Youâre talking out your hole as usual.
We can never have any proof anymore because it could be fake is your contention.
Why are you avoiding my question above? Did you write this?
They were quick to report on the dame Street incident
In your own words an unproven allegation has been made. The police now need to investigate. You of all people should take lessons from rush to judgment and miscarriages of justice such as the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six.
If Leo has broken the law a court will need to determine.
But tweedledee reckons screenshots arenât proof.
I see youâve stopped replying to me now trying to get away. Did you write this?
1 Like
Why would I reply to your absolutely nonsense point. You could submit that as evidence, the same way a witness can go on a stand and lie, any sort of proof is open to manipulation.
Screenshots are proof though and have been used to decide plenty of court cases in recent times which you denied they were and now youâre engaging in mental gymnastics.
Thereâs proof of you being a fucking simpleton.
No thatâs proof of me being entirely correct as I have shown since. Is this proof that you wrote this post?
The problem is youâre too stupid to get it.
Screenshots of digital messages are regularly served as evidence in criminal cases, usually to support allegations like harassment and malicious communications. However, they can appear in any case where digital messages are capable of supporting the prosecution case. By extension to this it can be reasonably assumed that many defendants in criminal courts up and down the country have pleaded guilty to an offence on the back of what is contained within the screenshot
Tweedledee:
1 Like
So you wrote this?
Nope, the source material contradicts it, what you have provided is a fabrication.
This is the screenshot.
Youâre just a bit too dim to understand the difference.
To get back to a serious point @Fulvio_From_Aughnacloy, screenshots can be used in court cases where they have been verified for accuracy. Screenshots on their own such as those sent to RTE can be easily edited as Iâve shown above
Sure I could just as easily say this is the screenshot
If an independent observer got a screenshot of both how would they know the difference?
1 Like
So why havenât they verified them?
RTE seem to have very lax standards for verifying information so why would they suddenly become conscientious on this story?
They probably got conscientious because a 4 year old could edit a screenshot
So RTE are unable to verify a screenshot from a named source who probably has the original source material?
Or maybe they just had an agenda not to report?
RTE who wheel out RBB, Murphy and Smith to debate against serious politicians, dragged the arse out of Irish Water, Golfgate etc are biased towards the establishment 
Their main agenda is clickbait and outrage, in order to prop up their failing business model.
1 Like
Yes.
1 Like
Not to forget RTE excluding the party that got the largest vote in the general election from the main election debate.
Only became a serious contender about a week before the election when FFG were grappling with reducing the pension age.
SF rejected this, noting that the demographics would take care of themselves. Iâm not saying MLMD was in a Wuhan lab. Iâm not saying that at all
1 Like