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.