Anyway, I'm going to do it again.
The three main criteria used to diagnose delusion, a serious mental illness, as defined by the psychiatrist Karl Jaspers in the '20s and commonly held to be the best indicators even to this day:
- Certainty (held with absolute conviction)
- Incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
- Impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
If someone is exhibiting any of these, it does not necessarily mean that he is delusional. If, however, he exhibits all of them, then it is pretty certain that he is fully delusional and thus is a danger to himself and others.
If the patient is also the Prime Minister (and this only happens in a very small proportion of cases), then I think it is fair to say that there is absolutely no precedent to have to conform or comply with anything that he, or his government, has decreed whilst suffering from such mental illness, because mental instability is not commensurate with rational thought or action and is with some certainty detrimental to the ability to make serious decisions. I have done some considerable research on this subject and conclude that there are no extenuating circumstances, such as an overdose of bananas, which could have brought this condition on artificially.
Is there a lawyer, or a doctor, in the house? I might need a libel defence, and an expert witness. I certainly hope so. I believe, though, that I can prove, conclusively, that what I am implying is the truth.
I see indications in the Twitter posts, and other comments that I read in the papers from most Labour supporters, that some delusional behaviour is present, so there may be some correlation between such behaviour and the tendency to vote for a fellow sufferer as well, but I am making no real claims about this at this point. I may do later once I have researched the less severe form of delusion more fully.
Correct all down the line -- BUT... you overlook the fact that, in that vanishingly small percentage of sufferers who are also PM, they have control of the armed forces, etc, and can bloody well MAKE you conform and comply, or it's five years in the slammer, son.
This is due to happen May 5th, by the way, when Gordon decides an election isn't necessary.
If push comes to shove and you DO need someone to defend you in court, I'm willing. Not only am I an advocate supreme, but also a trained concert pianist, tightrope walker and neurosurgeon. I'm completely CERTAIN of all this, and nobody is going to talk me out of it!
Interesting use of the word "control" as in the Armed Forces.
I think if push came to shove they wouldn't be shoved.
If you think that tool Brown has control of the Forces - Go take a peek on ARRSE.
All it needs is a General to give the word.
ARRSE. Very enlightening, never seen it before.
I get my gen from people in the regiments. They say the same, but of course not publicly, no sir.
"blah, blah ... Armed Forces."
Could be why there are huge efforts to ensure overseas military actually get to vote - also see ARRSE "Op Steel Vote", and something I wrote earlier this month
I assume this one?
I also assume that it isn't the present incumbent making this huge effort?
That's the one, and this
Somebody's certainly put a lot of effort into changing the rules, with 'unintended consequences'.
Ah yes. From Lord Rogan, of Josh.
Do you want admin privelege to post at new site? send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Post a Comment