Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Durham Giant wrote:..so to call people morons is not insulting.
It would be, if someone did. Was there a point to your rhetorical question?
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..You are still looking to blame someone before you know the facts.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
Well no, it's just that my views haven't changed since then.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..If you dont understand ethereal being maybe i should just call you a HELICOPTER.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..So YOU dont believe she tried to kill herself in those incidents . Where have you stated any evidence about this.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
I read it the way it was written. You understand the point very well, but are just being silly about it.
Durham Giant wrote:..No i stated something pushed her over the edge that is very different to being on the edge.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..so there is no evidence.
Evidence of her mental health immediately before the prank call, no there is not. None. Has that penny finally dropped?
Durham Giant wrote:..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).
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") 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?
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
Ah, so now she HAS (albeit "apparently") 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.
Durham Giant wrote:.. So if you mainly blame the radio station management who do you blame partially.
Er, we've already done that one.
Durham Giant wrote:..You might like to add in Mrs Saldanhas mental health but i assume that is the lowest on your list.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..You wrote on here, in public, and demanded i withdraw my comments.
Indeed. And you haven't done so. But you said I complained. I ask again, to whom?
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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?
Durham Giant wrote:..So you acknowledge that you are under a psychiatrist
Not to date, but reading your bullcrap is bringing me closer.
Durham Giant wrote:..No please make more posts and answer the points.
If there is a single point I've not answered, let me know and I'll gladly do so.
Durham Giant wrote:.. Please educate me
There are limits to even my powers
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Quote:Ferocious Aardvark It would be, if someone did. Was there a point to your rhetorical question?
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 -
Quote: 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,
Are you now calling yourself a MORON !!!
Quote:3. The press just did what the press does.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: 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.
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
Quote:I disagree. I have given considered, and reasoned opinions. Anyone who does the same seems fair enough to me.
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.
Quote:you're the one who brought the January incidents into it, not me. I have objected that all we "know" 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'.
Quote: 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 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
.
Quote:You can't push somebody over the edge unless they are on said edge, now can you.
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.
Quote:Evidence of her mental health immediately before the prank call, no there is not
. see above. I have more evidence than you seem to be using to support your arguements.
Quote: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.
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 arseholes 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
Quote: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") 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") 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,
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.
Quote: 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.
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
Quote:Indeed. And you haven't done so. But you said I complained. I ask again, to whom?
The Rl fans forum sin bin public. I demand you withdraw your comments you said on a public forum
Huddersfield Giants 2013 over achievers
Huddersfield Giants 2014 under achievers ??????????
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Durham Giant wrote:on page 11 you stated that anyone who said the call was a prank was a MORON.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:we know that she made TWO suicide attempts in january,
No, we don't. For reasons I've explained at least twice, and so won't repeat.
Durham Giant wrote:The word detained is a clue.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: Now that suggests that she was pretty ill at that time.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: It is unlikely that someone who has being at such a position in their life will be , " cured", in 11 months.
Eh? "Cured"? Of being "in a position"? Is this point in English?
Durham Giant wrote: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).
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?
Durham Giant wrote: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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: The real crux of this is that UNTIL WE KNOW HER MENTAL HEALTH THERE IS NO REAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR BLAME.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: 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.....WE DO NOT KNOW.
{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:
MAIL ARTICLE 22/12/12 wrote: (repeated in other reports) Last week, The Mail on Sunday revealed how Ms Saldanha blamed the two DJs for her death in one of three apparent suicide notes. In another note, she criticised ‘aspects of the hospital staff’.
Quote:The nurse who committed suicide after the royal hoax phone call left a note telling the two DJs behind the prank they were responsible for her death, according to sources close to the family. In one of three apparent suicide notes, Jacintha Saldanha wrote a short letter in which she expressed her deep anger at the Australian radio presenters and blamed them for her tragic death LINK
The Independent wrote:Yesterday a coroner heard that Mrs Saldanha left three suicide notes before she died. ...One note apparently deals with the hoax call from the 2Day FM DJs,
The Guardian wrote:The dead woman's family has been given typed copies of the three handwritten notes by the police and has read the contents, the Guardian has been told. One note deals with the hoax call by the DJs from 2Day FM, another details her requests for her funeral, and the third addresses her employers, the hospital, and contains criticism of staff there, the Guardian understands from two separate sources.
Durham Giant wrote: But you still say it was the actions of the call that were responsible.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:You still say that you know she was not mentally ill at prior to the call.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:You still say that you think her 2 suicide attempts in january were not serious.
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!
Durham Giant wrote:If you are psychic give me the lottery numbers.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: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.
"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.
Durham Giant wrote: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
{sighs, resignedly} Rather than repeat myself ad nauseam 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
Quote:2 Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes Interpretation of the principles in Part I 1(1)In determining for the purposes of the first principle whether personal data are processed fairly, regard is to be had to the method by which they are obtained, including in particular whether any person from whom they are obtained is deceived or misled as to the purpose or purposes for which they are to be processed.
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:
Quote: 55 Unlawful obtaining etc. of personal data. (1)A person must not knowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data controller— (a)obtain or disclose personal data or the information contained in personal data, or (b)procure the disclosure to another person of the information contained in personal data. ... (3)A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
Will that do?
Durham Giant wrote:I dont think you have {given considered, and reasoned opinions}
Well then you mus be quite mad. It isn't a reasonable thought.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..Opinions are like arseholes everyone has one.
That's good. I've never heard it before. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?
Durham Giant wrote:..Look at the evidence we have and then make a judgement, keep your views to yourself until you have the facts. ,
Your odd advice is noted, but I'll say exactly what I like, when I like, thanks.
Durham Giant wrote:Or just hypothesise like many of us did that, "There is more to come out in the wash",
Ah yes, the killer hypothesis of insightful genius. I have a similar one. "The sun will rise in the morning". Quote: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") 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") 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,
Durham Giant wrote:..If she was not unwell why was she on powerful anti depressants
Er . . . she wasn't. As you said earlier in your rant:
Durham Giant wrote:.. Could the coming off of the anti depressants in November be a contributory factor
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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?
Durham Giant wrote:.. 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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..When the police say they have a murder inquiry how often does it become one of manslaughter by bthe time it gets to court.
Google the distinction between police and CPS.
Durham Giant wrote:..IT is a simple point maybe pedantic that i am making it is not SUICIDE UNTIL THE CORONER SAYS SO.
... 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?
Durham Giant wrote:..No one is blaming her for her mental health. ... However her mental health has to be a major contributory factor to what happened
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..The Rl fans forum sin bin public. I demand you withdraw your comments you said on a public forum..
Leaving aside that (as is now seemingly obligatory) you misquote me, you accept that you were wrong to say I complained.
Durham Giant wrote:on page 11 you stated that anyone who said the call was a prank was a MORON.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:we know that she made TWO suicide attempts in january,
No, we don't. For reasons I've explained at least twice, and so won't repeat.
Durham Giant wrote:The word detained is a clue.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: Now that suggests that she was pretty ill at that time.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: It is unlikely that someone who has being at such a position in their life will be , " cured", in 11 months.
Eh? "Cured"? Of being "in a position"? Is this point in English?
Durham Giant wrote: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).
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?
Durham Giant wrote: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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: The real crux of this is that UNTIL WE KNOW HER MENTAL HEALTH THERE IS NO REAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR BLAME.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: 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.....WE DO NOT KNOW.
{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:
MAIL ARTICLE 22/12/12 wrote: (repeated in other reports) Last week, The Mail on Sunday revealed how Ms Saldanha blamed the two DJs for her death in one of three apparent suicide notes. In another note, she criticised ‘aspects of the hospital staff’.
Quote:The nurse who committed suicide after the royal hoax phone call left a note telling the two DJs behind the prank they were responsible for her death, according to sources close to the family. In one of three apparent suicide notes, Jacintha Saldanha wrote a short letter in which she expressed her deep anger at the Australian radio presenters and blamed them for her tragic death LINK
The Independent wrote:Yesterday a coroner heard that Mrs Saldanha left three suicide notes before she died. ...One note apparently deals with the hoax call from the 2Day FM DJs,
The Guardian wrote:The dead woman's family has been given typed copies of the three handwritten notes by the police and has read the contents, the Guardian has been told. One note deals with the hoax call by the DJs from 2Day FM, another details her requests for her funeral, and the third addresses her employers, the hospital, and contains criticism of staff there, the Guardian understands from two separate sources.
Durham Giant wrote: But you still say it was the actions of the call that were responsible.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:You still say that you know she was not mentally ill at prior to the call.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:You still say that you think her 2 suicide attempts in january were not serious.
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!
Durham Giant wrote:If you are psychic give me the lottery numbers.
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.
Durham Giant wrote: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.
"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.
Durham Giant wrote: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
{sighs, resignedly} Rather than repeat myself ad nauseam 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
Quote:2 Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes Interpretation of the principles in Part I 1(1)In determining for the purposes of the first principle whether personal data are processed fairly, regard is to be had to the method by which they are obtained, including in particular whether any person from whom they are obtained is deceived or misled as to the purpose or purposes for which they are to be processed.
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:
Quote: 55 Unlawful obtaining etc. of personal data. (1)A person must not knowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data controller— (a)obtain or disclose personal data or the information contained in personal data, or (b)procure the disclosure to another person of the information contained in personal data. ... (3)A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
Will that do?
Durham Giant wrote:I dont think you have {given considered, and reasoned opinions}
Well then you mus be quite mad. It isn't a reasonable thought.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..Opinions are like arseholes everyone has one.
That's good. I've never heard it before. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?
Durham Giant wrote:..Look at the evidence we have and then make a judgement, keep your views to yourself until you have the facts. ,
Your odd advice is noted, but I'll say exactly what I like, when I like, thanks.
Durham Giant wrote:Or just hypothesise like many of us did that, "There is more to come out in the wash",
Ah yes, the killer hypothesis of insightful genius. I have a similar one. "The sun will rise in the morning". Quote: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") 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") 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,
Durham Giant wrote:..If she was not unwell why was she on powerful anti depressants
Er . . . she wasn't. As you said earlier in your rant:
Durham Giant wrote:.. Could the coming off of the anti depressants in November be a contributory factor
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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?
Durham Giant wrote:.. 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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..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.
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..When the police say they have a murder inquiry how often does it become one of manslaughter by bthe time it gets to court.
Google the distinction between police and CPS.
Durham Giant wrote:..IT is a simple point maybe pedantic that i am making it is not SUICIDE UNTIL THE CORONER SAYS SO.
... 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?
Durham Giant wrote:..No one is blaming her for her mental health. ... However her mental health has to be a major contributory factor to what happened
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.
Durham Giant wrote:..The Rl fans forum sin bin public. I demand you withdraw your comments you said on a public forum..
Leaving aside that (as is now seemingly obligatory) you misquote me, you accept that you were wrong to say I complained.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:. {sighs, resignedly} Rather than repeat myself ad nauseam
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 wrote:on page 11 you stated that anyone who said the call was a prank was a MORON.
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:.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.
and yet a quick look back on page 11 reveals....
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:.I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 253 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
