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.

I went to Housesteads and Vindolanda 30 years ago ( this coming March ) on a school residential and they are both worth visiting.

So because he gets the impression the family haven't embraced the hospital's statement that they were supporting her, you deduce he thinks there's more to it? The family will have only seen her side of the story and subsequent reaction - a distraught woman, humiliated at what she's done and presumably terrified at hearing her voice and mistake broadcast repeatedly to the world. She was an internet user - she'll have seen the global headlines, seen social media, read the comments, etc. I'm not surprised she found it impossible to handle.

That ANYONE thinks there's "more to the story" baffles me. The entire sorry episode was played out in front of the world's media. Yes, there is a suspicion she may have had other mental problems but there's no evidence of that other than reaching our own conclusions. Funny how we're all suddenly psychologists.

FA's post is pretty clear. You're reading into it what you want to see. But then everyone loves a conspiracy, don't they?

The House of Windsor bumping off a nurse for putting a prank call through. Really?!! It seems a whole new level of idiotic batsh*t lunacy has emerged.

You appear to be a tad confused as to the timings. Your "World Wide sh1tstorm" 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:

... clearly misunderstand the above post. Ignoring your "crazy" emoticons, which don't add a lot to the weight of your case, you fail to read the "more to come out" claim in context. Which was:

* His "first thought" about the death was, apparently, "What a stroke of luck for the hospital authorities". (Yes, that is what he says his first thought was).

* His second thought was "what reasonably normal person kills themselves over a work incident, for which their employers consider too minor.... (etc)

* And his conclusion is "there is a lot more to this to come out in the wash."

So, the death was as he sarcastically describes it, "a stroke of luck" for the hospital; in other words, the very clear implication is that it was anything BUT a stroke of luck, the suggestion he is making is, such "strokes of luck" do NOT in fact happen by chance. Next, that the nurse, who by implication he takes to probably be "reasonably normal", surely cannot have killed herself over this "minor work incident".

So, she is dead; it is "a stroke of luck", he doesn't accept she would have killed herself, and thus we have all the ingredients for some half-assed assassination conspiracy theory.

As for "more to come out", the issue was never is there or isn't there, but WHAT is likely to come out:
(a) OBVIOUSLY there is a "lot more to come out". In the sense that there will be a full inquest and everything apart from the few basic details so far released will be forensically examined. (Is that strange somehow to you?); but
(b) what is NOT going to come out is anything in support of this sort of batshit loony conspiracy claptrap.

So, I was saying, and am saying, that NO such drivel as the OP alludes to is even remotely going to come out in the wash. If you'd taken the trouble to read a bit more carefully, you wouldn't have dropped such a bollock.

But when the sad facts are established at inquest, feel free to join the OP in a denouncement of the coroner as just a lackey in the establishment cover-up.

Including yourself. Apparently.

For the benefit of the easily baffled......"there's more to come out of this story"....simply means that there will be an investigation, evidence will be examined, and conclusions based on facts reached. Oh and of course, an obligatory appearance of the Management on the Hospital steps promising that lessons will be learnt, whilst deploring the very idea of a prank phone call! Although, to be fair, I do think that Hospitals should be generally off limits.

No conspiracy theories....no rabid speculation, and probably a bit of a let down for some of the more exitable posters on here.




Simple really

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 suspicion of 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"?