Cameron, Osborne and IDS and Mick Philpott, Narcissists One and ALL!

With the recent controversy over how to implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations over the phone hacking scandal, you would have thought that the Daily Mail would have exerted common sense and a little self control over its banner headlining of the the tragic Philpott children case. Not so, it lead with one of the most vile sickening headlines I have ever seen in a newspaper, it even manged to outshine the Sun newspaper's usual gutter press antics and that's really saying something.

Obviously self regulation is not working and it's hard to understand how the Daily Mail  thought it was going to get away with this, especially as they are in the process of trying to reject the light touch regulation that all three major political parties had eventually agreed on along with the Hacked Off campaigners. This headline was deeply offensive to all those forced to live on welfare, many of whom find themselves in that predicament precisely because of the incompetence of the government that is now insulting them! This kind of headline is a shameful indictment of a newspaper editor and a government that think they can do as they wish. As it is now evident for all to see that the press are totally incapable of self regulation, urgent legislation is now needed to prevent an occurrence of this despicable attempt to divide and rule our nation. As if this tragic case were not bad enough, the Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, the chancellor George Osborne and latterly in a calculated move, the prime minister, decided to use this tragedy as a means to cause deep divisions between our people in order to justify their attack on the welfare state.

It seems to have by-passed the single shared brain cell of Paul Dacre, David Cameron and George Osborne that 6 children died in that fire started by their own parents and that the children have names, Jade, 10 and her brothers John, nine, Jack, eight, Jesse, six, Jayden, five and Duwayne, 13 -  is it really too much to ask that they did not use these innocent children as political footballs? For Paul Dacre and George Osborne to try and politicise this tragic case and use the deaths of those poor innocent kiddies as a tool with which to try and legitimise the Conservative government's attack on the welfare state is simply unconscionable. When the judge passed sentence on Mick Philpott, she said; "he had no moral compass", she is right, he hasn't, however, neither has Paul Dacre, David Cameron or George Osborne. There should be no place in public life for people prepared to stoop to this level,and there is no absolutely no excuses for what they tried to do, it was despicable..

Over recent months there has been growing speculation that George Osborne's judgement and character is fatally flawed and that he is simply not up to the job but by making these comments;

It's right we ask questions as a government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like these. It does need to be handled.

Osborne has clearly confirmed those suspicions. That he even thought it was OK to use the deaths of six innocent children is bad enough, but to make those comments live on national television  without a trace of understanding how insulted some would be by them, is an utter disgrace and an embarrassment to this country and he has demeaned the high office he holds.

What Mick Philpott did has absolutely nothing to do with living on the welfare state, he is a particularly vile manipulative violent narcissist who viewed his partners and 17 children as chattels. The money he got from the welfare state was just a bonus and just another tool which he used to control the women in his life along with keeping them pregnant. What Philpott really wanted was absolute power and control and this control even extended to his friend and neighbour Paul Mosely, who also fell under the destructive influence of Michael Philpott. The judge commented when sentencing him: "what Mick Philpott wanted, Mick Philpott got" and "Mick Philpott was the centre of his own universe" and she was right, but for Osborne to try and say this was in some way the fault of the welfare state is totally ludicrous.

If all recipients of benefits are "vile products of the welfare state" then by the same token are we to assume that all Tories are the vile products of the "well-off state"? Should we then  assume that all Tories are lying adulterers who cheat on their wives and children, and conspire with friends to have journalists beaten up and their ribs broken, just as the Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson did? Audio of Boris and Guppy  conversation. Was the welfare state responsible for the psychopathic behaviour of Fred and Rosemary West?

Using a tragic and mercifully rare case like this as a political weapon is the lowest form of politics and journalism, and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and prime minister, David Cameron and George Osborne's motives are crystal clear they are to: - demonise and shame welfare claimants; to blame the poor, disabled, sick, low waged and unemployed for a financial mess which has nothing to do with them; to present the provision of benefits as somehow shameful and wasteful; and to support the Conservative government's cuts to welfare spending.

Philpott's wife and lover actually went out to work while he stayed at home and "cared" for the children. Many men do this these days, fortunately they are not violent manipulative narcissists like Philpott, they are good decent, honest men and there is nothing wrong with role reversal, in fact it is a way in which many households operate today to get around expensive child care costs. This is the kind of situation this government maintain they want more of us to do, so where is the logic in Osborne's and Cameron's comments? Again it clearly shows their comments for exactly what they were - naked political opportunism!

Philpott  was a truly violent terrible controlling character but would have been exactly the same if he were not receiving benefits. His elected lifestyle was never about money, money was secondary, money was just another tool to Philpott and it was used to control, everything about him was controlling. He had to control every aspect of the lives of "his" women ("bitches") and children and life inside that house. Philpott had two women which he used on alternate nights. Such was his control over them he forced his wife to perform lewd sex acts on his friend and neighbour Paul Mosely while he watched. He forced his wife to take part in demeaning "dogging" sessions. He even forced his wife into performing a sex act on Paul Mosely in their hotel room a few days after the fire that killed their children! Philpott then used that knowledge with which to control Mosely. Paul Mosely was so infatuated with Philpott, he even started to look and dress like him, growing the same kind of facial hair etc. This is not a "vile product of welfare UK", this is a vile product of a violent deluded control freak.

 He had both women going out to work and their wages and and working tax credits and child allowance were paid into his bank account. He had total control over that household, total control over the finances and total control over anyone and everything in that house. That fire was started because Mick Philpott's former live in lover decided to get her children and herself out of that oppressive situation and this just didn't happen one day, women who live in abusive relationships just do not just get up and go on a whim, there must have been some kind of trigger, some kind of build-up, something must have gone badly wrong which gave her the strength and courage to get her children and herself out of there. Maybe she sensed danger, maybe she knew what he was planning (in order to get a larger house), who knows? I dare say the truth will emerge one day.

However, when she went it enraged Philpott because he felt his control slip and his power start to diminish and that lost control brought about his rage and sparked this criminal act, it had nothing to do with the welfare state. It had nothing to do with money, it had everything to do with that woman becoming frightened enough for her children to stand up to him and disobey him and it was what Philpott perceived as his loss of control over her and loss of face to his friends and neighbours that led to the terrible events of that fire and the deaths of six children.  If he threatened her, then this was him carrying out that threat in order to scare her, just like he did when he tried to murder a former girlfriend and her mother. It is evident for all to see that whenever his control was challenged violent episodes always followed. It wasn't the welfare state that was to blame when Philpott tried to murder his former girlfriend and her mother, he wasn't on welfare then, he was in the army! Once again the facts make the comments of Osborne and Cameron a compete nonsense.

Violence is how he controlled people he tried to make them too frightened of him and his actions to break free. Whenever saw him on TV he was nearly always verbally aggressive, intimidating and physically threatening. He referred to the women in his life as "bitches". He always spoke in sexually explicit and often degrading terms, he said that he would service one of his women on one night and then the other on the next night, and that their lives were built around him. How is this behaviour  a 'product of the welfare state?' Do we blame the welfare state for producing psychopaths? No of course not and this is exactly the same.

Looking back over Philpott's life is easy because Philpott himself has made his life common knowledge and by appearing on TV in the Jeremy Kyle show and having former Tory MP Ann Widdicombe stay for one week in order to make a fly on the wall documentary for TV, he put even more of his "private" life and his flawed character into the public domain.

• He was jailed for 7 years for stabbing an ex-girlfriend 13 times, almost killing her because she left him taking their children. 
• He was due in court to answer a particularly nasty road rage incident, which was played out in front of his own children and he threatened and punched an innocent motorist in front of the motorist's terrified child, because Philpott thought that the man had cut him up. (Again we see the need for power and control, even over a stranger!)
• He drop-kicked his 3 year old baby sending the poor little child across the room because the child disobeyed him.
• He ruled his children's lives never letting them play with friends past the garden gate. 

His entire life is a litany of documented events like this, yet Philpott had previously been hailed as a "good father"?!
This was mentioned when he appeared on the Jeremy Kyle show. No one was brave enough to tell him that it takes more than keeping children clean and well dressed to be a good father. Jeremy Kyle remarked about how well the children behaved, I wonder if the children were well behaved or were perhaps just too terrified of him to put a foot wrong? What kind of lives did those children live behind closed doors with Mick Philpott a violent manipulative aggressive man?

No "good father" would even think of putting his children's lives in danger by setting a fire. Good fathers protect their children they do not throw them into the paths of danger. Good fathers (like Philpott's good neighbours) would have tried to get his children out of that house, not stand there acting and pretending to cough while his babies died. How is this a "vile product of welfare UK"?

Mick Philpott was not a good father, he was never a good father he was a cold blooded, calculating manipulative violent narcissist and the welfare state has absolutely nothing to do with his behaviour. Everything we saw of Philpott was an act he put on for the camera, or for show. An act put on for anyone who happened to be around. He wanted everyone to like him, he wanted people to think he was a good father, he wanted to be the centre of attention and he wanted total control and if he didn't get it, when he thought his control was under threat then we saw the real Philpott emerge.

• The need for total control was there for all to see. In the film clip of the Jeremy Kyle show we clearly  hear Philpott controlling Mairead saying; "tell them what we said", in fact, Kyle picks up on this immediately and comments about it.  
• We heard Philpott in police tapes telling Mairead to stick to their story. 
• We heard him totally controlling her while they were sat in the back of a police car.
• We heard him ask her if she cried when speaking to the police and if so how much, he then added that he was crying hysterically.
• His friend reports that when Philpott identified his children in the mortuary he (the friend) was in despair and crying, but Philpott was walking around cracking jokes!
• Philpott attended karaoke session at the pub and was singing, while Mairead was laughing and joking, just a few days after their children had perished in a fire he started.
• He totally controlled what Mairead did with her own body, forcing her to have sex with other men while he watched.
• Philpott wrote: "When we get out of here will go to the graves of our babies, get drunk and rape each each other" again he is controlling Mairead. He was even controlling his children's final resting places, like a dog marks his territory. 

To gain further control of their situation Mick Philpott asked police to call a news conference. In the video clip of the news conference, he broke down sobbing covering his eyes with a hankie,  Mairead by his side said nothing and sat crying with her head down she could not look at the camera. This was pre planned contrived act, Philpott probably thought he was losing control, so thought of this in order to regain it.
Immediately I sensed there something very unnerving about that conference, it rang hollow and their actions were odd to say the least. When Philpott spoke he said; "I've just been to *my* house, and what we've seen *I* just cannot believe"  he  then very quickly corrected that statement and said; "*our* house ".  Mixing up the metaphors in actual speech like that (especially when "distressed") is very unusual. That was a major Freudian slip and it showed a great degree of planning. I wondered at the time that if he is so distraught why even think of correcting one small word and why was it so important to him?   Apparently he went out from that appeal and pretended to collapse on the floor and then after a few moments he just got up and started joking, not a tear in sight. His behaviour was apparently littered with bizarre incidents like this. I would not be surprised to learn that the police had behavioral psychologists looking at this couple while they made their news conference. His actions put me in mind of  the Madeleine McCann case, where her parents were accused of being too cold, calm and collected, in news conferences etc ergo they were seen by some as guilty, so to try and preempt this situation Philpott has put a huge act on. He is a sly, cunning manipulative narcissist and this is what narcissists do - and they do it very well!

I believe everything we saw of Philpott was a cold and calculated act. He is an ex-con who had dealings with the police, he probably realised very early on that police were suspicious of them and I believe his bizarre behaviour was probably in itself another of his acts. Faced with doing life in prison, or life in a secure psychiatric institution, I believe he was laying the ground for the latter. Six of his children were soon to be laid to rest and even then he was controlling the situation and thinking of himself. References to "my beloved wife" is yet again another calculating act, when did Mairead go from being one of his "bitches" to becoming his "beloved wife"? Was she his beloved wife when he moved in his lover and began impregnating her? Was she his beloved wife during dogging sessions? Was she his beloved wife when he ordered her to have sex with his friend  in front of him, even just days after six of his children were killed?

This whole tragic situation is about a man who had to be in total control no matter what, and thought nothing of using threats of violence and intimidation to get what he wanted and maintain that control, it has nothing to do with the welfare state, and David Cameron, George Osborne and Paul Dacre are just as bad as Philpott for even suggesting it! They are using the same kind of bullying, intimidation and manipulation as Philpott used to get what they want.

Philpott will be exactly the same in prison, eventually he will carve out a life for himself in there and he will use violence, threats and intimidation in order to gain control the situation and use it to his advantage. He will succeed because Philpott is a manipulative narcissist. For the moment he will be kept segregated and he will be putting on the mother of all acts, trying to win prison staff round to his side and no doubt he will be protesting his innocence and putting on the "good father" wronged and look woe is me "I am innocent" routine, this is because he is a narcissist and this is what narcissists do, and they are usually very very clever at it doing it too! It has nothing to do with the welfare state!

People who have narcissistic tendencies are always very good liars, in fact, they lie so much it becomes pathological and some have not only managed to fool others, they have managed to fool themselves too. Narcissists put a great deal of time and energy into trying to come across as affable and likable, but it is an act - it is always an act and sooner or later that act always slips!

Which leads me back to the government. I have now come to the educated conclusion that it is not the welfare state that has much in common with the narcissistic behaviour of Mick Philpott, in fact it is certain members of the British government that have more in common with him! Right from the early days of this government I felt that Cameron, Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith were portraying narcissistic traits, in fact I made several posts about this very subject on this blog. I am not a trained psychologist, but I do have qualifications in psychology.

It is probably usual to get some degree of narcissistic behaviour in any government of any colour. Arguably you have to have some form of narcissism to even want to be a politician these days, and it is probably also usual to get quite strong narcissistic behaviour in one person inside any government, but here is where it gets "frightening",  I truly believe we have probably got  three full-blown narcissists inside the cabinet, which is unusual but to make matters worse these people are at the top of Government.
If this wasn't bad enough, enter a fourth narcissist in the form of Lynton Crosby, who is now the Tories election strategist and who's touch can be seen on immigration and welfare.

We now have three people and a fourth unelected person with absolutely no empathy, and with a lust for total control running this country. Don't make the mistake of thinking narcissists are strong, they are not they are weak and their behaviour and need of power and control can be easily spotted and exploited by others with agendas of their own. Narcissists only appear strong to weaker people and narcissists in a managerial role are less likely to make any meaningful moderation to their extreme behaviour. When they want something they will be over pleasant and polite and charming (they are really good at this deception), but as soon as they get what they want, they will quickly revert to type.

I'll set out some of the similarities between the behaviours of David Cameron, George Osborne and Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Philpott.

• Narcissists are bullies and they all share many behavioural traits.
• Grandiose sense of self importance
• Fantasy behaviour
• Need for control and power
• Need for admiration
• Has sense of entitlement
• Inter-personally exploitative, taking advantage of others to achieve own ends (attacking welfare state)
• Belief that they are special 
• Lack of empathy, unwilling to understand needs and feelings of  others
• Hate speech (eg: attack immigrants or those on welfare)
• Arrogant
• Can turn charm on and off like a tap

All three of these men show an extremely unpleasant bullying side of their natures.

David Cameron in the House and his need to bully and  belittle females, or make spiteful deeply personal derogatory comments about the opposition which completely transcends what is acceptable behaviour. Like Philpott, if Cameron doesn't get what he wants he loses his temper and becomes nasty and verbally aggressive. Cameron using the poor, sick and disabled as whipping posts to whip up hatred over welfare recipients.

George Osborne another bully, who is intellectually lacking so always go for the personal, he has taunted his opposite number on TV about having a speech impediment. His latest attempt to get people onside was to use the tragic deaths of the Philpott children by trying to say that the welfare state was responsible for what their father did, and so did David Cameron.

Iain Duncan-Smith who attacks those on welfare daily, who tries to give the impression that all those on welfare are idlers and shirkers. He wants poor people to pay for what the Tory doning bankers did to this economy, he wants to charge them bedroom tax and council tax and dock their working tax credits, yet he lives with his wife rent free in a £2 million mansion and his wife a millionairess once claimed Disability Living Allowance, the same allowance he is now stopping for thousands of people. They all accuse people of being benefit cheats yet Smith's wife was once paid £15,000 per year supposedly to work for him and never even went to the office.
David cameron infers people are cheats, yet he is forcing the taxpayer to pay for his second mortgage while he rents his million pound property out.
The same with George Osborne and he had the nerve to charge the taxpayer to pay for his paddock attached to his country house.

I could go on pointing out the hypocrisies of these men, but how have they got the brass neck to accuse others of idling on welfare while they are doing this? It is that narcissistic arrogance again, the same arrogance that Philpott showed "don't do as I do, do as I tell you"! With Philpott it was alright for him to have affairs, but it wasn't alright for his "bitches", unless it was one with him in the room in total control over them. They may want power and control in different ways, but at the end of the day it is power and total control they all want!

Over the past week with onset of the government's welfare reforms we have clearly seen this government ratchet up their rhetoric against those on welfare by attempting to tar all those on welfare with the same brush as Mick Philpott. We can all now plainly see we are dealing with destructive aggressive manipulative bullies, that are tripping out on total power over us in a blatant attempt to divide society, by attacking the weakest and most vulnerable and their agenda is to win the next election.  This is exactly the same strategy they used to personally bully and viciously attack former prime minister Gordon Brown, that started 2 years out from the next general election too.

Cameron, Osborne and Duncan-Smith, do not see people as people, they see us as tools, subordinates and objects that are instrumental to them achieving their ambition to get into and remain in power and control over us. Exactly the same trait as Mick Philpott demonstrated.

To narcissists like Philpott, Cameron, Osborne and IDS, lying is simply a way a life and a mean to an end to get exactly what they want, they are in that respect of telling the truth, no different to each other. They are all born liars.

Philpott, Cameron, Osborne and IDS are so self absorbed and narcissistic that they continually make excuses for the abuse and the distress and hardships they are heaping on others. All of them are totally incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions, it is always the fault of someone else. For example: With Philpott, he didn't set that fire, it was someone who had a grudge against him. It wasn't his fault he couldn't get a job, it was the media's fault for publishing his life story, even though he willing gave them details.
With Cameron, Osborne and IDS, it is always "Labour's fault", it is the mess "Labour left", this is why they are attacking the poor, disabled and vulnerable, they conveniently forget to say that when they took the economy over it was in growth and recovery and since they had the economy they have made things much worse, yet they continue to blame Labour for their own actions. Somehow they manage to turn every unpopular policy of theirs 180 degrees in the opposite direction and claim they are the victims, while they rob from the poor they give to their rich Tory donors, they are now clinging to power and control and are complete oblivious to catastrophic harm they are causing real people. This is classic narcissistic behaviour and just as Mick Philpott was blinded to the dangers he was placing his children in, so this government are blinded to the dangers and suffering they are inflicting upon the most poor and needy and vulnerable in our society. They don't care and they don't care because they have no feelings, no empathy, no nothing, all of the are devoid of human emotion, any human emotion you see from these men is false, it is an act, just like it was an act with Philpott's crocodile tears in that news conference, it is all for show!

As with all narcissists they have an agenda, they think they can hide it, but they can't, sooner or later it is revealed in all its sordid stinking "glory"! It was with Philpott, his arrest and subsequent conviction for killing six of his children and so it will be with this insensitive, incompetent power crazed government, narcissism isn't some thing you can hide for long!

Cameron, Osborne and IDS may try to hide their evil motives with lies, but just like the lies of Philpott, they will be outed and shown for exactly what they are. They may revel in appearing good to some, but the mask will slip, it always does, they will not be able to conceal their deception and their Jekyll and Hyde nature forever. However, we should always be aware of these people's capacity to deceive and be ready to point it out wherever we see it.

The may like Philpott try to use charm as a weapon and appear (like he did) plausible and convincing, but they are nothing but glib, shallow and superficial people concealing a hatred and a lust for power and total control but if we are ready for it and aware of it, we will no longer be fooled by it. Their lack of substance is now showing.

By attempting to slur all those on welfare and tar them with the Michael Philpott brush this Tory government has now sunk to its lowest level and has abandoned moral decency - something else they have in common with Mick Philpott!

But don't forget Cameron, Osborne and IDS have not yet finished punishing the poor, the sick, the disabled or the vulnerable. Their pretence of protecting our most vulnerable has gone, it is now all out war on the poor.

Narcissists one and all!