Many will know about the recent article released by the dynamic duo at the BBC.
They focused their energy on the partner thread and covered descriptions of how they believed the thread had caused harm.
But that wasn't the primary topic of this thread.
Within that article, they created a narrative to claim that a specific member had flown to the UK after 'meeting another member on the partner thread' and then '11 days later, the UK member passed away in their hotel room', and that the user who flew over 'claimed that he was sleeping.'
The journalists claimed that he flew over to the UK to meet his CTB (commit suicide) partner with the sole aim in "assisting" in a woman's suicide: THIS IS A LIE.
Those journalists obviously don't "know" shit. Nice use of inverted commas by the way, and you know full well you are not naming him because he would sue you into oblivion if you tried to.
What's worse is that the journalists have spoken to the member involved, and they know exactly what happened and how the experience left him broken and traumatized but, most importantly, that he was completely innocent of what they were claiming, so why were they trying to insert him into the narrative of predators on the Partner Thread? Could not find enough existing 'predators' to meet your word count?
Firstly, these members did not meet on the partner thread; they were both well-known chat members who became close and developed a romantic relationship through the summer of 2022, and he was trying to support her and help her to recover, as were multiple other users on the site.
They were talking since July, and her first entry on the partner thread was not until August. If he was her intended CTB partner, then why would she be posting on the partner thread when she already knew him?
The female member was living out of hostels while being refused every avenue of NHS help that she was trying to explore, so he flew over to put them both up in a hotel and attempted to support her himself in hopes that she could start a recovery process that way. In addition to this, she was mute so all of their dialogue was available for police to read through because they communicated through their devices.
Ten days into that visit, she snuck back to her hostel and retrieved her SN (self-harm substance) without his knowledge (he was messaging another user in a panic because she left the hotel and was not responding to his messages and he did not know where she'd gone) and CTB while he was sleeping the next morning. He woke upon hearing her collapse, and called 999 while endeavoring to save her.
On top of that, he was investigated because he was in the room, and the only part that the BBC got right was that he was cleared of all wrongdoing.
It's beyond disgusting that these journalists would use such a traumatizing event to attempt to frame him as some sort of predator who flew over to help her die.
The BBC should be ashamed of themselves for using their platform in such a corrupt way just because their journalist was so emotionally invested in forcing his own narrative. The truth of the facts should be enough to argue your point, and your conduct is no better than fixers who are just using you as a mouthpiece now.
You treat members who speak to you this way and then wonder why other users refuse to talk to you. You have already decided what kind of people members on the forum are, and apparently, if they're not crying on camera, then their voices don't matter.
If you really think it's okay to take the experience of a broken, grieving, and traumatized member and selectively quote his testimony given to you in order to misleadingly paint him as a predator, then you can stick your article up your BBC Verify.
