?

Remember your predictions for Boris, they were consistently wide of the mark.

Topped by your assertion that Dominic Cummings was his puppet master.

[Toodles McGinty]

Link pressed did not work.

Just because it is in the leftie public domain does not mean you can customise your own slander.

Bill Eddy has written another book you may be interested in.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/b...eddy-lcsw-esq/

Leftie public domain? Is it leftie public domain to describe the stereotype of the Jewish oligarch who controls the media and fixes elections? Sammy Katz, with his “proud nose and curly hair”, is tight-fisted and exploits immigrant workers for profit. “Maybe there was some kind of fiddling of the figures by the oligarchs who ran the TV stations (and who were mainly, as some lost no time in pointing out, of Jewish origin)”

Sound anti-Semitic to you? Because it bloody well does to me. Classic anti-Semitic tropes. Hook nosed, tight fisted Jews controlling the media. Disgusting. Imagine if your bete noir wrote that. Your fury would hold no bounds. And quite rightly. You know who wrote it.

There's an article on Wiki about anti-Semitism under Johnson's reign. To paraphrase you: Johnson is complicit and leader of the Tory party.

Homophobic: tank topped bum boys? “If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.” He wrote that.

Islamophobic? There's the classic 'letter box' slur, but for more here's a long list in the Byline Times.

Racist? 'piccaninnies' with 'watermelon smiles'? Johnson wrote that British colonialism in Africa is "not a blot upon our conscience." He added: "The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more."

There's much, much more. Here.

I'd like you to point out which of those things are slanderous. Any? At all? Because I think that slander involves the act of harming a person's reputation by telling one or more other people something that is untrue and damaging about that person. Which are untrue.

They aren't untrue, because you know damned well he said all of those things. Or maybe they don't write these things on Guido?

So as I said before, you'll happily vote for an anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic psychopath (here's that particular list again for you to at).

But even worse is the fact that Johnson could not give a flying **** about the country, the party, any single individual because he feels entitled to be PM. He's a sociopathic, psychopathic narcissist. His old boss Max Hastings on Johnson. More quotes from people who know him. And more, 'Former chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum @Mohammed_Amin has resigned from the Tory Party because he thinks Boris Johnson is "morally unfit" to be PM.'

And you hold him in the highest esteem. For the sole reason that he wears a blue rosette. Your moral compass always points to blue, regardless of the abject, nauseating, vile human being attached to it.

Or, as has been pointed out, you just don't care.

[Hamble]

Leftie public domain? Is it leftie public domain to describe the stereotype of the Jewish oligarch who controls the media and fixes elections? Sammy Katz, with his “proud nose and curly hair”, is tight-fisted and exploits immigrant workers for profit. “Maybe there was some kind of fiddling of the figures by the oligarchs who ran the TV stations (and who were mainly, as some lost no time in pointing out, of Jewish origin)”

Sound anti-Semitic to you? Because it bloody well does to me. Classic anti-Semitic tropes. Hook nosed, tight fisted Jews controlling the media. Disgusting. Imagine if your bete noir wrote that. Your fury would hold no bounds. And quite rightly. You know who wrote it.

There's an article on Wiki about anti-Semitism under Johnson's reign. To paraphrase you: Johnson is complicit and leader of the Tory party.

Homophobic: tank topped bum boys? “If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.” He wrote that.

Islamophobic? There's the classic 'letter box' slur, but for more here's a long list in the Byline Times.

Racist? 'piccaninnies' with 'watermelon smiles'? Johnson wrote that British colonialism in Africa is "not a blot upon our conscience." He added: "The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more."

There's much, much more. Here.

I'd like you to point out which of those things are slanderous. Any? At all? Because I think that slander involves the act of harming a person's reputation by telling one or more other people something that is untrue and damaging about that person. Which are untrue.

They aren't untrue, because you know damned well he said all of those things. Or maybe they don't write these things on Guido?

So as I said before, you'll happily vote for an anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic psychopath (here's that particular list again for you to at).

But even worse is the fact that Johnson could not give a flying **** about the country, the party, any single individual because he feels entitled to be PM. He's a sociopathic, psychopathic narcissist. His old boss Max Hastings on Johnson. More quotes from people who know him. And more, 'Former chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum @Mohammed_Amin has resigned from the Tory Party because he thinks Boris Johnson is "morally unfit" to be PM.'

And you hold him in the highest esteem. For the sole reason that he wears a blue rosette. Your moral compass always points to blue, regardless of the abject, nauseating, vile human being attached to it.

Or, as has been pointed out, you just don't care.

Not enough evidence to convince me Corbyn was not anti semitic.

I have pointed out to you before antisemitism comes from the Left and Right of politics.

[Toodles McGinty]

Your recollections are somewhat muddied if Boris simply courted popularity then why support Brexit as the Polls consistently put it as being behind Remain.

Might this be yet another example of you confusing yourself?

Remember your predictions for Boris, they were consistently wide of the mark.

Topped by your assertion that Dominic Cummings was his puppet master.

You cannot be that naïve.

As Lord Heseltine said, he 'waits to see the way the crowd is running and then dashes in front and says, ‘Follow me’.

Cummings orchestrated his move to Downing Street. With the Tufton Street mob and their connections to the ERG and Leave campaign. It's all public domain stuff. Easily checked.

And as I said, Cummings is Gove's buddy. Now he's back with Gove. They needed a useful idiot to push Brexit through. Who better than Johnson, a workshy narcissist who leaves the heavy lifting to others while he dresses up as 'worker of the day' and hides in fridges. He couldn't even be bothered with 5 essential Cobra meetings at the start of what was blindingly obvious was a deadly pandemic on the way.

Nobody is confused. But the stench of gullibility is overwhelming.