/ Nurse who took prank call kills herself

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Dec 2012
Awful news :-(
gethin_allen on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:
just read that, really shocking.
drunken monkey - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: I hope those jackass aussies feel proud of themselves
Milesy - on 07 Dec 2012
Doesnt say it is related? Where did you get that info?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Milesy: I just read that the nurse who took the prank call was found dead this morning near the hospital suspected suicide
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244608/Receptionist-Kate-hospital-duped-Australian-DJs-pran...

according to that report, it happened yesterday unless I am reading it wrong...
owlart - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: The BBC report says officers responded at 9.35 this morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20645838
balmybaldwin - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

Poor woman
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: it seems like a rushed report


"The woman’s unconscious body was found at an address yards away from King Edward VII Hospital, where she worked, just before 9.30am today."

doesn't tie with

"Officers from Scotland Yard launched an investigation yesterday and are treating the death as ‘unexplained’."

whatever, either way...very sad

owlart - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> Sad news

Indeed :-(
In reply to Game of Conkers: Aye but they also say

A Scotland Yard spokesman said yesterday: ‘Police were called at approximately 9.25am on Friday, December 7, to a report of a woman found unconscious an address in Weymouth Street, W1.

In reply to Game of Conkers: Sad news
koolkat - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:
time for media regulation i think very sad indeed :-(
Lukas V-L - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

Id really like someone to turn around and say this is actually a hoax, designed to get back at the dickhead Radio Djs, but its probably all gone a bit serious for that now.
The New NickB - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to drunken monkey:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers) I hope those jackass aussies feel proud of themselves

I think it is probably a more pertinent question to ask if the UK press were door stepping her.
Lukas V-L - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to koolkat:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
> time for media regulation i think very sad indeed :-(

Bit of a stretch that one, considering it was an foreign radio station that made the prank call.
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Lukas V-L:
> (In reply to koolkat)
> [...]
>
> Bit of a stretch that one, considering it was an foreign radio station that made the prank call.

Does it matter whether it was UK or otherwise?
It's really sad if someone chooses to kill themself........ but to blame it on a prank call? Killing yourself isn't exactly a proportional response, so you can guess there must have been more to it than that. I.E. she had some problems.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to The New NickB: if they were, I certainly haven't seen anything in the papers or tv about her. Have you?
tony on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to koolkat:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
> time for media regulation i think very sad indeed :-(

At the risk of hijacking the thread, I'm intrigued to know what kind of regulation would have prevented this happening.

Bloody awful news.
Lukas V-L - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Lukas V-L)
> [...]
>
> Does it matter whether it was UK or otherwise?
> It's really sad if someone chooses to kill themself........ but to blame it on a prank call? Killing yourself isn't exactly a proportional response, so you can guess there must have been more to it than that. I.E. she had some problems.

Yeah that too.
koolkat - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to lukas: they would still be accountable to uk law , should the media be able to decieve the public for a prank ?
paul walters - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: I'll bet she had one hell of a bollocking for her indiscretion, and with the press likely to be hounding her as well, who knows what sort of mental state she was in. Bloody awful.
Lukas V-L - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to koolkat:
I doubt theyre going to extradite a couple of DJ's half way around the world for making a hoax call.
MG - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to paul walters: I think there is a lot of jumping to conclusions here. BBC are reporting she wasn't the one who gave out confidential information, but merely answered the phone.
koolkat - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to lukas: true but it doesnt make it right
tony on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to paul walters:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers) I'll bet she had one hell of a bollocking for her indiscretion,

Or not, perhaps. It's reported that the hospital was not disciplining her. Why make stuff up when you don't know what's happening?
tony on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> so you can guess there must have been more to it than that. I.E. she had some problems.

You can guess, but you can also admit you don't actually know anything about it, so such speculation is pretty meaningless and insulting.
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> You can guess, but you can also admit you don't actually know anything about it, so such speculation is pretty meaningless and insulting.

Yes, I DO know something.
I know that killing yourself is a disproprtional response to the fallout from taking a hoax call at work, and that most people would not kill themselves because of it.
Jaffacake - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

A mistake likely based in naivety for which you are publicly humiliated around the world for is probably enough to push a lot of people over the edge.

Yes it's very possible she was predisposed, even if she was actively battling with the problem I still think it would be wrong to assume this event didn't contribute to the outcome.
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Jaffacake:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> A mistake likely based in naivety for which you are publicly humiliated around the world for is probably enough to push a lot of people over the edge.
>
> Yes it's very possible she was predisposed, even if she was actively battling with the problem I still think it would be wrong to assume this event didn't contribute to the outcome.

I didn't say it didn't contribute.
I said it wasn't proportional.
Nor is calling for media control.

Or are we now in a situation where we must consider every possible outcome of our interaction with people based on a very worst case scenario of their emotional state?


None of the above is defending the hoax call. Nor is it taking away from the sad fact that the girl killed herself.

Just seperating the wild claims for control etc from a sad occurrence.
tony on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> Yes, I DO know something.
> I know that killing yourself is a disproprtional response to the fallout from taking a hoax call at work, and that most people would not kill themselves because of it.

You know, and you know this perfectly well, that you know nothing about the personal circumstances of the nurse.
tony on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
>
> Just seperating the wild claims for control etc from a sad occurrence.

But it's okay for you to make completely unsubstantiated suggestions about 'problems'? Why do that?
rocky57 - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

THe BBC website, and news report says "The hospital had been supporting her throughout this difficult time."

That implies to me that she had been affected by what happened to her, and at the same time it shows me that the hospital were aware of her distress.

Which leads me to think that her death is related to what happened.

Of course that is only my opinion.

If it is all related then I think it is very sad it came to this. I feel for her family and friends. Moreover, I hope that the scumbag DJs who did it (and anyone else that played a part in it) are plagued with the thought of what they did to her for the rest of their living days.
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> But it's okay for you to make completely unsubstantiated suggestions about 'problems'? Why do that?

Yep. It's perfectly fine for me to say it.
I repeat, saddening, but there would have to be something already wrong with a person to end their life over such a thing. Lack of perspective, personal problems, I've not suggested I know what they are. I just know that killing yourself over the fallout from this means there is something else very wrong.

But rant away all you like.
simon c on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

horrible news, condolences to her family, friends and colleagues as to the whys and wherefores thats best left to the coroners court.
tony on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> Yep. It's perfectly fine for me to say it.
> I repeat, saddening, but there would have to be something already wrong with a person to end their life over such a thing. Lack of perspective, personal problems, I've not suggested I know what they are. I just know that killing yourself over the fallout from this means there is something else very wrong.
>
> But rant away all you like.

Feel free to try to belittle the situation as you are doing, but I think you're completely wrong to make such slurs and assertions when you have no knowledge of the situation beyond what has been reported. I have no idea why you think it appropriate.
n-stacey - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to tony: The regulation that protects would be Information Goverence or Data Protection, to which every Healthcare employee signs up to.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: Well it's highly likely that she would have been struck off by the RCN for her indiscretion and she would have known it. Confedentiality is pretty high up the list of standards, all health professionals know it, and certainely most are not angels all the time, but she should have been on her guard with Kate as a patient.

It's just a shame that facing losing her job and wasting years of training etc. may have led her to kill herself, because if that's the case, she must have given a shit about her job, which is more than can be said about some people in healthcare these days!!!
Enty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> Yep. It's perfectly fine for me to say it.
> I repeat, saddening, but there would have to be something already wrong with a person to end their life over such a thing. Lack of perspective, personal problems, I've not suggested I know what they are. I just know that killing yourself over the fallout from this means there is something else very wrong.
>
> But rant away all you like.

Crikey I have to pinch myself here but I'm 100% in agreement with you here Wonko.

E
Kimono - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: news just in:
'UKC thread takes very predictable course including wild speculation and counter-claims'

Stay tuned for further updates
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to kieran b:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers) news just in:
> 'UKC thread takes very predictable course including wild speculation and counter-claims'
>
> Stay tuned for further updates

I think you are right as the nurse that has unfortunately died was the one working on reception at 5.30am that morning that passed the call onto the nurse that divulged private information if you take the DM information as correct.
simon c on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

to clear some things up for the sake of clarity, its the NMC (The Nursing and Midwifery Council) which governs the profession, the RCN is a professional body some Nurses belong too. As its currently being reported the nurse in question passed the call through and didn't directly give any information away, it was another nurse who broke confidentiality.
jkarran - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

> I just know that killing yourself over the fallout from this means there is something else very wrong.

You just *think* that.

Whether or not the hospital were supportive she could still have been fearing prosecution or action by her professional body which would mean the loss of her career. Who knows, maybe she was here on a work visa and the consequences get worse still. Add to that the press attention and it stacks up to something pretty awful.

You can jump to conclusions and make assumptions either way but to dismiss what she'll have been going through for the last couple of days as 'just a prank call' rather spectacularly misses the point.

Tragic.
Tyler - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to kieran b:

.....and lots of pious people showing how grown up and even handed they are by pointing out we know nothing and speculation won't help.

For what it's worth I'm in agreement with Wonko, if killing yourself was a proportionate response to set backs like this then suicide would be a lot more common.

Similarly calling for regulation and calling the DJs scum bags is also disproportionate , I don't won't to live in country where lampooning the royal family or prank alls are illegal. Mind you if it leads to Rio Ferdinand getting arrested for 'merking' people then I might accept it!
Kimono - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Tyler:
> (In reply to kieran b)
>
> .....and lots of pious people showing how grown up and even handed they are by pointing out we know nothing and speculation won't help.

i havent seen any piousness (if that is indeed a real word!)
just people trying to stay a bit rational




Tyler - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to kieran b:

> just people trying to stay a bit rational

I think it's more people showing everyone how rational they are. It's like those people who go wading into fights telling everyone to calm down but really they do it so they can be close to the action whilst maintaining the moral high ground. Let's face it, we are all aware that we know nothing so it doesn't need pointing out. We're also aware that we are speculating and indulging in gossip but that's what people do and that's what this thread and most other threads are about. If it were not the case no one would have clicked on this thread and we'd all sit tight until the coroner's report.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to kieran b: if you want to see irrational, go to 2days website and read the thousands of comments below the "prank" story. Some real hatred coming to the surface
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to simon c: RCN or NMC which ever i've had 4 hours sleep after a 12 hour night shift!!! And come under the HPC anyway, but regardless...the standards on confidentiality. Whatever her role in what happened was (which i certainly wouldn't rely on what the papers say) she was 'in the shit'.

Even bog standard district general hospitals will put in place passwords if there is any media involvement concerning a patient or even dodgy familiy situations. Staff at a private london hospital which clearly treats a certain calibre of patients should surely be used to press sniffing for info on their patients, and should be more cautious than most.

In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to simon c) Whatever her role in what happened was (which i certainly wouldn't rely on what the papers say)

not just the papers,

Virtually all electronic media outlets eg BBC, Reuters, Sky etc

Virtually all TV media outlets on terrestrial too

Also

The Chief Exec of King Edward VII hospital.


pebbles - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: jeezus, given the sort of unsubstantiated speculation/kangaroo court going on here (and presumably in other places too) no wonder the poor woman was in a state. Desperately sad.
off-duty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I'd love to know your experience of being humiliated in media reports worldwide with the concurrent consequences on your job and future employment prospects - that enable you to conclude that "she must have had some other problems".

It smacks of the defensiveness of workplace (and other) bullying - "It was just a joke".
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> I'd love to know your experience of being humiliated in media reports worldwide with the concurrent consequences on your job and future employment prospects - that enable you to conclude that "she must have had some other problems".
>
> It smacks of the defensiveness of workplace (and other) bullying - "It was just a joke".

I'm not going to get drawn into people trying to enjoy their grief at my expense.
I simply said that calls for media control because of this are over the top.

you lot want to go on a withc hunt, fine.
But a surprising number of people deal with far worse every single day without resorting to suicide.

So the response was over the top.
It's a terrible shame, but something must have been wrong there, even if it's a simple lack of proper perspective.

And having a police officer take it the way you have worries the f*ck out of me. I'd hope police would be a bit more sensible about it all.
Tragic, definitely, reason to start a campaign for media control? No.

End of for me.
Dauphin - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to simon c) RCN or NMC which ever i've had 4 hours sleep after a 12 hour night shift!!! And come under the HPC anyway, but regardless...the standards on confidentiality. Whatever her role in what happened was (which i certainly wouldn't rely on what the papers say) she was 'in the shit'.
>
> Even bog standard district general hospitals will put in place passwords if there is any media involvement concerning a patient or even dodgy familiy situations. Staff at a private london hospital which clearly treats a certain calibre of patients should surely be used to press sniffing for info on their patients, and should be more cautious than most.


No they don't. You'd be surprised how half wittedly hospitals 'train' staff in phone confidentiality, handing over records / notes over fax and phone & media relations, normally totally ad hoc. No clear protocols.

D
Rock Badger on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty: i agree with Wonko too,,, a total shame but quite an extreme reaction,,,
i hope the DJ's are ok an dont do similar for all the hate thats out for them.
off-duty - on 07 Dec 2012
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.
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.
As I said I have heard similar arguments from those involved in bullying and harassment.

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.

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.
Timmd on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> I'd love to know your experience of being humiliated in media reports worldwide with the concurrent consequences on your job and future employment prospects - that enable you to conclude that "she must have had some other problems".
>
> It smacks of the defensiveness of workplace (and other) bullying - "It was just a joke".

It doesn't have to smack of that though, of smack of him belittling it.

All Wonko is saying (in a compassionate way), that (in his opinion) she must probably have had some other issue or problem in her life already, and that it is very sad.

He might be wrong in thinking this, but to have posted what he has done, he doesn't have to be belittling what's happened or defending bullying.

He ha said it's very sad remember.

Bruce Hooker - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to kieran b:

> i havent seen any piousness (if that is indeed a real word!)

"piousity"?
Timmd on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:You don't have to agree with what he's posted, but read what he's actually written. He's posted a couple of or a few times that it's very sad.
Timmd on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:Piety.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Dauphin: Some do, I've been involved in jobs with high media interest and the only way to follow up my patient was to go in person to ITU in uniform/with id and ask the consultant face to face. If an underperforming NHS trust can manage that, then an expensive private hospital used to dealing with high profile patients should be able to come up with something!!!

And from the reports it would seem that she was a registered nurse, it's part of the standards, she new that, she messed up.

When this case was in the news before she took her life, my opinion was that the nurses involved should and probably would be up infront of a hearing. Sadly she has taken her life, but her error of judgement hasn't changed and neither has my opinion...

Yes it was 5.30 in the morning, but given the cirmcumstances and the patient involved she should have used her brain a little more.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
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.
Timmd on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Tyler:
> (In reply to kieran b)
>
> [...]
>
> I think it's more people showing everyone how rational they are. It's like those people who go wading into fights telling everyone to calm down but really they do it so they can be close to the action whilst maintaining the moral high ground. Let's face it, we are all aware that we know nothing so it doesn't need pointing out. We're also aware that we are speculating and indulging in gossip but that's what people do and that's what this thread and most other threads are about. If it were not the case no one would have clicked on this thread and we'd all sit tight until the coroner's report.

Very good point.
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (
> Yes it was 5.30 in the morning, but given the cirmcumstances and the patient involved she should have used her brain a little more.

I'd argue it the other way. 05:30 and she gets a call from what she beleives to be member of the royal family? I'd say it's quite possible she was a bit overwhelmed. Private hospital too....... where service is expected. All in all I can see how it was possible for her to just think 'it's them, best put them through'
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
> [...]
>
> I'd argue it the other way. 05:30 and she gets a call from what she beleives to be member of the royal family? I'd say it's quite possible she was a bit overwhelmed. Private hospital too....... where service is expected. All in all I can see how it was possible for her to just think 'it's them, best put them through'

Or 5.30 in the morning and the Queens (with a really poor accent)is ringing me direct complete with Corgi yapping in the back ground, may something isn't quite right and this is a wind-up?!
Martin W on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: As far as I can see, at the time of writing this no official source has confirmed that the death was suicide. (The Telegraph quotes Daily Mail as its source for the theory. Incisive journalism, that.)

According to the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/07/duchess-cambridge-hoax-call-nurse-found-dead

The radio station is reportedly already serving two five-year licence probations after serious breaches of the regulator's code.

Makes the argument above about media regulation somewhat redundant, doesn't it, since the broadcaster in question is already subject to regulation (and has fallen foul of it)?

The DJs themselves are quoted as saying:

"We were very surprised that our call was put through. We thought we'd be hung up on as soon as they heard our terrible accents.

"We're very sorry if we've caused any issues and we're glad to hear that Kate is doing well."


Sounds rather like the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand/Andrew Sachs prank call: what seemed like a funny idea at the outset was taken way too far by people who should have known better (particularly if the broadcaster they work for was already under a cloud with the regulator). And while we're on the subject of media regulation, Ofcom fined the BBC £150K for their little stunt http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2009/04/bbc-brandross-fine/

Mind you, if I was "very sorry" about something I'd done like that, I doubt I'd re-broadcast it repeatedly and boast about it on Tw@tter.
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Or 5.30 in the morning and the Queens (with a really poor accent)is ringing me direct complete with Corgi yapping in the back ground, may something isn't quite right and this is a wind-up?!

Don't know. didn't hear the call
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: It was poor!!!
In reply to Game of Conkers: Poor, poor woman (((
off-duty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...
>
> 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.

And my only disagreement would be point 3. As with the majority of suicides "proportionality" does not really come into it. Different people react to different things differently. For us out here to judge the impact on her life of this event is almost impossible. It appeared by your comments that you were minimising the impact - something we just aren't in a position to judge.
As I said -the DJs MUST have considered some consequences to their actions. You would hope....
The Lemming - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

Just heard the news on the Beeb.

Shocked and stunned, and it takes an awful lot for that to affect me.
cap'nChino - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to drunken monkey)
> [...]
>
> I think it is probably a more pertinent question to ask if the UK press were door stepping her.

Prank calls don't kill people. Constant hounding from the press desperate for the slightest dumbass story to sell to even dumber people kill people.

Poor girl and family.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:

What off duty said

If this prank was successful, it was clearly going to get someone into potentially serious trouble with their employer and regulatory body, and place them at the centre of an international media storm. It is predictable that some people will handle that badly. Given that this was not live, and there was apparently legal advice sought before broadcast, there should have been consideration of the effect on the people concerned by the broadcaster. Harming the careers, and worse, of unsuspecting members of the public is not acceptable in the pursuit of ratings

Cheers

Gregor
Rock Badger on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: ye but your average person would be super embarrassed, say sorry and maybe even laugh it off and have a wee swear about bloody ozzys,,,,,
In reply to count: Not if they were looking at losing their job, or professional registration.
IainRUK - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I don't know..

It was a stupid prank, I don't think it was maliciious, nothing new.. its been done to numerous others before, but it did involve the public which I think is a new low.. like tapping milly's phone..

Its terrible for all concerned, I do actually also have sympathy for the DJ's which no doubt I'll be flamed for, but they did a gagg and its horrificially back fired and they now have to live with the guilt of this.. of course I have far far more symapthy for the kids who have lost their mother before anyone latches on to that..

But I do agree using members of the public isn't acceptable.. phoning football managers/celebs etc isn't good either but I think its crossing a line to put innocent members of the public in this position..

In facT I've just argued myself into agreeing with you..
Elrond - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

This is truly horrific. Those DJ's should be prosecuted for this as they are 100% responsible for her death.

R.I.P.
Tyler - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Shadowmaster:

Prosecuted with what?
SARS on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Agree with you Wonko. An extremely sad event, for sure, but IF (and it's still an if I think) she committed suicide because of this call then it is a major overreaction.

As you say, lots of people deal with worse situations on a daily basis and dont top themselves.
In reply to Game of Conkers: Aussie news is reporting

"The radio station issued a statement saying it was deeply saddened by the news and extending its deepest sympathies to the family. It said both the presenters were "deeply shocked" and it had been agreed they would make no comment.
They would not return to their radio show until further notice, out of respect for the tragedy, 2 Day FM said."


http://www.smh.com.au/world/nurse-at-kates-hospital-who-took-prank-call-from-sydney-djs-suicides-201...
In reply to IainRUK: I'm less sympathetic for the DJ's as there is a lot of info about that station's DJ's crossing the line.

ads.ukclimbing.com
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Shadowmaster:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
>
> Those DJ's should be prosecuted for this as they are 100% responsible for her death.
>
The DJs made a bad call (no pun intended) professionally, but don't forget the 2 nurses involved also showed very poor professional judgement that night...
andy - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Shadowmaster:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
>
> This is truly horrific. Those DJ's should be prosecuted for this as they are 100% responsible for her death.
>
> R.I.P.

Eh? Are you serious?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

That reads uncomfortably like blaming the victim. I'm sure you didn't really mean that. Perhaps you would like to clarify...
Tyler - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I don't want to out words in her mouth but I interpret it as anyone can make a mistake at work. If that has unintended consequences that can't be reasonably foreseen its misplaced to blame the person who made the mistake
Tall Clare - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Tyler:

That sounds a lot more reasonable - and hard to disagree with - than what Sarah wrote.

abzmed on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

That poor Nurse. Who knows what was going through her mind? Going to loose my job once NMC get their teeth into me?

Those of you working as Nurses will know the NMC likes to make the odd example of someone breaching the standards.

I hope none of you have, but if any of you currently do have loved ones in hospital at the moment, that you will be fully supportive of the staff when you call in for an update tonight and the Nurse at the other end of the phone refuses to give you any information.

SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> That reads uncomfortably like blaming the victim. I'm sure you didn't really mean that. Perhaps you would like to clarify...

There is no doubt that both the DJs and the nurses got things wrong.

If the Nurse hadn't taken her life, this thread might be reading very differently, along the lines of "what a muppet falling for that"..."nobody can quite believe the DJs pulled it off...ha! ha!" and "she fell short of her standards as a registered nurse...appalling...state of nursing today...blah! blah!".
It might seem slightly cold, but as stated in previous posts, I had an opinion on this before she topped herself, and the fact that she is dead doesn't change what went on before hand.
Wonko The Sane - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
>
> It might seem slightly cold, but as stated in previous posts, I had an opinion on this before she topped herself, and the fact that she is dead doesn't change what went on before hand.

No, it seems perfectly reasonable. Good luck with the UKC lynch mob though ;)
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> That reads uncomfortably like blaming the victim. I'm sure you didn't really mean that. Perhaps you would like to clarify...

"blaming the victim"

The victim is Kate who's medical condidentiality got breeched!!!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>

> It might seem slightly cold, but as stated in previous posts, I had an opinion on this before she topped herself, and the fact that she is dead doesn't change what went on before hand.


congratulations on sticking to your principles, but it does make you seem more than slightly cold

best wishes

gregor
Wee Davie - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

It's tragic. I'd found the prank pretty funny until this news, and I'm a nurse.
Receiving phone calls at work in hospitals is a real occupational hazard. You don't know who's on the end of a phone. You're dealing with anxious and sometimes aggressive relatives who need info from you. Sometimes people hoax call you- nosey neighbours and the like.
You're bound by really stringent rules of confidentiality and codes of conduct in the job.
I wouldn't be surprised if it emerged that she'd-
a) been threatened with the sack
b) or already sacked
c) or been told she was suspended and due to be dragged before the governing body and then likely be struck off.
Nursing is a highly skilled and underpaid occupation. The penalties for honest mistakes are life changing for both nurse and patient.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
> [...]
>
> Good luck with the UKC lynch mob though ;)

Will do...it'll keep me entertained whilst I'm sharpening my crampons and axes :-)
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

there can be more than one victim

a for all we know perfectly decent, hardworking nurse found herself in a highly unusual situation and made a mistake.

her response was extreme, but given that she found herself catapulted into the middle of an internation media story, and possibly facing sanction from her registering body, some sort of negative reaction was very predictable

now she is dead, and her children have lost their mother, thanks to some DJs who thought it would be a good idea to try to boost their ratings at the expense of a private citizen

like i say, fair play in sticking to your principles, though it does leave you looking rather lacking in empathy

best wishes

gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Will do...it'll keep me entertained whilst I'm sharpening my crampons and axes :-)

dear me.
Wee Davie - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

The real failure here was in the hospital not screening every call at switchboard level before transfer to the unit.

The nurse broke her code of conduct- but if it had been her Obstetrician who'd made the slip- guess what? Slap on the wrist max.
puppythedog on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: It's very unlikely that she would be "struck off" the NMC register. If it was her that gave away the information (which reports suggest it wasn't) then she would be subject to investigation using appropriate local policies. She might then be referred to the NMC who would, I think, at worse put some sort of condition upon her retaining her registration or some sort of advisory sort of a something. If you check out the outcomes of NMC hearings you will find that the majority of results are not removal from the register.
I think this is a sad event, I would be surprised if recent events had nothing to do with it but the outcome for her would not be so awful that would warrant an assumption her life was over. That does not mean the events did not overwhelm her but there must be some poor coping involved too.
Trangia - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

Desparately sad. Apparantly she was the mother of two children. Any response yet from the Aussie clowns who thought their prank was a "joke"?
The Lemming - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wee Davie:


> I wouldn't be surprised if it emerged that she'd-
> a) been threatened with the sack
> b) or already sacked
> c) or been told she was suspended and due to be dragged before the governing body and then likely be struck off.
> Nursing is a highly skilled and underpaid occupation. The penalties for honest mistakes are life changing for both nurse and patient.


I'm inclined to feel that the nurse was leaned on heavily, especially in such a prestigious hospital.

I've seen first hand that NHS staff are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

The only people who are Bullet-proof are doctors. Not too many of them get struck off even though Quite a few are lacking.
puppythedog on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wee Davie: NO hospital could do that, how would they screen it? someone could ask for the correct ward with an alternate pretext and then launch into the Bul5h1t. This is seems to have been an error plain and simple. Perhaps rather than blame anyone or anything we can just accept that when humans are involved mistakes do happen.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wee Davie: But the problem of how nurses/allied health proffessionals get dealt with compared to how the GMC deal with their doctors is a NHS wide issue stretching to fair greater things than breaches of confidentiality...like clinical negligence, death etc.
It doesn't mean it's okay.
ads.ukclimbing.com
puppythedog on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: It's quite hard to get a nurse removed from the register without an obvious criminal charge.
Padraig on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
Can't say I've ever come across you here before. Kinda hope I NEVER do again!
Wee Davie - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

I certainly didn't say it was ok. Are you a nurse btw?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to The Lemming:
> (In reply to Wee Davie)
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> The only people who are Bullet-proof are doctors. Not too many of them get struck off even though Quite a few are lacking.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/2010_Annual_Statistics.pdf_45103627.pdf

243 doctors struck off in last 4 years, plus 920 suspended. but like you say, bullet-proof.

cheers
gregor
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wee Davie: As stated elsewhere in the post, no. I just find it hard to see how the blame can be soley placed on the DJs who didn't expect to be taken seriously, they weren't the ones with access to Kate's details in order to give any info... there were 4 people involved in breaching Kate's confidentiality, and the nurse was one of them. As I stated earlier on it's very sad that she took her life, and if this was the only reason for it, than that is desperately sad... but like others i doubt it and expect that there is far more to it than just this one event. As for seeing that she did something wrong, well clearly she did, it wasn't malicious but it was unprofessional, and that stands whatever the outcome was. And blaming it all on others, managers, DJs, radio excuatives, and not seeing that the nurses on the ground were part of it will not help lessons be learnt for the future.


puppythedog on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: Lesson's learnt for the future my ar5e. This was a mistake, made by some people. It's people jumping up and down every time there is a mistake shouting for lessons to be learnt and system changes that f%^k everything up and force for nurses (and other professionals) to jump through hoops and perform tick box enterprises to protect the vicarious liabilities of organisations inc NHS and Private. Mistakes happen.
You say it is unprofessional. Are you a professional? what does professional mean?
Wee Davie - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

I don't blame the DJs. Up until today's news about the nurse's suicide I'm sure they've been high- fiving their way round their home town for days. Maybe they still are. Do I care? No.

Your remark about 'lessons learnt' doesn't really cut it given some of your earlier posts. You weren't posting here with a desire to see 'lessons learnt for the future' were you?


Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to puppythedog: I don't think your post will prove very popular but I agree 100%.

I used to say there's only two lots of people who'd never made a mistake - journalists and lawyers. I can now usually add about 50% of UKC posters (though I still love 'em!)
off-duty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

Could that be lessons like - the media should not blag people to obtain confidential personal information even if it is "just a joke".
Clearly that lesson still hasn't been learnt.
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to Shadowmaster)
> [...]
> The DJs made a bad call (no pun intended) professionally, but don't forget the 2 nurses involved also showed very poor professional judgement that night...

Nursing, the caring profession...

F*ck me.
puppythedog on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity: She's not a nurse, don't tar nurses with her brush.
Trangia - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wee Davie:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> I don't blame the DJs.

I don't blame them for the suicide, but I do blame them for not using their common and decent sense by putting a nurse they knew nothing about into a serious professional situation for breach of confidentiality by duping her. They are idiots, and their "joke" has backfired with terrible consequiences.

SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to puppythedog: Yes i am a professional.

And given the context of this phonecall, I believe it was more unprofessional, rather than a "mistake"...it clearly wasn't malicious from the nurses perspective, but that's not the point.

The context was that this nurse was a registered professional being paid to care for the pregnant wife of the future king, someone who has been hounded (topless pics) by the press already this year. There were no doubt reporters were camped outside the hospital at the time, and possibly she was getting a grilling from family/friends outside of work on what she might know (just speculation before any one starts).

Given this context then she should have been ultra cautious, and falling for that prank is inexcusable.

We are not talking about someone mistakenly telling their "joe blogg" patients nosey neighbour that "they're out of theatres and doing well"!!!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to Wee Davie) As stated elsewhere in the post, no. I just find it hard to see how the blame can be soley placed on the DJs who didn't expect to be taken seriously, they weren't the ones with access to Kate's details in order to give any info...

that may be partly due to your empathy failure.

most posters seem to take the view that a private member of the public should be able to go about their job without being placed in a position that could potentially harmful to their career by people in the media chasing ratings.

and seem to believe that if the DJs were prepared to use private citizens as vehicles to advance their own careers, and were reckless as the the effect it would have on the victim of their scheme, then the DJs have some moral responsibility for the death

i have a feeling you will reflect on this thread and feel it hasnt been your finest hour on ukc

best wishes

gregor
Tom Last - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I was going to reply along the same lines but you put it a lot more eloquently than I would have.
I''m sure there's plenty who agree though, but they're maybe a bit put off by all the wringing of hair and gnashing of teeth on threads like these.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> Could that be lessons like - the media should not blag people to obtain confidential personal information even if it is "just a joke".
> Clearly that lesson still hasn't been learnt.


again, +1
ice.solo - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to cap'nChino:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> Prank calls don't kill people. Constant hounding from the press desperate for the slightest dumbass story to sell to even dumber people kill people.
>
this.

i personally think its a great prank call - even charles saw the funny side of it just a few hours before - just it all went weird due to factors no one could forsee.

i think people are also angry the prank was by a bunch of colonials, managing to breech royal security.
In reply to puppythedog:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity) She's not a nurse, don't tar nurses with her brush.

Well that's something to be grateful for.
Wee Davie - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to puppythedog:

I'm sure it IS possible that call screening can be done. Can you phone Obama by simply dialling 1-800- WHITEHOUSE?
It's simply a question of how motivated management are to protect their staff.
Toby S - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

All she did was pass the call on. She didn't divulge any confidential information.

The lack of compassion by some people on here is f*cking sickening.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty: You're very exercised about this and I really don't understand. Seems to me you are judging a rather silly and inconsequential incident - the original prank, which doesn't seem to have been a terribly serious effort to do anything malicious to some of the highest profile and most protected people on the planet - by a totally disproportionate and unpredictable outcome that could not have been predicted.
Tom Last - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Toby S:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
> .
>
> The lack of compassion by some people on here is f*cking sickening.

Really?

The over reaction by people on here is weird more like?

Yeah it's sad and all, but does it really matter to you what Sarah or Wonko, or me or anyone really thinks?
puppythedog on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wee Davie: I'm sure it is, you're right. I just think it's impractical and that everyone in that hospital is special and if several people (who reports suggest cocked up) cocked up why wouldn't someone on the switchboard have made the same mistake screening it.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Finally some sense!!!
Lets not hang all radio DJs just yet, who else would keep me awake when I'm driving home from night shifts!!!
puppythedog on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: I don't think radio DJs should be hung. My comments are directed towards your response about nurse/s. I couldn't give a rat' bum about the DJ's, Kate Middleton or the royal family. What concerned me was the assertions you were making which are not entirely accurate and seem quite judgmental and wholly without empathy, compassion or understanding for another human being. I'm off now and probably won't return to the thread. I still wonder what you think professional means but may not find out.
off-duty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to off-duty) You're very exercised about this and I really don't understand. Seems to me you are judging a rather silly and inconsequential incident - the original prank, which doesn't seem to have been a terribly serious effort to do anything malicious to some of the highest profile and most protected people on the planet - by a totally disproportionate and unpredictable outcome that could not have been predicted.


I'm not that exercised at all. I am not a big fan of prank calls in the first place - this one had some entirely predictable consequences if it was successful that the DJs either haven't considered - indicating they were incredibly stupid, or didn't care about - indicating that they were both malicious and stupid.
Though the death of this nurse might not have been entirely predictable the potential consequences to her job (not to mention the effect of worldwide press coverage) weren't that extraordinary.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward) Finally some sense!!!
> Lets not hang all radio DJs just yet, who else would keep me awake when I'm driving home from night shifts!!!

what an odd straw many you are now erecting, perhaps to cover your discomfort. though simply admitting you made a mistake, much like this poor nurse did, might be more dignified

SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to puppythedog: I've been out to plenty of suicides, so getting emotional about one of many reported in the press it just not going to happen...sorry.

As for you judging me and my lack of empathy...i still have occasional flash backs to the first hanging i went to, and did out of the blue the other day.
Being detach from these things is part of the job, it wouldn't be a very long career if it wasn't. So if i am looking at it from a different angle to others on here, so be it. I can still see the situation, and what i though of it prior to the reports that she had killed herself, that's all.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to off-duty)

which doesn't seem to have been a terribly serious effort to do anything malicious to some of the highest profile and most protected people on the planet - by a totally disproportionate and unpredictable outcome that could not have been predicted.

i couldnt give a monkey's about the royals. the point is that in order to score a ratings coup, the radio station was happy to harm private citizens

the severity of the response was unexpected, but not entirely unforseeable. that there was going to be some damage to any staff that got caught up in this was inevitable.

by all means play practical jokes on people with the power and wealth to buffer themselves from the outcome. but leave the non-celebrities out of it

cheers
gregor



Ian Black - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:
> Awful news :-(







It is!!! However it's nothing more than a practical joke gone wrong. I'd be surprised after the investigation if there aren't some revelations. Very sad nevertheless.
Ron Walker - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

I'm really surprised at this and I think you should think about getting yourself another career. If you work as a health professional your total lack of compassion and understanding is absolutely sickening and is totally inexcusable...
Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty: You usually talk a great deal of sense but this time you're wrong. In this particular case I doubt whether there were any potential job consequences to the hoax - nurses aren't employed to be security specialists, they're employed to be nurses - which includes keeping close relatives informed. It's equally easy to imagine the screaming headlines if Prince Charles had phoned up and been refused news about his daughter in law 'because of some bureaucratic nonsense.'

I doubt whether a court in the land (or a professional disciplinary body, for that matter) would have found that the poor nurse would have been found guilty of anything worse than an unfortunate but understandable lapse.

Which does not affect the sadness one feels at the outcome for the poor nurse and her close family and friends.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Ron Walker: So prior to today's revalations of this poor nurse's suicide, what was your opinion on the Hoax...did you laugh, and thinks oops somebodies going to be in the sh*t!!!

Honestly?

Or did everyone on her see it in the news and think oh how absolutley terrible that this poor nurse who fell for this awful impression of the queen and is now going to get drag through the muck, what terrible DJs for even thinking of such a prank!!
off-duty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

As has been pointed out I would have expected some sort of password system in place.
We routinely do it with victims in NHS hospitals. This was a high profile patient in a private hospital - regardless of whether she would have been struck off I imagine at here would have been done sort of disciplinary consequence.

Ron Walker - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

You need very serious help...
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

rob, breach of confidentiality exposes a healthcare professional to very severe penalties, both under the data protection act, and from their professional body. it is not a trivial matter at all

and you quite rightly identify the double bind, who would want to be the nurse in the papers for refusing to tell the queen about the condition of a family member?

in this case it seems that the nurse *didnt* breach confidentiality. however, her fear, even if unfounded, of serious consequences, may have impacted on her mental state

she may also have feared becoming the eye of a media storm.

"remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end.”

from a different field, but had the DJs borne it in mind, then we might not be having this debate

best wishes

gregor
Enty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

Unfortunately Sarah everyone is suffering from this hindsight thingy.....

E
off-duty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

My reaction?
Somebody's in the sh1t. What was the point of that "prank"?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:

enty, not all of us. i think most people working in a healthcare field when they heard the story thought the second of sarah's options. the nurse was placed in a shitty situation through no fault of her own. do that to enough people, and bad things will happen.

the beeb were fined 150000 quid for the jonathan ross prank call, for upsetting andrew sachs feelings. i wonder what the sanction for this should be?

best wishes

gregor
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> and you quite rightly identify the double bind, who would want to be the nurse in the papers for refusing to tell the queen about the condition of a family member?


Technically the nurse shouldn't be divulging confidential info to famiy members without the express permission of the patient. Although wouldn't like to tell her majesty that!

But it was also 0530 in the morning, so you've got to wonder!!

ads.ukclimbing.com
Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty: The point was pulling a prank - wothout the speech marks.
off-duty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I use the inverted commas as I understood that pranks were supposed to be funny.
Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: If we were blessed with 100% understanding of the consequence of every one of our actions, none of us would do anything.

They thought it was a joke; mostly it would have been; I find it hard to believe that if the poor girl had had a few mates around to talk about it and consider the consequences ('hey, what's the worst that can happen?'), preferably over a bottle of wine, it would have stayed that way.

Which isn't to suggest that alcohol is the answer to all life's problems, but that maybe friends are. Not, of course, that we know anything of the poor girl's circumstances.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

but pranks stop being funny when someone gets hurt

and it was 100% certain that someone was going to get hurt by this if they pulled it off. it might just be the psychological hurt of waiting wondering what your employer and registering body might do, or how many paparazzi will be waiting on your doorstep when your name gets out, but that sounds like pretty unpleasant stuff to me, even if no sanctions came of it in the end

the drastic outcome, less predictable, but like i said to enty, you put enough people in a difficult situation, and sooner or later someone is going to react badly.


best wishes

gregor
Ridge - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to puppythedog) Yes i am a professional.
>
> And given the context of this phonecall, I believe it was more unprofessional, rather than a "mistake"...it clearly wasn't malicious from the nurses perspective, but that's not the point.
>
> The context was that this nurse was a registered professional being paid to care for the pregnant wife of the future king, someone who has been hounded (topless pics) by the press already this year.

Interesting. Some patients are clearly more important than others then?

> We are not talking about someone mistakenly telling their "joe blogg" patients nosey neighbour that "they're out of theatres and doing well"!!!

That's exactly what we're talking about, in fact the nurse in question didn't even do that, she just transferred a call. In fact, given the massive importance you see to be placing on this heinous professional failing by the nurse in question, how come this highly prestigious hospital doesn't have dedicated phone lines and agreed protocols in place for preventing this? Someone has clearly f*cked up royally, (if you pardon the pun), but they'll be much higher up the pay scales than some nurse who has to field incoming calls on top of her proper job.

SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:

No she is not a more important patient, she is just more liable to have people digging for infomation...a risk that the nurses should have been aware of. Other patients with high media profile (victims of attempted murder, seriously ill kids, big RTC) are also chased by the media, and thus staff have to have a high level of suspicion in those situations too. Little old Doris who's just had a stroke is just as important a patient, but probably unlikely to attract people digging for info.
Wee Davie - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

05:30 in the morning isn't that unusual a time for for relatives to call.
Quite often they're scared witless that their relative is dying in hospital and can't sleep.
I'm going to make a stab in the dark and ask you- are you either an Ambulance Tech/ Paramedic or a Coroner?
Enty - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wee Davie:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> 05:30 in the morning isn't that unusual a time for for relatives to call.

She had morning sickness ;-)

> Quite often they're scared witless that their relative is dying in hospital and can't sleep.
>

See above.

E




Wee Davie - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:

Boom, boom- tish etc
: P
Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I think the point - maybe even the definition - of a prank is that someone gets hurt. From a teacher sitting on a whoopee cushion and losing his dignity, to a celeb being suckered into a spurious anti-paedophile campaign.

Having said that I'm going to bow out, because although the event has thrown up some disproportinate reactions, I'm not sure what the original point of the prank was.
ice.solo - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Ridge:
>
> That's exactly what we're talking about, in fact the nurse in question didn't even do that, she just transferred a call. In fact, given the massive importance you see to be placing on this heinous professional failing by the nurse in question, how come this highly prestigious hospital doesn't have dedicated phone lines and agreed protocols in place for preventing this? Someone has clearly f*cked up royally, (if you pardon the pun), but they'll be much higher up the pay scales than some nurse who has to field incoming calls on top of her proper job.

now ridge, you know its against the rules to give dimension to a hysterical story.
how else can a security breach be swept under the carpet if it doesnt have a scapegoat??

you too sarah, dear oh dear, bringing actual knowledge of the workings of an emergency responder to a soap opera that includes hospital protocol and nursing criteria. what were you thinking? how can we blame some australians without the ability to forsee the future with that?

enty: best post on ukc, ever.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs) I think the point - maybe even the definition - of a prank is that someone gets hurt. From a teacher sitting on a whoopee cushion and losing his dignity, to a celeb being suckered into a spurious anti-paedophile campaign.

yes, agreed. and hopefully the hurt is minor, and the victim deserving. in these cases, a prank can be very funny, and serve a useful purpose
>
> Having said that I'm going to bow out, because although the event has thrown up some disproportinate reactions, I'm not sure what the original point of the prank was.

well, exactly. the point seems to have been a ratings war with other radio stations, with each striving to outdo each other in the audaciousness of their stunt. along the way, the fact that for a prank to be a good one it should follow the rules above got lost, and instead some ordinary people going about their daily business became collateral damage in the ratings war

that's why i disagree on the proportionality of peoples' responses: i think dismay that this has happened is entirely reasonable.

best wishes
gregor

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Wee Davie)
> [...]
>
> She had morning sickness ;-)
>
> [...]
>
> See above.
>
> E

complications of severe morning sickness can include:

For pregnant women
1. dehydration
2. malnutrition
3. mallory-weiss tear of oesophagus
4. thromboembolic disorders
5. peripheral neuropathy
6. hypoglycaemia
7. acute renal failure
8. wernicke’s encephalopathy due to thiamine deficiency presents with an acute confusional state & brainstem abnormalities such as ataxia, nystagmus,extraocular muscle weakness.
• if inadequately treated this results in dementia characterized by profound disturbance of short term memory associated with tendency to confabulate called korsakoff’s psychosis.
9. pontine myelinolysis - if hyponatraemia is treated too rapidly women may develop central pontine myelinolysis caused by symmetrical destruction of myelin at the centre of the basal pons & canresult in pyramidal tract signs, spastic quadriparesis, pseudobulbar palsy & impaired consciousness

yes, best post ever. a trivial condition really.

best wishes

gregor

Ridge - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to ice.solo:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> [...]
>
> now ridge, you know its against the rules to give dimension to a hysterical story.

I am contrite. It won't happen again :-(

P.S. Nice to see you back on here.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Is that list off the top of your head or did you copy and past it...in which case with the lack of referencing that's plagarism!!!
ice.solo - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

more in relation to entys previous post.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to ice.solo: What "everyone is suffering from this hindsight thingy....."

Quite!!!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

not off the top of my head, no... but could have hazarded a guess that would have been pretty close.

course none of these things should actually happen in the ukc in 2012, but relatives with access to google and a fertile imagination could easily get themselves into a state worrying if they dont have the context of how rare these complications should actually be in practice

"...in which case with the lack of referencing that's plagarism!!!"

erm, guilty as charged...

;-)

gregor
ice.solo - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

whats a good witch hunt without a liberal dose of 'but imagine if...!'

who knows, maybe she was a drytooler and had it coming?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to ice.solo:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
>
> more in relation to entys previous post.

ok, i see

see my previous posts- while the drastic nature of the reaction was unpredictable, its not entirely unimaginable. she may have feared losing her job, with all the consequences that would bring. even if that was not a realistic fear, people dont always behave rationally or with a cool head when they are caught in a difficult situation.

thats why i think it was a pretty crappy thing to do, as someone who didnt court publicity was going to get hurt. brass eye is funny because the targets are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves, and deserve bringing down a peg or two. setting up a stunt that might get a bystander sacked it a poor show- and could have more consequences than intended

best wishes

gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
Wide_Mouth_Frog - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to ice.solo:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> whats a good witch hunt without a liberal dose of 'but imagine if...!'
>
> who knows, maybe she was a drytooler and had it coming?

That's exactly why I rarely post on any internet forums. I'm always amazed by what some people can read between the lines from the security of their anonymous computer screen. For what it's worth I think Sarah is right about a lot of the things she's said and some of the responses have been just nasty. The fact this nurse has killed herself (as tragic as it is for her friends and family, and even the DJ's) doesn't change the fact that she made a serious error of judgement and would've been up for a disciplinary and undoubtedly being hounded by the press. Nobody here can even begin to imagine what that must be like, unless they have been through the same thing.

Rant over.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:

you seem confused. that's exactly why many people, me included, think it was a rotten thing to do to put her in the position where her mistake has cost her so dearly, all apparently for the pursuit of ratings.

the annoyance at sarah was in part due to her seeming not to do what you have just done, and empathise with the position the nurse found herself in.

cheers
gregor
I like climbing - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:
> Awful news :-(

Shocking and we need to know more. I'd also like to know how the call should have been handled given that a lot of well known people stay at that hospital. Somebody mentioned protocols, somebody else mentioned passwords.
Management should have had a system in place because you don't know who to trust. I always advise my clients to never trust the press and I remind them frequently. At that hospal that wariness should be extreme.
If nominated callers were given passwords and the staff were properly briefed then there would have been no problem. Sounds more like a failure of management to me. Like I said I feel desperately sorry for the nurse but at this point we don't know the full story.
SAF - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
From my first post on this thread...

"It's just a shame that facing losing her job and wasting years of training etc. may have led her to kill herself, because if that's the case, she must have given a shit about her job"

Followed by plently of other use of the term "sad"...

It doesn't change the fact that she messed up as a result of falling for this prank call.

I like climbing - on 07 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
Could you let me know where you got all your information about this ? I'd be interested in finding out more.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

granted, i don't think anyone is arguing with that. but its not a mistake she should have had to pay for with her life.

and like i've said in many posts, i think its wrong she was put in that position, and i hold the DJs- and the radio station management, this was not a live broadcast, they had time to think through what they were doing- in part responsible. see multiple previous posts for a fuller explanation of why!

best wishes, and try not to let the horrors that you end up encountering erode your humanity,

cheers
gregor


stroppygob - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: She took her own life, deprived her two children of their mother, and had potentially life changing effects on their self esteem and mental health, and that of her partner/husband, and this was due to a discipline/sacking matter?

Hmmm... Wonko is right....
Wide_Mouth_Frog - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> granted, i don't think anyone is arguing with that. but its not a mistake she should have had to pay for with her life.

This is exactly what I meant. I don't think Sarah ever said that!

>
> and like i've said in many posts, i think its wrong she was put in that position, and i hold the DJs- and the radio station management, this was not a live broadcast, they had time to think through what they were doing- in part responsible. see multiple previous posts for a fuller explanation of why!

I completely agree with this though. Although I am sure the DJ's are feeling bloody rotten about this right now.
>
> best wishes, and try not to let the horrors that you end up encountering erode your humanity,

And that too!

ebygomm - on 08 Dec 2012
Why are people talking about it as though this was the nurse featured on the hoax call? She just put the call through.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to stroppygob:

people in distress do irrational things

does it make any difference if wonko is right though?

there is a legal concept of the "eggshell skull"- that means if you assault someone, and the blow would normally be non-serious, but because of a specific vulnerability of the victim the blow ends up being lethal, then you face a murder charge. you take the victim of your actions as you find them, and so should be careful

this is an extension of that in my mind (not that i for a second consider it to be murder, or even a crime, but morally). the radio station knowingly put these nurses in a harmful situation, and for whatever reason, one of them seems to have been unable to handle that. they take the victims of their prank as they find them, and bear some responsibility for the tragic outcome

best wishes

gregor
stroppygob - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to stroppygob)

> this is an extension of that in my mind (not that i for a second consider it to be murder, or even a crime, but morally). the radio station knowingly put these nurses in a harmful situation, and for whatever reason, one of them seems to have been unable to handle that.

No. The prank callers made a prank call. They did not in any way endanger, or "put these nurses in a harmful situation". They made an (idiotic) phone call.

That is all they did.
balmybaldwin - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Shadowmaster:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
>
> This is truly horrific. Those DJ's should be prosecuted for this as they are 100% responsible for her death.
>
> R.I.P.

Bollox were they. They might have further unbalanced the poor woman, but as said by others, an incident like this does not mean the only option is to commit suicide, it can only be a contributing factor
David Lanceley - on 08 Dec 2012
The nurse was from the Phillipines. Unlikley she would have picked up on the fake accents
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I don't think it's entirely clear yet whether the DJs broke the law by breaching the hospital security.
ice.solo - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to ice.solo)
> [...]
>
> thats why i think it was a pretty crappy thing to do, as someone who didnt court publicity was going to get hurt. brass eye is funny because the targets are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves, and deserve bringing down a peg or two. setting up a stunt that might get a bystander sacked it a poor show- and could have more consequences than intended
>

thats a good sane point. a hornets nest in its own right, and one that makes me think differently about it all.
gazhbo - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

How is it that only a handful of otherwise intelligent people are reacting appropriately to this? Sarah isn't exactly covering herself in glory with her apparent lack of empathy but she is, to all intents and purposes, one of the few people on this thread who is willing to look at the situation for what it is.

You don't have to be insensitive to the tragic suicide of a mother to see that this was a disproportionate and unpredictable response to what was at worst an ill thought through prank that ended up going a lot further than the DJs in question ever intended.

It's not analogous with Sachsgate as, the way I understand it at least, it wasn't a malicious phone call, it was a phone call fishing for fairly trivial information on Kate's condition. The family themselves even made light of it (I assume before Jacintha Saldanha's death or before they were aware of it). It's not even the worst thing that DJs have done themselves, and I have no intention of trying to defend some of their previous stunts.

As much to blame, and I use blame loosely, are those responsible for the ridiculous level media coverage of what was essentially a non-story - hospital falls for hoax call. This is unfortunately something that i envisage will never change.

I reiterate that none of the above means that I don't have the utmost sympathy with Ms Saldanha or her family.

John_Hat - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

Agreed 100%. Taken in conjunction with the point made that the person they were very likely to get into heaps of trouble if successful would not be some media celebrity but some probably tired nurse who was just trying to do their job and help patients and family, and never courted publicity, and I think, as Off-Duty said, that they should have thought through the consequences much more than they did.
John_Hat - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to John_Hat:


To expand slightly:

Before the DJ's made the call they should have thought that ringing a hospital, pretenting to be a relative, and then broadcasting details of the sick person's condition around the world is not a nice thing to do in the first place. How would I feel if my mum was in hospital and someone rung up, pretended to be me, and then broadcast details of my mum's condition around the world? Not happy.

However, having gone through that moral conundrum there were two possibilities.

1. That they got told to f*ck off. Obviously that is what should have occurred, but they should have thought about the second possibility.

2. That they get through and get information. If so then they will be doing so at the expense of not media-savvy professionals, but nurses and staff who are entirely normal people whose prime job is not to liaise with the media, but care for the sick.

Is it then likely that these nurses and staff are going to get into deep trouble for breach of patient confidentiality? Of course. Is it likely that these people are going to be embassased, shamed, and upset as their voices are broadcast around the world? Of course. Does this person whose primary job is caring for the sick deserve worldwide humiliation? I don't think so.

Whilst it is not likely that one of these individuals will be so ashamed and guity that they take their own life, it is likely that they will lose their job and any chance of future employment. Given that is the case, is a suicide *that* improbable?

This was not a live call. It was recorded. Hence there was plenty of time for wiser heads to intervene. Apparently the lawyers vetted it as "safe", and hence it was broadcast.

The prankster that pulls a chair out from under someone as they sit down may think its really funny, but when the person falls, backwards, hits their head and dies, it's not funny any more.

and a few seconds aforethought would suggest that the consequences of being successful would be really bad for someone who didn't deserve those consequences.

These are professional DJ's. They are doing a job. They know full well the effects their actions can be. They, and the station, are culpabe. Them for not taking a few seconds to think about the consequences of their actions, and the station for subsequently vetting the call and failing to see the same.
SAF - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to I like climbing:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
> Could you let me know where you got all your information about this ? I'd be interested in finding out more.

"A duty of confidence arises when one person discloses information to another in circumstances where it is reasonable to expect that the information will be held in confidence"

From NMC
http://www.nmc-uk.org/Nurses-and-midwives/Advice-by-topic/A/Advice/Confidentiality/

neilh - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:
I think the radio station is owned by Fairfax media, does Murdoch own fairfax or is it somebody else?
In reply to John_Hat: Totally agree. I think it's unfair to blame the DJs for the death of this woman, is it really isn't a foreseeable outcome in my view. However, there were many foreseeable outcomes that could have arisen as a result of this "prank" (a term best used in relation to the actions of 15 year old boys), all of which were to the severe detriment of innocent people who don't deserve to have their lives messed-up for other people's "entertainment". That's what should have been considered by a professional broadcaster.

The response to Sarah Finney is because she is displaying the emotional maturity of a dead haddock. Yes, the nurse made a mistake. Within the scope of her job, a really rather insignificant one. She didn't kill someone with 10x the dose of a dangerous drug, she didn't leave someone to die while gossiping with colleagues. Given that the poor woman was affected enough by this for it to apparently be the trigger for her taking her own life, a debate about her lack of professionalism is insensitive and pointless at best. We can all apply cold hard logic to issues. Sometimes it's not the best response.
SAF - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

> The response to Sarah Finney is because she is displaying the emotional maturity of a dead haddock. Yes, the nurse made a mistake. Within the scope of her job, a really rather insignificant one. She didn't kill someone with 10x the dose of a dangerous drug, she didn't leave someone to die while gossiping with colleagues. Given that the poor woman was affected enough by this for it to apparently be the trigger for her taking her own life, a debate about her lack of professionalism is insensitive and pointless at best. We can all apply cold hard logic to issues. Sometimes it's not the best response.

So should we only debate one element of it, or should neither you nor I, or anyone else on her be debating it at all. The whole point of a debate is that you look at it from all angles.

I have not said at any point that I think the DJs didn't get things wrong that day, but to say that the nurses got everything right is just not the case.

If we were just debating the case of the two nurses having fallen for the prank call, without the added dimension of the suicide, then all those of you placing the blame solely on the DJs would likely get the two nurses in far more trouble if you represented them.

Suggesting a hearing needed to take place is not implying guilt it's, it's just nor brushing it under the carpet.

If the nurses had attended a hearing with the attitude that they had fallen somewhat short of there professional standards on confidentiality, had reflected on this, learnt from this, and were sorry for any distress cause...then most likely as others have said they would have recieved at worst a caution.

If they took the attitude of many on her and went with the approach of it not being them at fault at all, they couldn't possibly have seen it coming, and why should they even be having to attend a hearing...then they would likely get a stiffer penalty (suspension, retraining, Struck-off in the worst case).

I have already stated several times that it's very sad that she took her life, I don't see that I then need to start every post with that line.

ripper - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: Well answered Sarah - regardless of whether or not I agree with your opinions on this, I have to say some of the comments directed at you have been quite unpleasant and a little bit ridiculous.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to ripper:

i think it was this post sarah made last night that really got peoples' backs up

reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
> [...]
>
> Good luck with the UKC lynch mob though ;)

Will do...it'll keep me entertained whilst I'm sharpening my crampons and axes :-)

perhaps if sarah were to distance herself from the sentiment she displayed there, then people would be more sympathetic to the rest of her points.

as to the issue, i suspect that most posters are a lot closer in position than they seem, this sort of debate can make small differences in emphasis seem larger

the nurses breached their professional code

but they should never have been put in a position where they might end up doing so

a drastic reaction such as suicide was extremely unlikely, but not entirely unforeseeable

some form of stress and professional difficulty to them was almost certain

submit to gravity and john hat make the points very eloquently and i wont repeat them here

and i think i'm repeating myself now, so probably dont have much to add now

best wishes

gregor
SAF - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I had just had someone imply that i was going to get lynch by the mobs, which i took to mean that they were sharpening there pitch forks!!!

People were laying into me for expressing an opinion different from there's long before I made that comment.

And for all those people who are "holier than tough", do you get this cut up by every suicide you read about in the news, at least I'm honest, I don't know this women, I do think it's sad that she killed herself, but every suicide is sad, nobody ever had it easy or happy to have reach that point, but no I'm not going to pretend that I'm getting over emotional about her.
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
>
> [...]
>
> So should we only debate one element of it, or should neither you nor I, or anyone else on her be debating it at all. The whole point of a debate is that you look at it from all angles.
>

To be honest, in my mind it's similar to when there's a climbing fatality - and I think (other equally relevant views are available) one should express condolences, but don't speculate, debate and apportion blame, at least not in the immediate aftermath.

> I have not said at any point that I think the DJs didn't get things wrong that day, but to say that the nurses got everything right is just not the case.
>

Yes, but it doesn't need saying!

> If we were just debating the case of the two nurses having fallen for the prank call, without the added dimension of the suicide, then all those of you placing the blame solely on the DJs would likely get the two nurses in far more trouble if you represented them.
>

I don't think what the nurses did was that big a deal. If Kate Middleton was my sister, I would be pissed-off with the broadcaster but sympathetic to the nurses.

> Suggesting a hearing needed to take place is not implying guilt it's, it's just nor brushing it under the carpet.
>

That's down to the standards of the professional body; as I've said I don't think it's a big deal.

> If the nurses had attended a hearing with the attitude that they had fallen somewhat short of there professional standards on confidentiality, had reflected on this, learnt from this, and were sorry for any distress cause...then most likely as others have said they would have recieved at worst a caution.
>
> If they took the attitude of many on her and went with the approach of it not being them at fault at all, they couldn't possibly have seen it coming, and why should they even be having to attend a hearing...then they would likely get a stiffer penalty (suspension, retraining, Struck-off in the worst case).
>

I don't think they should have been in that position anyway.

> I have already stated several times that it's very sad that she took her life, I don't see that I then need to start every post with that line.

Fair enough.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

Hi Sarah

That doesn't read like distancing!

Not that I agree with some of the more personal comments made against you last night, some went too far

But some of the humility and acceptance that you recommended the nurses in this case should display would really help here...!

Beyond that, I suspect we are arguing differences of emphasis rather than substance, so I'll leave it there for now

Best wishes

Gregor
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> Hi Sarah
>
> That doesn't read like distancing!
>
> Not that I agree with some of the more personal comments made against you last night, some went too far
>
> But some of the humility and acceptance that you recommended the nurses in this case should display would really help here...!
>
> Beyond that, I suspect we are arguing differences of emphasis rather than substance, so I'll leave it there for now
>
> Best wishes
>
> Gregor


Why should she display humility?
She has said nothing horrible toward the nurse in question, she has just given a balanced view of all aspects of the 'blame' here.

Her only 'crime' is not to indulge in the vicarious grief which is often displayed in cases like this from people who prefer to conduct witch hunts without thinking anything through.
SAF - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
> [...]
>
> To be honest, in my mind it's similar to when there's a climbing fatality - and I think (other equally relevant views are available) one should express condolences, but don't speculate, debate and apportion blame, at least not in the immediate aftermath.
>
Why are you on a discussion forum commenting and giving an opinion then?!
>
> I don't think what the nurses did was that big a deal. If Kate Middleton was my sister, I would be pissed-off with the broadcaster but sympathetic to the nurses.
>
But what happens if kate ends up in hospital again with something, more personal/serious/contraversial... does it not worry you that she may be lay in bed awake every night wondering who is going to know her private infomation by the morning, and not having any trust in the nursing staffs ability to keep it private?! She should not have to fear them giving away infomation on top of the media intrusion she is used to.

> That's down to the standards of the professional body; as I've said I don't think it's a big deal.
>
Refer to my link in a previous post.

‘The code: Standards of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives’ (2008) states:
"You must respect people's right to confidentiality."
"You must ensure people are informed about how and why information is shared by those who will be providing their care."
"You must disclose information if you believe someone may be at risk of harm, in line with the law of the country in which you are practising."

It is very much one of the standards of Nursing.

And it is a big deal, depending on the situation and the content of the infomation involved an inappropriate disclosure of infomation can be as damaging to a patient as a wrong drugs calculation (ie in mental health nursing). You just have to be careful and not do it!!


elsewhere on 08 Dec 2012
Many times I've phoned a hospital and now a care home to ask after and speak to an elderly relative. I've always been grateful that the nurses & other staff have spoken to me rather than said they can't tell me anything.
Mike Stretford - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

>
> And it is a big deal, depending on the situation and the content of the infomation involved an inappropriate disclosure of infomation can be as damaging to a patient as a wrong drugs calculation (ie in mental health nursing). You just have to be careful and not do it!!

I don't get this, when my Mum was ill my dad phoned the hospital after the operation and they gave us the good news. Did they do wrong?
Dauphin - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Papillon:

Yeah. 'They' should of claimed no knowledge of that patient as well, you know because 'confidentiality' is clearly the most critical aspect of caring for any patient and communicating with relatives or the prank callers from a radio station.

D
Ridge - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to elsewhere:
> Many times I've phoned a hospital and now a care home to ask after and speak to an elderly relative. I've always been grateful that the nurses & other staff have spoken to me rather than said they can't tell me anything.

+1

I'd far rather I could phone up a hospital 3 hours drive away and find out what's happened to my elderly dad rather than get "No, that's more than my professional status is worth. You mst present yourself in person before we can discuss the matter"
SAF - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> [...]
>
> I don't get this, when my Mum was ill my dad phoned the hospital after the operation and they gave us the good news. Did they do wrong?

No, so long as they were sure that your Mum was who she said she was, and that your Dad had consented/implied consent for his infomation to be shared directly with your Mum, then that's normal practice.

The problem with phones is that you can't see that you are talking to the person you think you are, and if in doubt this should be confirmed prior to the disclosure. Given that the patient is question is the future queen, then a extra level of caution should have been taken in this case.
Dauphin - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

Maybe the nurse broke the official secrets act & that is why she topped herself? Get a grip.

D
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> [...]
>
> I don't get this, when my Mum was ill my dad phoned the hospital after the operation and they gave us the good news. Did they do wrong?

Technically, yes, unless they were certain of your identity.

There was a thread here recently asking advice on getting information about someone in hospital. Many people replied with their experience of phoning up to ask and it was split about 50/50 between those who had called and been given information/put through, and those told that it was against hospital policy to give information over the phone.
It was pretty clear that there are perceived privacy issues, it was also clear that there was no universal policy to deal with it.
Mike Stretford - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to Papillon)

>
> The problem with phones is that you can't see that you are talking to the person you think you are, and if in doubt this should be confirmed prior to the disclosure. Given that the patient is question is the future queen, then a extra level of caution should have been taken in this case.

The nurse obviously got tricked, there's no argument there. The point you made earlier about your opinion of what happened not changing becuase of the suicide, I don't feel that way. I'm not 'cut up' or anything, but it has reminded me that people can be vunerable to their lives being messed with.
Rob Exile Ward on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: Given that it was 5.00 am and the poor woman thought she was talking to the Queen I rather think that would trump the extra level of caution required.
Ridge - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney) Given that it was 5.00 am and the poor woman thought she was talking to the Queen I rather think that would trump the extra level of caution required.

Also, given that how poorly an Anglesey housewife is feeling is obviously a secret capable of causing untold damage to national security..
How come an expensive private hospital no doubt stuffed to the rafters with executive managers, senior managers, managers, under managers, media liaison managers, patient liaison managers, (during normal working hours), has a nurse running round manning the switchboards at night, especially with her Kateness, (plus bodyguards and maybe a flunkey or two who might be able to pick up a phone) in residence?
nonymouse - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
>
>
> It's not analogous with Sachsgate as, the way I understand it at least, it wasn't a malicious phone call,

Watever. it was a cheap vulger trick which was about the same level as the gutter press. I listened to it and thought what is the remotest bit funny about it. its now had serios consiquences
ads.ukclimbing.com
Mike Stretford - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to nonymouse: Yeah. They set out to do something, that if succesful, was going to get someone in trouble. You'd have thought a prank call to a hospital, under any circumstance, would be considered very poor judgement.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
>
> Why should she display humility?
> She has said nothing horrible toward the nurse in question, she has just given a balanced view of all aspects of the 'blame' here.
>
> Her only 'crime' is not to indulge in the vicarious grief which is often displayed in cases like this from people who prefer to conduct witch hunts without thinking anything through.

You are linking two things together which are not mutually exclusive (people engaging in vicarious grief as you put it and then engaging in a witch hunt), and I take issue with your use of the term vicarious grief. On the first point, I don't think there should be a witch hunt against the DJs as I don't think the ultimate outcome of their actions was foreseeable. However, I think if we ignore the fact that the nurse killed herself, and there was a debate about what happened, I would blame them 100% and have sympathy with the staff involved and with Kate Middleton. I do however, genuinely feel a degree of sadness about the fact that the nurse committed suicide and feel it inappropriate to comment about her perceived failings as a nurse in a dispassionate way. You and Sarah seem to view your ability to do so as a great strength. I take a contrary view. To make the statement that you have, about people "indulging" in "vicarious grief" is somewhat patronising. I genuinely feel sad about it. You either do or you don't; it's not manufactured.

On a related note, it does make we wonder why some issues like this cause me to "feel" sadness and others merely to acknowledge a sad situation. Maybe a topic for another thread.
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity: Not my point at all.

I take issue with
(1) The calls for tighter media controls because of this.
(2) I dislike the way people demand you express sadness on threads like this. I am not slightly sad. I didn't know the woman. This however does not mean I don't think it's very tragic. It is. But it doesn't affect me personally any more than many other tragic deaths which happen every day.
(3) I dislike that the girl on here putting a quite reasonable point of view across is being attacked for being insensitive. For a start, she isn't being insensitive, she's reacting against the witch hunt mentality on here toward the DJs, who did something bloody stupid, but are not directly responsible for this girl taking her life.
(4) If you feel real grief over this, fine, I don't see it as a strenght not to feel this grief, I just see it as not indulging myself. Imagine if every time there was a case like this, everyone acted on emotion. It's practically the definition of a witch hunt.


In short....... this is quite awful for all concerned. But the way to deal with it is take a step back and look at what happened.

(1) DJs made a prank call which could have got some staff into trouble. It was thoughtless and stupid.
(2) Staff put that call through. It is understandble why, I've said so in previous posts. But it still was naive and stupid to do so.
(3) One of the women involved took a drastically disproportionate action of ending her own life over it when the outcome was far from clear. I understand that she may have felt terrible pressure. But cna anyone else here seriously say they would end their life over it?? That it was in any way predictable? Personally, I'm a bit gobsmacked that she did.


Re the last point, that is WHY I don't feel anything over this. Quite literally, hundreds of thousands of people die daily. Some of them in terrible circumstances. Sure, I could switch on the TV and pick and choose some to be emotional over. But to what point? Who is it really for, them or me?
Of course, if there were anything I could reasonably DO about it, I would.
So I live my life caring for those I CAN help.
Trangia - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

More likely they broke the law by impersonating the Monarch and the heir to the throne.

If you dig through ancient laws you may find those are treasonable offences and we may yet see them extradided and sent to the Tower followed by an appointment with the axe man.....
Mike Stretford - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity) Not my point at all.
>

> (2) I dislike the way people demand you express sadness on threads like this. I am not slightly sad. I didn't know the woman. This however does not mean I don't think it's very tragic. It is. But it doesn't affect me personally any more than many other tragic deaths which happen every day.

You're arguing over semantics and possibly taking a very literal interpretation of the word 'sad'. People mean the same as you mean by 'tragic', they aren't 'cut up', as Sarah would put it.
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> You're arguing over semantics and possibly taking a very literal interpretation of the word 'sad'. People mean the same as you mean by 'tragic', they aren't 'cut up', as Sarah would put it.

No I'm not. i'm responding to the outright casitagtion of anyone putting a balanced view which doesn't wholly fit with the grief stircken mob, baying for blood attitude.
I fond it quite sickening to watch.
Mike Stretford - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: I havn't read every single post but I've skimmed most and I can't see no 'baying mob', and to be honest I can't see much to argue over.

ps If you're feeling generous could you bump my Woodhouse Scar queestion?
Tall Clare - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

A minor detail, and I apologise in advance, but both Sarah and the nurse who committed suicide are women, not girls.

Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> A minor detail, and I apologise in advance, but both Sarah and the nurse who committed suicide are women, not girls.

You speak for all women?
I've had girlfriends quite happy with 'girl' 'skirt' and some who prefered 'woman'
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Tall Clare: FYI I often refer to myself as a 'boy' too.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

Concerning information over the phone, I've phoned up hospitals both in Britain and France and never had any difficulty in getting information concerning patients. In Britain it was for my mother, in France my wife and I introduced myself each time and they put me through to the nursing staff who gave me information... just like in this incident. Any other sort of securitised system would be a real pain in the neck.

I don't see anything wrong in that... maybe high profile patients should have their own staff present, but that would be for them to set up - in this case they weren't short of money.


What strikes me in this case is why the nurse would have done what she did, assuming she did it and it was nothing more sinister - the first reaction of some French people was thinking she'd been bumped off by some royal henchmen, as they still think about Lady Die - was why? What sort of pressure was she under to panic like this? I haven't seen any answers on internet, all vague stuff like on the BBC site. There was a remark about the hospital not taking disciplinary action, which rather suggests that some think they could have, otherwise why issue the denial? Was there stuff in the press criticising her, remarks by her colleagues?

Blaming the DJs is possibly missing those who were really responsible, as is attributing even part of it to her having "frailties", saying that "to commit suicide is an over-reaction which demonstrate her own problems", or words to that effect. So who put the pressure on?

PS. Of course, if Britain was a republic and had no Royal family to terrorise the common folk this sort of thing wouldn't happen, but that's another subject.
Oceanrower - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Have you been drinking?
altirando - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: When my daughter was in Stanford Hospital, California, after a 1,500ft fall, we had to set up a password system to get info on her condition. Can't understand why this was not a standard procedure in this case. And certainly I wonder why all calls about Kate weren't automatically transferred to a specific security individual, even in the early hours. But I suspect that most of us, faced with a similar call from the 'Queen' would say, pull the other one. This poor woman was perhaps a little naive. Awful that she should think about ending her life. The Aussi pair did go beyond the bounds for a prank though.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Have you been drinking?

What makes you think that? I can't see anything controversial or outlandish in this particular post.

I just heard the recording of the conversation on French TV. Unlike what has been said the queen's accent wasn't that bad but the reply of the nurse showed she clearly had a strong foreign accent which may explain why she didn't notice the false accent.

If she was from abroad maybe she was more sensitive to reproaches made against her (if there were any, we don't know it seems) and one could easily imagine a racist element in whatever drove her to take her life - if she did... it seems amazing that this simple fact has still not been made public and then there's moaning about "uninformed comment". If the information was a bit more forthcoming maybe the comments would be less uniformed.

Enty - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think it was the Royal family terrorizing the common folk which made you sound tipsy ;-)

Sarko terrorized me far more than The Queen ever did but then again I'm an immigrant.

E
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:

Well that was really what was behind the problem and the fuss in the press - if they had played the "joke" on any other Tom, Dick or Harry then there wouldn't have been such a press "shock, horror" nor calls for legal action or whatever - it's because many still have the forelock-tugging, boot-licking attitude to royalty that the affair was an affair, and incidentally the poor nurse died.

Personally I can see nothing shocking in the whole business except concerning the nurse, and also possibly the incompetence of whoever takes care of the security of these overpaid parasites.

PS. Sill not drinking, been off alcohol for a few years :-(
gazhbo - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to nonymouse) Yeah. They set out to do something, that if succesful, was going to get someone in trouble. You'd have thought a prank call to a hospital, under any circumstance, would be considered very poor judgement.

But, that didn't even happen. The hospital's line is that Jacintha Saldanha was not facing disciplinary procedures and was being supported.

I understand that the hospital has now written to the radio station essentially blaming it for Ms Saldanha's death. Not sure what to make of that. I understand that they feel they need to make a statement but you'd think they would be able to see the death as a disproportionate and unpredictable response to an ill conceived (perhaps more so with hindsight) prank call that inadvertently exposed flaws with their security procedures.

If it transpires that Ms Saldanha was reprimanded then this move is going to look a bit more sinister.
Blue Straggler - on 08 Dec 2012


I am with Wonko and Sarah on this one and I would like you all to judge everything I ever say, based upon this fact.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:

> The hospital's line is that Jacintha Saldanha was not facing disciplinary procedures and was being supported.

I don't think I'd go to that hospital if I needed support!
John W - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Shadowmaster:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
>
> This is truly horrific. Those DJ's should be prosecuted for this as they are 100% responsible for her death.

Don't be ridiculous.
ads.ukclimbing.com
John W - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

Sarah, just in case you were feeling as if you were banging your head against a brick wall, I'm in support of your opinions on this matter.

"Just saying like" (as the common parlance seems to have it).
TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity) Not my point at all.
>
> I take issue with
> (1) The calls for tighter media controls because of this.
> (2) I dislike the way people demand you express sadness on threads like this. I am not slightly sad. I didn't know the woman. This however does not mean I don't think it's very tragic. It is. But it doesn't affect me personally any more than many other tragic deaths which happen every day.
> (3) I dislike that the girl on here putting a quite reasonable point of view across is being attacked for being insensitive. For a start, she isn't being insensitive, she's reacting against the witch hunt mentality on here toward the DJs, who did something bloody stupid, but are not directly responsible for this girl taking her life.
> (4) If you feel real grief over this, fine, I don't see it as a strenght not to feel this grief, I just see it as not indulging myself. Imagine if every time there was a case like this, everyone acted on emotion. It's practically the definition of a witch hunt.
>
>
> In short....... this is quite awful for all concerned. But the way to deal with it is take a step back and look at what happened.
>
> (1) DJs made a prank call which could have got some staff into trouble. It was thoughtless and stupid.
> (2) Staff put that call through. It is understandble why, I've said so in previous posts. But it still was naive and stupid to do so.
> (3) One of the women involved took a drastically disproportionate action of ending her own life over it when the outcome was far from clear. I understand that she may have felt terrible pressure. But cna anyone else here seriously say they would end their life over it?? That it was in any way predictable? Personally, I'm a bit gobsmacked that she did.
>
>
> Re the last point, that is WHY I don't feel anything over this. Quite literally, hundreds of thousands of people die daily. Some of them in terrible circumstances. Sure, I could switch on the TV and pick and choose some to be emotional over. But to what point? Who is it really for, them or me?
> Of course, if there were anything I could reasonably DO about it, I would.
> So I live my life caring for those I CAN help.

Agree with this completely.

My father has just been diagnosed with bowel cancer and Alzheimers. I care about this and it demands my emotion.

Daft nurse in hospital with whom I have no connection or, and this might sound callous, quite frankly dont care about kills herself needlessly I cant get upset about it.

It was a daft prank but that's it. They should not feel guilty about her death one iota in my opinion.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> No I'm not. i'm responding to the outright casitagtion of anyone putting a balanced view which doesn't wholly fit with the grief stircken mob, baying for blood attitude.
> I fond it quite sickening to watch.

That's an interesting insight into the way you look at the world wonko...

Setting aside the hyperbole and straw manning that your post drips with, it is instructive that you admit to feeling nothing about a tragic and needless death, but find it 'sickening' when someone gets critical comments on an internet forum...

Some may find that odd, even bizarre, but my view would be that we're all different, and you are of course entitled to Express your views, just as those that disagree with you are...

Best wishes

Gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Daft nurse in hospital with whom I have no connection or, and this might sound callous, quite frankly dont care about kills herself needlessly I cant get upset about it.

I can see you are going through a hard time but I reckon what you say here goes a little beyond common decency... anyone would feel sympathy for someone close, you can't help it as sympathy is mixed with personal loss, but without falling into the excesses of heaps of flowers or minutes of silence I find it difficult to understand such a callous attitude.

This whole story is like something out of poor dramatic film, I can't believe such a thing has happened in reality.
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> That's an interesting insight into the way you look at the world wonko...
>
Maningless.

> Setting aside the hyperbole and straw manning that your post drips with, it is instructive that you admit to feeling nothing about a tragic and needless death, but find it 'sickening' when someone gets critical comments on an internet forum...
>
I cannot be bothered to go back up thread and do the whole cut and paste thing. But I suggest you go read some of the comments directed at sarah, about how her lack of compassion is disgusting etc...... then acuse me of hyperbole. Straw manning? A favourite accusation here, but you don't appear to understand the meaning. I've constructed no straw man arguments. I've commented directly on things written up thread all of which are there to read.

If you REALLY don't understand the difference between having no feelings for the death of a person I didn't know, when death occurs every day and is a fact of life......... and being sickened at mob mentality, then I can't see the point of trying to explain it to you because in all likelihood, you're one of them.

> Some may find that odd, even bizarre, but my view would be that we're all different, and you are of course entitled to Express your views, just as those that disagree with you are...
>
I find your views bizarre.




TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> [...]
>
> I can see you are going through a hard time but I reckon what you say here goes a little beyond common decency... anyone would feel sympathy for someone close, you can't help it as sympathy is mixed with personal loss, but without falling into the excesses of heaps of flowers or minutes of silence I find it difficult to understand such a callous attitude.
>
> This whole story is like something out of poor dramatic film, I can't believe such a thing has happened in reality.

Its tragic, I agree and i cant say im not a littl shocked. I have sympathy with her loved ones as i am no doubt going to suffer loss in the not too distant future but i was perhaps taking a more realistic perspective (and in slight agreement with Wonko) that both the nurse's reaction was an over reaction and that we are all made to feel as though we are weird because we havent wept into our tea over the nurse.

So to set the record straight as far as i am concerned, if you really care for my opinion, is that that it was a stupid prank, it was in poor taste, the DJs should be repremanded with the same severity as if I got slightly overly pissed on a works do, that the the nurse's reaction suggests something amiss and that this whole affair was a Shakespearian tragedy.

But you question my callousness. My friends would see my as the most sensitive and thoughful person they know. And that's just it, I cant get upset by the death of someone I have no connection with, regardless of the reasons.

Anyone who says differently needsa to get off the bandwagon and reconnect with their own reality.

In reply to Wonko The Sane: I'm interested in what you mean by mob mentality, particularly in the context of an internet forum. What's the difference between a consensus and a mob mob mentality? Or are you suggesting that I, for example, have formed my opinion based on what others have said?

Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) I'm interested in what you mean by mob mentality, particularly in the context of an internet forum. What's the difference between a consensus and a mob mob mentality? Or are you suggesting that I, for example, have formed my opinion based on what others have said?

I've been bloody clear on what I'm suggesting. go read it.
Can't be arsed with it.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I suppose the cognitive dissonance is less for you if you are able to smear those that are pointing out some uncomfortable truths. Sarah expressed some views last night that people found offensive, people expressed their opinions, no one got hurt. That's what happens on the forums.

Given that you have difficulty with this, seem to believe that a balanced view on a subject is one that is the same as yours, find people who have a different viewpoint bizarre, and start frothing about baying mobs when you find your beliefs in the minority, then perhaps you should consider if the internet is really for you

Before you go though, perhaps you could indulge me and try to explain why someone you've never met getting called for making callous comments on the internet makes you feel physically sick, but the needless death of a young mother leaves you cold? I'd be genuinely interested

Best wishes
Gregor
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I seem to recall a similar thread when Amy Winehouse died. It appears that wasting emotion on people you don't actually know is weak and inefficient. I shall try to bear it in mind in the future.
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> I suppose the cognitive dissonance is less for you if you are able to smear those that are pointing out some uncomfortable truths. Sarah expressed some views last night that people found offensive, people expressed their opinions, no one got hurt. That's what happens on the forums.
>
Oh stop being a tosser.
Do you really think I'm going to rise to that rubbish?

> Given that you have difficulty with this, seem to believe that a balanced view on a subject is one that is the same as yours, find people who have a different viewpoint bizarre, and start frothing about baying mobs when you find your beliefs in the minority, then perhaps you should consider if the internet is really for you
>
The Sun outsells the Guardian.
What's your point?

> Before you go though, perhaps you could indulge me and try to explain why someone you've never met getting called for making callous comments on the internet makes you feel physically sick, but the needless death of a young mother leaves you cold? I'd be genuinely interested
>
I don't care about Sarah. Surely this is clear enough.
I care that someone with a different view, and in my opinion, a much more balanced view, is being attacked because she isn't indulging in mawkish behaviour like you lot.
Never met sarah, and if she died tomorrow I'd feel no more about her (or you) than the nurse. I DO however care that I live in a society which more and more often is prone to this blame culture.
> Best wishes
>
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: And if you don't get any of that, it's your problem. Not mine. I'm not interested in being drawn further. Seek entertainment elsewhere.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Firstly, sorry for your recent bad news. Alzheimers is a cruel disease, but there is treatment which can possibly help with both conditions. I hope things go as well as they can for your father

But on topic- your friends may find you to be sensitive, bur that's not how you come across on here. No one expects you to feel grief stricken at this ladys death, but to me it seems a natural empathic reaction to feel a bit sad when I think what her children must be experiencing. To come on here and make derogatory comments about her so soon after her likely suicide doesn't seem like the actions of a sensitive person, but I only know you from what I see on here

As to the djs, if you are interested in why I think you are underestimating the seriousness of what they did, please look at my earlier posts- not asking you to agree with them, but you can at least see the argument ...

Best wishes

Gregor


Fred Astaire on 08 Dec 2012 - host86-146-80-118.range86-146.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Game of Conkers: Very sad.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
> Oh stop being a tosser.
> Do you really think I'm going to rise to that rubbish?

you appear to be getting angry. the abusive language certainly makes it look like that, though i'm sure you will say you're not, no one ever admits they are


> I don't care about Sarah. Surely this is clear enough.


well...

> I care that someone with a different view, and in my opinion, a much more balanced view, is being attacked because she isn't indulging in mawkish behaviour like you lot.

this is good stuff. the "more balanced view" just happening to be the one you have, the straw man that "us lot" are indulging in "mawkish behaviour"- go on, set out what that has been then

all there is here really is people having a difference of opinion on the internet, and each side has said in robust terms what they think of the other. the language you have used is no less derogatory than that directed at sarah. the difference appears to be that i fully support your right to post abusive comments at me here, whereas you appear to believe that people with your "more balanced view" should be immune from criticism

I DO however care that I live in a society which more and more often is prone to this blame culture.

this sounds like the output of a middlebrow tabloid columnist. is this really the image you wish to project?

best wishes,

gregor

Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> you appear to be getting angry. the abusive language certainly makes it look like that, though i'm sure you will say you're not, no one ever admits they are
>
No, not angry. I simply read that and thought 'tosser'
You do not need to be angry to think that.
You appear to have left your thinking skills behind.
Yes, I'm very much aware I am no longer discussing and simply cannot be bothered to explain something again and again because you either don't get it, or are just looking for a protracted row.
I'm not interested.
And I'm bored.
>
> [...]
>

Fred Astaire on 08 Dec 2012 - host86-146-80-118.range86-146.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Game of Conkers: Sad that the nurse is dead. Very sad that someone comes on and makes intelligent reasoned comments and gets shouted down by a bunch of half-educated loudmouths.
off-duty - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Fred Astaire:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers) Sad that the nurse is dead. Very sad that someone comes on and makes intelligent reasoned comments and gets shouted down by a bunch of half-educated loudmouth

I didn't think Wonko was "half educated" ;-)
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Fred Astaire)
> [...]
>
> I didn't think Wonko was "half educated" ;-)

Meh.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

and yet, here you still are, 2 days on, posting on a thread on a topic you claim to have no emotional response to.

why is it that people having an mild empathic response to a sad event gets distorted by you into a tide of mawkish vicarious grief?

and leads you to type post after post telling us all how much you *don't* care?

and typing abuse at people that point out the inconsistencies in your position?

what do you think all this appears to say about you?

best wishes

gregor
ads.ukclimbing.com
Wonko The Sane - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Meh.
thebrookster on 08 Dec 2012
Ye Gads.............................................

If I have read most of this thread correctly, there has been what in places almost a hate campaign against "Sarah Finney", and for the majority a fiar rant against her, simply because people believe she has not shown enough empathy in her posts?

The mind boggles. The ability to convey emotions and feelings through the written word is incredibly difficult. Hence we are not all authors. (I am not however trying to suggest that only authors can do this, or that this ability qualifies you as an author. I am merely trying to illustrate my point that a reasonable author would normally have this ability.) Yet, people still attempt to read into everyone's posts?

I think many people need to take a wee step back, and remember that the typed word does not always convey the intended emotion, and indeed can in some cases convey a completely contrary emotion.
birdie num num - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:
Num Num is wondering if anyone has even bothered to go and ask the nurse why she committed suicide?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

ok, night then wonko...

a final thought or two- i suspect we're not so far apart in position as the last few exchanges would suggest, and that the inflammatory language we have both used has served to exaggerate the differences beyond their true extent

i think it would be interesting to look at why this issue has generated such strong opinions- i suspect it is because it touches on people beliefs about the nature of responsibility, and appropriate responses to death, and whatever position people take can be seen as carrying an implicit criticism of those that take an alternative view.

but i'm too tired to think these through in any more depth at present...

best wishes

gregor
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Dec 2012
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I'm sure you are sensitive - having said that though, to use a similar logic to yours in your previous post, I could say, wait a minute, that's just being fluffy, I've no idea whether he's sensitive or not, he could be quite the opposite! Which is as true as what you said, but given the information you gave about your present situation I would be pretty callous if I reacted so "logically".

Generally I would go along with what you are saying, all the syrupy sympathy for people we don't even know is a bit nauseous at times but I found this particular case quite touching, even to a cold old sod like me. When I saw it I really did feel a wave of sadness (like you I have a few "issues" on at the moment so this probably amplified the feeling) that I don't usually experience. It's not just a standard sort of case. She was a nurse, doing her job, the phone rang and she passed the call to another nurse... as she probably had done many times before.

We don't know what her instructions were, if she was replacing someone or whatever, but the next thing she knows is that her voice is on the radio, people are up in arms because the fairy princess of the £200 000 wedding dress, national celebrations, married to the heir of the throne etc etc has had her "privacy invaded". For many this might not have been a big deal but for her, for reasons we don't know, it was, and she killed herself... it's hardly banal, is it?

So I don't think I'm getting on any bandwagon in saying so, I don't normally get on bandwagons, she has children and husband in Bristol apparently... maybe the powers that be will get round to telling us what's going on when it suits their purposes?
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs and Bruce Hooker:

OK, let me try and explain myself now im sober as a judge and have read my comment and other again this morning as I may have come across as quite heartless.

I do indeed feel for the nurse's loved ones, her children and her family. As a father, I can see that this is going to be a living hell for all those around her and that this whole episode is a tragedy. I do indeed feel empathy towards all those concerned but that its as far as it goes.

The DJs need a dressing down but I dont see how they can be held responsible for the end result as i am sure that they didnt think that this would be a likely outcome.

What i cant do though, is get all emotional over it and feel any more sadness about this case that any other death. I dont see that i should get on the bandwagon of what someone called 'syrupy' feeling towards the case because it doesnt directly affact me. I dont think this makes me insensitive, I would say it makes me normal.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Thanks for the clarification, an entirely reasonable position I'd say

The only point I'd make is that there is no.bandwagon of syrupy mawkish feelings on here- most people have reacted in the way you describe, and in fact I couldn't have described my own reaction better than you just did there.

I have no problem with people having no reaction too, there is no right or wrong way to react, and no one is better than anyone else for either feeling sad or being unconcerned.

Perhaps your post can trigger a spirit of mutual understanding and acceptance of other points of view; given the events that led to the thread, the unseemly squabble it has generally been, and which I have to accept some responsibility for, was unfortunate

Best wishes

Gregor
obi-wan nick b - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs and Bruce Hooker)
>

> The DJs need a dressing down but I dont see how they can be held responsible for the end result as i am sure that they didnt think that this would be a likely outcome.
>

I entirely disagree. If you are going to 'prank' people that you don't know then you need to think it through a bit first and realise that as you don't know them they may not react in the way that you expect and find it all a hearty joke. One quite predictable result of the 'prank' being successful is that someone would get sacked. Even that I would suggest is not a good outcome for a 'prank'.
Enty - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to obi-wan nick b:

Turn the clock back a week and ask 1000 people whether they think suicide would be a likely outcome from a telephone prank. I'd be surprised if you got one yes answer.

E

Walter Mitty - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: G a L
Walter Mitty - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: nob
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Walter Mitty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) G a L

I'm trying. I realy am.
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: Ive got a totally crazy and outlandish suggestion, which I know i will be FLAMED INTO THE PIT OF ETERNAL DAMNATION for, but why dont we just wait until the facts that we are privy to come out before making judgement on people we dont know? And mind our own business until then? Just sayin', like....
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:

hi Enty,

that's true, it certainly isn't a likely outcome at all

if you asked the same 1000 people if it was a possible outcome, the outcome might be different

people's responses to this event are probably being shaped by how much they feel people should be accountable for rare but serious consequences of their actions.

i don't think there is necessarily a right answer to that

but also, in this case, where the stunt was so needless, and was inevitably going to expose the staff to some level of unpleasantness, there are many who are less inclined to be sympathetic to the DJs when an unexpected rare complication takes place,

best wishes

gregor
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: I cant help but feel that the popular opinion of the DJs actions isnt helped by the news reports with pictures of them larking around pre-Jacinthagate in "Arent we a smug and clever pair of wank*rs" poses.
Would more contrite pictures help their cause?
muppetfilter - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:

You have to consider what would have happened if she had made a mistake with drug doses or actual patient care...
John W - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to birdie num num:

> Num Num is wondering if anyone has even bothered to go and ask the nurse why she committed suicide?

Quality as ever Mr Num Mum.

gazhbo - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to obi-wan nick b:

One quite predictable result of the 'prank' being successful is that someone would get sacked.

Why does everybody keep saying this? If it was such a predictable outcome then how come nothing remotely close to this happened. The hospital's stance through the whole thing is that she wasn't being disciplined and that she was being supported.

The most likely outcome was - as the DJs themselves predicted - that the call would get through the hospital's security procedures (which turned out not to exist). Once they got through they asked some fairly mundane questions about Kates's condition. It wasn't exactly funny but it wasn't exactly damaging to anybody (least of all the royal family, who joked about it after). I accept that if her condition had have been worse and information related to this had been relayed that the situation could have been worse, although in this eventuality I expect the hospital might have been more cautious and that the radio station might have not played it. They did, after all, take the precaution of pre-recording it.

A lot of people seem to be latching on to the fact that they phoned a hospital. The hospital themselves have highlighted that they care for sick people. I appreciate this sentiment, and it probably was stupid to prank call a hospital, but not because it's possible that somebody might kill themselves as a (fairly indirect) result. The hospital haven't actually highlighted any damaging effect that the call had on Kate or any other patient's care. If the station had phoned Clarence House, and somebody had killed themselves as a result of the humiliation of transferring a prank call to a senior member of the royal family would there be such vitriol.

It's a tragic and horrible situation. But suicide is so far removed from what could have reasonably been foreseen as a result of the phone call that it is mindless to try and blame the radio station.
Enty - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:
> (In reply to obi-wan nick b)
>
>
>
> It's a tragic and horrible situation. But suicide is so far removed from what could have reasonably been foreseen as a result of the phone call that it is mindless to try and blame the radio station.

This ^^^^

E
off-duty - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:

It's bizarre how blagging a nurse receptionist to obtain personal details about a member of the royal family in order to boost ratings is just a "prank", whilst blagging other receptionists to gain personal information about celebrities and public figures in order to boost sales/ratings results in the Leveson enquiry.
ads.ukclimbing.com
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:

People are over-egging the sacking angle

But regardless of the nature of the info handed over, breaking patient confidentiality will be a breach of trust policy, regulatory body codes, and possibly a criminal offense under the data protection act. For a healthcare professional it is a big deal

Now sacking is worst case scenario stuff, and wad never on the cards here I'd have thought. Especially as the nurse did not actually give any info herself

But even if you are investigated and cleared, or given a slap on the wrist, there is still the uncertainty of outcome while its ongoing, which would be very stressful.

For most people that would just be an unpleasant addition to lifes stresses and strains. For someone in a vulnerable mental state already?

That's why some people draw a different conclusion to the one you have come to. Not saying who is right or wrong, like I said earlier, it depends on peoples pre existing views on responsibility and there are a range of perfectly valid positions to take on this

Best wishes
Gregor
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty: I really doubt this will result in just a slap on the wrist for those responsible for the prank. And its just too early to tell if a Leveson type inquiry would ultimately result. But thats another matter. Focussing on blame for a moment, for want of a better word, there was a huge backlash against the press when Diana was killed as it was presumed the car was being chased. Then later on it transpired that the driver of her car was mullered which put a different slant on things, even if it didnt absolve the press of any culpability. Whilst I suspect that there may have been other factors at play in her life, this phone call could well have been the final straw for her. I obviously didnt know this nurse, but I do find the situation quite sad for those left behind.
Mike Stretford - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to obi-wan nick b)
>
> Turn the clock back a week and ask 1000 people whether they think suicide would be a likely outcome from a telephone prank. I'd be surprised if you got one yes answer.
>

True but meaningless, as nobody would argue suicide would be the likely outcome. What is meaningful is play this sort of stunt 1000 times over on random strangers, and you will get more than a handful of hits on vunerable people.
Enty - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Papillon:

But suddenly it's like lots of people are saying told you so.

Anyway I've made my point about hindsight so I'll bow out too.

E
obi-wan nick b - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Papillon: Exactly my point. If you are going to 'prank' people that you don't know and take that responsibility then you have to think about more that what's likely to happen and start worrying about what's unlikely and what's a worst case scenario.
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:

Surely the real question is why did she do it? The hospital says no disciplinary action was taken but given the timing that's hardly surprising, they didn't have time, but it's pretty likely that some people would have been looking for someone to blame and generally it's those towards the bottom of the hierarchy that this falls on. How do we know that nothing was said to her, by the other nurse for example, it wouldn't be unlikely, would it? Or by colleagues, saying your in for it now or something... in organisations there are always kind souls about happy to put the boot in...

So she goes to her lodgings - apparently her family are in Bristol so she was alone, mulls it all over, and she does what we are told she did. For the moment we don't know, which is itself strange, but would a person who was obviously in a fragile mental state, which is what people are saying, be left in charge of incoming calls to a hospital? The DJs were idiots, no doubt of that as messing about with hospitals like this can only be described as idiotic, but the real issue is what happened to her in the hours after she answered the call that tipped her over the top?
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hi Bruce

Her disturbed mental state may not have been obvious; even a psychiatric assessment for self harm is far from 100% reliable.

As to the rest, that's what the coroner will be charged with determining. Though depending on the extent of the evidence, it may be impossible to know for sure exactly why it was that she took that course of action

Best wishes

Gregor
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:
> (In reply to obi-wan nick b)
>

>
> I accept that if her condition had have been worse and information related to this had been relayed that the situation could have been worse,
>
> The hospital haven't actually highlighted any damaging effect that the call had on Kate or any other patient's care.

So if Kate ends up in hospital again at some point in her life, how do you think she is going to feel... possibly extremely anxious that not only can she not trust the media not to interfere, but that she cannot trust the nurses not to give her private info away. Can't imagine that will be very nice for her at a vunerable time.
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>

>
> I have no problem with people having no reaction too, there is no right or wrong way to react, and no one is better than anyone else for either feeling sad or being unconcerned.
>
> Perhaps your post can trigger a spirit of mutual understanding and acceptance of other points of view;

Really, yuo've changed your tune!!

>the unseemly squabble it has generally been,and which I have to accept some responsibility for, was unfortunate

That I agree with!!!


off-duty - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to gazhbo)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> So if Kate ends up in hospital again at some point in her life, how do you think she is going to feel... possibly extremely anxious that not only can she not trust the media not to interfere, but that she cannot trust the nurses not to give her private info away. Can't imagine that will be very nice for her at a vunerable time.

Don't you think it more likely that having been tested and having been found wanting, the security protocols for her next visit are going to be much more to robust and scrutinised.
She is likely to feel much MORE secure.
mockerkin on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:


If it transpires that Ms Saldanha was reprimanded then this move is going to look a bit more sinister.

>> That's the best point made on this thread.
obi-wan nick b - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: So as a nurse part of your training should be to spot prank calls? I think i'll finish here it's ludicrous. Good night
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to obi-wan nick b:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney) So as a nurse part of your training should be to spot prank calls? I think i'll finish here it's ludicrous. Good night


Part of an assignment i once completed...

(i) As more patient information is stored electronically, what secondary
uses, such as research, might it be put to? What, if any, are the concerns
about this?
(ii) Healthcare professionals are coming under increasing pressure to disclose confidential information to third parties. Who are these ‘third parties’ and is a breach of confidentiality ever justified?
(iii) How does your own professional Code of Practice deal with issues of
confidentiality, and how workable is it in practice?

So in a word...Yes!!!
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: Of course, you're totally infallible i presume and would never do anything to compromise another person, like, say drive home so tired after a night shift that you need the radio to keep you awake. Hope I never come across you on my way to work in the morning!
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney) Of course, you're totally infallible i presume and would never do anything to compromise another person, like, say drive home so tired after a night shift that you need the radio to keep you awake. Hope I never come across you on my way to work in the morning!

Yep, but when was the last time you worked a 12 hour shift with a 30min break in it (or in my worst case a 14hour night shift with a 30min break)?! And then when someone goes crying to the papers with "ambulance crew sat on station eating sandwiches when my son lay dying" I'm sure many UKc members (most likely including yourself) would be the first to slate as for this terrible act of needing food and rest at some point!!!
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: Do you drive your ambulance home? I was more thinking about your choice to drive home tired after a night stint and making the comparison about poor judgement (like taking the call this nurse did) after a tiring shift. Its about judgement when youre tired. Keep up!
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
Firstly I don't live and work at the same place...so i have no choice but to drive home.

Secondly if I did mess up in my driving or my work (yes, i admit that i am not infaliable) i would expect to have to answer for these mistakes

Thirdly, I would expect the two nurses involved in this case to have had to answer for their mistake, this does not account to me saying that they necessarily deserve to be sack...it involves them presenting themselves at a hearing with there professional body, giving an account of what happened, acknowledging how they played a role in it, how they had reflected on it and learnt from it, and how they would avoid a similar situation in the future...at no point have I said that this should mean they are sacked (only that the nurse in question may have percieved it as a possible outcome).
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Really, yuo've changed your tune!!
>

Yes, ukc poster in change of heart shocker...!

The longer the thread has gone on, the more apparent its been that people are mostly arguing over a misunderstanding of the other persons position, rather than what they actually are saying; and over the tone of peoples posts rather than the content. Neither of these seem good reasons for incivility.

Wonko seemed to think we were all mawkishly wallowing in vicarious grief, which we're not (well I haven't seen anyone that is); and I'm sure wonko and you aren't cold hearted robots

There are legitimate different takes on this, which is where I might differ from some of the other repeat posters on the thread.

Though I still think my take is the most legitimate...

;-)

Best wishes
Gregor
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
>
>
>
> and I'm sure wonko and you aren't cold hearted robots
>
> There are legitimate different takes on this, which is where I might differ from some of the other repeat posters on the thread.
>
Syntax error. Does not compute. Robots have no heart. cold or otherwise.
System failure
System failure
System failure
System failure

Reboot.

Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: I dont work and live in the same place either. Not everybody is a slave to their car. The thing I take issue with is that youre discussing in quite a harsh way how lacking in her duty of care this nurse was but then going on to describe how when tired, you make poor judgement calls yourself. As most people would. So what sets you apart from her? You seem to think yourself superior and im not sure why...
ads.ukclimbing.com
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: The thing that amazes me are that the same people who are sure that this prank was solely responsible for this nurses suicide, are also the ones going after the two DJs in a heavy handed witch hunt. They are already being reported as having accessed counselling and the female is reported as being in a very delicate state...the rate it's going, by the time this baby is born it will be a tragedy of epic proportions!!!
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney) I dont work and live in the same place either. Not everybody is a slave to their car. The thing I take issue with is that youre discussing in quite a harsh way how lacking in her duty of care this nurse was but then going on to describe how when tired, you make poor judgement calls yourself. As most people would. So what sets you apart from her? You seem to think yourself superior and im not sure why...

You never drive to work?
Nurses generally do 12 hours shifts. Public transport or cycling more than a couple of miles after that kind of shift isn't practical.
johncoxmysteriously - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney:

>They are already being reported as having accessed counselling and the female is reported as being in a very delicate state..

I haven't read the whole of the thread, but I'm delighted to hear this. They deserve to be in a terrible state, not because of the unforeseeable death of the nurse but because hoax calls of this nature to hospitals are unforgivable anyway; it's just totally unthinkable to behave in this kind of way. The radio station should sack them outright and overhaul its procedures. They won't, of course, because they're journalists and therefore like most of their kind scum. Instead, they'll go on TV and bleat about how no laws have been broken, as though the laws were the only factor which ought to regulate behaviour in civilised society.

And I last worked a 12-hour shift without a 30-minute break on eight occasions in the last fortnight, so I must be right.

jcm

Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Errr, you know full well I drive to work quite regularly Tyrone. Youve also seen me ride there quite regularly too. Whats your point? If youre not awake enough to ride a bike, youre not awake enough to drive. If anything, cycling to work wakes me up!
But the point im making is about altered judgement after a long shift. Not how far she drives into work.
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> So what sets you apart from her? You seem to think yourself superior and im not sure why...

How is expecting someone who has signed up to a profesional code of conduct, then (for whatever reason) not met the terms of that contract, to give some sort of explanation and reflection... I would expect the same if it was me... so how is that thinking I am superior. It is more than likely that the account that this nurse might have given, and that her collegue may still have to give would amount in a caution, or a brief retraining order on the relevent aspect of their standards, nothing more. But I still think that should be the case, else why have professional bodies, registration, and standards and codes of practice in the first place.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

<smiles>

Sorry it all got a bit heated last night wonko, it was being back in the old days arguing about the falklands with Bruce...!

(Or malvinas, just in case you're reading this Bruce... ;-). )

Still, it was ukc or the x factor last night, and since I've had some sort of virus, I couldn't even use alcohol to numb the horror of that...

Best wishes
Gregor
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Errr, you know full well I drive to work quite regularly Tyrone. Youve also seen me ride there quite regularly too. Whats your point? If youre not awake enough to ride a bike, youre not awake enough to drive. If anything, cycling to work wakes me up!
> But the point im making is about altered judgement after a long shift. Not how far she drives into work.

My point was I thought you're being a bit harsh. Not about being awake enough, it's just about the time spent riding. Takes you 40 minutes on a good day. Add two times that to a 12 hour shift.
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Errr, you know full well I drive to work quite regularly Tyrone. Youve also seen me ride there quite regularly too. Whats your point? If youre not awake enough to ride a bike, youre not awake enough to drive. If anything, cycling to work wakes me up!
> But the point im making is about altered judgement after a long shift. Not how far she drives into work.

I've just been forced (after the closure of my old station) to move to a new station 13 miles further than my last one (so in total 20 miles away). There are no direct public transport links and certainely none at 0545 in the morning... and before you say move house, I have had my house on the market for 2 years... would you like to buy it?!
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Thanks for the compliment. If I could do that commute in just 40 minutes id be women's club champion for TTs.
However, with traffic as it is, it takes me ten minutes only less to drive than to ride. Cool eh :)
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> <smiles>
>
> Sorry it all got a bit heated last night wonko, it was being back in the old days arguing about the falklands with Bruce...!
>
No problem at all, and same back at you.
> (Or malvinas, just in case you're reading this Bruce... ;-). )
>
> Still, it was ukc or the x factor last night, and since I've had some sort of virus, I couldn't even use alcohol to numb the horror of that...
>
The only known alcohol that can even help with the horror of X Factor is Absynthe. And only the old stuff which makes you blind.
If you can find something to make you deaf too....... sorted!



> Best wishes
> Gregor

Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Thanks for the compliment. If I could do that commute in just 40 minutes id be women's club champion for TTs.
> However, with traffic as it is, it takes me ten minutes only less to drive than to ride. Cool eh :)

Then you're a bloody fibber :P, you've reported 45 minute journey times occasionally!
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: 47mins is my record. On a dry day with a tailwind. Wooo! :D
John W - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
> >They are already being reported as having accessed counselling and the female is reported as being in a very delicate state..
>
> .."I'm delighted to hear this"..."they're journalists and therefore like most of their kind scum".

Well that's a nice balanced view you've taken there, and completely devoid of stereotyping - well done!
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) 47mins is my record. On a dry day with a tailwind. Wooo! :D

Next you'll be telling me you invented the word hyperbole.
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney)
>
>because they're journalists and therefore like most of their kind scum.

That's one hell of a sweeping statement, and one that I'm sure most Syrians and Zimbabweans might disagree with...
I accept that these DJs made a mistake and went to far but there are alot of people in this country who need to be careful what they wish for lately!!!
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: No... but alas now a very sad and overly curious part of me is going to google its origins. :/
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) No... but alas now a very sad and overly curious part of me is going to google its origins. :/

Not sad. One of the things that make you bearable:P

The sad thing is, having said that, I now have to as well cos i've forgotten.
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:


hyperbole (n.) Look up hyperbole at Dictionary.com
early 15c., from L. hyperbole, from Gk. hyperbole "exaggeration, extravagance," related to hyperballein "to throw over or beyond," from hyper- "beyond" + bole "a throwing, a casting, the stroke of a missile, bolt, beam," from bol-, nom. stem of ballein "to throw" (see ballistics). Rhetorical sense is found in Aristotle and Isocrates.


The bad lady made me do it. Im an etymology geek. And proud.
thebrookster on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
>Its about judgement when youre tired. Keep up!

Which is the whole point of the training people like nurses, doctors, paramedics and many other professions have to go through, and is also the reason they have to pass such stringent entry requirements.

I do not in any way wish to detract from the tragic death of the nurse in question, however dealing and filtering calls from family and the public is part of the job for nurses, particularly those who have the responsibility of looking after high profile patients (be that royalty, criminals or whatever). What would worry me is if they can make an error whilst tired about a telephone call, would you really want them looking after you? At the end of the day, a mistake is a mistake, no matter the setting.

HOWEVER, that aside, I rather suspect there is a bit more to this story. As has been said already, whilst nurses are expected to field calls to a certain level, in this case you would have expected a higher level of security, provided by the Royal family if not by the hospital. A nurse really should never have been asked to deal with it, I think we can all agree that they have enough to do without being tasked with full on security measures for Kate! Having listened to the call in question now, there was no attempt at any time to clarify who the callers were, which to me suggests rather strongly that the hospital have failed in their training measures. The onus is on the hospital here to provide relevant training, as this is not a scenario your average nurse covers in her college training.
Now, seeing as there was no attempt to clarify who the callers were, this suggests the nurses in question were a touch overwhelmed by who they thought was calling them, which points to a lack of training. This, when coupled with the statement from the hospital stating no action was going to be taken against at least the nurse that died, starts to look rather suspicious.

All supposition of course, but that is my reading of what has happened, going by what has been reported in the press.
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: Do you mind! We're busy changing the subject over here!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Jamming Dodger)
>

>
>
> The bad lady made me do it. Im an etymology geek. And proud.

Someone once trying to make a point told me they knew the entymology of the word.
How I chuckled.
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Jamming Dodger)
> [...]
>
> Not sad. One of the things that make you bearable:P
>
> The sad thing is, having said that, I now have to as well cos i've forgotten.

Typical. You couldnt just admit that you've never actually known its origins could you! Forgot, my a*se.
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Sarah Finney) Do you mind! We're busy changing the subject over here!

Yes I do... I'm not a fan of big words, can you not tell that from my spelling on here so far!!!

Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: That must have really "bugged" you.
Haha, I kill myself!
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Typical. You couldnt just admit that you've never actually known its origins could you! Forgot, my a*se.

Make your bloody mind up!!! Talk about typical, typical woman! How often do you tell me my mind is going because of my age!
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) That must have really "bugged" you.
> Haha, I kill myself!

I actually laughed
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: I think that joke was my pest de resistance.
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) I think that joke was my pest de resistance.

I thought it was lousey.
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: You're right. Joking on a thread like this just isnt cricket.
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger: You win. I'll bee damned if I can think of another bug pun.
Jamming Dodger on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: Loser. Good gnat. :)
SAF - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger: Hope the bed bugs don'y bite!!!
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Jamming Dodger:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane) Loser. Good gnat. :)

You too. Night night. mind the bed bugs don't bite.
Wonko The Sane - on 09 Dec 2012
In reply to Sarah Finney: Damn. too slow.
John_Hat - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Just watched part of the interview with the DJ's. Either they are gifted actors or they are a total mess, I suspect the latter.

Whilst my concerns about the incident remain (as in it was a d@mn fool thing to do), I don't think there is any doubt that there is genuine and heartfelt remorse on the part of the DJ's.

The female DJ in particular looks like someone who should be given immediate 24 hour care and shouldn't be left alone or allowed near any sharp objects for the forseeable future. It was actually painful to watch, hence my only watching part of the interview.

There's been one death as a result of this already. I think to extend this to two or three would be piling tragedy upon tragedy, and drawing a line and moving on appears the only sensible thing to do.
Wonko The Sane - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to John_Hat: I didn't see it. But someone did mention pictures of them 'frolicking'. These were obviously stock pictures before any interview and it's perfectly normal for a company to take a little time to respond formally with something like this because they do have to think about everything they say very carefully.

Quite sad all round.
And I didn't think for a minute that the DJs would have taken it lightly....... I think that most people are fairly decent at heart. They may occasionally do something unthinking and stupid, but only the very worst of people wouldn't be affected if their actions had contributed to a person ending their life, even if it wasn't intended.
Cuthbert on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to John_Hat:

I don't think the death is the DJs' fault.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to John_Hat and Wonko:

i heard some of it on the radio this morning, and agree. i think the emotional impact of the what has happened on the DJs is likely to be more severe than any legal sanction or disciplinary action that could be taken against them

and anyway, the decision to broadcast appears to have been taken at a higher level in the radio station than the DJs. in the end, i think there may be sanctions for the broadcaster, if there is an australian equivalent of ofcom; and i imagine the producer, or their boss may have some uncomfortable questions to answer,

best wishes

gregor
IainRUK - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: It sounds like she's had past mental issues (the DJ) so the are really concerned about that..

I also agree this was a decision taken by the radio station and their lawyers.. so the DJ's shouldn't be singled out.. its just a horrible situation all round and the nasty comments on various articles/accounts seems rather hypocritical as they could very well be a factor in another suicide here..
JM - on 10 Dec 2012
I would be a hypocrite if I chastised the two DJs as I have enjoyed and laughed at pranks played out by radio DJs including these two when I tuned in driving round Sydney. I am sure many of you have as well and it is just a very unfortunate outcome.
ads.ukclimbing.com
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to JM:

not really wishing to reopen the debate of the weekend, so just putting this up as an alternative view, for information

dom joly was interviewed about this on radio 4 this morning. he took the view that the prank was not cruel, as the mail have apparantly called it; but that it was a poor prank, and fell the wrong side of what was acceptable from his point of view (and he's done a few pranks in his time)

he felt that the telephone aspect of it prevented the pranksters from being able to assess the impact that their actions were having on the victim; the repeated playing of the clip involving the unfortunate lady on multiple media outlets added to the pressure she must have felt; and most importantly, he was clear that he needed to get express permission to broadcast before any of his pranks were shown, and that without this, no broadcast would take place. he was pretty scathing about the radio station's claim to have made 5 unsuccessful attempts to contact the hospital, supposedly to try to gain this- he as good as said they were fibbing about that

his argument was not that pranks in general were a problem, but that there were aspects of how this specific prank was set up and handled that were poor, and made it more likely it would have a negative effect on the victim- while accepting that the tragic events that happened were still very unlikely and hard to foresee

best wishes
gregor
Rampikino - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I think that is well put.

I have not contributed to any of this thread (very long and involved as it is), but these lines seem very sensible.

Jim C - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to thebrookster:
Having listened to the call in question now, there was no attempt at any time to clarify who the callers were, which to me suggests rather strongly that the hospital have failed in their training measures. The onus is on the hospital here to provide relevant training, as this is not a scenario your average nurse covers in her college training.

I think perhaps that from now on, high profile patients should give out a password to friends that they can use when calling.
Without that password, the nurses will not be allowed speak to anyone.
Too late now of course.

As I understand this, all this poor woman did was pass the call to the ward dealing with Kate, she did not know or tell anyone anything specific.

This is very sad for everyone concerned.

gazhbo - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

I expect to get some grief because of the source, but...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/10/australian-hoax-djs-draw-line-pranks
Blue Straggler - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to kieran b:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers) news just in:
> 'UKC thread takes very predictable course including wild speculation and counter-claims'
>
> Stay tuned for further updates

News just in - cynics express concern that in 324 posts on UKC, nobody has yet commented on the looks of Mel Greig.
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:

There are a lot of excellent comments below that article.

The article itself underlines the point I made above though. Mark Lawson's a decent journalist writing for a decent paper. Yet even he thinks it takes "hindsight" to determine that hoax calls to hospitals which might cost private individuals their jobs in order to achieve nothing whatsoever, to say nothing of stressing a sick woman, are absolutely, totally, not on.

Journalists as a group simply do not have a decently set ethical compass.

jcm
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:

Thanks for the link, eloquently puts across what I've been trying to say, entirely agree with the conclusion.

Cheers

Gregor
Blue Straggler - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to gazhbo:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
>
> I expect to get some grief because of the source, but...
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/10/australian-hoax-djs-draw-line-pranks

The author states "Until now, though, it had never been thought that prank broadcasting might have fatal consequences"

I know that BBC1's controversial "Ghost Watch" was not quite "prank broadcasting" but many saw it as such, and the High Court ordered that the Broadcasting Standards Commission listen to the complaint from Martin Denham's mother and stepfather. Here, have a link (scroll to "Controversy" if you know the rest already):

halloween.wikia.com/wiki/Ghostw*tch

And some more context

www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-10-24/ghostw*tch-the-cast-of-the-controversial-mockumentary-speak-out
Blue Straggler - on 10 Dec 2012
In reply to Blue Straggler:

sorry I had to break up the links, UKC didn't like them, and has now censored the one-word version of Ghost Watch. Seriously these are worth a read in the context of what happened last week, as they address a suicide that was directly linked to a non-live broadcast made in the name of entertainment, 20 years ago.
Blue Straggler - on 10 Dec 2012
fxceltic on 11 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers: I'll start by saying that obviously this is all a terrible state of affairs, but...

Ive been away since before it all happened and have only caught snippets of info, can anyone help me out with the following questions?

- has the question of the nurses original mental state been mentioned at all? I mean, suicide over answering the call and passing it on (which is what I have heard, she wasnt even the nurse who gave out the details?) seems a bit much to be the sole cause to me? So far all I have seen is stuff about hows its the radio stations "fault". I think thats a bit harsh personally, there must be more to it?

- why did the family get invited to the palace of westminster yesterday? Is the family of everyone who sadly dies unexpectedly invited to the palace of westminster? If so, for what purpose?


Bruce Hooker - on 11 Dec 2012
In reply to fxceltic:

> I mean, suicide over answering the call and passing it on....

But none of us know what she went through between this and her (presumed) suicide. Read this thread and see the sort of remarks slagging her off by complete strangers then imagine what could have gone on where she worked!

The lack of information is amazing.
johncoxmysteriously - on 11 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>The lack of information is amazing.

I don't see that it's amazing at all. The poor woman's dead; WTF do the details have to do with us?

If on the other hand you mean that the number of people pontificating in the absence of those details is amazing, the one would have to agree.

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 11 Dec 2012
In reply to fxceltic:

> I mean, suicide over answering the call and passing it on (which is what I have heard, she wasnt even the nurse who gave out the details?) seems a bit much to be the sole cause to me?

And what would you consider a reasonable cause for a healthy 48-year-old mother to commit suicide, exactly?

>So far all I have seen is stuff about hows its the radio stations "fault".

Well, there may be other causes as well, but the fact is there are industry-agreed procedures for broadcaasting prank calls, which are there for the purpose of preventing harm to victims, and this radio station deliberately ignored them. I'd say that's a good prima facie case that they're at fault.

>I think thats a bit harsh personally, there must be more to it?

Says who? In my experience the reasons people commit suicide are generally ones which don't seem entirely adequate or rational to others.

jcm
fxceltic on 12 Dec 2012
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to fxceltic)
>
> [...]
>
> And what would you consider a reasonable cause for a healthy 48-year-old mother to commit suicide, exactly?
>

I dont know, but thats kind of my point, surely there at least "could" be more to it.

> >So far all I have seen is stuff about hows its the radio stations "fault".
>
> Well, there may be other causes as well, but the fact is there are industry-agreed procedures for broadcaasting prank calls, which are there for the purpose of preventing harm to victims, and this radio station deliberately ignored them. I'd say that's a good prima facie case that they're at fault.

I think there is at least the sort of "trigger" blame argument, but clearly the resulting action was not expected, I suspect the blame they will place on themselves is enough.

>
> >I think thats a bit harsh personally, there must be more to it?
>
> Says who? In my experience the reasons people commit suicide are generally ones which don't seem entirely adequate or rational to others.
>
> jcm

maybe so, but they are often worse circumstances than these, in my experience. Usually there is related underlying depression of some description and the suicide is triggered by a particular event.

Either way, its all speculation, my point is that there doesnt seem to be any public speculation about this being the sole cause of the suicide, which I find odd. Perhaps that will come later, perhaps unfairly.

Im still at a loss as to why the family were invited to the palace of westminster? I heard a quote from them saying that they "want all the truth and that the results of a hospital enquiry would not be enough", what are they expecting from this? Is there likely to be some sort of conspiracy at play?

It seems to me that the family being in the spotlight is unnecessary and the result is their understandable devastation and anger is playing out in public when it would be better to be private. The government playing up to this stuff under media pressure will likely only make a terrible situation worse.

johncoxmysteriously - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to fxceltic:

>I think there is at least the sort of "trigger" blame argument, but clearly the resulting action was not expected,

Well, as I say, the guidelines are there to prevent harm to the prankees. It's unforeseeable this terrible harm occurring in any individual case. It's by no means unforeseeable that if the guidelines are broken there will sooner or later be a tragedy.

It would be interesting to harass, say, a thousand sick pregnant women in this fashion and see how many miscarriages resulted, for example.

>I suspect the blame they will place on themselves is enough.

If you mean the two broadcasters, I agree, although frankly no punishment could be too harsh for the sort of sick-making public wailing they've been going in for since the original event. If you mean the lawyers and the station owner who allowed this to be broadcast, I don't agree. The former need to be the subject of professional sanctions and the radio station should be severely punished or perhaps even have its licence withdrawn. This sort of flagrant abuse of its power by the media needs to be stopped.

>Im still at a loss as to why the family were invited to the palace of westminster?

Because CallMeDave thinks it will win him votes, presumably.

>It seems to me that the family being in the spotlight is unnecessary and the result is their understandable devastation and anger is playing out in public when it would be better to be private.

I couldn't agree more. It's unbelievable that the media are still publishing pictures of 14-year-olds who've just lost their mother. I actually would have thought that was also contrary to industry guidelines. But in any event no-one needs any guidelines to see that it shouldn't be happening. As I believe I said upthread, journalists are by and large scum; they simply lack any sort of moral compass beyond what they think will sell their papers.

jcm
Bruce Hooker - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

On the news now, the inquest revealed that she "hanged herself":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20710644

Det Ch Insp James Harman told the court: "On Friday 7 December Jacintha Saldanha was found by a colleague and a member of security staff. Sadly she was found hanging.

"There was also injuries to her wrist. The London Ambulance Service was called to the scene. At this time there are no suspicious circumstances."


I wonder what would be considered "suspicious" circumstances!

The French press are saying the radio station is offering $500 000 blood money to the family and that an enquiry in Australia will seek to discover if they applied two essential rules, ie. told the two nurses they were being recorded and got their permission before broadcasting the recordings.

From what we know up to now they didn't respect either. Apparently they could lose their broadcasting licence for this, which seems the least that could be done, but doesn't say if the two goons could face prison sentences or manslaughter charges, which again would seem altogether reasonable.

The inquest has been "adjourned until 26 March", which doesn't exactly inspire a great sense of urgency... looks like yet another cover up... I bet we never know what happened.
MJ - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The inquest has been "adjourned until 26 March", which doesn't exactly inspire a great sense of urgency... looks like yet another cover up... I bet we never know what happened.

What do you think happened?
MG - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>
> The inquest has been "adjourned until 26 March", which doesn't exactly inspire a great sense of urgency...

Is there a rush? Presumably court scheduling, any forensic results etc. will take time.

looks like yet another cover up... I bet we never know what happened.

Is this now part of you global conspiracy theory!?

Bruce Hooker - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to MG & MJ:

Wait and see, but it may be a long wait.

I was just looking at "blood money" - "weregeld" of our ancient saxon ancestors and it would seem to apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

"Weregild (also spelled wergild, wergeld, weregeld, etc.) was a value placed on every human being and every piece of property in the Salic Code (Salic Law). If property was stolen, or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person would have to pay weregild as restitution to the victim's family or to the owner of the property"

So £500 000 is seen as the value of a wife and mother in a world of moronic entertainment and royal celebs.

ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So because you disagree with the scheduling of an inquest it must be a conspiracy? I take it you have some knowledge of "normal" inquest timetabling?
Bruce Hooker - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:

If you read the thread you'll notice I haven't mentioned conspiracy. I do think the lack of information available to the public is quite scandalous - it seems to be a trend though.
MG - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Why scandalous? The details of one poor women`s suicide are hardly the public`s business. It seems she had rather too much public attention when alive.
off-duty - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> If you read the thread you'll notice I haven't mentioned conspiracy. I do think the lack of information available to the public is quite scandalous - it seems to be a trend though.

Oh? What do you think is being "covered up" then?

I have obviously misinterpreted :-
What strikes me in this case is why the nurse would have done what she did, assuming she did it and it was nothing more sinister

one could easily imagine a racist element in whatever drove her to take her life - if she did...

maybe the powers that be will get round to telling us what's going on when it suits their purposes?

and her (presumed) suicide.

she "hanged herself" [Why the quotes?]


Robert Durran - on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> looks like yet another cover up... I bet we never know what happened.

Obviously Prince Philip had her bumped off. After all, he does have a track record with Diana.

Rob Exile Ward on 13 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: You've gone bonkers again, haven't you?

The only cover up is by the hospital, whose blustering righteous indignation neatly acts as a cover for the fact they had no staff or protocols in place to handle enquiries about the highest profile pregnancies on the planet. Whoever didn't anticipate that should be sacked - now. The pranksters didn't expect to get through - one of them was imitating a corgi in the background, ffs - and even Prince Charles, along with just about everybody else, thought it was vaguely amusing when they did.

Right up until the poor woman topped herself.

Now, we don't know what was going through her mind, what pressures she was under, what demons she was wrestling with. But objectively, killing herself was wholly disproportionate to her work situation, (even if the hospital were throwing a hissy fit behind the scenes, which wouldn't suprise me, but rightly it wouldn't have been one they could have acted on without getting themselves in serious legal employment sh*t) and who knows? Maybe she had a completely unrelated row with her husband on the same day?

But no, it must be the government/Murdoch/??? against the little person (yawn...)
Enty - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Agree 100%

E
tolly_60 - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:

If you have two kids under 10years old you don't kill yourself because you received a prank phonecall. The definition of selfishness in my book.
IainRUK - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to talbot_60: Informative post... suicide is now the leading cause of accidental death in many countries... a bit of an issue not to be dismissed so easily..
In reply to IainRUK:
> suicide is now the leading cause of accidental death in many countries...

errrr? "Premature" or "non-natural causes" maybe?
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Why scandalous? The details of one poor women`s suicide are hardly the public`s business.

So you don't think this human tragedy should interest us? "Move along there, nothing to see here!"? Just sweep it under the carpet, only a nurse after all?

I don't agree, whoever is involved I think she deserves justice, and there is far more chance of getting this if the facts are brought out into the open. An ordinary person has the same rights as a pair of aristocratic parasites in my opinion. We don't have to agree on this though, of course.
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:

> she "hanged herself" [Why the quotes?]

Because I was quoting from the article. I have no idea myself what she did, nor why she would also have wounds to her wrists.
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> ...what demons she was wrestling with...

So it was her "demons" was it? Clearly you don't need any information, you already know the answer, like talbot 60, the victim has become the guilty party. I wonder if a white nurse would have received the same treatment, or if it hadn't been a royal patient?

Judging her the way you and others do is quite sickening... made easier by the lack of information, press conferences by the police and so on. Probably because, as they said shortly after finding her hanged and with wrist wounds that "there are no suspicious circumstances"!
off-duty - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> So you don't think this human tragedy should interest us? "Move along there, nothing to see here!"? Just sweep it under the carpet, only a nurse after all?
>
> I don't agree, whoever is involved I think she deserves justice, and there is far more chance of getting this if the facts are brought out into the open. An ordinary person has the same rights as a pair of aristocratic parasites in my opinion. We don't have to agree on this though, of course.

That's generally the idea of an inquest. It's usually a good idea not to screw up your own investigation by releasing key details to the international press before you have spoken to witnesses and generally not hastily rushing your investigation to satisfy Bruce Hookers demands that the whole thing is cleared up within the week.
Oceanrower - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> [...]
>
> . I wonder if a white nurse would have received the same treatment
>
>

D'y'know, up until now, I hadn't realised she wasn't.

That's probably how much difference it makes.
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bruce that's dishonest. I didn't say that she had demons, I said the exact opposite - that we didn't know.

I don't think you can point to single post where someone has belittled or denigrated her action, but not everything that happens in the worlld has simple causes based on an 'ism - racism, capitalism, imperialism, colonialism ...
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty: According to Bruce it has been cleared up, because the woman was of Indian origin she was hounded by the Murdoch media and then forced to commit suicide to protect the Royal family.

Or something like that, near enough anyway.
off-duty - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> [...]
>
> So it was her "demons" was it? Clearly you don't need any information, you already know the answer, like talbot 60, the victim has become the guilty party. I wonder if a white nurse would have received the same treatment, or if it hadn't been a royal patient?
>
> Judging her the way you and others do is quite sickening... made easier by the lack of information, press conferences by the police and so on. Probably because, as they said shortly after finding her hanged and with wrist wounds that "there are no suspicious circumstances"!

You do understand what "no suspicious circumstances" means don't you ?
Without wanting to be too morbid I have attended a number of suicides where the deceased has combined multiple methods to try to end their lives.
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:

> to satisfy Bruce Hookers demands that the whole thing is cleared up within the week.

I think you are exaggerating here. In the past such events were explained to a great extent straight away, always in the conditional until investigations were finished but the basic facts were given.

An even more flagrant example was the killing of the drug dealer which led to the wave of riots. I still don't know if the full details have come out but at the time the contradictory and then non-existent information concerning the shooting was certainly a contributory factor behind the riots, mass destruction and several deaths. It gave those who wanted to see it that way a perfect excuse for assuming there was a police cover up.

There does seem to be a rather arrogant trend within the British police these days, compared to many other countries. The "needs of the enquiry" being put before the needs of public information. Don't you accept the idea that the public has a right to information as soon as it becomes available unless there is some crucial reason for doing otherwise?
MG - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> An even more flagrant example was the killing of the drug dealer which led to the wave of riots. I still don't know if the full details have come out but at the time the contradictory and then non-existent information concerning the shooting was certainly a contributory factor behind the riots, mass destruction and several deaths. It gave those who wanted to see it that way a perfect excuse for assuming there was a police cover up.


So above you are complaining there is delay while things are properly investigated and considered at an inquest, while here you are complaining that everything was rushed!

Don't you accept the idea that the public has a right to information as soon as it becomes available unless there is some crucial reason for doing
otherwise?

No because it comes out in dribs and drabs, is contradictory, subject to correction etc etc. The whole purpose of court cases, inquests is for all relevant information to be considered as one and careful conclusions drawn. Your approach just results in mob rule.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'was certainly a contributory factor behind the riots'

Really? So if all the facts had been laid out in a neat A4 folder with graphs, plans, drawings and photos, and distributed at a press conference to all and sundry, then the rioters would have turned to each other and said, 'fair enough, now we know the facts there's no need to go and pinch that plasma TV from PC World or chuck a brick through that car windscreen'?
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to MG: Not mob rule - dictatorship of the proletariat. There's a difference. (?)
MG - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> So you don't think this human tragedy should interest us? "Move along there, nothing to see here!"? Just sweep it under the carpet, only a nurse after all?
>

On the contrary, I think her case should be carefully examined by an inquest and not published in lurid, probably incorrect, detail to satisfy your desire for a salacious tabloid story. Particularly so in this instance given the apparent cause.

Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:

> You do understand what "no suspicious circumstances" means don't you ?

Apparently not.. what the report said already sound suspicious to me - why did they immediately say suicide without an enquiry, no problem for this apparently, if then we must wait for further information for a necessary enquiry? This "conclusion" could be made immediately but no others?

Personally I don't assume it was anything but suicide but I find it hard to believe there weren't reasons for the suicide beyond assumed problems of her own. It seems odd, for example, that is if she was known to have serious problems that she would be left in such a responsible position.
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to MG:

> So above you are complaining there is delay while things are properly investigated and considered at an inquest, while here you are complaining that everything was rushed.

Err no, that's not what I said, I was complaining about the lack of information and the extraordinary delay in publishing the facts, if they ever were made public?
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Please consult dico for word "contributory".
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: ' It seems odd, for example, that is if she was known to have serious problems that she would be left in such a responsible position. '

Absolutely, I agree, and as I said in my post i think head(s) should roll at the hospital, - their blustering is just hiding the fact that they were grossly incompetent at not anticipating interest and having robust plans in place to deal with it.
Wonko The Sane - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> Apparently not.. what the report said already sound suspicious to me - why did they immediately say suicide without an enquiry, no problem for this apparently, if then we must wait for further information for a necessary enquiry? This "conclusion" could be made immediately but no others?
>
I think you're desperate to see something that isn't there.

Quite often, within a day or two, police often say 'there are no suspicious circumstances to the suicide'
It means the evidence points to a suicide with no outside involvement.


That doesn't mean a person woke up and thought 'f*ck it, bored today, I know, I'll off myself'

So they then investigate the REASONS for that person's action. That part means delving into their lives to find out what was wrong, this can mean talking to friends, family, looking at email/online history and a host of other things which have to be looked at, collated and a conclusion made.

It takes time.

Whatever they find though won't affect the fact that the person killed themselves and wasn't murdered.



> Personally I don't assume it was anything but suicide but I find it hard to believe there weren't reasons for the suicide beyond assumed problems of her own. It seems odd, for example, that is if she was known to have serious problems that she would be left in such a responsible position.

off-duty - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> I think you are exaggerating here. In the past such events were explained to a great extent straight away, always in the conditional until investigations were finished but the basic facts were given.
>

Really? I don't recall that at all.

> An even more flagrant example was the killing of the drug dealer which led to the wave of riots. I still don't know if the full details have come out but at the time the contradictory and then non-existent information concerning the shooting was certainly a contributory factor behind the riots, mass destruction and several deaths. It gave those who wanted to see it that way a perfect excuse for assuming there was a police cover up.
>

There were a number of triggers to the riots. One of which was the perception that the full details should be released prior to the investigation even being started. Another contributory factor was actually misleading information released by the IPCC too early - they believed that the presence of a bullet in an officer's radio meant that Duggan had fired - but hadn't got ballistics or witness details, another contributory factor was local community activists inciting demos and marches and demanding immediate answers where those answers should blame the police.

> There does seem to be a rather arrogant trend within the British police these days, compared to many other countries. The "needs of the enquiry" being put before the needs of public information. Don't you accept the idea that the public has a right to information as soon as it becomes available unless there is some crucial reason for doing otherwise?

Other countries operate an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial criminal justice system. It directly plays into the defendant's hands to disclose information about the police case when not required. In addition as a matter of basic investigation I am surprised how forthcoming some places are in some investigations - particularly with unknown suspects who will undoubtedly be keen to know what is going on in the investigation.
The only right to information that the public have is the right that an investigation is carried out as thoroughly as possible and the correct people are charged with the offence. The only people with "rights" in an investigation in the UK are the defendants and to a lesser extent the victims as bizarre as that balance may be
captain paranoia - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> a cover for the fact they had no staff or protocols in place to handle enquiries about the highest profile pregnancies on the planet. Whoever didn't anticipate that should be sacked - now.

I think the Palace must take some of the blame for that; they know that the press will try to obtain details by underhand methods, and they ought to have established some protocol by which the Palace could contact the hospital to get details.

For all I know, such a protocol was agreed, but it was never passed on to the staff. A nurse manning a switchboard at 5:30am?

I don't think for one minute the two DJs ever envisaged their call would lead to suicide, but they might certainly have expected someone to get disciplinary action for revealing patient information, had their call been successful. Wiser counsel should have prevailed at the radio station.

When I saw this thread title last Friday, I confess to being stunned by the news, and, like others, hoped it was itself a 'prank'. Sadly not. A tragedy for the woman and her family, as is any untimely death. And, whilst I don't usually care much about the Royals, I imagine Kate and William are pretty upset about the death, too, and whatever joy their child may bring them, it will always be associated with this sad incident.
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Off Duty:

I don't know if anyone else has seen this in the Guardian (linked from the BBC web site):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/13/jacintha-saldanha-suicide-notes

So it seems that during the three days between the call and the death of the nurse quite a bit had been happening. One of the letters found criticises the attitude of some of the hospital staff, and she received emails and phone calls that were being investigated...

Maybe it's just a question of semantics but I cant see myself that the phrase: 'At this time there are no suspicious circumstances apparent to me in relation to this death.' really covers it.

I wouldn't necessarily be suspicious that this was murder but that a few people "helped" her make the decision is a distinct suspicion. I would also be suspicious about whether leaving her alone for three days in what was apparently a state of distress was prudent too. Perhaps I'm just naturally suspicious though.

MJ - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Give it a rest Bruce.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Off Duty)

> I would also be suspicious about whether leaving her alone for three days in what was apparently a state of distress was prudent too.

Where does it say she was left alone for three days in an apparent state of distress? Or are you assuming?
Enty - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Off Duty)
>
> I don't know if anyone else has seen this in the Guardian (linked from the BBC web site):
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/13/jacintha-saldanha-suicide-notes
>
>

The fact that one of her suicide notes put her employers in a bad light was on the news at 7:30 this morning - I've been watching this thread all wondering why everyone was conveniently avoiding mentioning this.

E
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> Give it a rest Bruce.

Why? Do you favour a cover up too?

simon c on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

...and for the Nurse that actually spilled the beans rather than just pass a call through! should we expect some strange news soon?
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Enty:

The Guardian says "staff" rather than management... I wonder if she wasn't subjected to hassles from colleagues. On this thread quite a few people seem to be very "uncomplimentary" towards her, for no apparent reason unless it was the fact of the royals being involved, so perhaps some of her colleagues did the same?
MJ - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Why? Do you favour a cover up too?

No. I'm quite happy to wait for the results of the inquest. Why can't you?
Is it because you see this story as a means to an end, in that you see it as a way to weasel in some of your thoughts on the 'establishment'?
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: So what 'truth' do you think is being hidden?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I would also be suspicious about whether leaving her alone for three days in what was apparently a state of distress was prudent too.

Where does it say she was left alone for three days in an apparent state of distress? Or are you assuming?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to MJ:

I just don't think it rings true, like the shooting of the drug dealer didn't to many. I can understand why we have to wait a bit for conclusions but I think the public should be given more information more quickly. For the shooting it became obvious that he hadn't shot back and the messing about was to cover this up... everything then went on hold for weeks or months... Hardly surprising that many close to him jumped to the obvious conclusions - I don't BTW.

In this case the level of justification of the deception - referred to invariably as a "prank", the lack of empathy for the nurse - "she must have been dotty already", "this sort of prank alone can't possibly explain her act", "she clearly didn't apply the regulations covering her work" and other niceties are quite revolting.

The best way to dispel these unsavoury attitudes would be to speed things up, get as much information out as possible, with suitable provisos - "as far as we can say at present" etc. would be the best way to pay her and her family a bit of respect... and get the police a bit back too. It would require a bit of imagination and human concern though, which appears to be lacking.
Rob Exile Ward on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: It's not often I can say this without fear of contradiction but you are a total prat, with less genuine humanity than the average toad.
MG - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Yep.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> I would also be suspicious about whether leaving her alone for three days in what was apparently a state of distress was prudent too.

Where does it say she was left alone for three days in an apparent state of distress? Or are you assuming?
MG - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I see the US media have adopted Bruce's philosopher and, oh, surprise, identified the wrong man as the gunman in CT.
off-duty - on 14 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to MJ)
>
> The best way to dispel these unsavoury attitudes would be to speed things up, get as much information out as possible, with suitable provisos - "as far as we can say at present" etc. would be the best way to pay her and her family a bit of respect... and get the police a bit back too. It would require a bit of imagination and human concern though, which appears to be lacking.

I am almost laughing too much at your apparent lack of self awareness in that last line to make a reply, but....
Blaming the unsavoury attitudes on a lack of information is blaming the cause on the symptoms. Regardless of the information that was released the speculation would continue. The changing in stories as new evidence came to light would fuel the conspiracy theorists even more than now and the harm that would be done to successful prosecutions really wouldn't be worth it.
Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:

> The changing in stories as new evidence came to light would fuel the conspiracy theorists even more than now

You think it could have been worse? Hard to believe, think back a bit, Croydon in flames was noticed even abroad.

> and the harm that would be done to successful prosecutions really wouldn't be worth it.

Who was prosecuted after the shooting? You appear to be just bringing out a stock argument which in no way corresponds to reality, just you say it so often that maybe you believe it yourself... a bit like your remark about me. Easier to follow a bandwagon than think for yourself?
Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) It's not often I can say this without fear of contradiction but you are a total prat, with less genuine humanity than the average toad.

So your idea of humanity doesn't stretch as far as wanting the truth to come out about this nurse, just doing her job as best she could?

It's really strange the way you all toe the Palace line.

Rob Exile Ward on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker: I really feel like doing this in all caps: WTF HAS THE PALACE TO DO WITH THIS???!!! Even Prince Charles thought the 'prank' was amusing until this tragdy occurred.
off-duty - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> You think it could have been worse? Hard to believe, think back a bit, Croydon in flames was noticed even abroad.
>
> [...]
>
> Who was prosecuted after the shooting? You appear to be just bringing out a stock argument which in no way corresponds to reality, just you say it so often that maybe you believe it yourself... a bit like your remark about me. Easier to follow a bandwagon than think for yourself?

There has been one trial so far of the person alleged to have supplied the gun to Duggan. The IPCC investigation of the shooting is still ongoing, presumably pending trials of some of those involved in the initial surveillance operation that ultimately resulted in Duggan's death.

Whilst the flames in Croydon might have made your news media, I have actually spoken with some of the rioters of England and if you believe that misinformation (or even any knowledge at all) about the death of Duggan had anything to do with the subsequent then you are the only person jumping on any sort of bandwagon.

Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:

> The IPCC investigation of the shooting is still ongoing, presumably pending trials of some of those involved in the initial surveillance operation that ultimately resulted in Duggan's death.

And do you think that this corresponds to the political importance of justice not only being done but seen to be done within a reasonable time scale? You appear to be very complacent... and I'm someone who thinks, given the information we have at present, that the policemen involved should not be prosecuted, they thought they were faced with an armed individual and didn't want to become yet another crime statistic.

As for the relationship between the Duggan shooting and the riots you seem to have forgotten the crowd in front of the police station, surely that and the events that followed contributed directly to the riots? I'm quite willing to accept that the riots were an instrumentalization of the frustration of poor urban youths by the drug gangs but it wouldn't have been so easy without the spark of the shooting and the subsequent police communications disaster.
Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) It's not often I can say this without fear of contradiction but you are a total prat, with less genuine humanity than the average toad.

Just noticed this gem, I'm afraid I often skip your posts since you started stalking, and find it puzzling. On this thread many posters denigrated Jacintha Saldanha using the sort of terms I cited above, I have consistently defended the idea that this was unjustified, particularly the insinuations that she must have been already have had problems, that this "prank" to use their callous term, wouldn't cause a "normal" person to commit suicide, and called for more transparency about what happened during those three days to push her to such an extreme. So if my opinion is inhuman, what about all those who slagged her off? Funny that you didn't feel the need to make a remark to them?

Anyway we both know that the reason you post this sort of line is little to do with this thread or the subject... a bit sad really, have you nothing better to do?

Bruce Hooker - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Do you have anything to say on the subject of the thread? Or are you just stalking again?
off-duty - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> And do you think that this corresponds to the political importance of justice not only being done but seen to be done within a reasonable time scale? You appear to be very complacent... and I'm someone who thinks, given the information we have at present, that the policemen involved should not be prosecuted, they thought they were faced with an armed individual and didn't want to become yet another crime statistic.
>

I would be more than happy if the matter was dealt with more rapidly. Unfortunately certain legal complications exist.
1) The prosecutions of those involved in supplying the weapon (and potentially those others in the vehicle or involved in any conspiracy to actually use the weapon). These will have a direct bearing on any case involving the justification or otherwise of the officers involved in the shooting.
2) Legal argument in relation to a large volume of covert intelligence and whether or not it is disclosable as it was almost certainly involved in this case.
3) The charging (if necessary) and subsequent right of any police officers involved to prepare their own defence.

An example might be - everyone involved acquitted = strengthens a case for prosecuting the cops. Unfavourable decision on disclosure of covert evidence := strengthens the case for prosecution of the cops.
Those processes and the right to a defence for the officers involved have to be weighed against the "right" of the public to know all about the full facts of what occured at the earliest opportunity. As you will be aware if you have followed the case of the supply of the weapon - a lot of information was released in the course of that trial.

> As for the relationship between the Duggan shooting and the riots you seem to have forgotten the crowd in front of the police station, surely that and the events that followed contributed directly to the riots? I'm quite willing to accept that the riots were an instrumentalization of the frustration of poor urban youths by the drug gangs but it wouldn't have been so easy without the spark of the shooting and the subsequent police communications disaster.

Perhaps I should rephrase when I said Duggan shooting didn't have anything to do with subsequent riots I meant had nothing directly to do with the subsequent riots. Undoubtedly the riots in London were a trigger and they themselves were initially triggered by a series of events which stemmed from the shooting of Duggan. The motivation for subsequent riots appeared to be more about "getting sh1t for free", "fecking up the cops" and generally smashing stuff up, a) because it was happening elsewhere and b) more importantly because it appeared that you could get away with it.

I would disagree that "frustrated urban youth" were involved unless by "frustrated" you mean "wanted free stuff". Gangs did what they do - which is act in a semi organised fashion to work as a group to take advantage of the situation/opportynity.

Mike Stretford - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Even Prince Charles thought the 'prank' was amusing until this tragdy occurred.

I don't give a toss what Prince Charles thinks. Amazed at the number of people who seem to think:

A prank call to a hospital is ok.
A prank call to randomn unvetted people is ok.
The invasion of privacy is ok.

All are completely out of order. If this type of thing has become ok in the era of reality tv ect, then perhaps people should stop moaning about 'hindsight' and have a think about things.
Bruce Hooker - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to off-duty:

> have to be weighed against the "right" of the public to know all about the full facts of what occurred at the earliest opportunity...

Perhaps I should replace "right to know" with "desirability to know"?

As for "frustrated", I mean frustrated at not having anything near the number of flashy gadgets that the see their neighbours have? One of the factors that have changed since I stayed there back in the 70s in Brixton, for example, is that now yuppies and other urban wealthy have moved into the area as other parts of London become too expensive. The cohabitation of those who have next to nothing (whether this is merited or not) with those who appear to have far more than they need makes an explosive mixture. Getting off subject though.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.