GET A GRIP Profile picture
Dec 2, 2021 28 tweets 12 min read Read on X
#THREAD on #ToryLies.

Over the last week, Priti Patel lied about funding to tackle domestic violence, Gillian Keegan lied about Randox, Sajid Javid lied about Govt promises, Matt Hancock lied about #NHS contracts, & Boris Johnson lies all the time.

What kind of liars are they?
This #THREAD quotes extensively from, & is based on, an article from US based "online relationship therapy platform" 'Regain' - which imho is appropriate, given the long history of Boris Johnson's affairs & failed relationships.

regain.us/advice/infidel…
Defining what it means to lie & how bad it is, can be challenging: it involves questions of intent & expectation.

Clearly, when someone deliberately gives a false or misleading statement or answer to a question, this is lying, & it's a big problem - *especially* in politics.
There are lots of different sorts of liar: sociopathic liars, pathological liars, compulsive liars, occasional liars, careless liars, narcissistic liars, habitual liars, pathetic liars, & white liars.

Some may be due to an underlying condition, but some are just pure lying.
Pathological liars, for example, are overcome by a need to lie about matters regardless of how big or small they are. They also often cannot control this urge. Compulsive liars, pathological liars, & narcissistic liars are similar in this regard & may well be "successful" people.
Motivations for lying are important.

Some people lie out of fear or discomfort, to avoid awkward or difficult moments or face the consequences of their actions.

Some people lie because they enjoy the sense of control it gives them - they may even relish manipulating others.
Sometimes people lie purely out of habit - they're so used to covering up mistakes & avoiding difficult situations with dishonesty, they don't know how not to.

People who lie out of habit may have started lying as a youngster out of fear, or to avoid discomfort.
Impulsive liars are everyday liars: saying you ate one biscuit when you ate two, or exaggerating a project's success - these lies are often impulsive, motivated by feeling better about ourselves, being seen as better by our peers, or avoiding admitting things we aren't proud of.
Many politicians lie to cover up some facts or alter the intensity of relevant information, as it benefits them.

Because of the human tendency to not notice gradual change, occasional impulsive lies can lead to regular compulsive lying, & can be hard to see until it's too late.
For the people in this category, this behavior can manifest as saying whatever they need to keep the conversation going or maintain their self-esteem.

This type of lying often has inconsistencies because the dishonest person is not careful; they're just lying out of habit.
Pathological lying is compulsive lying to the extreme - it's safe to assume that just about everything that comes out of their mouth is questionable.

It can be difficult to know for sure because without ways to check their statements, you can't be sure what's going on.
Sociopathic liars are scary: while sociopaths are not completely amoral, they have a level of detachment that makes dishonesty more likely & harder to change.

Sociopathic liars tend to lie towards specific objectives, & lie simply as a means to an end.
You can sometimes spot sociopathic liar by watching their behavior when their dishonesty is called out.

Unlike most compulsive or pathological liars, when they are caught out as dishonest, they are capable of shrugging & simply moving on to the next "victim."
The most extreme, rare & dangerous liar is the psychopathic liar.

Sometimes associated with pathological lying, the difference lies in the associated emotions & overall application: if someone is lying all the time, is it habitual, do they really not feel anything, or both?
Like sociopaths, psychopaths view other people as a means to an end, have no attachment to anything called the truth, & are unconcerned about being caught.

They exhibit a high degree of selfishness, an inability to plan for the future, & even violent responses when challenged.
When we find we've been lied to, it's natural to become upset or angry, & lash out at the person responsible.

However, justified as this may be, it can be counter-productive towards the goal of getting them to stop lying.

Simply challenging lies, on its own, is insufficient
While definitions of what counts as problematic lying vary, we can be sympathetic to others' motivations, while being honest about what we can tolerate.

Someone may be lying because it's how they were raised, but we should make it clear it's unacceptable or even intolerable.
Calling out lies immediately when you spot them & asking them to stop are good general tactics.

People who are compulsive liars require behavior changes. But simply calling them out will not be enough to alter deep-seated behaviors.

Taking a strong stance may be necessary.
Discerning sociopaths & psychopaths from compulsive liars is trickier.

If you call out their lies & their response is little or no guilt, this is more problematic, & may need professional help - which by their nature politicians would not seek, as it challenges their legitimacy.
The impact of lies can be devastating, for individuals, wider society, & even a country.

They may even contribute to avoidable mass deaths.

Pathological liars may have personality disorders, such as narcissistic disorder or antisocial disorder.
One form of lying, known as pseudologia fantastica, another name for pathological liars, may have a genetic component.

Pathological liars lie even when there is no apparent benefit, & many cannot control this urge to lie about even the smallest matter.
This is partially what separates pathological liars from narcissistic liars, pathetic liars, careless liars, & even compulsive liars.

However, obviously not all lying is genetic, & some forms of lying can be symptoms of an existing mental disorder.

docs.google.com/document/d/1ae…
Whether a person exhibits signs of compulsive liars, careless liars, narcissistic liars, or another type, it can be challenging to get them to stop lying, & depends entirely on the cause for their lying.

Liars lie for different reasons.
Calling people liars because they lie may not help someone get to the root of the problem.

Compulsive liars, for example, often cannot even control their lies, & even if they wanted to, may need the help of a trained specialist to control their lying.

Why does this matter? Well, we know that Boris Johnson lies, & that his Government is - consciously or not - normalising lying.

But when trust in Government fails, it clears the way for dangerous & manipulative antidemocratic authoritarianism & tyranny.

History teaches us that "charismatic" leaders who are willing to lie, and who are willing to use scapegoating & divisive rhetoric about certain individuals, groups & minorities, can have cataclysmic consequences.

Our democracy is in danger. So are we.
One rule for the #ToryLiars, & one rule for the rest of us.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with GET A GRIP

GET A GRIP Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @docrussjackson

Sep 13
🧵

OK, I'll bite.

The word Fascism isn't 'meaningless'.

To spell out why, we need to unpack both the underlying implication of Andrew Doyle's argument and the reasons why it fails to adequately account for contemporary political dangers. Image
Andrew Doyle asserts that the term "fascism" is misused to the point of recklessness, echoing George Orwell’s 1944 observation that the word had been rendered meaningless. Doyle’s concern is not uncommon—but imho, it’s ultimately misplaced, especially in today’s context.
While it’s true that “fascism” is sometimes deployed rhetorically or hyperbolically (eg by Trump), Doyle’s framing dangerously downplays the genuine resurgence of fascist-adjacent movements across the Western world and undermines the analytical clarity necessary to confront them. Image
Read 23 tweets
Sep 8
🧵

Boris Johnson appears to have had a secret meeting with billionaire Peter Thiel - perhaps the most fanatical of the libertarian Oligarchs and co-founder of the controversial US data firm Palantir, the year before it was given a role at the heart of the UK’s pandemic response. Image
A month after entering No 10, Johnson and his senior adviser Dominic Cummings had a meeting with Thiel, leaked files suggest.

Johnson is now likely to face questions about whether the non-disclosure amounts to a breach of the ministerial code.

theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/s…
The hour-long afternoon meeting on 28 August 2019 was marked “private” in a log of Johnson’s activities that day and was not subsequently disclosed on the government’s public log of meetings.

Read 12 tweets
Aug 31
🧵

Elon Musk has been amplifying far-right accounts again, including Tommy Robinson, Rupert Lowe, and numerous anonynmous known #disinformation superspreader accounts like 'End Wokeness'.

Let's examine the context for yesterday's march in Richard Tice's constituency, #Skegness. Image
After decades of neglect, Skegness (pop 20K), stands out on key socio-economic markers on national averages: residents are older; whiter; lower full-time employment; higher rates of few/no qualifications; and concentrated deprivation - it's far-more deprived than most of England. Image
History repeatedly teaches us that burdening already struggling communities is a recipe for disaster.

These communities have been crying out for help for DECADES, but successive UK Govts have largely ignored their pleas, and continued to increase inequality, which harms us all. Image
Read 60 tweets
Aug 28
🧵 @Rylan Asylum seekers coming here aren’t technically "illegal." International law (the 1951 Refugee Convention) allows people to seek asylum in any country regardless of how they arrive or how many countries they pass through, as long as they're fleeing persecution or danger.
Allow me to explain why asylum seekers aren’t “illegal”, and how misinformation and nasty demonising and scapegoating rhetoric by certain politicians and media, including news media, has made some British people less welcoming of asylum seeekers.

@Rylan
People fleeing war, torture, or persecution have the legal right to seek asylum.

The 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK helped write, says anyone escaping danger can apply for asylum in another country no matter how they arrive: claiming asylum isn't a crime.

@Rylan
Read 23 tweets
Aug 27
Farage's illiberal, immoral, & unworkable authoritarian plan involves ripping up human rights laws forged after WWII, which protect British people, & wasting £billions of UK taxpayers' money, giving some of it to corrupt misogynistic totalitarian regimes.
theguardian.com/politics/2025/…Image
Image
Leaving the #ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act and disapplying international conventions

The UK would be an outlier among European democracies, in the company of only Russia and Belarus, if it were to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Opting out of treaties such as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against torture and the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention would also be likely to do serious harm to the UK’s international reputation.

It could also undermine current return deals, including with France, and other cooperation agreements on people-smuggling with European nations such as Germany.

The Society of Labour Lawyers said the plan would “in all likelihood preclude further cooperation and law enforcement in dealing with small boats coming from the continent and so increase, rather than reduce, the numbers reaching our shores”. 

Farage said he would legislate to remove the “Hardial Singh” safeguards – a reference to a legal precedent that sets limits on the Home Office’s immigration detention powers – to allow indefinite detention for immigration purposes. This would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge.

Many of the rights protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are rooted in British case law, so judges would still be able to prevent deportations, even without international conventions.

x.com/docrussjackson…
Reform UK’s grotesque far-right mass deportation plan is not just economically and socially illiterate (Britain an ageing population and low birth rate) rely on striking “returns agreements” with countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan, offering financial incentives to secure these deals, alongside visa restrictions and potential sanctions on countries that refuse.

These are countries where the Home Office’s risk reports warn of widespread torture and persecution.

It would risk the scenario of making payments to countries such as Iran, whose regime the UK government has accused of plotting terror attacks on British soil.

The Liberal Democrats called the payments “a Taliban tax”, saying the plan would entail sending billions “to an oppressive regime that British soldiers fought and died to defeat”. They said: “Not a penny of taxpayers’ money should go to a group so closely linked to terrorist organisations proscribed by the UK.”
Read 13 tweets
Aug 25
🧵

The internet never forgets.

A thread of tweets posted by Lucy Connolly.

A reminder of the one, viewed 310,000 times, for which she was jailed, which urged people to burn down asylum seeker hotels after the #Southport attack - which had nothing to do with asylum seekers. Image
While all these tweets of Connolly's were made before her incendiary post, they don't say which year they were posted.

They can be accessed here, via The Wayback Machine, which has archived more than 916 billion web pages.

Draw your own conclusions.

web.archive.org/web/2024080616…
Connolly's tweet (top right) was in response to the tweet on the left, which criticised Laurence Fox for posting an upskirt photograph of Narinder Kaur.

The next one (right centre) was Connolly asking Kaur if she had 'flashed her gash'.

The third discusses a teenage experience. Image
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(