WIZEB wrote:Charges very unlikely, unsurprisingly. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9768656/Duchess-hoax-call-Australian-radio-hosts-unlikely-to-face-charges.html Quite right too.

WIZEB wrote:Charges very unlikely, unsurprisingly. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9768656/Duchess-hoax-call-Australian-radio-hosts-unlikely-to-face-charges.html 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"). I suppose the difference is whether views, such as those, merit ridicule, as opposed to pisspoor 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 speculation



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") 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 immediately before 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 (for reasons I have stated I don't believe she did intend to kill herself in those incidents).



.

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.

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, ergo they had "significant mental issues", you'd be wrong. They might, of course, but not at all necessarily. And attempting suicide is often a "cry for help" or attention, to coin a phrase. Actually killing yourself is - contrary to your belief - often a cold and calculated considered act, 100% "in control". It is often a choice.

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 because an adult hangs him or herself, they are mentally "out of control". This is a complete misunderstanding, you don't have to be mentally ill to kill yourself, and you can kill yourself without being "out of control".[/quote]


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