The one thing that no one seems to have commented on (I lost the will to live a bit back, but forced myself to skim on) is that surely the hospital should have had some sort of screening system in place, even if it was just a big piece of paper saying 'DO NOT GIVE OUT DETAILS, NO MATTER WHO IS CLAIMING TO BE ON THE PHONE'.

This alone is amiss, and therefore obviously part of the coverup at the top.....

Kill it, it's garbage i have to keep reading every time someone posts a new message about the same thing over and over again.

You need to give up lying as you are rubbish at it. However I'm pleased you've given up denying you originally queried; "...was it even suicide".
Anyway, back to your latest effort. Your previous actual words were:

So, you said it was the actions of the radio station that tipped her over the edge. But now you are claiming you didn't say she was on any edge. That's a truly pathetic attempt at backtracking. You did. That's exactly what you said.

I have again never said that, but we should be getting used to you lying. Clearly, we all get a lot of information from the press and other media. How much reliance you can place on it varies, obviously. For example, i might initially tend to place more reliance on an article about a medical condition in The Lancet than one in the Daily Star. However as we mostly only ever get information about anything from one kind of report or another, what else does anyone ever do than form opinions based on hearsay accounts, with the sole exception of things you personally witness? I really don't know where you are going with this. It exhibits really muddled thinking.

See above. Surely you are not saying the only people who could legitimately form a view are those who personally witnessed all the relevant events? As I said, what else do we have to go on but the reported facts?

Please try to understand this: I criticised specifically a post that claimed it was obvious she was mentally ill, and was on the edge of suicide, before the prank call situation. That is because there is no information that I know of upon which anyone could reasonably hold that view. I did ask if you could back that up, and note you can't. So it isn't anything you have heard, or read, you just made it up, because you somehow can make an assessment of her "likely mental health".
This is not even to say she [iwasn't[/i on your putative "edge". She may have even been. What I object to is the claim to [iknow[/i she was, or the claim that well, she [imust[/i have been, becasue she had form for that sort of thing and was obviously mentally unbalanced [/iprior to the prank incident[/i, when you simply cannot draw those conclusions from the fact that she hanged herself. Or from the reports abou the alleged incidents in India.

The [ireports in the media[/i say she had been treated for depression. The information has been in various media. It has not been denied or contradicted anywhere. So I believe she had been suffering from depression. And yes, I believe, cancel that, I am CERTAIN, that it was deep depression that led her tohnag herself. But the latter certainty is nothing to do with any press reports. It is based on my assumption that someone who hangs themself is deeply unhappy with that life at that moment and can see no other option. So, that opinion of mine is based on NO media reports, no press story, and no first hand information. Yet I'm certain of it.
Do you think I'm wrong?

As your personal mission seems to be to misquote me and attribute fake comments, I'll quote the whole thing. What I actually said was:

Far from being a knee jerk reaction, that was, and remains, my considered view based on the essential facts which were known at the time, and which have not changed.
This is not me "being the judge jury and executioner", as you so dramatically claim. It is me stating what in my opinion should happen. I am not the judge nor claimed to be. I am not likely to be on any relevant jury. I have not called for anyone to be executed.
Funnily enough, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Acma) which has the power to revoke the licence of the station involved, or to impose conditions on how it operates,has announced that it is using its discretionary powers to launch an investigation. At least, I think it has. I only know this from reports in the media, and you'll tell me that they could be lying. But I don;t think so.
If the reports are to be believed, ACMA will consider whether the prank call breached the Australian Commercial Radio Codes of Practice, including whether it breached standards of decency, invaded privacy or broke rules of consent.
Obviously the reports could have completely invented such a Code, which may ot even exist, and so the quote from this Code, which i have never read. may be a complete fabrication, but for what it is worth, under part 6 of the alleged code, radio stations are not allowed to broadcast the words of an "identifiable person" unless the person has been told in advance that their words may be broadcast. If they have been recorded without their knowledge they must give consent for their words to be broadcast before they are put to air. Legal experts have also reportedly said they believe the call may have breached the Listening Devices Act of New South Wales. But they may be making it up, too, I suppose.
On the remote chance that the Code does exist, do you think the radio station told Mrs. Saldanha in advance that her words would be broadcast, or that she consented to it? I'm saying no. Oops - ther I go again, jumping to conclusions wheh I was not at Mrs. Saldanha's side for every moment between th call and her death, so cannot possibly "know" that she didn't consent. Hey ho. I'll take the chance I'm wrong.





You HAVE to read it? Shiit the bed, I never knew the obligations of a mod were that onerous. My condolences




Oh come on, you must admit it's funny getting a moderator's knickers so tight that he resorts to repeated personal abuse.

FA... you're starting to sound a lot like me when I get my teeth into something.

Not acknowledging the possibility of being wrong? Check.

Picking and choosing which bits to argue with? Check

Not noticing that you're slowly being ridiculed? Check....

Charges very unlikely, unsurprisingly.

[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9768656/Duchess-hoax-call-Australian-radio-hosts-unlikely-to-face-charges.html[/url

Quite right too.

Aye.


No. That's one possibility I'm always open to. On this one, though I'm not especially claiming to be "right" about anything. I do have the opinion that the radio station management acted appallingly and that is a view that is not capable of being changed, as that just IS my opinion. And will remain so whether they face any worse consequences than they already have, or no more. But it's perfectly reasonable to have a firm view, most people do, I think.


Actually I reckon the exact opposite is one of my faults. If I was much more selective, my responses would be much shorter. I acknowledge a tendency to have to rebut each point that is to me plainly wrong.




Hardly. The two muppets doing the attempts at "ridicule" aren't exactly being subtle. To me, the particular puerile comments are just embarrassing to them. If they want to show themselves up I don't care. ATEOTD I don't think being of the firm opinion that the radio station management acted very badly; and that whilst they did not kill her, had they not chosen to run the tape, she would almost certainly be alive today and getting on with her conscientious day to day nursing job at which she was reportedly 'outstanding', is even capable of being "ridiculed". But if you disagree, I'd be interested to know what bits you think are ridiculous?

But as I do regularly ridicule the ridiculous, I could hardly object to that tactic. The thing about ridicule is, it only works if your target audience agrees that the object is worthy of ridicule. Otherwise you just show yourself up as an ignorant boor, eg Durham Giant. Like on this thread, I have ridiculed the conspiracists ("a very convenient death"; "was it even suicide"icon_wink.gif. I suppose the difference is whether views, such as those, merit ridicule, as opposed to poor attempts at ridicule being used as a last resort by people who have run out of sensible ways to defend their position, so then descend to offensive remarks to smokescreen their embarrassment.

"Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us" ....... Robert Burns

As you seem so keen on your quotes here are a few more


Yet you accuse others of being puerile and insulting

.
You wrote this at the time when everyone in the media and the usual idiots were demanding sackings prosecutions and making death threats but you insist you were not on any bandwagon.

The crux of your argument seems to be that you have not moved from your original position and that you were above all of the bandwagon jumpers and should be seen as some sort of ethereal being floating above everyone else
.
And this was at the time you accused wheels of [size=150speculation[/size



This was two days before information came out about the Nurse previously trying to kill herself twice this year

.

You wrote this when most people were accepting that her mental health must have been a major factor in what happened. Yet anyone who thinks that her Mental health in some way contributed to what happened is SICK.



Yet when i suggested that we cannot say it was suicide until the inquest makes the decision you tried to ridicule that position.


And this was at the time you denied that you were looking to blame people.

You start insulting people and then complain when others do it to you.

You already suffer from knee jerk reactions, have little insight into your actions, think people are out to get you with insults and have grandiose ideas that anyone is remotely bothered about what you say when you have been shown up.

I am just enjoying the sport with you if anyone seems to have got their knickers in a twist it is you.

I have to say you are exhibiting elements of both neurosis and psychosis have you been assessed by your local mental health team as you have some characteristics of Borderline personality disorder.

Fail. That's neither puerile nor insulting. For convenience we all refer to it as the "prank call" but it developed into no such thing, it developed into a bogus caller obtaining confidential patient information, and then a radio station using the call without anyone's consent. It was intended as a prank call, but the DJs never thought they'd get through. Having got through, they got a bit giddy ad caused a nurse to break patient confidentiality, but that's what their bosses should have understood and that's why the major blame is for the bosses' decision to broadcast.

Fail. I said I was quite sure offences had been committed, and that IF SO (note the word "if"icon_wink.gif then they must be prosecuted. What exactly is wrong with that?

Fail. The crux of my argument was and is in my first post, which I quoted for you in full last time, but clearly might as well not have bothered.

Oh dear. And I said any such thing when, exactly? I simply posted my considered opinion. Nothing more. "Ethereal being"? FFS.

So, I was right on all that. Your point?

Fail. Leaving aside your claim that she "tried to kill herself" which is just the sort of speculation you decry, (for reasons I have stated I don't believe she did intend to kill herself in those incidents) you well know that the "drivel" I referred to was the dark hints at conspiracy or that the hospital management had somehow been complicit in her death, in some weird 'dark forces at work here' kind of way.

Fail. The trouble is you keep deliberately twisting my clear words in an effort to decalre yourself right. The exact subject we are here discussing is her mental health [iimmediately before[/i the prank call events. You claim to know she was mentally ill and on the edge. (Then you lied, and claimed you never said she was on the edge; remember?) I have pointed out that you know no such thing, and you refuse to accept it. So far as I am aware, absolutely NO information, zero, nada, nothing has come out to suggest that immediately before tehse events she was "on the edge of suicide" or mentally ill. I pointed out for the sake of completeness that I am not even saying she wasn't suffering from some mental illness, only that there is NO information to back up such a claim.
The difference is you have taken the reported events of almost a year ago and assigned permanent mental illness and being "on the edge" to her, as if she was from that moment permanently and forever a risk of imminent suicide at any time. I have said you have no justification for claiming this.

Fail. That's not just a lie, but a stupid lie, since I have been repeatedly saying that I mainly blame the radio station management from my very first post, and you can hardly have missed it. How do you think you can get away with this repeated lying? Do you even know you're doing it?

To whom did I complain? I suggested you apologised for an out of order remark. You chose not to, that's up to you!

Fail. You can't specify any such alleged knee jerk reaction, you can't give a clue as to what on earth you mean by I "have little insight into (my) actions". To say I "think people are out to get me with insults" is pretty weird. You seem to think whatever you invent becomes fact. It doesn't.

Well that's good, then, at least, as I'm certainly having fun showing up your illogical and contradictory ramblings. It would be good if you could cut down on the lies, and particularly the gratuitous abuse, as no debate is ever improved by that, but if you feel the need to ramp it up then crack on, it just clearly shows that, far from "enjoying the sport", you have got your knickers in a right twist, to the extent you've lost your self-control and can't help yourself being reduced to insults.

We agree on this.



So now you are not only nurse Saldanha's psychiatrist, you think you're mine! Brilliant! But as presumably you mean what you say, then since you have (repeatedly) resorted to insults, I must take it you accept you have lost the argument, and this is therefore the final post in this thread.

so to call people morons is not insulting.






So the major blame for what happened is the bossess decision. How much does that leave then for blame with the hospital managers, the Djs , the press, the responses of her colleagues.and Mrs Saldanhas mental health.

You are still looking to blame someone before you know the facts.

Bandwagon jumper








Maybe you should wait for the police enquiry to be completed before you decide whether you are sure offences were committed. Reports from Australia indicate that Scotland yard are not following up any possible criminal enquiries.




You seem to have this idea that your first post is the one and only post that indicates where you have given an opinion and we should ignore everything else you have said.


.


You are the one who indicates your views about blame and sackings and criminal offences being committed yet ignore the fact that this puts you in the same bracket as others who were doing the same. If you dont understand ethereal being maybe i should just call you a HELICOPTER.





So YOU dont believe she tried to kill herself in those incidents . Where have you stated any evidence about this. Her treating doctors had her detained in hospital. They obviously thought they were serious. You know exactly what was going on in relation to her risk assesment in january.

Are you psychic









No. Someone stated that the fact she killed herself was handy for the hospital managers as it deflected attention from them and you decide that is a conspiracy theory. Who was behind this conspiracy Waldermort.


.


No i stated something pushed her over the edge that is very different to being on the edge. She went from living to dead that is clearly an edge she crossed.



so there is no evidence. Yet you can tell everyone on here that her TWO Suicide attempts in january. in your words were [size=150(for reasons I have stated I don't believe she did intend to kill herself in those incidents)[/size.



.

I said that someone who attempts to kill themselves twice 11 months before apparenty committing suicide 11 months later seems as if they were not well.



.


So if you mainly blame the radio station management who do you blame partially.

Maybe you could help us understand. Lets me start you of by way of example.

Blameometer
Radio station management 51%
Djs x%
Hospital managers X%
Press x%
Mrs Saldanhas colleagues x %
Others x%

You might like to add in Mrs Saldanhas mental health but i assume that is the lowest on your list.

Yet you still accuse me of lying when i say you are playing the blame game







.


You wrote on here, in public, and demanded i withdraw my comments.
Other posters commented that you were being hypocritical and suggested that you were a BULLY who did not like a taste of his own medicine.



So you acknowledge that you are under a psychiatrist






No please make more posts and answer the points. Please educate me with your wisdom about how the blame should be shared, who should be punished, how calling people morons is not an insult and how Mrs Saldanhas two previous attempts at Suicide in january were in your opinion not attempts to kill herself.

This thread is like a dog with its back legs gone, it's still got life and you could buy it some prosthetic wheels but you wonder if putting it down is just easier for everyone.

They both get paid for doing this in the day job

What do they do?
It's like two lawyers arguing.

:3ihqwub2
My objection was people making unequivocal claims about that particular person's mental health prior to the prank incident. I did not say they were trying to be a psychiatrist, in general but that unless they were HER psychiatrist, in particular, they obviously don't know the state of her mental health in early December 2012. Does that make it clear?

I believe the survival instinct is a default position, when faced with a life threatening situation. I don't think it has much at all to do with suicide cases. It is a fact that a million people a year or more override that to take their own lives. If you want to believe that a person takes their own live, [i:3ihqwub2ergo[/i:3ihqwub2 they had "significant mental issues", you'd be wrong. They might, of course, but not at all necessarily. And [i:3ihqwub2attempting[/i:3ihqwub2 suicide is often a "cry for help" or attention, to coin a phrase. [i:3ihqwub2Actually killing yourself[/i:3ihqwub2 is - contrary to your belief - often a cold and calculated considered act, 100% "in control". :3ihqwub2[size=150:3ihqwub2It is often a choice.[/size:3ihqwub2:3ihqwub2

From what evidence I have read, this lady was not "out of control". She seems to have thought it through right down to her funeral arrangements. What you are saying is that [i:3ihqwub2because[/i


Crikey you've changed your tune since your reply to me on pg 13-14

It would be, if someone did. Was there a point to your rhetorical question?

1. Hospital managers - inusfficient information except we know that a) a non-trained receptioist was asked to work on a reception and b) we know the family have said they are unhappy with the hospital, and c) we know one of the notes left by Mrs Saldanha was about the hospital. Sufficient to indicate they are not in the clear.
2. DJs - Not a lot; the idea of the prank call was reasonable. They didn't think they would get through. It could have been an amusing prank, but once they got through they lost the plot. If they'd been thinking, they would have hung up. But I can understand that in the moment, they got giddy and ploughed on. The point being, all they were making at this stage was a tape. What happeed to that recording was not up to them. Also, they have already been punished far more than for what they actually did. I fell sorry for them.
3. The press just did what the press does. It was I suppose pretty appalling, but I don't expect any different. I do think, though, the station managers suspected and wanted precisely the sort of worldwide publicity that releasing the tape was always going to get, the media being what it is.
4. Mrs. Saldanha's mental health? This I think is where you and I differ the most. I don't think a person can be "blamed" for their mental health. The information released does strongly suggest, in particular the indications about the notes she left, that the factors which preyed on her mind to put her in that state were the recording, and some issue with the hospital. I have still not seen anything to suggest she was mentally ill before this incident, much less suicidal.

Rubbish. I know all of the salient facts about the call, in summary that the station managers had the choice not to go with it, but decided to. That was a terrible decision, and would be so regardless of the death.

Why do you always have to push it one step further? I said I was sure offences had been committed, but as (well, presumably) you know I'm neither the CPS nor the Australian prosecutors, so I do not "decide" if they have.

Well no, it's just that my views haven't changed since then.

I disagree. I have given considered, and reasoned opinions. Anyone who does the same seems fair enough to me. Others such as conspiracists, knee-jerkers, reactionaries etc. are in a rather different bracket.

You can call me Al, or whatever you like. I'm fairly sure I'm not actually a helicopter but it's better than some of the other stuff you call me, I suppose. Though a tad surrealist.

Hang on, you're the one who brought the January incidents into it, not me. I have objected that all we "know" are sketchy newspaper reports, but you have gone on and on about these incidents definitely being her "trying to kill herself". I have clearly said I think these as described do not sound to me like genuine suicide attempts, and I have explaiend why they sound more like a 'cry for help'. As you can't be bothered usually to look back for yourself, I take this view because people taking overdoses and then publicising the fact is a classic cry for help (I suggested you asked any hospital A&E); and if she jumped off something then on the basis it's not hard to find a high point to guarantee your death, doubt that was a serious attempt, given 3 days later she was walking out of hospital.

I read it the way it was written. You understand the point very well, but are just being silly about it.

Oh come on, you're making yourself look silly. You can't push somebody over the edge unless they are on said edge, now can you.

Evidence of her mental health immediately before the prank call, no there is not. None. Has that penny finally dropped?

How can you write such incoherent nonsense? Apart from very sketchy third or fourth hand press articles we don't even KNOW much. But your rambling sentence is nonsense for two reasons:
1. I am NOT "telling" anyone anything, I have said merely that in my opinion these don't sound like genuine suicide attempts to me.
2. (and this is you are your nuttiest) you are in the same sentence berating me for suggesting these may not have been suicide attempts, and in the same breath claiming unequivocally ("her TWO suicide attempts"icon_wink.gif that they WERE sucide attempts. There is nothing save press reports, yet in that case, you feel able to pontificate that these were "TWO" "suicide attempts"; yet now that she has hanged herself and left suicide notes, you can't bring yourself to concede that she has committed suicide. (but see your next sentence!) Now, to me, this is a huge case of double standards. Perhaps you could explain?

Ah, so now she HAS (albeit "apparently"icon_wink.gif committed suicide? I wish you'd make your mind up. But seriously, the sooner you grasp that a person who was clearly very depressed last January and again in Decemebr, has NOT NECESSARILY been unwell in the intervening months, and there is no evidence to date that she was anything but welll and working and functioning normally prior to this incident.
You're the one who's saying she was "on the edge" without a shred of evidence.

Er, we've already done that one.

For the last time, a person can't reasonably be blamed for their mental health, since, whatever it is, it's not a matter of choice.

Indeed. And you haven't done so. But you said I complained. I ask again, to whom?

Others would then be talking utter rubbish. But let me ask you - do you feel bullied by me? I would be 100% amazed if the answer to that was "yes", since you have recently posted that you're enjoying the sport, which is much as I see it. Given that we are "bullying" each other about as much as your average herd of bison, WTF are you bringing this up for?

Not to date, but reading your bullcrap is bringing me closer.

If there is a single point I've not answered, let me know and I'll gladly do so.

There are limits to even my powers

I'm intrigued.
You may have hit on something.

Whatever they do, I hope they get a better return for the immense input they have put in here.

if anyone else says i am a lawyer i will sue them !

You are a lawyer

You are a banker.

Sorry, lawyer.

on page 11 you stated that anyone who said the call was a prank was a MORON.
Mintball, codead, 100%wire, christopher etc all called it a prank are you calling all of them morons but doing it in a non insulting way.



1. Hospital managers -


2. DJs -

Are you now calling yourself a MORON !!!



which is whip up controversy and jump on bandwagons to sell paper. All those who joined in the condemnations were part of that hysteria as the condemnations were based without anyone knowing any facts . Which brings us tto the next one.







You know as much about her mental health prior to this incident as you do about what contributed to her probably deliberately taking her own life and that is what the press have told us.

we know that she made TWO suicide attempts in january, they were serious enough for her to be detained in hospital for a number of days.
The word detained is a clue. NOT voluntarily admitted, not admitted to hospital for treatment, not treated BUT detained. Detained means in the context of mental health held against their will usually due their mental state meaning they pose a risk to themselves or others or because they are in such a state of distress that they are not deemed competent at the time to be released or treated in a voluntary manner.

Now that suggests that she was pretty ill at that time. It is unlikely that someone who has being at such a position in their life will be , " cured", in 11 months.

From a Forensic point of view that would still be regarded as SIGNIFICANT in terms of her Mental Health for a significant period of time ( a lot longer than 11 months). She had been on POWERFUL ANTI DFEPRESSANTS from january to November.

Could the coming off of the anti depressants in November be a contributory factor.



You should know that is a real risk factor.

Now you are the one who has tried to play the blame game , blaming the radio station and others.

The real crux of this is that UNTIL WE KNOW HER MENTAL HEALTH THERE IS NO REAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR BLAME.

we know she wrote 3 suicide notes,
1 was about the hospital and how she was unhappy with them
2 was about funeral arrangements
3 Well we know nothing. It may have said the voices in my head said i should kill myself to avoid the end of the world, it may have said i cannot cope with my lonely existence being away from my family anymore, it may have said i cannot cope with the memories of childhood abuse, it may have said i blame the radio station management for their actions. It could have said a myriad of other things.


WE DO NOT KNOW.

But you still say it was the actions of the call that were responsible.
You still say that you know she was not mentally ill at prior to the call.
You still say that you think her 2 suicide attempts in january were not serious.

If you are psychic give me the lottery numbers.
If you are her treating psychiatrist just say
If you illegally saw her medical records on Paris pm me and i will stop posting.

But stop making such ludicrous statements when you know NO MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.


In reality you are just giving information an interpretation so that it fits in with your first post which is to blame the radio station without having any evidence whatsoever to support that view.







So what you mean is , I THINK OFFENCES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BUT I DO NOT REALLY KNOW THE LAW OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THIS DEATH







I dont think you have . You Decided it was the actions of the prank call, stated your position and where the blame lay. You had little information to go and made a knee jerk decision. Then when you found out she has a mental health history have been digging a hole faster than a navvy wanting to get to the pub.
















I will explain this point carefully and briefly as it is important.

Many people who are depressed feel suicidal but because of their depression lack the capacity to fully plan a suicide bid. It is often seen as a major risk factor that when people are getting better they are more able to plan and put in place a proper suicide attempt. That is why when anyon eios prescribed anti depressants they normally have a suicide assessment done on them ( often briefly at a GPs with the 10 point depression scale which has the question of suicidal thoughts included).

This is done at the point of treatment and at a review period afterwards

Mrs Saldanha apparently had come off or was coming off her medication ( she may have still been on it) just before taking her life.

THAT SAYS TO ME THAT SHE STILL HAD A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE IN THE WEEKS IF NOT THE DAYS OR HOURS BEFORE SHE DIED




.


If i accept your point, then surely the edge that she was on was not one of of being Fully well to killing herself but was on the point of being unwell and killing herself.



.
see above. I have more evidence than you seem to be using to support your arguements.







She spent SEVERAL DAYS IN INTENSIVE CARE. as a result of her suicide attempt. Sounds like she caused herself some harm that required INTENSIVE TREATMENT. They did not just stick a bloody plaster on her head.


Opinions are like s everyone has one. Look at the evidence we have and then make a judgement, keep your views to yourself until you have the facts. Or just hypothesise like many of us did that, "There is more to come out in the wash", before you rush to make judgements and apportion blame






If she was not unwell why was she on powerful anti depressants



Until the coroner says it was suicde we cannot say for certain. I can probably say she took her own life BUT there are many reasons why it may not have ( albeit unlikely) been a deliberate attempt at suicide. Maybe she did the ligature at 10pm knowing that a colleague arrives at the dormitory every night at 10 pm that could create some doubt in a coroners mind. She may still have taken her life but her motivatuion may have been different.

I have been involved in a number of "suicides" which to me look like suicides but end up being accidental or misadventure by the time the coroner gives a view.

When the police say they have a murder inquiry how often does it become one of manslaughter by bthe time it gets to court.

IT is a simple point maybe pedantic that i am making it is not SUICIDE UNTIL THE CORONER SAYS SO.







No one is blaming her for her mental health. You were the one who wanted to apportion blame. However her mental health has to be a major contributory factor to what happened




The Rl fans forum sin bin public. I demand you withdraw your comments you said on a public forum

Ohhhhh so close, just one out.

You are either lying (again, or you cannot read or understand what I wrote. Either way, I said no such thing. I think you're deliberately lying, as I doubt you are too dim to understand that post.

Even you can't believe that. We know NOTHING of her mental health in early December as I have not seen a word anywhere published about it. So all I have to go on is reports that she was working normally and to a high standard. Your carelessness is letting you down badly.

No, we don't. For reasons I've explained at least twice, and so won't repeat.

Not at all. If taken to hospital, you might be discharged, or you might be detained, it is just a word, it may have something or nothing to do with a patient's mental health as well you know.
She was reportedly initially in hospital in intensive care. I should think her physical condition may have been the main issue. The word "detained" isn't even in any of the reports I've seen, so I wonder if you have made that up as well, but unless you can link to somewhere it is reported that she was detained following a reception order UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT then you are clutching at straws.

Well, I will concede, as a rule patients in intensive care are not at their peak. But well done you for informing us that a patient in intensive care suggests that they are pretty ill.

Eh? "Cured"? Of being "in a position"? Is this point in English?

I have come to the conclusion that you understand little or nothing about mental health and are just waffling. "From a forensic point of view", for goodness sake. OF BLOODY COURSE a person's past mental health history is significant in understanding their present mental health, who on earth would think it wasn't?

It's true, you know hardly anything about the subject! Anti-depressant medication is a very poorly understood treatment, and in some people, actually increases, rather than decreases depression and risk of suicide. Anti-depressants can themselves have these and other serious side effects. I am certainly not going to start throwing out suggestions of possible negligence against those treating her, which is what I think you are implying.
What does show your ignorance, though, is your belief that someone on POWERFUL ANTI DFEPRESSANTS is "unlikely to be cured". If you knew the first thing about depression, then you would know that anti depressants ARE NOT A CURE. They can NEVER be a "cure", as they can't do a thing about whatever it is that is making you depressed.

Ahah, in a moment of inattention you finally if indirectly admit that YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HER MENTAL HEALTH immediately before the incident. Funny how you keep tripping yourself up. Yesterday you were insisting she was "on the edge" and could have killed herself at the drop of a hat over anything.
But again, I fundamentally disagree. A person who is ill, or depressed, or even having suicidal thoughts, has just as much right to consideration and being teated fairly as anyone else. You seem to think that, if it turns out she was deeply depressed before the incident, and even having suicidal thoughts, this somehow affects the responsibilities of the radio station, in terms of absolving them even of any blame.
THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PONT WHICH YOU KEEP MISSING. WHAT THEY DID HAS TO BE JUDGED ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY DID. In THAT context, the CONSEQUENCES of what they did are not directly relevant. Their decision to release the tape was, is and forever will be WRONG. Whether NOTHING then happened, or whether half of the Home Counties topped themselves, DOES NOT ALTER the wrongness of the decision.
The awful situation the DJs find themselves in is that they feel blame for her death, because if they had not made the call, then she would not have hanged herself over it. The radio station management are "to blame" for her hanging herself because if they had not released the tape, she would not have hanged herself. It was unpredictable, but nobody is saying they are responsible for killing her, but they are responsible for deliberately creating the situation which ended in her hanging herself.

{sighs} Will you stop lying, or at least don't make it so obvious. You surely know, everyone knows, the headline contents of the third note. For example:





Liar. I have always said that I mainly blame the decision of the radio station managers in making it public. Although for the sake of completeness such sketchy reports of the third note as there have been do indicate that it is about the DJs rather than the radio station.

Liar. I have only said that YOU do NOT KNOW THAT SHE WAS mentally ill. In fact DOUBLE liar, since I have said, to you, at least twice, that for all anyone knows she may have been, just making the point that there have been no reports whatsoever suggesting that she was on your "edge". Now will you stop repeating this lie as it really is getting tiresome, but each time you repeat it, I will draw attention to it.

Liar! I have clearly said that I do not believe they were suicide attempts, but fall within the category of "cries for help". You give the impression of being a pathological liar! You just can't stop it, can you! Even when the facts are there in black and white earlier in the thread, even when repeatedly corrected, off you go, different post, same lies!

I am not psychic. The Lottery numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48, and 49. But there is also the Bonus ball.

"No evidence whatsoever"? My evidence is that
a) they released the tape
b) they did not have consent from the hospital or either nurse to do so
I blame them for this. It is 100%, rock solid, factual evidence. It may not have yet permeated your thick skull, seemingly, but it is not a matter for debate.

{sighs, resignedly} Rather than repeat myself [iad nauseam[/i when you either won't or can't read what i put, I'll just remind you that the offences committed DO NOT RELATE TO THE DEATH.
Do I know the law? Well, I'll confess, a bit. Though not Australian law so I'll leave that one to them. Under English law, for starters, under the Data Protection Act 1998, Schedule I Part I Section 2

I am sure an offence has been committed because
a) the personal data was not obtained for any lawful purpose;
b) when further processed (broadcast to the world) it was not so processed for any compatible purpose;
I have regard to the method by which it was obtained, in particular that the nurse was deceived or misled into thinking the purpose was to inform the Queen of Kate's condition, when it was not in fact for that purpose.
Moving on to section 55 of the said Act:

Will that do?

Well then you mus be quite mad. It isn't a reasonable thought.

No, I just don't share your view that because she "had a mental health history" all's well, and the incident which led directly to her view can be brushed aside as of no consequence. I would ask you to ask yourself, what on earth diference does it make whether or not she was ill immediately before the incident? The clear answer is none. The radio station either were wrong to broadcast the tape, or they weren't. The identities or health of the nurses are not material. You ignore that whilst the most affected was Mrs Saldanha, the nurse who was trciked into divulging secret data is also a victim, as is the patient whose data was released to the world. If we forget Mrs Saldanha altogether, the wrongdoing remains exactly the same, only the consequences change. Now at least try to stop conflating the issues.

Again, there is NO reason to suppose she was on the edge immediately before the incident. Again, if she was depressed, it really doesn't make it any better.

That's good. I've never heard it before. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

Your odd advice is noted, but I'll say exactly what I like, when I like, thanks.


Ah yes, the killer hypothesis of insightful genius. I have a similar one. "The sun will rise in the morning".
Quote2. (and this is you are your nuttiest) you are in the same sentence berating me for suggesting these may not have been suicide attempts, and in the same breath claiming unequivocally ("her TWO suicide attempts"icon_wink.gif that they WERE sucide attempts. There is nothing save press reports, yet in that case, you feel able to pontificate that these were "TWO" "suicide attempts"; yet now that she has hanged herself and left suicide notes, you can't bring yourself to concede that she has committed suicide. (but see your next sentence!) Now, to me, this is a huge case of double standards. Perhaps you could explain?
Ah, so now she HAS (albeit "apparently"icon_wink.gif committed suicide? I wish you'd make your mind up. But seriously, the sooner you grasp that a person who was clearly very depressed last January and again in Decemebr, has NOT NECESSARILY been unwell in the intervening months,

Er . . . she wasn't. As you said earlier in your rant:

Please pay at least cursory attention to the plot, if you can find it.
Also, I'm guessing that the REASON she had been taken off anti-depressants, (assuming the reports are correct) is because her health professionals did not think she needed to be on anti-depressants. I'm further guessing that they did not do so because they thought that this would lead to her hanging herself.

Can you tell me then why you don't apply the same logic to the reported incidents in India?
Moving on, nobody will EVER know for certain. Not even the coroner, whose decision can be appealed. All the inquest will do is fully air all gathered information and reach a finding. It might be one you, or I, disagree with. I really don't know why you are so up on your high horse about this point. Discussion on a forum does not require "certainty". What on earth is "certain"? As a moderator, do you not foresee a problem with this? Should all forum discussion be immediately terminated, and you just publish each certain fact on each topic once it becomes what you consider to be a certain fact?

Very clever, did you work out all those on your own? Can I ask, what difference would any of that make? The incident led directly to her hanging herself.

Fascinating. So from your extensive history of considering potential suicides, you are invariably wrong. Why am I not surprised. I can see why in your case you sound a note of caution, though sadly experience doesn't seem to have taught you much.

Google the distinction between police and CPS.

... but if Durham Giant pontificates that something was a suicide attempt, even on another continent and even if all we have are extremely sketchy press reports, then it was! Classic.
BTW could you remind me what the Coroner's verdict was on the Hillsborough deaths?

No, her mental health played no part at all in the DJs making the call, I seriously doubt it played any part in her putting the call through, her mental health played no part in the radio station managers' decision to broadcast the tape.

Leaving aside that (as is now seemingly obligatory) you misquote me, you accept that you were wrong to say I complained.

Eeeerm, if you care to take a moment, and cast your eyes over the previous 27 pages, you will see that is exactly what you have done!

You my friend, suffer from the literary equivalent of Tourettes, with as severe a case of palilalia as you are likely to encounter. Add in your short term memory loss....

Durham Giant wroteicon_surprised.gifn page 11 you stated that anyone who said the call was a prank was a MORON.



and yet a quick look back on page 11 reveals....



Ho hum. As 2012 slips out of view, the question on most people's lips is ...... just how far up that big Egyptian river will FA paddle in 2013.

Happy New Year, one and all.