The Royal Baby

[Bruce Rioja]

The receptionist put them through to the nurse, no?

No, a nurse on duty (who has subsequently commited suicide) put the call through to the nurse who gave out the details. The first nurse, who 'acted' as a receptionist was on duty being a nurse. The second nurse who gave out details was acting as hand holder to sickety Kate.

Ah reet.

[boltonboris]

I see the presenters are "very sorry"... What for? Making the call, or the repercussions the call had? Because its not the first prank they've done...

[thebish]

The receptionist put them through to the nurse, no?

no.

I answered that. You picking on me now?

your answer was too long-winded. A simple "no" was better!

[Bruce Rioja]

The reasons for which we could only speculate.

OK. £100 Quid of my money against £100 Quid of yours says that this whole Australian DJ guff led to her taking her own life.

chastise me if you like... but betting over the reasons for the death of a young nurse it a teeny weeny bit distasteful, no?

Chastise me if you like... but speculating over the reasons for the death of a young nurse is every bit as distasteful as wagering cash over it, no?

I haven't offered any suggested reasons for her death. I have said we don't know, and that suicide is usually complex. what are you on about??

You've offered that it's usually complex, therefor possibly something beyond this DJ malarky, which is speculation on your part that there's something more deep-rooted going on.

[thebish]

You've offered that it's usually complex, therefor possibly something beyond this DJ malarky, which is speculation on your part that there's something more deep-rooted going on.

I have basically said that in this case we don't know - and that it is usually complex (which it usually is).

hardly speculation.

what are you on about??

[Bruce Rioja]

You've offered that it's usually complex, therefor possibly something beyond this DJ malarky, which is speculation on your part that there's something more deep-rooted going on.

I have basically said that in this case we don't know - and that it is usually complex (which it usually is).

hardly speculation.

what are you on about??

Your speculating that there's something more than this DJ malarky that's caused his young nurse to take her own life. That's what you're on about!

[thebish]

You've offered that it's usually complex, therefor possibly something beyond this DJ malarky, which is speculation on your part that there's something more deep-rooted going on.

I have basically said that in this case we don't know - and that it is usually complex (which it usually is).

hardly speculation.

what are you on about??

Your speculating that there's something more than this DJ malarky that's caused his young nurse to take her own life. That's what you're on about!

no... I'll write this slowly..

I have said (more than once) that in this case we don't know. I have also said that it is usually complex. I said this because some seem to believe that it is obviously a simple 1-1 causal effect from a radio broadcast. It might be - but it is not obviously so.

we simply don't know.

now - if you think that my position here is somehow the same as placing bets on the cause of a young woman's suicide then you are (of course) entitled to that judgement, but I'd have to say that to my ears such a claim sounds like a load of hairy old cheesy foetid bollox...

[Montreal Wanderer]

In fairness, Monty, that's a big jump based only (unless you know something else) on a guess at the origins of her name.

And, in fairness to thebish, I don't think he was arguing she wasn't 'harmed' at all, more picking up on your use of the word 'harm' which seemed to specifically refer to her death.

I don't really want to try to turn this into a case study, but I think there are massive issues with causation for any civil claim against them.

Why on earth would you judge my use of the word 'harm', either in a legal or lay sense, refer specifically to her death.

quite simply because you only raised the issue after she has committed suicide - and your post was about what should happen now she has committed suicide. You did not raise any question of any legal action beforehand. So - it is entirely natural to believe that you were referring to the recent event that has happened - namely - her suicide.

in fact - BEFORE her suicide you seemed to think that prank calls humiliating SOME people were funny...

I have to confess I did laugh some five years ago when two Montreal comedians, the Masked Avengers, telephoned Sarah Palin claiming to be President Sarkozy. The level of ignorance she displayed about the world outside Alaska was staggering and this was a person one heart beat away from the presidency had they won.

I know you believe me to be obtuse - but I really think you have (for some reason best known to yourself) run off with the shitty end of some kind of stick and got carried away with yourself...

I think if you consider the context of that Pailn post Bruce and I were deploring the hoax before there was a suicide. We tended to agree it was one thing to go after a public figure and quite another to go after a private person trying to do a difficult job (not even her own job - she was a nurse and had to answer the switchboard because the receptionist wasn't there). Subsequently I got even more irritated by the male Ozzie who was twittering about how it was the eaisest hoax ever pulled and how stupid people were to fall for their spiel. Frankly their reaction afterwards simply added more humiliation to already humiliated people. I didn't say hoaxing Palin was very funny, I said I did laugh but I id not go into convulsions.

On the subject of harm, as you note you said:

3. Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

However the full context including your emphasis:

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm.

Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

I interpreted this to mean that you challenged my assertion that she suffered harm. Perhaps I was wrong in which case I apologize. The suggestion that I was guessing there was harm struck me as absurd because it seemed self-evident to me that being held up for this level of public ridicule was harmful.

[thebish]

I interpreted this to mean that you challenged my assertion that she suffered harm. Perhaps I was wrong in which case I apologize. The suggestion that I was guessing there was harm struck me as absurd because it seemed self-evident to me that being held up for this level of public ridicule was harmful.

I can see where the misunderstanding begins... Pru had it right - the context of your remarks - in the wake of her death - and your comments about some legal consequences for the broadcasters led me to think that by "harm" you were obviously referring to her death. This was compounded by the fact that you had not talked about her being harmed before she died even though you had commented on the case before she died.

no need for apology - I think this is simply a straightforward misunderstanding on my part and on yours...

does this mean I am not obtuse?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

does this mean I am not obtuse?

Absolutely not!

[thebish]

does this mean I am not obtuse?

Absolutely not!

ahhh poo!

[Montreal Wanderer]

I interpreted this to mean that you challenged my assertion that she suffered harm. Perhaps I was wrong in which case I apologize. The suggestion that I was guessing there was harm struck me as absurd because it seemed self-evident to me that being held up for this level of public ridicule was harmful.

I can see where the misunderstanding begins... Pru had it right - the context of your remarks - in the wake of her death - and your comments about some legal consequences for the broadcasters led me to think that by "harm" you were obviously referring to her death. This was compounded by the fact that you had not talked about her being harmed before she died even though you had commented on the case before she died.

no need for apology - I think this is simply a straightforward misunderstanding on my part and on yours...

does this mean I am not obtuse?

Yes, or rather you are not now as apparently obtuse as you appeared to me to be a couple of hours ago. Pru and I were talking about something slightly different in that I think he understood harm in the sense I meant and we were discussing whether there was civil liability in a hoax that went horribly wrong although the ultimate end was not intended (I think we both knew the victim would be embarrassed by the hoax and therefore 'harmed' in the sense we were talking about). Harm could mean something as simple as getting fired (I gather the hospital had no such intention) or being shunned by her family because she embarrassed them, etc. They are investigating whether there is criminal liability, possibly under some ancient statute of treason, but I agree with Prufrock that there will not be criminal charges.

Anyway, I'll go for misunderstanding betwixt us.

[TANGODANCER]

Is there not some liability from the Palace end of things here? Something like an instruction that calls from official sources would be forwarded to a liason/security officer and be accompanied by a password to prove they were genuine? Stable door philosophy no doubt, but still......?

[a1]

bet prince philip has them both on his "clinton kill list" already.

me ? i'd hang steve penk in retribution.

i dont know if i'm joking with the last one.

[Jakerbeef]

The modern media is over the top and the cult of celebrity is out of control, I think. Leading to the hysteria of this tragic incident.

Royal figureheads or not; they are celebrities. Front covers on OK! Magazine or somesuch. That an embarrassing public mistake concerning them can lead to (full circumstances unknown) hari-kiri is mind-boggling.

[Annoyed Grunt]

I see the presenters are "very sorry"... What for? Making the call, or the repercussions the call had? Because its not the first prank they've done...

The station has a bit of previous:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/au ... alian-idol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

Sad, very sad, if the two tits were responsable for what happened they should be removed from their positions and hung out to dry! Even before this tragic event just what the hell were they doing sticking their noses into someones private medical condition? In fact I'd hit the radio station with a huge lawsuit being they let two irresponsable employees get away with broadcasting what they did, it might remove them from air for good, doubt they'd be missed.

[2399]

The Two Sydney FFFKs that did this need to be sent to England for Beheading!

[Bruce Rioja]

no need for apology - I think this is simply a straightforward misunderstanding on my part and on yours...

That's because there's hairy old cheesy foetid bollox in your ears.

[Worthy4England]

no need for apology - I think this is simply a straightforward misunderstanding on my part and on yours...

That's because there's hairy old cheesy foetid bollox in your ears.

Can I hold both your £100's until you resolve this?