Durham Giant wrote:And yet the quote you use about being on the edge is in your head as i have not used those words.
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:
Quote:Anything could have tipped her over the edge into a successful suicide attempt. It is just unfortunate it was the actions of a radio station.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:What other things are going on in your head. You tell posters they cannot rely on the press,
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.
Durham Giant wrote: then you use information in the press,
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?
Durham Giant wrote:you criticise posters who comment on her likely Mental health
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
wasn't on your putative "edge". She may have even been. What I object to is the claim to
know she was, or the claim that well, she
must have been, becasue she had form for that sort of thing and was obviously mentally unbalanced [/i]prior 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.
Durham Giant wrote:... but then you say she was depressed.
The
reports in the media 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?
Durham Giant wrote:...All of this is quite normal in a discussion and a debate BUT the crux of the matter is , that you were arguing heads should roll whilst others said lets wait until we have the facts before being the judge jury and executioner. Your tendons in your knee jerked so fast you dug a hole for yourself and are still digging whilst still in the hole.
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:
Quote: What I find hard to believe is that then, the radio station management, having reviewed the call, made the staggering decision to put it out over the airwaves. They are older and wiser heads, and no doubt had access to legal advice if they needed it too, and it is they, more than the novice presenters, who are to blame. They could have congratulated the presenters on their "scoop", but gently explained why they had gone too far, and deleted the tape and sent a private apology to the hospital. Instead, they unbelievably decided it was a fit piece to broadcast.
I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't. The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. They never gave a moment's thought to her. She was bypassed as pure collateral damage. If they had thought for a minute what position they would put her in, and how mortified she would be that she had been taken in, and put a radio station through which was as a result broadcasting Kate's personal info around the world, maybe they would have taken a different decision.
Of course, it was not predictable that the receptionist would take her own life. It was just predictable that she would be utterly humiliated, mortified and extremely distressed. Not to mention the risk of being involved in data protection and employment consequences. And this is where the morons just don't get it. A "prank" is just that. It's an easy word to understand. So all you need to ask yourself before you choose your victim is, will the victim agree that this was just a prank, and see the funny side? If the answer is a plain "no", then it isn't a prank, but something else. It might have just about been, if when she was taken in, they had immediately disclosed who they really were, in typical prank-show style, and declined to be put through, although I don't see what would have been funny about it myself, but they chose to abandon the "prank" aspect and move on to the new target.
The people who took the decision to broadcast clearly have appalling judgment. I'm sure offences must have been committed and if so they must be prosecuted. They aren't fit to be in charge of a broadcast station and should resign or have their licence pulled.
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.
Durham Giant thkweamed and thkweamed until he wath sick, then pathetically wrote:... So between the voices in your head and the knee jerk reactions get yourself to the doctors quick.
Horatio Yed wrote: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 HAVE to read it? Shiit the bed, I never knew the obligations of a mod were that onerous. My condolences
Wanderer wrote:Can't help thinking this debate has gone the distance.
Oh come on, you must admit it's funny getting a moderator's knickers so tight that he resorts to repeated personal abuse.
