Another example of BBC lying about users.

[whywere]

BBC stands for Bullshit Biased Crap.

LOVE it!!!!!

Walter

 

[EmptyBottle]

What about big [brown/black]? :D

 

[Average Joe]

Wouldn't expect anything less from the BBC.
Big Buncha Cunts, riddled with poor journalism, biased propaganda and numerous peadophiles.

Oh and they can shove that tv license too.

 

[claracatchingthebus]

I complained to the BBC about them referring to this site as Pro-Suicide. It's funny reading them try to scavenge reasons to justify their position:

I wrote:

I'm writing today about the inaccurate description used to describe the website https://sanctioned-suicide.net/

Which I believe has been intentionally misreported for the sake of fuelling a story rather than balanced fair reporting.

In the article it describes the forum as pro-suicide. This is inaccurate by both the written intent from the owners o the site as 'pro-choice' and also the content inside it.

I appreciate the content on the site may be highly emotional and controversial but this does not forgive inaccurate reporting.

As mentioned the website states it to be pro-choice and not pro-sucide. But also:

1. Encouraging suicide is against the forum rules.
2. The forum includes a recovery section, this contradicts the BBC claim, and conveintianty never reported on.
3. The recovery section has the largest library of recovery resources I have seen, a testimony to the caring members who created it.
4. The members themselves in my experience are incredibly caring and want the best for others - they do not push suicide but rather understand other peoples plights and other a symthetic voice and understanding which they could not get outside the forum.

Respecting someone descison to commit suicide does not constitute as pro-suicde.

It's possible that bad actors may have infiltrated the site who may unfortunatley have encouraged suicide (I do not know this as fact, but only conceding the possibility), but this does not make a site pro-suicde. As I'm sure your aware that all social media platforms have experienced bad actors with tragic outcomes - this however does not fully define the platform but highlights the risks across the internet.

I look foward to your response, and hope you will amend the statement from pro-suicide to pro-choice, and in future articles or content ensure the correct terminology is used. As conserving the pro-sucide claim would break your policy to both accurate and non-biased reporting.

Many thank
R

Then the rubbish they spewed
Thank you for contacting us on the BBC News Website.


We are grateful to you for having taken the trouble to write in and share your views with us. We always welcome the opportunity to review our content.


I have looked carefully at the article you sent us.


We did not name the website featured. In your complaint to us you suggested that it was Sanctioned Suicide – which has been described as an internet forum known for its open discussion and encouragement of suicide and suicide methods.


You have stated that the website does not promote suicide without declaring any connection with it. It is described on Wikipedia as being 'widely called pro-suicide', which is backed up by a number of references.


A University of Padua study concluded the website could "be referred to as 'pro-suicide' given the large amount of content [about]… information on methods, dosages and how and from whom to acquire the correct components or substances.


"Email contacts of potential sellers can be found on the site," the study says.


It concludes: "30% of the topics found in Sanctioned Suicide are related to methods, substances or tools used to commit suicide. Users appear very preoccupied with the topics of suicide and methods, so much so that even topics concerning hobbies are also related to these themes."


We are satisfied that our reporting is duly accurate and does not raise any issues relating to editorial standards.


We take great care to approach these sorts of articles sensitively and advise readers affected by any of the issues they can find information and support on the BBC Actionline website, https://www.bbc.co.uk/actionline/.


We very much value your feedback and thank you again for getting in touch.


All feedback is welcome and is shared with senior editors to keep them aware of readers' concerns.

Kind regards
Steve
"It is described on Wikipedia as being 'widely called pro-suicide', "

Yeah by you pollocks, which then offer media share lol

trying to reason with the bbc is like trying to teach algebra to a parakeet

they are never going to say "okay, on second thought, you're right, it's not pro-suicide, it just is in favor of people having a choice to commit suicide" because most people are religious, religious people all hate suicide, and the bbc is essentially conformist corporate organization that is after money and publishing things that most people agree with. logic is not part of their perspective and it's not like you can alleviate that sort of ignorance with logic.

has there been even 1 story in the past 10 years that the bbc published that over 75% of people disagreed with? not just found controversial, or were hurt by, but completely disagreed with?

no, of course not. they are corporate populists who cater to the religious who have not experienced dire troubles and would not understand being pro-choice. fundamentally bowing to the upper-classes while curtsying to the general public, they want to please both the elite that keep the lower classes in invisible chains and the lower classes who believe they will be rewarded in imaginary heaven. you can't cure that sort of stupid with logic.

there is no reason to argue with people who are unreasonable. you can't bake a cake for a serial killer that will make her change her ways, you can't give a microscope to a flat-earther to make them stop being a moron, and you can't teach the bbc to see a perspective that is outside their mainstream narrow view.

communicating with them at all is a bad idea. much like a bully or door-to-door cult proselytizer, the best way of dealing with the bbc is to ignore them completely. Do not engage.

 

[The Morningstar]

MFW everyone here realizes I'm a BWC journalist and I just gained access to The Sanctuary

 

[EmptyBottle]

MFW everyone here realizes I'm a BWC journalist and I just gained access to The Sanctuary

probably a joke (coz a real journalist wouldn't state they are a journalist if going undercover)

News – Brisbane Women's Club

www.bwc.org.au

that is the only logical thing that comes up, the rest is even less relevant

 

[thepiecessatup]

I hate the BBC

 

[EmptyBottle]

I hate the BBC

I also don't like how they are saying pro-CTB vs pro-choice. Yes, they may otherwise make reasonable media, but by misdoing a story on SaSu, they are ruining everyone's reputation.

 

[Obliviate]

Their literally validating out point even more of why this website exists with the shit their pulling off of why this world and the humans that inhabit it are disgusting and demonic and why we want to leaveeeeeeeeee because of ugly humans like that.

 

[The Morningstar]

probably a joke (coz a real journalist wouldn't state they are a journalist if going undercover)

News – Brisbane Women's Club

www.bwc.org.au

that is the only logical thing that comes up, the rest is even less relevant

I could spell it out for you.
Or I could just reference what you wrote above and hope something clicks in your head:

What about big [brown/black]? :D

 

[fenty]

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

The media is so obsessed with trying to find a "victim" and a "predator" on SS. Tantacrul does that too.

 

[Sans]

British Bullshitting Corporation

 

[claracatchingthebus]

probably a joke (coz a real journalist wouldn't state they are a journalist if going undercover)

News – Brisbane Women's Club

www.bwc.org.au

that is the only logical thing that comes up, the rest is even less relevant

Turn off safe search, now try. If there's no links, go to the pictures tab. I know I did.

 

[EmptyBottle]

I could spell it out for you.
Or I could just reference what you wrote above and hope something clicks in your head:

Turn off safe search, now try. If there's no links, go to the pictures tab. I know I did.

ahhh yes, the thing I didn't know was "bwc" was a typo of "bbc"

in that case, I'd expect lots of skin showing in the pics... to put it lightly

 

[FadingSnowFake]

Really starting to loathe journalists. To think they get paid for being clueless and doing more harm than good.

 

[EmptyBottle]

Really starting to loathe journalists. To think they get paid for being clueless and doing more harm than good.

I'm not a fan of the clueless journalists, but a journalist who followed a fentanyl shipment and interviewed the people in the chain, made an excellent story.

 

[Avisagia]

Ofc they want rating, thats their job. They dont really care about truth and sith like that haha. Thats our shitty world

 

[CogitoMori]

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.

I'm convinced a lot of politicians and corporations put a large investment in VPN companies before passing this law. Just waiting for the proof basically.

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

I'm one of those people. I think finding the community here has extended my life. Whether that's good or bad for me, I'm not sure, but it should make those dumb assholes happy.

It's all framing. The Daily Mail once wrote "Laws victims have included teenagers, as well as youngsters in their 20s and 30s".

View attachment 148785

But if you look at the definition of these words, you'll realize they're contradictory.

View attachment 148787
View attachment 148788

A youngster refers to a teenger and can literally not be an adult. So even when they were referring to adults in their 20s and 30s, they tried to downplay and infantilize them as kids. These are the kind of word plays they use to make you look bad. Just tiny little tweaks with words here and there and totally changes the framing. All of a sudden, Law didn't primarily supply adults with SN anymore, now he supplied mostly children. Smart, isn't it?

I don't know how they can possibly justify calling consenting adults, with fully formed brains, victims of something they considered and chose to do

That's Section 179 of the Online Safety Act referring to the offence of false communications.

But in Section 180, it says:

180 Exemptions from offence under section 179
(1) A recognised news publisher cannot commit an offence under section 179.

In the definition of a "recognised news publisher," in a line on its own, the BBC is mentioned.:

56 "Recognised news publisher"
(1) In this Part, "recognised news publisher" means any of the following entities—
(a) the British Broadcasting Corporation,

Why would a news publisher need protection from prosecution for doing the following?

179 False communications offence
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person sends a message (see section 182),
(b) the message conveys information that the person knows to be false,
(c) at the time of sending it, the person intended the message, or the information
in it, to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience,
and
(d) the person has no reasonable excuse for sending the message.

So only the news is allowed to announce false information. The thing that's supposed to be a source of factual information is exempt from false information laws. Amazing. Not corrupt at all.

Snippet from BBC article published 10/26/24.

Straight up false information. Children are not allowed and that's publicly posted in the rules section of the site. I wish we could sue them for it.

Ofc they want rating, thats their job. They dont really care about truth and sith like that haha. Thats our shitty world

The only trustworthy journalists are the ones that get assassinated