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???

 

[Warkman1]

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.

Once again the media proving them selves to be nothing more than tools of propaganda to support the agendas of corrupt individuals.
I myself have come to a point in my life where i read, listen or watch little or no news. I can't trust it, much less have any influence on the negative issues that are perpetually reported. i just focus on my life and the things that i can influence.

 

[ma0]

Snippet from BBC article published 10/26/24.

I find it really odd how not a single article about this forum has ever mentioned the recovery section, where the aim is to help people overcome their suicidal tendencies.

Maybe it's because it doesn't fit their narrative of the big scary death forum where everyone wants to kill you?