Another example of BBC lying about users.

[OnlyOneSolution]

Snippet from BBC article published 10/26/24.

 

[Privateer2368]

well suicide is actually bad yk, it's not a yay dancing in the marigolds thing

and some people need medicine and psychotherapy to feel better, yes. If one breaks a leg and there is a piece of bone sticking out, one is not expected to fix it oneself. Same with a mind needing "repairs". What if the depression and the consequent will to exit are caused by hypothyroidism and will be fixed by a pill in about three days?

and the treatments must be approved, yes.

Proof: "therapists bad". Yes, because calling oneself "therapist" is unregulated. So people go to "therapy" and it's not an evidence-based thing in which the therapist had to study a few years and pass an exam that ensures at least a minimum standard.

Proof second: "regulating drugs bad". Yes just buy the pill of wonderplant, it "helps with" cancer and dandruff and stomach ache. Deregulate drugs, test nothing against placebo or preexisting treatment.

@ learned colleague above quoting the OSA by which I mean online safety act, not the official secrets act :-D

you selectively quoted the bits that support your anti-BBC stance. Be fair and note that the definition of "recognised news publisher" in the OSA includes many other recognised news publishers.

Note too that a person, i.e. a human being committing an offence is not a corporation committing it. A journalist who publishes something on purpose to cause harm is committing an offence. And mind you, causing actual certifiable direct harm with a causal link is a completely different crime.

Your OSA quotes mix natural persons i.e. human beings committing offences with corporations, i.e. fictional persons committing offences.

BBC journalists cater to the public that likes the BBC. ITV to those that watch that wild channel :-D also yk BBC - BBC1 is very different from BBC3.

Yes "my license fee pays for rubbish" - however, the license fee also pays for Radio 4

I am sure some would say that Radio 4 is rubbish.

The journalists were ofc not impartial or objective and suited the article to their narrative and public.

Idk the context of the passage in the OP. They are ofc drawing attention to this forum and - were they really wanting to get rid of it - would not have ever written anything remotely connected to it.

Curiously enough, nothing about usenet's ash lol.

Who the hell still pays the licence fee???