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
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

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. 4.451171875:5