Debunking the BBC and fixers again regarding alleged vendors on the forum.

[RainAndSadness]

Hello everyone.

So, I want to respond to another allegation that came up with the most recent BBC article. I already responded to the neglect of ethical guidelines in a previous thread, this time I want to address the allegation that we cooperate with vendors. The BBC claimed in their most recent article that the Ukrainian vendor promoted his substance on the forum. Let's take a look at these allegations.

Here the BBC claims that the Ukrainian vendor briefly promoted his service on the forum. Just pointing out quickly that I'm not aware of any evidence that confirms Law used this forum to promote his service so that's pure speculation at this point.



The journalists behind this article reciterate similiar claims on their Twitter accounts.


(link)


(link)

Kelli, the most vocal opponent to our forum who called for the public execution of our founders and doxxed members of the forum goes even further and claims that the admins helped to promote his product on this forum. I wasn't an admin when this happened but I think I can debunk that claim quite comfortably.


(link)

Okay, so we have essentially three claims here.

Claim 1: The Ukrainian vendor has promoted his product on the forum, according to Tony and the BBC article.
Claim 2: The Ukrainian vendor is "tied" to the suicide forum, according to Angus, which seems to imply some kind of partnership or cooperation.
Claim 3: Admins knew of his existence and helped promote the product according to the doxxer Kelli.

Okay. First, let's take a look at the account that supposedly belongs to him. I don't know if it's him, I'll just trust that this is the case given the account is named @Redheadetkat and Kelli has posted an email address that is identical to the account name on the forum. Kelli lies all the time but I'll trust her in this case.



We can also see from the screenshot above that this member was active in this forum for one single day, on November 8. On top of that, he also has 100 warning points on his account, that means he was perma-banned on the same day he made the account. That's already not a good look for people who claimed there are ties of his business to the forum or that there was some kind of cooperation between admins and this guy. And it makes me question, if someone spends one day on this forum and gets banned right away, are they in any way tied to us, as Angus claims?

But let's take a closer look at what exactly happened here. How long was he active in this forum? If you hover over the joined and last seen field with your mouse, a little notice will pop up and you will see at which time exactly he made his account and when he last logged into the forum. All of you can do that yourself to fact-check my following statements. I have compiled both the registration and the last login date together into one screenshot and you can look for yourself if what I'm about to say is correct.



So he registered on November 8, 2020 at 5.37 a.m. and signed out for the last time on November 8, 2020 at 6.58 a.m., that's an US time zone. If you don't live in the US, you will probably have a different time zone but the time spent on this forum will be identical. That's not a very long time and that's because he was banned. Now, let's check out when he was banned. The ban was applied at 6.55 a.m. by a moderator.



That means he was active on this forum for 82 minutes. That's the total time spent on this forum. He was banned because we don't tolerate vendors on this forum. I rest my case.

Now, let's go back to the claims I've collected earlier and judge their authenticity.

Claim 1: The Ukrainian vendor has promoted his product on the forum, according to Tony and the BBC article.

Is this claim true? Yes and no, it lacks important context and that's why I've been criticising the biased news coverage by these journalists for months now. He was able to promote his product for around 20 minutes, that's the time span it took for us to ban him after he posted in the forum for the first time. He had a total of 4 posts in this forum, starting at 6.28 a.m., followed by another post at 6.30 a.m., then another one at 6.34 a.m. and his last post was written at 6.41 a.m. and that's when we applied the banhammer. All of these posts were written in this thread. You can check for yourself if what I'm saying is true, people quoted his posts in that thread for around 10 minutes until someone posted they would report that person to staff and we took quick action. So again, that's important context that's left out and that's a problem because again, Angus Crawford and Tony Smith do one-sided reporting, which is also the reason why they call us pro-suicide when we're not. He didn't promote his product with our approval or permission, he joined the forum, immediately started violating marketplace rules, which reduced his total stay in the forum to approximately 1.5 hours. And it's concerning that this hasn't been mentioned in that article because right now it looks like we allowed him to promote his product when that's not the case. We banned him. That's crucial context for the readers of the BBC to evaluate if there was permission to do what he did.

Claim 2: The Ukrainian vendor is "tied" to the suicide forum, according to Angus, which seems to imply some kind of partnership.

Is this claim true? No. And I think I've demonstrated that we take swift action against anyone who tries to use this forum as a marketplace. I have never even talked to this guy. And again, if someone spends one day on this forum and gets banned immediately, how are they tied to us? We had reporters who had an account here. Does that mean they're SaSu tied? The people who are opposed to this forum had accounts on the forum, longer than this vendor. Are they tied to SaSu now? Very weird framing. And it's concerning that Angus Crawford, a reporter for the BBC, makes such wild claims on Twitter. Where are the ties, buddy? We removed this vendor the moment we realized what's going on after 4 posts. Maybe you should look for a different line of work because right now, you're making a clown of yourself.

Claim 3: Admins knew of his existence and helped promote the product according to the doxxer Kelli.

Is this claim true? Absolutely not. We always had a zero tolerance policy for vendors in our forum. You're not allowed to use this forum as a marketplace, period. But is it surprising that a doxxer has lied about this forum? No, they have done that for years and journalists like Thomas Daigle and Aisling Murphy, who both called the forum pro-suicide repeatedly in their coverage, have been members in her Facebook group. Again, the coverage around this forum is compromised. Kelli has been lying for years and feeding journalists a very one-sided story. And that's why Angus and Tony should be a bit more careful who they trust when they gather information for their articles, which at this point are nothing but blog posts containing their personal opinon on subjects they don't understand and again, Tweets like these make very clear that Angus has very strong opinion on this forum. A journalist that suggests over and over again that action should be taken against the admins and founders of this forum despite there being no violation of any laws at all is a red flag. That's someone who is confusing his job as a reporter with his own beliefs and activism. And that's not how journalism should look like, they should report on the facts and let people make up their own mind instead of telling them what to think and how to address this forum.

It's very clear to me why Angus claimed that this is a vendor who is tied to our forum despite him being banned in less than two hours and I wouldn't be surprised if he made that claim on his Twitter account based on these screenshots Kelli posted and instead of fact-checking the situation, they just run with it and left out important context in their BBC article, insinuating he was allowed to promote his product, which ties in with the constant portrayal of this forum as pro-suicide. They have worked out a narrative and they will run with it until they die despite all evidence that speaks against it.

And I will call Angus out in the future when he writes more articles with obvious bias. I'm surprised that the BBC, a news outlet that has some reputation to defend, lets this guy do whatever he wants with total disregard for any journalistic objectivity, like all the other reporters who joined Kelli's group despite her history of dehumanizating and doxxing people, calling for public executions and much more.

Some extra stuff. If the fixers think it's necessary to have the full context with these 4 posts that have been deleted, they can post them for full transparency. There is nothing crazy in these posts, it's just someone offering a product and reassuring it's not a scam, that's why he was banned. I don't care. And what nobody seems to understand. What consenting adults discuss in private is none of my business. It's called a private message for a good reason and unlike some British people who support dismantling privacy with their regressive Online Safety Bill, I think privacy is an important good and I'm not going to violate that. Deal with it. That's all I have to say on my part. If there are questions, let me know.

I thought it's important to address these allegations because they range from missing context to being outright fabricated. But again, it's always been like that. There is a lot more to debunk and there will be more threads where I'll be doing exactly that, addressing nonsense from the media. I guess that's my life now.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Very well written @RainAndSadness and researched with first hand data!

 

[Forever Sleep]

Thank you Rain. That comment made me curious too- about Law and this Ukrainian vendor being here promoting their products. I found it suspicious but even if it were true- this is a platfom like any other: YouTube, Facebook, Instragram. Anyone can potentially lie to join and then, post whatever the hell they like- until they are reported, or break the rules and are banned. As some more suspicious users have been- as you point out.

Ionic huh? Being accused of harbouring potential 'murderers'- or- so they would like to label them (people who assist suicide at most I'd say) by the BBC who harboured and funded- with public money a known serial child sex offender for over 20 years! (Jimmy Saville.) Honestly, it my hakles go up the moment the BBC accuses any organisation of harbouring criminals. 'Don't throw stones in glass houses!' You're in absolutely no position to take the moral high ground on that issue. Ok- they're a news organisation too, so they do have a responsibility to cover current affairs...

Look at your own behaviour though! Even here! WHY the hell did you make the source and the product so easy to identify?!! You realise the UK population are forced pretty much to fund you? You'll get paid whether you write a sensational article or not. Now, if someone's child is able to identify that source, buy from them BECAUSE OF YOUR ARTICLE, their parents probably paid you to advise them on how to kill themselves! How morally superior are you feeling now? It makes me so angry when people like this don't even think through what they're doing!

The vast majority- hopefully all of us here are adults. We made a conscious effort to find this site and do our own research to find these sources. You've just given the entire population the information on a silver platter! I reckon it will take most modern children minutes to work out what this chemical you won't name is. Like Rain said before- you mentioned Kenneth Law. That's all they need! How stupid do you think people are?!! Honestly, it boils my blood how irresponsible these people are yet, they'll just deflect all the blame here.

Anyhow- sorry. My reply is more of a rant rather than Rain's usually well contructed and supported argument. Thank you for all you do to Rain and all our mods.

 

[Old Friend]

Yes, the insinuation that this guy was affiliated with SaSu is what stuck out when I read the article. It gave the impression that SaSu is a sort of Ebay.

It's inaccurate. It doesn't matter whether or not you're pro-choice or whether or not you like SaSu and if it should exist or not. It's inaccurate and so is a disservice to the readers who are unfamiliar with SaSu. Journalists should care about the truth. When I read media, I want to be informed not misled or nudged towards a particular conclusion. But that's modern media nowadays. The predetermined conclusion, the narrative overrides the truth thus not allowing the reader to have access to all the relevant information and context and giving them the agency to come to their own conclusions.

 

[UKscotty]

If the BBC really cared, they would stop defending the government who closed down all suicide prevention departments and cut funding to community based recovery programs.

Despite what people think, SN was not banned. Just the main chemical companies decided to only sell to schools or businesses to stop being attacked by the BBC.

 

[Guy Smiley]

Great work @RainAndSadness ! Keep on debunking their bullshit!

 

[Meteora]

If the BBC really cared, they would stop defending the government who closed down all suicide prevention departments and cut funding to community based recovery programs.

Well said! It's very hypocritical. While watching the clip where this Ukrainian guy got confronted why he sells SN I thought to myself, if this journalist really cared he would try to help people who become customers of an SN-supplier instead of doing what he does. It's so false it makes me wanna puke.

 

[FluffyCat]

Another well researched breakdown of the situation. I was not aware that seller has actually posted on this forum (with only 4 posts until banned and in 2020, mind you). It is important to shed some light onto the situation after such confusing article teeming with seemingly fabricated information.

One thing that confuses me to no end is the number of SN deaths mentioned in the article. The piece starts with saying that the Ukrainian seller is thought to be connected to 130 UK suicide deaths, the articles does not continue to provide any evidence to support that. Then it mentions that SN may be linked to a grand total of 130 (then says 133 exactly) UK suicides since 2019, according to Prof Amrita Ahluwalia. Mind you there is around 5000-6000 suicides a year in the UK, from what I have seen in my quick search. The numbers really start to confuse me here, but we are still not done. Then the article mentions Kenneth Law and him being linked to at least 93 deaths in the UK. Now I'm completely lost in the numbers. It seems almost purposely confusing.

I'm saddened that there seems to not be much objective journalism around the sensitive topic of suicide. But these journalists would would rather write a sensationalist piece for shock value. Objective articles don't need to adhere to the writer's own beliefs and bias.

 

[UKscotty]

I'm just in the process of writing to IPSO, raising a complaint about Angus and the BBC for publishing unsubstantiated accusations as 'facts'. What they are reporting on and the way it's being reported falls under Clause 1 of the editors code. The content also potentially falls under Clause 5.

I suspect they will argue the identification of methods, people and websites is valid as 'public interest', however that exception only applies to clause 5 in this case and not the overarching expectation of being factual.

Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

Clause 5 (Reporting suicide)*
When reporting suicide, to prevent simulative acts care should be taken to avoid excessive detail of the method used, while taking into account the media's right to report legal proceedings.

The more people who raise a complaint about their practices, the more likely action will be taken. This is the link to make a complaint.

Making a complaint - IPSO

How to make a complaint to IPSO about an article in a newspapers, magazine or online, or the behaviour of a journalist.

www.ipso.co.uk

The BBC and the IPSO sleep in the same bed, waste of time.

The best thing to do is not read or watch BBC news.

 

[Tesha]

The BBC and the IPSO sleep in the same bed, waste of time.

The best thing to do is not read or watch BBC news.

Actually just realised IPSO doesn't cover BBC online news, so will update with correct regulator information- OFCOM

 

[Deleted member 65988]

he piece starts with saying that the Ukrainian seller is thought to be connected to 130 UK suicide deaths, the articles does not continue to provide any evidence to support that. Then it mentions that SN may be linked to a grand total of 130 (then says 133 exactly) UK suicides since 2019, according to Prof Amrita Ahluwalia. Mind you there is around 5000-6000 suicides a year in the UK, from what I have seen in my quick search

I think its on purpose, i was actually confused by the number deaths apparently "linked" to MDS, i was even wondering if they had records or any sort of other data to show rather than just claiming its the case and so why should anyone not have any reason to believe it. Law was also apparently linked to some 100 deaths or so in the Uk from other article's I've come across on this forum.

anyways @RainAndSadness , i cant begin how much bs you have to deal with when covering the lies from people like this, it never goes unappreciated.

The vast majority- hopefully all of us here are adults. We made a conscious effort to find this site and do our own research to find these sources. You've just given the entire population the information on a silver platter! I reckon it will take most modern children minutes to work out what this chemical you won't name is. Like Rain said before- you mentioned Kenneth Law. That's all they need! How stupid do you think people are?!! Honestly, it boils my blood how irresponsible these people are yet, they'll just deflect all the blame here.

and that's what bothers me the most here, it definitely will not take even the most inquisitive child to find it now, saying "a chemical we've chosen not to name" is not going to do anything when simply looking at all the articles covering sn already left a lot of clues.

 

[_Broken_alice]

If these same people attacking SaSu with blatant lies would spend that same effort covering and pushing for reform on the things that drive a lot of people here, perhaps less people would decide that choosing to CTB is their only remaining option.

Affordable housing is suicide prevention.
Accessible and indiscriminate healthcare is suicide prevention.
Accessible and decent therapy is suicide prevention.
Affordable, nutritious food is suicide prevention.
Functional social safety nets for those going through rough financial times are suicide prevention.
Libel and slander are not suicide prevention.

But only one of those tends to be a 'sensational' media piece that drives revenue so they choose to focus on that rather than the orphan crushing machines.


To the BBC: If you actually care about change and dropping suicide rates, focus on covering the things that greed has taken away from people thus pushing so many unfortunate people to an untimely end. Focus on your leaders that do nothing helpful while people starve. Focus on your leaders that do nothing to deal with the issues of rising cost of existing while a worker makes less than before despite giving up more of their life to an unfair exchange.
So many people every day die because this 'society' that was built does not care about the most important part of a society. The people. We live in a society that could very well be post scarcity, yet people starve while more food is wasted than it would take to feed every single mouth on the planet if the problem of logistics were sorted out. People go homeless while houses sit empty and decaying, or while companies buy out housing and price everyone out of it. People choose to end their lives because the government that has taken so much from them, won't give some of it back when those people struggle due to circumstances such as loss of employment or mental illness from abuse, trauma, neglect, and/or the general state of things. And this is just in the 'civilized' portions of this world..

It breaks our heart every time we see someone's final post and their reason to end their life was something such as not having secure housing, or something happening causing them to lose income and everything they worked so hard to build up. Or because they are different than the majority of people and received zero support.
These are the things society was supposed to fix. Instead, nothing gets done because there is no profit in it.

An all-too-common occurrence that breaks us every time is what we see a thread from a wonderful trans person that was cast aside by the systems in place, denied necessary health coverage, and ostracized from society.. all over something they had no control over and for wanting to live their life as themselves rather than a miserable lie.

But instead of focusing on the societal failures that lead to so many choosing an untimely end, you harass someone selling meat curing supplies to the point of outright stalking them, and you attack one of the few places we can openly discuss our feelings with blatant lies. You are a massive part of the problem. For what? Some views that don't matter? To try to force your bosses' meaningless agenda onto people that don't want it? You are right there with the politicians that sit back and do nothing meaningful to address the underlying problems. In the end, you do not really care about suicide.
We are even fairly certain some of you are content knowing that some of the people you don't like are choosing to end their lives even though you try to give off the opposite appearance. Grow up and re-evaluate your own lives. And maybe actually spend some time here and see everyone here as actual people going through really bad times and spend some time pushing for the things that would allow a lot of us to find a better way forward towards a potentially fulfilling life.

In our time here, we are yet to see a single thread or even post stand encouraging anyone else to take their life. This forum is not 'pro-suicide' unlike the corrupt politicians and your bosses that do nothing to address the underlying rot in the foundations of society.

 

[Tesha]

The BBC need to be held to account. I would encourage others to do the same, as remaining silent will not change their reporting practices.

To complain about the BBC, you need to follow their complaints procedure first - https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint

If it isn't resolved satisfactorily then you can then further complain via OFCOM -

Complain about the BBC

ofcomlive.my.salesforce-sites.com

I have submitted my complaint about biased, factually incorrect and misleading reporting to the BBC. I was limited on words unfortunately so it's a bit brief. My complaint was:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68347415 and www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68413310
These article contain factual inaccuracies, one sided reporting and misleading content.
1. Quote 'Leonid Zakutenko advertised his services on a website promoting suicide'. He did not 'advertise' his services on sanctioned suicide. On 8th Nov 2020, he potentially had an account for 82 minutes before being banned. He potentially posted 4 times within a space of 20 minutes, before his posts were removed. The website did not support his posts and did not promote him. The BBC statement is factually incorrect and misleading.
2. Quote 'website promoting suicide'. Sanctioned suicide does not promote suicide. It is against the rules to promote suicide and removes posts that encourage suicide. The BBC statement is factually incorrect and misleading.
3. While the BBC has indicated companies in the UK have a duty to undertake checks on buyers, they have failed to state that is not illegal to purchase sodium nitrite either in the UK or import it from elsewhere. The reporting is bias and misleading.
4. Quote 'A Ukrainian man who sells poison to people who want to take their own lives'. How did the BBC verify that people who buy a food preservation 'want to take their own lives' and not make a food product? Furthermore how have they proven the seller knew this? Have they positively identified buyers and asked them? The reporting is misleading and potentially factually incorrect.
5. Quote 'a chemical commonly used for suicide'. Sodium nitrite is not commonly used for suicide. It is rarely used in the context of the total number of suicides. The reporting is factually incorrect and misleading.
6. With reference to 'Joe'. How has the BBC verified anything relating to sanctioned suicide and Joe's alleged interactions? The reporting is bias and misleading.
7. Quotes 'tracking number suddenly appeared' vs 'appeared shortly after'. Discrepancy between articles and proves nothing. The reporting is misleading.

The BBC now have my contact details and are free to contact me to discuss further. That includes you, Angus.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Thanks, the feedback is appreciated. And yeah, we have also filed complaints. Like it's obvious that there isn't even an attempt to do objective reporting on our forum.

 

[Deleted member 65988]

Thanks, the feedback is appreciated. And yeah, we have also filed complaints. Like it's obvious that there isn't even an attempt to do objective reporting on our forum.

It's purposefully one-sided reporting and that's it. Once again, incredible work here @RainAndSadness

 

[lifewasawillowtv]

If these same people attacking SaSu with blatant lies would spend that same effort covering and pushing for reform on the things that drive a lot of people here, perhaps less people would decide that choosing to CTB is their only remaining option.

Affordable housing is suicide prevention.
Accessible and indiscriminate healthcare is suicide prevention.
Accessible and decent therapy is suicide prevention.
Affordable, nutritious food is suicide prevention.
Functional social safety nets for those going through rough financial times are suicide prevention.
Libel and slander are not suicide prevention.

But only one of those tends to be a 'sensational' media piece that drives revenue so they choose to focus on that rather than the orphan crushing machines.


To the BBC: If you actually care about change and dropping suicide rates, focus on covering the things that greed has taken away from people thus pushing so many unfortunate people to an untimely end. Focus on your leaders that do nothing helpful while people starve. Focus on your leaders that do nothing to deal with the issues of rising cost of existing while a worker makes less than before despite giving up more of their life to an unfair exchange.
So many people every day die because this 'society' that was built does not care about the most important part of a society. The people. We live in a society that could very well be post scarcity, yet people starve while more food is wasted than it would take to feed every single mouth on the planet if the problem of logistics were sorted out. People go homeless while houses sit empty and decaying, or while companies buy out housing and price everyone out of it. People choose to end their lives because the government that has taken so much from them, won't give some of it back when those people struggle due to circumstances such as loss of employment or mental illness from abuse, trauma, neglect, and/or the general state of things. And this is just in the 'civilized' portions of this world..

It breaks our heart every time we see someone's final post and their reason to end their life was something such as not having secure housing, or something happening causing them to lose income and everything they worked so hard to build up. Or because they are different than the majority of people and received zero support.
These are the things society was supposed to fix. Instead, nothing gets done because there is no profit in it.

An all-too-common occurrence that breaks us every time is what we see a thread from a wonderful trans person that was cast aside by the systems in place, denied necessary health coverage, and ostracized from society.. all over something they had no control over and for wanting to live their life as themselves rather than a miserable lie.

But instead of focusing on the societal failures that lead to so many choosing an untimely end, you harass someone selling meat curing supplies to the point of outright stalking them, and you attack one of the few places we can openly discuss our feelings with blatant lies. You are a massive part of the problem. For what? Some views that don't matter? To try to force your bosses' meaningless agenda onto people that don't want it? You are right there with the politicians that sit back and do nothing meaningful to address the underlying problems. In the end, you do not really care about suicide.
We are even fairly certain some of you are content knowing that some of the people you don't like are choosing to end their lives even though you try to give off the opposite appearance. Grow up and re-evaluate your own lives. And maybe actually spend some time here and see everyone here as actual people going through really bad times and spend some time pushing for the things that would allow a lot of us to find a better way forward towards a potentially fulfilling life.

In our time here, we are yet to see a single thread or even post stand encouraging anyone else to take their life. This forum is not 'pro-suicide' unlike the corrupt politicians and your bosses that do nothing to address the underlying rot in the foundations of society.

Well said, the fact we live in a developed country as well and people still choose to ctb due to the reasons you mentioned is even more disgusting. Governments need to focus on the real problems here instead of pushing blame onto a forum, which is going to achieve nothing.

 

[lostmind38]

Very well written! The BBC have been appalling for years. Their reporting is inaccurate, misleading and biased as always.

 

[ArteriesBindEveryon]

Great work, but sadly this information is going to die if it stays here. Are there any plans of spreading this debunking outside of sasu?

 

[BrainShower]

I have filed a complaint as well. What utter garbage

 

[Scythe]

Is there some way to get this on twitter? Via maybe the readers added context thing if it haven't been added yet? Since I doubt the BBC ppl even visited the website for longer than 5 minutes and probably refuses to read anything in response to their articles.
I would try to do it myself but I don't have Twitter.

 

[persimmon]

Of course it's shoddy reporting but it's fundamentally down to a philosophical position that quality of life doesn't matter. They will never admit it, but that's what it boils down to.

 

[SevenDayWeekend]

I don't know why anyone would be aghast at a mainstream, old guard news organisation taking the traditional, ""normal"" stance on CTB - this is par for the course. The needle is barely moving after decades of campaigning and reporting on euthanasia, there will never be any "balanced" reporting on suicide.

And I don't really disagree with anyone here, I'm just saying what else can you expect? I don't think complaining about the BBC to any media standards body will do anything at all other than waste your own personal time because 99.8% of people do not understand or care what you (or I) think. Our opinions are already void because we want to CTB. I saw the headline on the BBC news website the other day and read the article and a little part of me feels thankful as it brought me back to the site when I was feeling low and remembered about SN, now I'm just kicking myself I didn't do something about it years ago when it was easier to get. Just my 2 cents from a former lurker.

 

[Tesha]

The current status of my BBC complaint. Hopefully it's being properly looked in to and addressed. I especially like the final sentence and I do hope the 'wait is worth it'.

 

[hadenough58]

The "Relevant people" are other BBC employees, the BBC are the ONLY main steam media that police themselves which makes complaining a little pointless as they always find in the BBC favour.

 

[Tesha]

I think the BBC have no idea how to deal with my complaint about their inaccurate reporting. Because of their delay, I'm now able to bring Ofcom in on the discussion. So I will.

This subject really needs open and non-stigmatised discussion. It's clear from the delay that being challenged on a complex and emotionally difficult subject is causing the 'investigation team' some issues.

I'm presuming they're having to decide how to manage a complainant who may have a 'mental disorder', how to not enrage organisations and individuals who campaign against us and body autonomy, how to minimise publicising SN and SaSu (again) and how exactly they're going to admit that they were factually incorrect, misleading and bias on the BBC's flagship evening news programme and website.

I'm guessing it's a difficult position to be in - Angus Crawford, any thoughts on how you could help them?

If you're reading this BBC, how about actually talking to me, rather than sending automated emails. I promise not to infect you with suicidal ideation, or whatever else you're concerned about.