🚨 IT'S OFFICIAL: The BBC cannot be held accountable for misinformation.

No right to appeal, no transparency, and the regulator is just another dead end.

For those following the case, here’s an analysis of the BBC’s Stage 2 response, highlighting systemic flaws in how they address inaccuracies:

1/ Conflict of Interest Not Addressed

Flaw: BBC failed to disclose Alex de Vries' affiliation with the Dutch Central Bank, which has a vested interest in undermining Bitcoin.

Impact: Readers lack full context to assess de Vries' credibility.

2/Reliance on a Discredited Source

Flaw: Heavily relied on Alex de Vries' commentary, which has been debunked in peer-reviewed critiques.

Impact: Treated de Vries' work as credible research, perpetuating misinformation.

3/ Failure to Independently Fact-Check

Flaw: Cited similar reporting from other outlets, neglecting their responsibility as a public broadcaster to verify claims independently.

Impact: Undermines the BBC’s editorial standards and trustworthiness.

4/ Freedom of Information Request - Refusal

Flaw: Refused to disclose the fact-checking process under the FOI Act.

Impact: Lacks transparency, raising concerns about their editorial process.

5/ Inadequate Responses to Evidence

Flaw: Avoided addressing detailed rebuttals from the Digital Asset Research Institute (@dari_org).

Key Issues Ignored:

-Misrepresentation of Bitcoin’s energy metrics.

-Failure to consider efficiencies from the Lightning Network.

-Overreliance on outdated methodologies.

-Exclusion of peer-reviewed studies on Bitcoin’s benefits.

Impact: Demonstrates a lack of impartiality.

6/ Breach of Editorial Standards

The BBC violated their own guidelines in three areas:

Accuracy: Relied on discredited sources without fact-checking.

Impartiality: Omitted conflicts of interest and rebuttals, creating bias.

Transparency: Refused to disclose their fact-checking process.

7/ Avoidance of Accountability

Flaw: Avoided engaging with evidence and arguments presented in Stage 1 & 2 complaints.

Impact: Resistance to accountability makes it difficult to challenge inaccuracies.

Summary of the Process Challenges

The BBC’s reliance on flawed justifications, refusal to address rebuttals, and lack of transparency demonstrate systemic shortcomings:

1. Failed to retract or correct misleading content.

2. Ignored conflicts of interest.

3. Failed to adhere to accuracy, impartiality, and transparency standards.

Full Stage 2 response attached.

This process began on 5 December 2023, and over a year later, we are here with no resolution.

This is a clear institutional failure undermining public trust in a taxpayer-funded organisation. The BBC must be held accountable for inaccuracies in their reporting.

The BBC must be defunded.

Full X thread and history here:

https://x.com/decentrasuze/status/1877730630403838011

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

An additional update.

At 11:53 AM on today (10 January 2024), I received a response from the Executive Complaints Unit, confirming this was their final decision.

Then, just 13 minutes later, at 12:06 PM, another email from the BBC stated that they couldn’t respond to my complaint within their normal timeframe and it might take an additional 20 working days.

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

The British Bullshit Corporation

Dunno why you waste your time with them. They're just preventing you from being productive. Fuck em off.

BBC and CNN are censorship powerhouses; these media organizations don't respect journalists, sources or whistleblowers.

Good work Susie, they’re the Ministry of Propaganda. They lie about injectables (not allowed to say anything negative about 💉 its written in their charter, hence the renaming of mRNA tech to vaccines, they lie about the weather and they always cover up satanic ritual abuse of children by parasite elites. They are scum.

Tax payer funded Biased Bullshitting C****

The BBC has now been found to have misled the public on two of the most emotionally charged subjects of our time: Gaza and Trump.

These are not comparable in scale or consequence. One involves unimaginable human suffering, the other a turning point that exposed how politics, media, and public trust became dangerously entangled. But they share a single truth.

When the media manipulates context, selectively edits, or conceals crucial facts, it betrays public trust and undermines the very fabric of society. When national institutions spread or enable falsehoods, they divide, destabilise and damage democracy.

In July, the BBC's Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone was ruled 'materially misleading' by Ofcom after it failed to disclose that the child narrator's father held a ministerial role within Gaza's Hamas run administration, a grave breach of transparency that warped the audience's understanding.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/ofcom-investigation-finds-bbc-gaza-documentary-in-breach-of-broadcasting-code

Just months later, a leaked 19 page memo revealed that BBC Panorama had spliced two separate parts of Donald Trump's 6 January speech, almost an hour apart, to make it appear that his call to "fight like hell" directly followed his direction for supporters to march on the Capitol, omitting his earlier words urging them to protest "peacefully and patriotically."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/03/bbc-accused-selectively-editing-trump-clip-capitol-attack

In addition, this week the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit has upheld complaints against presenter Martine Croxall for correcting "pregnant people" to "women" on air and rolling her eyes, judged to be a breach of impartiality rules because the facial expression "laid it open to the interpretation that it indicated a particular viewpoint".

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/06/bbc-upholds-complaint-against-martine-croxall-over-pregnant-people-change

The same Executive Complaints Unit that leapt into action over an eye roll stands in clear contrast to my own experience dealing with the BBC’s wider complaints system.

Over 13 months, my evidence based submission, detailed, factual and supported by documentation, was passed from department to department, never properly addressed and never resolved. The responses I received bore little resemblance to the points I raised. They obfuscated, deflected and left me wondering whether I was witnessing staggering incompetence or something more deliberate.

These can't be accidental lapses. They are editorial decisions made in full awareness of how powerful the subjects are, and how easily emotion can override the truth.

The BBC knew the weight of both narratives, but still chose narrative over accuracy. This is more evidence of a dereliction of its public duty and a dangerous precedent for democracy itself.

For those paying attention, we knew this was happening, though perhaps not to the extent it was or still is. I still know people who rely on the BBC as a trusted news source, believing its content is fact checked, verified, and impartial. It is none of those things.

It doesn't matter where you sit politically, left, right, or anywhere in between. This should concern everyone.

When a public broadcaster, paid for by the public under threat of penalty, stops informing and starts editing reality, it no longer serves democracy. It undermines it.

nostr:nevent1qqs042dpcj72makt0ddfzm9s0dejaummcs5xklux3wme0pu4jnykeycppamhxue69uhkztnwdaejumr0dsycj9s0

Terrifying but not surprising especially with everything that came out after COVID