Correct The Unlawful Legal System - they're just a bunch of CTULS

[longdog]

I see it all the time, but I've yet to find any good research on it.

Me either but the correlation seems to be so strong I'm inclined to think it's causative and I'm very far from being a stranger to the sweet, sweet lure of Lucifer's Lettuce.

[John Uskglass]

There's definitely a correlation between excessive cannabis consumption and crackpot beliefs.

I'm not convinced. I stand to be corrected, but advocating cannabis use and/or arguing for legalisation doesn't seem to be a very strong current among FMOTL'ers, though it is there. If there was a preponderance of potheads, I'd expect it to be higher up the agenda.

For example, I don't recall any of the car stop videos (what ever happened to them?) resulting in a drugs bust.

In my experience, counter-intuitively, New Age types these days tend towards the puritanical on intoxicants, and there's definitely a strong New Age/FMOTL cross over.

Mind you, perhaps I'm in denial, and my own crackpot ultra leftist beliefs are due to years of partaking in Satan's Spinach

[guiltybystander]

(I'm pro-legalisation as well. There are lots of legal substances that are harmful if you took them all the time. For most people, weed is no worse than alcohol. I'm sure the people that wake-and-bake but with vodka also have poor critical thinking skills, though possibly in other directions.)

The only person I've known in my life who went off the deep end with FMOTism (he ended up camping out outside the place his van was impounded as he refused to have it taxed or MOT'd due to not wanting to 'co-operate with criminals') was a longtime habitual stoner. Last I saw, he's now puritanical against booze, so there's that.

I was curious about whether I was seriously off the mark here, so I took a quick look at the profiles of the 18 admins of CTULS, and 5/18 had shared pro-cannabis posts. Compare to 12/18 being covid denialists, 4/18 being into dogs that could chew your face off, 11/18 prominent sharing other conspiracies (moon landing faked, the planes didn't take down the twin towers, chemtrails are real, climate change is fake, 5G crisis) as well as a bunch of health woo, like baking soda can cure cancer. So I'd say, it's a prominent strain (of at least this group) but yes, you don't need to smoke weed every day to believe in abject nonsense, and not all stoners are conspiracy theorists. I still think there's something in this.

[John Uskglass]

I took a quick look at the profiles of the 18 admins of CTULS,

That's interesting, thanks.

There's some Quora threads on this topic here, though they don't contain much substance.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-correl ... y-theories

[longdog]

I'm not convinced. I stand to be corrected, but advocating cannabis use and/or arguing for legalisation doesn't seem to be a very strong current among FMOTL'ers, though it is there. If there was a preponderance of potheads, I'd expect it to be higher up the agenda.

The lack of any noticeable 'free the weed' campaigning might be down to the fact that the law is rarely enforced in the UK anyway. The chances of being done for possession alone (as opposed to it being added to other charges like shoplifting or motoring offences) are as near zero as makes no difference and for personal grows is not much higher.

[John Uskglass]

The lack of any noticeable 'free the weed' campaigning might be down to the fact that the law is rarely enforced in the UK anyway.

That's possible. I don't really move in circles where weed politics are an issue any more, so I can't tell whether there's been a decline in activism on the cannabis front generally.

The teenager in our household has taken up the habit (probably not the wisest choice at their age, but they're over 18), and certainly doesn't seem to feel the need for much caution and stealth.

[Albert Haddock]

11/18 prominent sharing other conspiracies (moon landing faked, the planes didn't take down the twin towers, chemtrails are real, climate change is fake, 5G crisis)

I'm amazed that that figure is so low. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who only believed in one conspiracy theory.

[guiltybystander]

I'm amazed that that figure is so low. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who only believed in one conspiracy theory.

Well, it probably is a bit higher in fact. Most of them had very public facebooks, but a few are more normal and published very little publicly. And so they may well believe in other conspiracy stuff but just not for all the world to see. Looking at my notes though, I wasn't including covid denialism in this count and that's a conspiracy-laden (and will have sucked up a lot of posting energy in recent years).

Looks like only three of them didn't publicly share any covid or conspiracy stuff. One had a closed profile, so who knows; the second seemed a genuine good egg, and mostly shared anti-racism stuff (possibly had joined as a sister or partner of one of the other admins?); the third shared a bunch of MLM stuff, which I guess is a different kind of self-destructive wishful-thinking thing to get into.

[guiltybystander]

Another very stupid and funny thing this group keeps doing, is thinking that defunct companies registered on Companies House that are called stuff like "Government UK LTD" are the actual government and that the actual government has therefore dissolved.

[Albert Haddock]

I suspect that a company name like that wouldn't get registered these days as "government" is on the list of "sensitive words" that need approval for use in a company name. It looks as if it was only added to the list in 2007, though.

[guiltybystander]

Funnily enough, in a now deleted exchange, one of them claimed that because the name was in contravention of the Companies Act 2006 then it must mean this was the real government. This is definitely a conclusion you could reach.

* * *

I wanted to share something bizarre from one of the main admins. She really likes these Bully type dogs and like many such people she engages in elaborate apologetics in the face of the fact they keep mauling people. But this numerology false flag excuse might take the biscuit:



Full quote:

Code: Select all

Girl "11" and "2" men allegedly attacked by XL Bully on 9/11.
No mention of the ages of either of the men?; just the girl- "11",, so we have a number: 11, and there were "3" people in total allegedly attacked: and we have another number: 3...
what is 11×3? 
"33" !   
=Masonic HOAX CODE. 
Nice try media. You didn't fool me for a second, it had "staged" written ALL OVER IT from the word go, I'd been trying to crack to code all day yesterday.  Numerology and symbolism will forever be their downfall. 
Added to this a very poor set up; a conveniently placed spade and a broom were the chosen defence weapons. Nobody thought to try beeping their horn or driving into the dog as it was running free! Nobody even thought to take off their belt and contain the dog, or pick up the fire extinguisher next to the petrol pump and set it off pointed towards the dog. 
People were quick enough to film it though (allegedly). 
Come on everyone, THINK!🤦‍♀️
Oh and by the way, the representatives of the so-called government (HM Parliaments and Governments) a PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY 
can write what they like on paper an call it a fancy name like "Legislation", BUT it means Jack s**t without your CONSENT.
There is a mandatory requirement BEFORE a legislative rule can be given the FORCE of law BY the consent OF the governed.
Legal is BY AGREEMENT.
So WHO has ever formally agreed to the "Dangerous Dog Act"?, more to the point WHO has ever signed the Legally REQUIRED consent of the governed in wet ink, and/or completed a a formal and legal transfer of Power of Attorney agreeing to be represented by HM Parliaments and Governments PLC; without the material evidence of that formal agreement which can be presented as FACT there can be NO legal representation, A lawyer cannot represent you until you have signed that formal agreement to give your consent and neither can the government, that would be FRAUD. 
These people calling themselves "government"  know that to ban the the XL Bully they would have to ban the entire Bully Breed, because XL is just a SIZE, not a breed. They will never be able to police that, ever! 
When DNA tested the entire lineage shows up, so although a recognised breed of its own a "Bully" of ANY size is genetically a "mixed breed" and every single breed used in the genetic make up would need to be "banned" in order to ban the Bully. 
There are that many Bullies in the country that this is an impossible task, THINK ABOUT IT. 
If anything this will make the so-called government finally look at putting restrictions on back yard breeders, and the dog owner, NOT the dog; the owner is responsible for the dog just like a parent is responsible for their kids. 
Aggression in NOT BREED SPECIFIC, it is a learned behaviour or poor genetics. 
Ffs people distance yourselves from the news and mainstream media, because it is literally  hypnotising you and robbing you of your ability to THINK logically and rationally. 
THAT IS ALL. 
Please share

[longdog]

I wanted to share something bizarre from one of the main admins. She really likes these Bully type dogs and like many such people she engages in elaborate apologetics in the face of the fact they keep mauling people. But this numerology false flag excuse might take the biscuit:

They're not going to be happy then.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66775985

ETA: I like the idea that when confronted with a 60+kg dog, that's busy ripping somebody to pieces, taking off your belt and using it as a collar and lead is anything other than suicidally idiotic. First rule of dog ownership is, IMHO, never keep a dog or a pack of dogs that you can't easily beat in a fight.

[guiltybystander]

Yes I saw that, and you're right! I should step away from this rabbit hole, but I just want to make a small prediction: early next year her dog is almost certainly going to be seized, as it transpires that she's been unable to stop it mauling at least two other dogs already!

Warning (not excessively graphic) dog injury image:

She has it muzzled because it attacked someone's dog:

And then it transpires from the comments that this wasn't the first time it had happened, and she was almost certainly minimising the severity of the attack with words like "nipped":

I'm tempted sometimes to think that these people are just a bit nuts but mostly harmless, but as well as evangelising for nonsense legal advice that will ruin other people's lives when they follow it, she also downplays the attacks made by her out-of-control dog. It's sort of magical thinking, you get in all conspiratorial thinking? Starting from a premise like I'm in the right, my dog is an angel and then reasoning backwards and so there's a conspiracy against me, it's the other dogs fault they were attacked and all killings are hoaxes to defame the breed.

[hucknallred]

They're not going to be happy then.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66775985

ETA: I like the idea that when confronted with a 60+kg dog, that's busy ripping somebody to pieces, taking off your belt and using it as a collar and lead is anything other than suicidally idiotic. First rule of dog ownership is, IMHO, never keep a dog or a pack of dogs that you can't easily beat in a fight.

Not wishing to make light of somebody dying after being attacked, but the government response seems to mirror what happened with Pit Bulls in 1991.
Billy Connolly summed it up well back then. I went to see him on this tour & this is just a very short part of a piece he did on the John Major administration that took over from Thatcher.

[John Uskglass]

If you want to convince people your huge dog isn't there to be scary, perhaps don't call it Bronson?

Note to non-UK readers - in addition to the actor, we also have a notoriously violent prisoner who has changed his name to Charles Bronson and regularly features in the tabloid press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B ... (prisoner)

Also, if you think that the fact that your dog cowers when told off or hearing raised voices is an indicator that it is safe around people, you really shouldn't own any dog, let alone one you can't control on the lead.

[Albert Haddock]

Billy Connolly summed it up well back then.

Or, from Drop the Dead Donkey: "If it's got short legs, no neck, and an aggressive temperament, its dog is probably a pit bull."

[aesmith]

I wanted to share something bizarre from one of the main admins. She really likes these Bully type dogs and like many such people she engages in elaborate apologetics in the face of the fact they keep mauling people. But this numerology false flag excuse might take the biscuit:

They're not going to be happy then.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66775985

ETA: I like the idea that when confronted with a 60+kg dog, that's busy ripping somebody to pieces, taking off your belt and using it as a collar and lead is anything other than suicidally idiotic. First rule of dog ownership is, IMHO, never keep a dog or a pack of dogs that you can't easily beat in a fight.

There's a petition amazingly signed by 500,000 people, saying that XL Bullies are lovely kind animals and shouldn't be banned.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/643611

[mufc1959]

How to waste £192 in one easy lesson...

[mufc1959]

In today's episode of Things That Never Happened, the BDW Affidavit wins again!

[Hercule Parrot]

In today's episode of Things That Never Happened, the BDW Affidavit wins again!

Why do they make up these stories? No criminal prosecution has ever been dropped as a result of the defendant citing Baron Von Trampbeard's parking ticket. If that ever happened, it would quickly become known in criminal circles and remand prisoners would be making immediate, successful applications. Lawyers, cops & courts would be greatly agitated, and whatever loophole had been found would be swiftly sewn up, as happened with Bail duration BITD (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun ... ail-ruling)