Categories

Keith E Rice's Integrated SocioPsychology Blog & Pages

Aligning, integrating and applying the behavioural sciences

Ian Pannell’

Bibliography P-Q

A    B    C    D    E    F    G    H    I    J    K    L    M    N    O    P-Q    R    S     T     U    V    W    X-Y-Z Pakko, Michael & Susan Pollard (2003): ‘Burgernomics: A Big Mac™ Guide to Purchasing Power Parity’ (Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Review) https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/ (Accessed: 01/12/11) Palmer, Bill  (2017): ‘Confirmed: Russia put up Millions of Dollars to fund French Presidential Candidate Marine Le Pen’ (Palmer Report) http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/russia-marine-le-pen-french-president/2425/ (Accessed: 14/06/17) Palmer, Emma & Clive Hollin (1998): ‘A Comparison of Patterns of Moral Development in Young Offenders and Non-Offenders’ in Journal Of Legal & Criminological Psychology #3 Palmer, Stephen & Ray Wolfe (1999): ‘Integrative and Eclectic Counselling and Psychotherapy’ (Sage Publications) Pannell, Ian & Darren Conway (2013): ‘Syria Crisis: Incendiary Bomb Victims “like the walking dead” (BBC News) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594 (Accessed: 29/08/13) Papez, James (1937): ‘A Proposed Mechanism of Emotion’ in Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry #38 Paquette, Daniel (2004): ‘Theorizing the Father-Child Relationship: Mechanisms and Developmental Outcomes’ in Journal of Human Development #47 Parke, Ross (1981): ‘Fathers’ (Harvard University Press) Parker, Howard (1974): ‘View from the Boys’ (Ashgate, Aldershot UK) Parker, Kandis Cooke & Donald Forrest (1993): ‘Attachment  Disorder: an Emerging Concern for Shool Counsellors’ in Elementary School Guidance &… Read More

Cameron: “I get that!” (Or does He?)

  Look at David Cameron’s eyes in this BBC video extract from the conclusion of Thursday (29th) night’s debate in the House of Commons. They are full of cold fury when he says: “I get that and the Government will act accordingly.” Poor Dave had had a hard day, having been seriously mucked about by Ed Milliband . First Ed apparently indicated on Tuesday (27th) evening that he would support the principle of a missile attack on key Syrian military installations providing there could be no attack until a second vote approved it, following the weapons inspectors’ report due this weekend. Dave conceded that; but then Ed played a blinder Thursday morning: Labour would not support an attack until there was ‘compelling evidence’ that Bashar al-Assad’s government was indeed behind the appalling use of chemical weapons at Ghouta on Wednesday 21st. Since the weapons inspectors’ job was to ascertain unequivocally that a gas attack had taken place and what chemical agents had been used, rather than directly apportion blame, it was far from certain they would provide the ‘compelling evidence’ Ed demanded. Meanwhile, Associated Press was reporting that anonymous US intelligence agents were briefing that the evidence they had for Assad’s regime being… Read More