- Mar 19, 2020
- 12,528
- 39,012
- AFL Club
- West Coast
As a Judge, I certainly wouldn't convict you beyond reasonable doubt without any evidence that's for sure.
If someone here (or anywhere) makes a claim about an event or truth, I want to see the evidence so I can make my own mind up.
For example in this thread, I conceded I was wrong about Imperial college predictions, when presented with evidence.
It's what I don't get with all the conspiracy nutters in here. All prepared to ignore overwhelming independently verifiable evidence (from multiple unconnected sources, globally), and actual science, and actual editorially fact checked news reports in favour of outlandish global conspiracies, supported by no credible evidence at all, and tenuous links, based on the ravings of internet crazies, and far right wing agitators (and more than a few Russian bots).
This is how that looks:
View attachment 1018707[
As a investigator of a crime. I certainly wouldnt be surprised when the person who committed the crime dont investigate themselves for the crime and then hand over the evidence that proves them guilty
Do you really expect the the govermment that committed to 1 policy to research itself to see if it failed in other areas and then publically annoucne it?
The argument doesnt make any sense. Believe it or not, Im not eagerly awaiting for those who made the mistake, to investigate themselves and find a guilty verdict. Its not realistic. Only way that will happen as I said is the eye test because lord knows the government isnt telling us the truth anytime soon.