Another example of BBC lying about users.

[drug]

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.

 

[Redleaf1992]

Really despicable by the BBC.

I'm 90% sure they are also breaking the online safety act by intentionally giving out false information to cause offence. Which would be sweet irony.

 

[pain6batch9]

Here's the thing, to start with. I'm not going to attempt to defend the BBC on this, please read this as abstractly as you can.

A forth estate as they call it, is fundamentally important to the smooth running of any country that pretends to be a democracy. We will always need hard bitten investigative journalists who know what they're doing and who are willing to stand up to authority, (not be mouth pieces of the government) and hold their feet to the fire when they abuse their positions. I'm thinking here of some of the great journalists that have come in western media. People like; Paul Foot, Bob Woodward, Ed Murrow. Without an adequate forth estate, it would be impossible to know when we were being shafted by those that wield power over us be that politicians or corporations.

And this is where the BBC fail. Their funding comes from a Royal Charter, which is always amended by review so that their stance with the government has always been fundamentally compromised. I would change this structure, so that they rely less for their survival on the random party in power at any given time, (argue about the differences in parties here) and rely more on selling their programs abroad, or some kind of subscription service. There have been other instances where they have completely failed in not just their journalism but other aspects of pay and cover-ups of wrong doing. The Corporation is way too big I think.

Then, you have documentaries and news programs that actually do their job regardless of being on the BBC. Adam Curtis and Panorama for example. The BBC gave us Red Dwarf and Only Fools and Horses. I find it really annoying when such an organization, a place where George Orwell himself was employed, has all this good work undone, pandering to the masses with sloppy journalism and towing the party line. The BBC used to be a place where, if you were a smart film maker or a talented journalist, you could become the Adam Curtis or Ed Murrow without fear that you would be crushed by the body itself. Sadly, I think that idea might be gone now.

 

[Gangrel]

Reading that is disgusting, that guy's life is probably ruined by trauma when he was just trying to help someone. They don't give a shit about anyone here, they just want clicks.

 

[RainAndSadness]

It just shows that none of those articles are written in good faith and the journalistic integrity of the two journalists who wrote all the pieces on SaSu is long gone. Who knows what else is fabricated or left out, intentionally, knowing how it's gonna distort the truth to support their framing? As I said, the two people who wrote this hit piece, Angus Crawford and Tony Smith, are merely activists at this point and cherry picking information to make the forum look bad.

 

[opheliaoveragain]

Since I'm sure some lackey over there will see this thread, FUCK YOU BBC. This is despicable. As a ex journy, the number of basic journalistic rules that have been around for ages are tossed out the window, as @Gangrel said, for CLICKS, is VILE damn behavior and A CHOICE. Choice after choice to do the exact wrong thing. Not to mention they are undermining themselves, as every article that alludes to this place, DRIVES PEOPLE HERE.

 

[Downdraft]

At this point there's no worth in debate.

Hey opposers, Tantacrul, whoever. You do this because you know you have nothing on the forum. Your posts only bring even more people to the forum and every attempt at censorship has failed. And for it we are grateful.

You can't do anything. If the place gets banned somewhere, we'll release more domains, and if the place is taken down, I'll torrent every single method here and host it on my own. If you restruct our domains in your place, we can release new ones, and if you changed the law, we can just move elsewhere. And if all that fails, we can share all this content without needing any of that. Not to mention anti-censorship tools exist and people use them.

I'll spread it as far as I can to leave clear that, no matter what you do, we're stronger, the site will only keep growing, and we're winning. Thanks to your constant attention more people finds those everyday, and I'll preserve all of them, cuz I dedicate myself to spreading the right to die as far as I can.

People like me exist making all this possible and we do it because we can. And there's not a single thing you can do to prevent it.

If you wanna doxx me, go ahead. I mean that as a genuine challenge. There's literally no piece of data you can use against me.

 

[Seered Doom]

At this point, I don't fear Tentacrul or any of those "fixers". They can rot. If they want to harass and hurt me, they better have the decency to do it to my fucking face irl, otherwise they're just cowards who could use a sorrowful solution

 

[mrpeter]

Notice they use the term vulnerable young women, as if its a 40 year old man meeting up with a 14 year old girl.

 

[opheliaoveragain]

Notice they use the term vulnerable young women, as if its a 40 year old man meeting up with a 14 year old girl.

I noticed this as well, they really tried to pull that angle when they truly didn't know jack shit.

 

[Unsure and alone]

At this point there's no worth in debate.

Hey opposers, Tantacrul, whoever. You do this because you know you have nothing on the forum. Your posts only bring even more people to the forum and every attempt at censorship has failed. And for it we are grateful.

You can't do anything. If the place gets banned somewhere, we'll release more domains, and if the place is taken down, I'll torrent every single method here and host it on my own. If you restruct our domains in your place, we can release new ones, and if you changed the law, we can just move elsewhere. And if all that fails, we can share all this content without needing any of that. Not to mention anti-censorship tools exist and people use them.

I'll spread it as far as I can to leave clear that, no matter what you do, we're stronger, the site will only keep growing, and we're winning. Thanks to your constant attention more people finds those everyday, and I'll preserve all of them, cuz I dedicate myself to spreading the right to die as far as I can.

People like me exist making all this possible and we do it because we can. And there's not a single thing you can do to prevent it.

If you wanna doxx me, go ahead. I mean that as a genuine challenge. There's literally no piece of data you can use against me.

How do we make sure we know where the next place is if any of that does happen ?
Really horrible to take it all out of context.
Thanks for showing what really was here.

 

[Aloneandinpain]

I'd like to use this opportunity to remind users of an anecdote, I forget the specifics or the name of the individual, but it runs as follows.

A gentleman who is an expert in a particular field (it doesn't matter what), reads a couple of article in a legacy media newspaper concerning his field and laughs at how inaccurate and dishonest it is. He then turns the page to read about a diff topic of which he has little expertise and still believes every word.

This is the key lesson here. The BBC lies about this site, but it does so no more or ess than it does about everything else. Don't let them pollute your mind with their propaganda.

 

[leloyon]

(havent checked the context of this tweet, just sharing the video)

 

[alltoomuch2]

Since I'm sure some lackey over there will see this thread, FUCK YOU BBC. This is despicable. As a ex journy, the number of basic journalistic rules that have been around for ages are tossed out the window, as @Gangrel said, for CLICKS, is VILE damn behavior and A CHOICE. Choice after choice to do the exact wrong thing. Not to mention they are undermining themselves, as every article that alludes to this place, DRIVES PEOPLE HERE.

Very true. Already know of people looking for and finding this site because they read about it in this latest BBC nonsense.