In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> I can't see where I have written anything about my views on it being a trigger for media regulation or anything else.
If you're going to take issue with my posts, read how they originated. They originated as a RESPONSE to calls for media control.
> I am just taking issue with your apparent certainty that the only reason it happened is because she must have had other problems on the basis of seemingly no knowledge or experience of what she might have gone through.
If you can point out where I said it was the ONLY reason, I'll donate £50 to your favourite charity. I SAID, something ELSE must have been wrong TOO.
> As I said I have heard similar arguments from those involved in bullying and harassment.
>
I'm sure you have. But there's a fine line where the world becomes impossible to live in if every action is going to lead to knee jerk reactions. Yes, I happen to think some people are a little too over sensitive. I don't think the entire course of society should be changed to cope with that. And before you start, that doesn't mean I'm pro bullying or against anti bullying.
What I AM in support of is PROPORTION.
> Two DJs set out to "blag" details from a hospital. Something that I think Leveson might have covered. 1 second of foresight would indicate that the logical consequence, if their call was successful, would be that someone gets in trouble. Time differences mean they are catching someone towards the end of a night shift when they will be more tired and the call is more likely to be successful. Still if we call it a "prank" call that makes it acceptable.
>
If you show me where I said it WAS acceptable, again, £50 to your charity of choice.
> Either they expected to get knocked back at the first instance - in which case they should have thought very carefully about broadcasting when they were successful, or they fully intended to get through, in which case they should have considered the consequences of their broadcast a bit more.
Not what I was discussing. Not what I want to respond to.
Nor do I wish this to become a row over someone's death. I simply assert the following:
(1) It's very sad. Said it in my first post.
(2) It is not a reason for media control
(3) Killing oneselfe over such a thing is out of all proportion.