I would say the basic “phrenology” involved in assigning blame of broken Britain lies in several classes. For theft on a grand scale look to the wealthiest in the nation and Parliamentarians, for theft on a petty scale look to those who have the least wealth. When comparing other crimes like child molesting one can simply turn to the wealthier and again the parliamentarians as they are the most likely to be able to wield power and use their wealth . Wife bashing is likely more prevalent among the poorest because they take their woes out on their spouses. The most likely cause of lying, especially under oath would likely be spread quite evenly across the spectrum of the haves and the have nots. Simple is it not? Why cast about for pseudo analysis when you have obvious representation of opinion so readily to hand?
The solution is even simpler in tackling broken Britain. Remove the financial backing of the wealthy and give it to the poorest so they will stop beating their wives and their children can go to Academies and become “nice” people and this has the added benefit of depriving the wealthy of their ability to use that wealth to obfuscate justice with regard to child molesting and when every one has a slice of the money pie Britain will no longer be broken.
A Robin Hood Tax should, therefore, be adopted as soon as possible so we can reduce the crime by redistributing wealth and Britain can live happily ever after.
If the 20 or so million of us who are among the have nots, with a further 30+ million who would be much happier if they had more, could agree on policy making with regard to crime figures, only those at the top of the wealth chain would feel aggrieved and since they represent a much lesser proportion of the population we would naturally see a reduction in the crime figures.
All seems perfectly straight forward to me. Pigeon holing is so easy when you have the intellect to work it out. Anyone for more champers and canapes?
“This is a round up.”
“Of the forehead, when the forehead is perfectly perpendicular, from the hair to the eyebrows, it denotes an utter deficiency of understanding.” Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741–1801).
Back in the nineteenth century, phrenologywas the preferred “science” of personality and character divination. The growth in popularity of “scientific” lectures as entertainment also helped spread phrenology to the masses. It was very popular among the middle and working classes, not least because of its simplified principles and wide range of social applications that were supportive of the liberal laissez faire individualism inherent in the dominant Victorian world view. Even Queen Victoria and Prince Albert invited the charlatan George Combe to feel the bumps and read the heads of their children.
During the early 20th century, there was a revival of interest in phrenology, partly because of studies ofevolution, criminology and anthropology(pursued by Cesare Lombroso
View original post 2,396 more words