So who is the sociopath?

Andrew Little continues to defame Judith Collins, though he is now doing it inside parliament, because he is too cowardly to repeat the following outside of the parliament.

From Hansard: General Debate 20 June 2012

It was bad enough that there was a privacy breach to begin with. It was bad enough that ACC did not seem to respond effectively, and it is bad enough that since the privacy breach there have been even more privacy breaches. But none of this compares to the prevarication, the evasion, and the dissembling that has gone on in this House with the Minister failing and refusing to front up, and no wonder. It is quite clear that her conduct is not the conduct of a reasonable and responsible Minister. Her conduct is the conduct of a sociopath, Ms Tolley. Maurice Williamson understands that, because he has worked with too many of them for too long. He knows sociopathic conduct when he sees it.

Here is what is going on. All we wanted was straight answers, but Judith Collins needs to understand that it is not just what is said in this House that counts; it is what is said around the well-heeled, well-fashioned dining tables of the middle class around New Zealand. They are not called the chattering classes for nothing, I can tell you. They are chattering—they are chattering. What they are saying is that Judith Collins, when she got the news of the mass privacy breach, called the chief executive and the chairman of the board to her office in Auckland and asked them what was going on. She gave them a dressing down. She balled them out, gave them a dressing down, and said: “It’s not just a question of sorting out the privacy. I want you to go after Michelle Boag—go after Michelle Boag.” That is her plan—that is her plan.

Without a shred of proof he has made up details of a meeting, used rumour and innuendo to smear and besmirch Judith Collins. However the worst aspect of his disgusting little speech in the General Debate was his calling Judith Collins a sociopath.

The old school yard taunt of it “takes one to know one” echos in my mind.

Wikipedia says DSM-IV defines a sociopath as someone with a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

  1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
  2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
  3. impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
  4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
  5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
  6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
  7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

I have highlighted the areas in bold that Andrew Little has exhibited in recent weeks in parliament. Coincidentally none of those attributes are anything I have ever seen displayed by Judith Collins.

The World Health Organisation says a sociopath exhibits 3 or more of the following:

  1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
  2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
  3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
  4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
  5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
  6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

Once again it appears as though Andrew Little has struck out. Judith Collins exhibits precisely none of the aforementioned attributes.

However, when you add the WHO descriptors to those of DSM-IV it becomes apparent that Andrew Little is confused. There is however one MP that precisely fits the description of a sociopath, particularly when you look at the WHO and the DSM-IV indicators together.

Based on the evidence it appears that Andrew Little was in fact talking about Trevor Mallard.

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Notrotsky

    Little is a sad, nasty, little cloth cap bovver boy who believed the press and pundits when he was touted as a future PM………. not a chance.

    Trevor despite my dislike for him at least gives us a laugh and is capable of taking the piss out of himself on occasion

  • Mediaan

    Dumb, to take yesterday’s cramming of a medical book and try to leapfrog eight years of training by issuing diagnoses tomorrow. Who does he think he is?

    That’s him ruled out for a health portfolio forever.

    And bringing in two other Cabinet Ministers … Huh?

    As it happens, wrong target (as you say). Judith Collins is about as unlike a psychopath/sociopath as it is possible to find on this planet.

    What a creepy, nasty man he must be.

    • Le Sphincter

      Just another one of parliaments ‘bon mots’ or sledging as its called here and at the other crucible of conflict, the sports field

  • Phar Lap

    Seems Little really is a meglamaniac sociopath that certainly is the worst kind.Mothers and Fathers beware this little man appropriately named Little.

  • blokeintakapuna

    Seems TV3 are even stoking his ego further by calling him the “Labour Leader” or are they just giving him some more sycophantic air time? Surely – they aren’t that ahead of their time? Or is it another case of TV3 just making up details to fit any story they attempt to offer the public?
    Seems all the traits mentioned are certainly displayed by Little and Mallard over Crusher serving them. These pitiful Labour MP’s attempts to decry the slander issue, then the legal process and then the person, not the issue. Yep – they seem to fit these criteria perfectly.
    When will Labour learn to offer credibile and viable alternative solutions to issues and problems instead of just “attacking” the opposition? Reverting to type – typical “picket line” and union tactics of shoulting out and over-talking anyone that doesn’t agree completely with them.
    Crusher will serve them their butts in a very public forum – and let’s hope it’s exceedingly humiliating for them both!
    I wonder if both Little & Mallard were bunny boilers as kids?

    • AnonWgtn

      It’s part of certain Labour MPs, and associates – read Unions, concept to de-throne Shearer to enhance their own posiitions.
      Shearer is too nice a guy to lead Labour – not sure Robertson is any better.

  • Ross

     Maybe the translation of Little’s rant is  ” The latest advice from my lawyers is that I’m going to get smashed if it goes all the way. Now I’m shit scared and I don’t know what to do “

  • In Vino Veritas

    Little has become used to talking stupidly to Employers and obviously believes that he can carry that form into Parliament. Unfortunately being dumb behind the vail of Union negotiations that are held away from the public spotlight is not the same as speaking in Parliament where every word is recorded. He will reap what he sows in due course.

  • Mark

    Little is simply an embarrassment in parliament.  A wee side show of a man with little to contribute but a stupid personal crusade.  I am no particular fan of Collins but Little takes politics to a new low level that even Mallard struggles to emulate

102%