Is it time for Tony Blair to be sectioned?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by EAGLE1, Aug 5, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Tony Blair has recently denied that his war on terror is a religious war.
    At first I thought this man had a 'game plan'. A 'hidden agenda'.

    When he said to the nation that GOD was guiding him on. I thought that he was just playing some sort of 'intelligent game'.

    Yet the more I see the disater unfolding in the middle east the more I start to believe that 'he really does think' that he is being guided by messages from GOD. Has Tony Blair inflicted one of the greatest disasters of modern times upon the world.

    I remember when someone in authority at number ten decided that Margaret Thatcher was losing the plot. I believe that the poll tax was the final straw. She was led away in tears to a waiting car that took her away to a safe place where she could not inflict 'any more harm upon our nation'.

    Is it time for Tony Blair to be led away gently and quietly from number ten
    as he goes will he be crying and shouting those well used words "Democracy I tell you," "Democracy that's what we must enforce", "we must enforce it everywhere the world must have it".

    Will Cherrie and his team be saying "Yes Tony thats right it's ok darling come on let's take you somewhere where you can rest just for a while eh"

    Has he made a 'terrible mistake' by invading Iraq?
    Are number ten too afraid to admit that they are pursuing a failed policy?
    Is the massive loss of life combined with a failed policy too appaling for our minds to consider?
    Is there time to pull the world back from the brink of a third world war?

    Are we waiting for some good luck, or do we desperately need a better design.
    :oops:
     
  2. I currently am, under the MENTAL HEALTH ACT, 2001!!!
     
  3. He's barking but he still has much more damage to do - the final element being the attack on Iran next year; its destiny, his, ours, the Iranians. afterwards he can be chained up and allowed to happily lap up his own turds.
     
  4. It is a well known psychological condition known as 'cognitive dissonance' and you can find many references to it through Google.

    Put simply, it means that if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already know or think they know - particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge, they are likely to resist that new learning.

    Put even more simply, the absolute belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

    Ordinary people are constrained in their daily lives from putting into effect their beliefs in the face of opposition to them by a variety of factors, laws, rules, regulations, social, family and financial pressures.

    An ideologically driven political leader or one committed to a set of policies will, in office, receive advice which will conflict with those beliefs or opinions he or she may hold. In a political system with a strong system of cabinet government, and independent professional civil service and the moderating and restraining hand of a Parliament and a free press - or at least a press that cannot be manipulated by Government, a political leader will be constrained from translating ideological beliefs into domestic policy even if he or she sincerely believes that that which constrains him is totally wrong.

    But take away or weaken those legal and constitutional constraints which bind a Prime Minister and he will have his way sincere in his own beliefs which will conflict with advice he has been given which can often lead to disastrous results. Even when they do, a Prime Minister will still cerebral believe that he or she was absolutely correct!

    To the outside world, a Prime Minister has 'Lost touch', to the Prime Minister, his policies are simply 'misunderstood' Hence 'Cognitive dissonance'.

    It must be remembered that a British Prime Minister has the most unfettered personal powers within his office than any other Western Leader. Even the US President had to get the permission of Congress to go to war. A British Prime Minister can decide that personally using the Royal prerogative. He can dissolve Parliament at will and call a General election He has the most enormous powers of patronage, he appoints every member of the senior judiciary, every Bishop, every minister, and so on during his tenure of office. Mrs Thatcher for example, during her period of office appointed all of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (The Law Lords) and three-quarters of the High Court Bench!

    In other words with almost unfettered power a Prime Minister can do pretty much as he likes. Little wonder that with such unshakable conviction, we had disasters such as the Poll Tax and the CSA under Thatcher, ID Cards and constitutional vandalism under Blair.

    Thus it is that we see this condition manifested in March this year when Blair gave a speech to the effect that the Press and Civil libertarians were "simply wrong". He likes that phrase: "Simply wrong". He said he wanted to 'Harass, hound and harry every suspected criminal (note the word 'suspected') out of Britain".

    In my view, therefore, it is not that Blair needs to be 'sectioned'. It is simply that the almost unfettered powers of a Prime Minister need to be stripped and given back to Parliament.

    The sickness, if it is a sickness, lies with giving absolute power to one man (or woman), with little in place to persuade him or her or to constrain him or her in the execution of their internalised and unshakable beliefs. Of course, the longer a Prime Minister remains in office, and in Britain, unlike the USA, there are no constitutional limits on his tenure, the worse the condition becomes, the more unshakable become his beliefs, having the sort of dire consequences we are now witnessing both at home and abroad.

    Regards and best wishes
     
  5. I presume it is eagles extensive psychological knowledge that enables him to diagnose our PM.

    The bloke is a tool (the PM) but since when has poor judgement, been a medical condition, dont give him the opportunity to sign off his poor leadership and atrocious record as a medical anomoly. the bloke is a tw@t fair and square, giving the disruptive child a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder doesnt mean hes not rowdy. Giving the fat kid a diagnosis of hormone imbalances doesnt excuse the fact he eats too much.

    Blair is incapable of holding to a course, convincing anyone of his sincerity or arving at a decision without the assitance of the whitehouse and NEO-CON America, not because he is mentally defficient but because he is a obnoxious, self gratifying, unxious, pious, overblown, buffon.

    - I dont vote Labour
     
  6. It is not here a medical conditional but a psychological state of mind. Poor judgement is an assessment arrived at objectively by others in the resulting aftermath of a failed policy which others have blindly put into effect on behalf of a Prime Minister who has not been constitutionally or legally restrained from doing what he wants in the sincere but mistaken belief that he is right!

    That he is an obnoxious, self gratifying, unxious, pious, overblown, buffoon is that which is felt by those his policies affect and can do nothing even if they wanted to while the same feelings are probably shared by those he appoints who can do something but will not as long as they fell their jobs are secure while he is in office!

    No-one will tell the King he has no clothes if they believe he will deliver them election victories and when he does and believes in his own electoral invincibility and becomes more radical he believes he does not need to listen when those around him tell him he is, in fact, naked until the point is reached where he, like Thatcher before him is adjudged by his party to be an electoral liability.

    The characteristic arrogance he displays is in many respects the same characteristic arrogance discernible in Thatcher while she was in office, in the sense that neither listened to wise counsel which became more pronounced the longer they remained in office and both were responsible for increasingly radical policies which alienated them from the electorate. Both refused to see the writing on the wall since they both cognitively dissonant of the true effects of their decisions.

    Thatcher felt 'betrayed' and 'stabbed in the back' since she was cognitively dissonant of her own political mortality: 'It's a funny old world' she said and she believed it. Tony is no different, he is cognitively dissonant of the truth of his own ineffectual leadership, his backbench unease over Lebanon and dismisses any idea that there exists any dissent at all in cabinet or among his backbenchers and he will go on actually believing what he says until he is forced to step aside or the party get rid of him!

    It is a state of mind that exists once they become leader of a party; is exacerbated by absolute power and grows uncontrollably the longer they remain in office and mentally elevate themselves into the rarefied stratosphere of a belief in their own political invincibility.

    After all, it was an innocent little boy in an admiring crowd who had the courage to tell the King that he had no clothes and now that we are all doing the same, King Tony ain't listening because he does not believe it!

    I did not vote for the useless Prick either and neither did the overwhelming majority of the eligible electorate in this unfair system of 'first past the post'.
     
  7. FFS! another Tony Blair thread
     
  8. FFS Tony Blair full stop!

    I'd like to see him sectioned, as in "No 1 Section, bayonets fix, right flanking, move!!"
     
  9. I'd like to see BLiar sectioned, too.

    Sliced into five or six sections should do the job admirably!
     
  10. Blur was on a downer prior to his latest visit to see His Masters Voice.
    He returns from the States renewed in energy and on a high.
    He has massive problems over the morgage he took out at the wrong time, now I must ask has someone eased his finacial burden ?
    john
     
  11. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    I think you'll find that personality orders are not covered by the MHA 1986. There is no doubt that both the Bliar and his master are indeed sociopathic, and thus not eligible for sectioning under said act. Unfortunately I'll think you'll find that their beliefs are in keeping with many and thus would not be classified as culturally strange and hence not delusional allowing a section under the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.

    Are they criminally insane? In my opinion by biomedical standards, unfortunately not. Criminal? Ahh well, now that's a different question.

    [align=center](***Edit***Personally I say 1351, any advance?)[/align]