You are so busy trying to be clever you seem to misunderstand your own posts as well as everyone elses.
Rumplestiltskin says there is more to come out. You challenge it and talk about conspiracy theories when the highlighted section of your post suggests you agree with rumpelstiltskin that there is more to come out about the hospitals management decisions.

You appear to be a tad confused as to the timings. Your "World Wide storm" did not blow up until AFTER it became public knowledge that the unfortunate woman may have commited suicide. Prior to this, it was only the pursed lips Brigade who took umbrage over the Aussies p1ss take.
As there was very little, other than idle speculation, on what part she may have played in this charade, or what her possible state of mind could be, and with very little hard facts in the public domain, I would suggest, the knee jerkers have had a field day over the weekend.

I would also suggest, that had her employers taken the view that her part, in what for them was a highly embarrassing cock up, was anything other than minor, there would have been a very quick investigation, followed by the appropriate measures.

Let's be right here. If every receptionist who miss directed a phone call felt the need to throw themselves under a bus, there would be a hell of a lot of rather cold disgruntled passengers!




Indeed. Were I of a more cynical turn of mind, I might think you were the author of the more nuttier theories.....

No, I am not trying to be clever, and no, I don't misunderstand my own posts.

Whereas you, OTOH:

So we can now ignore what you said in your earlier post. Good, glad that's cleared up.

So again FA and Cronus seem to be vreating an arguement where there is none.
It is simple really Is there more to come out than we already Knoiw. YES or NO. i think YES.

did she have other problems, did management deal with it in an appropriate way, was any of the above connected to her death, did she even commit suicide. Obviously FA and Cronus know the answers to all these questions.

I dont. I think there is more to come out. But carry on having an arguement where there is one.

Odd statement that, because it was you who chose to wade in, mistakenly accusing FA of contradicting himself after he made a reasonable post.

Talk about creating an argument where none exists.

To be clear: as I've said, we actually know nothing definite about her mental state, and those who bang on "there's more to this story" or "there is a lot more to this to come out in the wash" are simply implying and hoping for some conspiracy or sordid detail they can tut and nod meaningfully, as if they're 'in the know'. I suggest you go back to 'Loose Change', seems to be more your cup of tea.

Yes, details will emerge in an investigation. Bears also sh*t in woods. But it ain't gonna be 009 with chloroform and a rope.

Not at all. Acknowledging that there is a [isuspicion [/iof mental illness is not the same as saying "I think she was mentally ill". I would guess the majority of suicides involve mental illness to some degree.

However, none of us know what her personal demons were - indeed, none of us know whether she had any personal demons prior to this event. All we know is something humiliating happened to her and a day or so later she killed herself, and statements by the hospital and the gesture of a large donation by the radio station seem to suggest a causal link.

I do find it strange that your "first thoughts on hearing about this incident was "what a stroke of luck for the Hospital Authorities!"". I'm not sure I see your warped logic, even ignoring your lack of compassion: her death escalated worldwide media focus exponentially whereas the prank call alone would have soon fizzled out following a quick investigation and a few statements acknowledging procedural errors and subsequent changes. How was it "luck"?

I think you meant, "where there is NONE". I don't suppose it crossed your mind that if there is no argument, and you agree with (e.g.) me, what are you then posting about?

It is really, [ireally[/i stupid for you to postulate that I think I know "all the answers" to your questions, it's asinine and pure misdirection. Eg I know NOTHING about "how management dealt with it", nor could I, nor have I suggested any such thing. Indeed I did comment that reports from her family suggest they are unhappy at her treatment by the hospital. (Though other reports suggest her family didn't even know of the incident's connection with her.)

But "did she even commit suicide"? Well, yes. She did. For this I rely not on any claim to personal knowledge, or presence when it happened, or clairvoyance but on the simple reported facts, which include that she is believed to have committed suicide; that she was found hanged; that she left a suicide note for her family; that her family have not made a single reported remark questioning this point; and (pay attention to this one) that the police are not treating her death as suspicious. If you don't know what that is code for, then look it up.

In the face of the bleedin' obvious, I find completely speculative suggestions that she may have been killed to be the worst sort of baseless conspiracy speculation of which so many seem to be so fond.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not "cynical logic" - it's simply not logical at all. You say that the 'post-Leveson witch-hunt' would cover up the failure to screen the call. However, whilst the call received publicity, it was a brief flash in the pan and was already yesterday's chip paper pending an internal enquiry at the hospital. The story had passed. The world had moved on. Then, as you've already acknowledged, the 'world wide sh*tstorm' exploded with news of the suicide - and the focus and scrutiny into the events and on the hospital also exploded exponentially, out of all proportion to the original event.

Far from covering up the hospital's failures, it highlighted them to the world a hundred-fold. That's not luck at all, it's the polar opposite. Your logic isn't cynical, it's completely f*cked up. What it actually is, is you looking for some form of cover-up. Unfortunately, in your haste you got your logic wrong.


Yet your "first thought" was regarding (incorrectly) a hospital cover-up, not for the family. Perhaps you were correct with your use of the word 'cynical' earlier. What a sorry mindset.