Never any nuance is dead:
It's just that The National forget where to find it, but quite appropriately so, in my opinion.
Which reminds me, I have a column to write for them this morning.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Corporate psychopathy is becoming a very active area of academic study; because psychopathy is seen as being overrepresented in corporate and other institutions (in senior positions), and of these institutions being infliltrated or over-represented by psychopathic behaviour, than is represented in the total population (e.g., Barelds, Williams, Sandhu, Barker, Pearlman, and a host of modern researchers in cognate fields of pschology and behaviour – see the literature). We may ask the general question – who, precisely is most attracted to what kind of institution – and why? This is a question that is not suffiently asked; least of all in business and politics.
Time to read “Sad Little Men” and see where those sociopaths/psychopaths came from. It’s very revealing. The conclusion that we need, as a culture, to shut down the boarding schools is inescapable.
Another interesting insight can be found here https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/10/musa-okwonga-boys-dont-learn-shamelessness-at-eton-it-is-where-they-perfect-it
I actually heard the word ‘liar’ used in Parliament yesterday and the Speaker did not censure it?! That indicates to me something has changed. The benefit of the doubt no longer applies.
Keir Starmer phrased it very carefully
Something along the lines of: “Prime Minister, what do you have to say to the general public who think that you are a liar?”
@ John S Warren: yes, I’ve been intrigued with this. However as far as I know no one has been able to do a study of “government/parliamentary psychopathy”. I think it would be very instructive, as I see the traits of narcississm and psychopathy in quite a few MPs, and other political roles, far in excess of the estimated 2% in the general population.
We know there have been instances of bullying (or accusations of bullying), or other reprehensible behaviour exercised from positions of power in Parliament, and other characteristics of behaviour that push the boundaries beyond what most reasonable people in a democracy would deem ‘acceptable’. Not all of these instances suggest ‘psychopathy’ of course, but we must put this compelling, charismatic characteristic of powerful institutions, and their narcotic attractions to people as a working environment, especially for inadvisable candidates, and the prospects they offer applicants, together with what we know about a range of institutions with enormous direct authority; not just over ‘society’ generally, or the ‘commerical world’, but more narrowly in the education of the young, or in churches, care of vunerable children and so on; which have attracted people not well suited to the authority they acquire, if they have easy access to these institutions. In the corporate world, perhaps the most extensively studied, there is enough evidence already to suggest that inappropriate ‘leaders’ too easily (and disproportionately) climb the corporate ladder.
It’s the cover-ups that get them in the end
No 10 staff told to ‘clean up’ phones amid lockdown party allegations, sources claim
Downing Street staff were advised to “clean up” their phones by removing information that could suggest lockdown parties were held at No 10, The Independent has been told.
Two sources claim a senior member of staff told them it would be a “good idea” to remove any messages implying they had attended or were even aware of anything that could “look like a party”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/partygate-phones-clean-up-investigation-sue-gray-b1991055.html
David Allen Green has suggested that such an instruction might look to be criminal, and he’s good at such things
I’m afraid I don’t have a reference for this but Alex Comfort said in the 1970’s that ‘politics is play therapy for psychopaths.’
I have been thinking about this a bit more.
Parliament is apparently the highest court in the land.
My view is that Johnson and all the others employed by the Government at those parties/gatherings are in contempt of that court (the private individuals at these events should be subject to Police investigation). Johnson is in contempt of his own organisation.
Now – onto the civil service investigation. I think that this is a weakness in our democracy that allows ruling politicians to be above the law of the land.
As far as I know Britain is not like France where judges lead the investigation leading to a court appearance. Investigations leading to cases are led by the CPS and the Police working together. So why do we have the Civil Service leading an investigation on this?
I heard an ex head of Police today on R4 say that Police do not get involved because (quote):
‘Seeing the police involved in these matters would undermine public trust in Government’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean – come on – it’s an open goal isn’t really? All you need is some bad actor and the whole thing goes to hell. The present system is just too easily abused by tossers.
But also, once again it indicates that we have a system that is not fit for purpose and that there is indeed one law for ‘them’ and one law for us (well actually there are now more laws for us pertaining to what we can and cannot do to hold a Government to account).
The fact of the matter is this: Ministers from the PM downwards are British citizens and should be subject to the same laws and investigative powers of the law as any other British citizen without exception.
A proposal then: Let’s try that and see what that might do to people’s faith in the political system eh? Let’s see what it might do to parliamentarian behaviour.
‘Sceptred isle’? Septic isle I say. It’s all rotten as it is for sure.
See my twitter thread today…