... So somebody is going to prison for causing this lady's death, yes?

[non sociopath skin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/kate-middleton/9730056/Duchess-of-Cambridge-hospital-nurse-who-took-hoax-call-found-dead-in-suspected-suicide.html

... or are the boneheads, chancers and spivs who run the "information" and "entertainment" "industries" going to get away with it scot-free yet again?

O tempora! O mores! O fuck!

The Skin

[morningfog]

1. Who should go to prison?

How do you know why she killed herself?

[non sociopath skin]

4. Coincidence, you think?

The Skin

[morningfog]

12. I have no idea, nor do you.

Who should go to jail?

[non sociopath skin]

15. I've been a therapeutic counsellor dealing with traumatic bereavement ...

... including work with the families of suicides, for quite some time.

So I have some idea of how these things play out.

I said "somebody is going to jail." yes?

Which means I wasn't yet clear, yes?

Hello ...? hello ....?



The Skin

[morningfog]

16. WHO do you think should go to jail?

WHat is your theory? What is the crime?

WHO and WHY????

[non sociopath skin]

19. Oh, go bother someone else.

I really can't be arsed with all that shouting.

The Skin

[morningfog]

20. I just don't see where any crime has been committed.

It was stupid, distasteful and I would like to see prank calls fade into the past. But, I can't see where a crime has been committed.

[aranthus]

32. It's a crime in the US and Britain. It depends on Australian law.

What they did would definitely be a crime in the US, and I have been told by one person on this board from England that it is a crime there as well. There are actually two crimes that I can think of:

1. They impersonated someone to obtain private medical information.
2. They broadcast the information and published it on their website.

It's possible that the stunt could be a violation of their broadcast license.

Who should be prosecuted? The two DJ's, their producer, and any station management who authorized the stunt or the posting of the recordings.

[morningfog]

35. So, it has nothing to do with the suicide?

As I read the OP, I read that the DJs, or someone, should be imprisoned because of the suicide.

Do the two laws that you mentioned carry prison time? If so, how much? Do you have a link to the applicable statutes(s) or regulations?

[aranthus]

50. You're right. I was only talking about the invasion of privacy crimes.

I don't think that anyone could be criminally prosecuted for the woman's death. A civil suit might work. As far as the penalties under English or Australian law, I don't know. I'm an attorney in California, so I don't know the law in Australia or England. I have simply heard from others on this site that both countries have privacy protection laws.

[kelly1mm]

37. None of that has anything to do with the death of the receptionist/nurse though. Those

alleged crimes(if AUS law is the same as US/UK) occured at the time of the call/brodcast and could have been brought not withstanding any death. So, what is your point? IF (big if) anyone goes to prison, it would not be for causing anyone's death.

[aranthus]

51. That's true.

I was only stating that the invasion of privacy was a crime. The death of the woman is probably too far removed from the prank (unforeseeable) to result in criminal prosecution.

[bunnies]

2. ok. I'll step in it...

You want someone to go to prison for a hoax phone call? Really? Even if it can be proven without a doubt that the call is the *reason* she killed herself, the callers would have had no way of knowing that. Further, I dont think its too much of a stretch to say that this woman probably had some other issues going on in her life.

If you yell at me in the grocery store and I go home and kill myself should you go to prison for it?

[LeftishBrit]

3. Yelling at someone in the grocery store is rude but not criminal

Making hoax phone calls to obtain information on false pretences, and especially doing so in order to invade someone's medical privacy is, or should be, criminal.

I am not sure that sending an individual to prison is the way to go - I think the radio station would just use the person who actually made the phone call as a scapegoat, and those who probably instructed them to do so would go scot free. But I certainly think that both Kate and the nurse's family should have every right to sue the HELL out of that radio station. I am just about SICK of the media thinking that they own the world and have the right to trample on everybody's privacy. At least the royals have the resources to resist this to some degree - but they are equally vile in going after private citizens, sometimes the victims of serious crimes or tragedies.

[non sociopath skin]

5. Thanks for that, LB.

And now that my anger has abated just a little, I can see the sense of what you say.

However, our two comrades above reminded me that there are certainly plenty of people out their who would rush to the defence of these assholes.

Just a laff, isn't it!

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. It gets worse - the conspiracy theory has already appeared on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014328942#post29

I was going to post here, saying "it'll be inevitable"; but then I thought "why put it into someone's mind first? Maybe DU can resist the 'government is out to kill anyone who displeases it' crap this time". But there's always someone on DU who'll go there.

[non sociopath skin]

7. That's why I posted it here, Muriel.

Wingnut Free Zone.

The Skin

[dipsydoodle]

8. There are others alluding to that too within those threads.

Just seems to make a tragic situation worse.

M15 indeed. What've assault rifles got to do with the price of eggs.

[bunnies]

10. Please quote where I defended these "assholes"

Ill wait...................

[non sociopath skin]

11. Re-read your post.

If that doesn't work, pat yourself on the back, say "Who's a clever boy" and go and check out another tragic death to be controversial about.

I won't wait.

The Skin

[oldironside]

14. I think you've got every right to be angry.

Pathetic infantile attention seekers like these two make me sick at the best of times, but this time they've left a husband without a wife and two teenage children without a mother. Whatever the punishment is, there have to be serious consequences for these two. Then, at the very least, the next time another one of these egomaniacs gets a bright idea they will have pause for thought.

[aranthus]

13. It depends on the provisions of english and Australian law.

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Here in California there was an instance where a radio station held a race for cash stunt. The radio drove a van around town and parked it somewhere, and the first to the van won a prize. Of course there was an accident. I don't remember if there were fatalities or not (there was one). There was a civil suit and the station was found liable because it should have forseen that people would street race to the van, which was likely to cause an accident. The case was Weirum vs. RKO, if anyone wants to look it up.

The situation here is different. The station wasn't directly encouraging anyone to commit suicide. I don't even know if it is a crime in England to release private medical information, although it probably is. But is it reasonably foreseeable that the nurse would commit suicide because of it? Also, there needs to be an investigation of who let these jerks proceed with their stunt, who didn't stop it when it was clear that they were going to get private information, and who posted it on the radio website. The two DJ's aren't the only ones responsible.

[enlightenment]

21. I believe it is illegal to impersonate (use false pretences)

to acquire information about a hospital patient. In the US, HIPAA is quite specific about this, but I'm not sure about the UK - or Australia.

Given that these announcers apparently have the collective IQ of a grape, one would think that wiser heads at the station would have prevailed . . . but no. The radio station's lawyers vetted and approved this prank before it was aired.

I don't believe that these people could have reasonably assumed someone would kill themselves because of this, but they could reasonably assume that someone would have found themselves in trouble because of it - perhaps disciplined by the hospital, removed from their position, or struck off the register.

It was completely and utterly irresponsible. Immature and malicious. The CEO of the radio station suggested it was a collaborative effort; if so, then everyone of the people who collaborated on it should be punished. Given the playground level of humor, perhaps a punishment suitable for a 12 year old.

[LeftishBrit]

22. It is also illegal in the UK, under the Data Protection Act

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree with you: I doubt that they could actually be convicted of manslaughter, given that they could not have reasonably foreseen that someone would commit suicide - though they should certainly feel very guilty over the tragedy. However, they could certainly have foreseen that people could have got into trouble and perhaps lost their jobs - AND there is an even more basic point: their prank inevitably took nurses' time and attention away from their primary duty of attending to patients. That is serious in itself.

[enlightenment]

24. Ah - nice to know.

I looked at the Data Protection Act but didn't see the relevant passage . . . got frustrated and stomped off in a huff (more or less - )

I agree with you on that basic point; while the prank itself probably didn't take up that much time in and of itself, the repercussions have undoubtedly negatively impacted the hospital workplace.

I seriously hope they are feeling tremendous guilt, but I suspect they are they're too busy being counseled for the terrible shock of discovering that actions have consequences and trying to figure out how to make themselves look like the victims in all this.

[aranthus]

25. I completely agree about US law,

but I don't know about English or Australian law. And yes, the people running the station are responsible. Here in the states there would be an investigation and a hearing about whether the station would be fined or lose its license.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Yelling if it causes fear or makes the recipient feel threated is a criminal offense.

Covered under assault and battery. That's not even new - was so at least 20 years ago. Compounded now under different acts too if any racism is involved.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Fair enough; I was thinking of more everyday temperamental behaviour...

of the 'Hey! Look where you're going with that trolley!' or 'I was ahead of you, so don't jump the bloody queue!' variety. I realize that threatening behaviour, even if purely verbal, is quite rightly treated as criminal.

[dballance]

29. I Don't Know about UK Laws But the Nurse would be the criminal in the US

HIPPA laws/rules forbid disclosing a person's private medical information in the US.

Quite clearly this nurse did not properly verify the DJs were people who had any legal reason to have private medical information about Kate. Further, I'm not sure one's mother-in-law is entitled to having private medical information about them. The husband - sure. I'll go with that.

All the nurse had to do was ask for a call-back number, hang up the phone and then call the call-back number which should have been the Royal Palace to verify the validity of the call. Something that would be rather reasonable to most people.

Yes, it's absolutely horrible she took her own life and must be horrible for her family. But that was solely her choice. The DJs are not responsible.

DJs make stupid prank calls to people every day on live radio and, for the most part, we eat it up as entertainment. The prank call to Gov. Scott Walker where a DJ pretended to be a Koch and got Walker to say some pretty sill things got national attention and was a laugh riot to most people.

If she had not taken her own life and the headlines were "Nurse Gets Fired for Sharing Info on Kate" it is very unlikely, given the unnatural popularity of the Royals, there would be much sympathy for her.

[dipsydoodle]

36. Popularity of the Royals here currently runs at about 70%

which is all that really matters - hardly unnatural.

From what I can make out the last US President to match that figure was Bill Clinton.

[frylock]

40. specific information such as a social security number or equivalent..

would need to be provided to obtain protected health information. unless the DJs presented such info in order to obtain PHI, i don't think a crime was commited.

[T_i_B]

9. Oh, "It's-just-a-larf-innit"........

..........What crimes are committed in thy name!

As to bringing the radio morons to some form of justice? Well the logistics of the situation aren't much of a help here, with the radio hoaxers being in Australia. Maybe this should have been posted in the Aussie forum, along with some footage of the 2010/2011 Ashes?

[fedsron2us]

23. Her death is a direct result of the media feeding frenzy surrounding the royal pregnancy

and all the press are to blame not just the two Australian fuck wits who did not realise what impact their prank would have on the professional and personal reputations of the people they had duped for a 'larf'. All of them, including the Oz radio station, have just been using the fact Kate is up the duff to knock out loads of cheap copy using the hoary old excuse that they are meeting the public appetite for such stories . If comments on the BBC boards is anything to go by the public were bored to tears with the whole thing before this tragedy happened. Moreover. it is the British press and not the Australians responsible for what ultimately was a pretty trivial stupid joke who blew up the whole event into some sort of massive breach of security and started lambasting the hospital for its failure to protect the royals medical confidentiality. It was almost certainly the impact of this media hysteria and the reaction to it of her employers which drove the poor women over the edge. One only needs to see what was printed in the Daily Mail on 5th December to see the sort of stuff is being produced by the press

"The Mail understands that William and Kate's private staff are furious and have expressed 'deep concern' that the Duchess's privacy could be compromised in this way." And, 'If an employer has serious concerns that a nurse or midwife has breached their code of conduct and it cannot be dealt with at a local level then a referral should be made to the NMC. As reported, "Dixxie Arbiter, the Queen's former Press Secretary who worked at Buckingham Palace for 12 years, told MailOnline: 'This is a shocking breach of security. The Royal Family have been clients of the King Edward VII Hospital for many, many years and it simply beggars belief that a member of the public could call up and obtain details of the Duchess's medical condition in this way. The hospital will be livid at what has happened and I am sure the palace will be demanding answers. There will be fireworks over this, for sure."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243315/Kate-Middleton-pregnant-Security-scare-Australian-radio-DJs-dupe-nurse-giving-medical-details.html

Looking at this article, I do wonder how much this poor woman was truly being "supported in this difficult time" by her employers and what part palace officials leaking the royal displeasure to the press played in turning a minor incident into a human tragedy. To my mind both have questions to answer particularly as it appears no sensitive medical information was revealed.

[Speck Tater]

27. If she committed suicide then her death was her choice.

Sorry, but the suicide of every unhinged person cannot be blamed on whoever happened to be the last one to talk to them before they offed themselves.

Yes, it's a shame, but she made a choice, and it was her choice.

[fedsron2us]

28. Try telling her kids that their Mums death is a 'shame' not a tragedy

I am sure they will be comforted to know that her suicide was a rational 'choice' and did not happen while the balance of her mind was disturbed due to the pressures she and her employers were put under by the media after that pathetic hoax phone call.

You clearly have not got the faintest idea what it is like to be the 'target de jour' for the British media or the sort of things they will do to sensationalise a story. Levenson did cover more than a tiny fraction of the way they trample over peoples lives.

[Speck Tater]

39. I dind't say it was a "rational" choice. I said it was a choice.

Frankly, it was probably a demented, insane choice. And yes, it was a tragedy. And perhaps we will never know what circumstances in her life leading up to that event lead her to make the insane choice to end her own life. But it was still a choice.

[dballance]

31. Exactly! Her Choice

I find this a rather silly supposition:

"I do wonder how much this poor woman was truly being 'supported in this difficult time' by her employers." Why should her employers have been supporting an employee who disclosed confidential medical information on a patient to people that employee had clearly not properly verified were who they said they were? If her employers weren't proceeding to fire her already then they should have been. I don't care if it was a Royal or a pauper disclosing confidential medical information is wrong.

Yes, it is a tragedy that she killed herself. But it's not the fault of the DJs or the Palace.

[fedsron2us]

33. She did not disclose any medical information

confidential or otherwise. She merely answered the phone and passed on the call to another nurse who was the one who actually spoke to the pathetic DJs carrying out their stupid and juvenile prank. In fact despite what some UK papers suggested it is pretty clear no sensitive information was passed at all apart from a general statement that the Duchess of Cambridge was feeling better. Nor is it clear that the staff breached UK Data Protection Laws since they believed the call was genuine. Since no one knows what other procedures the hospital had in place we cant say whether they were violated or not. If an offence did occur it was a breach of Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 by the Australian DJs trying to obtain confidential information by impersonation (the so called blagging offence). It is a moot point whether they might be extradited on that charge since at present it carries no custodial sentence (though that may be about to change). Those found guilty can be subjected to an unlimited fine.

I don't know why so many people on here are defending these childish fuckwits or the insane British media who stirred the whole thing up . Nor can I understand the complete lack of sympathy for this womans family of some people posting here.

[non sociopath skin]

43. Bravo, Feds!

While I accept that my original angry post was a gut reaction and maybe slightly OTT (as I said, I work with the bereaved and have strong feelings about such things), I cannot believe how many people seem to be rushing to defend these insensitive, irresponsible people and the sick media "culture" which pays them to humiliate ordinary people with real jobs.

As a colleague of mine used to say about our then boss when she wouldn't give her time off for her cancer aftercare clinic, "Wait till she gets her lump" ....

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

41. She didn't disclose any confidential medical information

All that she did was pass the phone call to Kate's own nurse. This may have been naive, but it was hardly criminal. If anyone on the hospital side breached confidentiality, it was Kate's nurse, who is a different person; and it does not seem that even she disclosed anything that was not already public knowledge.

[LeftishBrit]

42. I fully agree with you.

[MrSlayer]

26. Oh please.

No one should go to jail for this. No one even knows why this person did what she did. The reaction to this is beyond bizarre.

[fedsron2us]

30. The two Australian journalists have probably broken English law

by trying to obtain confidential medical information by deception. I think they might find themselves the subject of an extradition request since the actual offence might be deemed to have happened in the UK even though they were in Australia. The Nat West 3 were extradited to the US to face trial even though they were in the UK when they commited their offences so there are precedents. It would depend on the wording of the UK and Australian extradition treaty.

[dipsydoodle]

34. They definately broke English law and probably Australian too.

The law concerns the broadcasting of prank phone calls without the prior consent of the recipient which is thought to apply in both countries.

Nothwithstanding that I doubt charges will be brought.

[

[fedsron2us]

38. They also breached Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998

by using impersonation to try to obtain confidential information by impersonation. The 'blagging' offence currently carries no custodial remedy only the potential for an unlimited fine but the Data Comissioner has lobbied for this to be changed. I expect this incident may give that process a kick.

I agree it is unlikely anything will be done but I did note that one of the papers said that UK police had been in contact with their Australian counterparts so maybe something is afoot behind the scenes

Anyway as someone earlier wisely pointed out the phrase 'I was only havin a larf' is nearly always heard in the wake of these small scale tragedies.

[non sociopath skin]

44. Would you mind reading the earlier posts before you weigh in, brother?

If you have difficulties with your concentration span, I can probably give you some support ...



The Skin

[MrSlayer]

45. I will.

My apologies.

[non sociopath skin]

46. Thank you.

The Skin

[Matilda]

47. I'd be surprised if anyone went to prison for this.

The so-called prank was childish, tasteless, and stupid in the extreme, but nobody could reasonably accuse the perpetrators even of manslaughter, let alone murder. Intent to injure, if not to kill, must be proven for any charge to succeed.

As the call originated in Australia, any prosecution would have to be under Australian law. We're not Europe, so trivial calls for extradition won't hold water here. Lawyers here are divided as to whether Australian laws regarding the use of surveillance devices were broken, but at the least I would think the radio station would be fined, and stronger guidelines set for future broadcasts of this sort.

And we don't know what pressures Jacintha Saldanha was under; we will have to wait for the inquest to find out. Although the media attention would have contributed, we don't know whether there were other family pressures at work already, or whether she was a fragile person. And although the hospital has said they were supporting her, I'd wonder about the extent of it - their first thought would be that they might lose their royal patronage, and I'd bet they'd be scrambling to do anything to minimise the chances of that happening. If a nurse had to be sacrificed, so be it.

There was some culpability on the part of the nurse who finally dealt with the call - no information should have been given out, and I'm only surprised that she didn't twig to the nature of the call. The Queen doesn't make calls like that herself; an aide would do it for her. Neither would she ever refer to her grandson or his wife by their names; she would always use their titles. I'm just amazed that the alarm bells didn't ring.

I'm also surprised that there weren't protocols in place for dealing with calls of this nature - I'll bet there are always reporters trying to get inside information when a royal is hospitalised, and any call for information should automatically be put through to someone in management to deal with. Nurses, who are often probably tired and overworked, shouldn't have to decide for themselves what is a legitimate call and what isn't.

[non sociopath skin]

48. So is it OK to pull stunts like this on people who aren't "fragile" then?

... because a lot of us are feeling pretty fragile over here at the moment.

I notice that the radio station is now also suggesting that the lady may have had "other problems" ... is that now the Official Australian State Excuse?



The Skin

[Matilda]

49. If you read my post carefully,

you would see that I have no time for this sort of "prank" call. I made that very clear. And in fairness, the final outcome was something nobody could have predicted.

But none of us know what else was going on in her life - she, in fact, was not the one who gave out information, so she carried no blame for that. But something got to her - the resultant publicity, possible repercussions from the hospital, who knows. Only an inquest can tell us that. And it is true that some people can withstand pressure better than others; that is simply a fact of human nature.

The radio station has been in trouble before - they're a morally bankrupt lot, and the CEO, Max Moore-Wilton, is a scumbag who cares not a jot for other people. A buddy of John Howard; say no more. I find it odd that they only "remembered" nearly a week after the event that they'd tried five times to call the hospital to clear the broadcast. I doubt they did. I hold no brief for them at all, and I hope they might ultimately pay a high price for what happened. Unfortunately, they've wriggled out of seemingly untenable situations more than once before, and it could happen again.

The best that can come out of this is that broadcast rules are tightened, but there are always those who will oppose it in the name of "freedom".

I trust I've made my position clear.

[non sociopath skin]

54. You have, Matilda.

I'd wager, though, that it was the repercussions of the phone call that tipped the balance with the lady, whatever else was going on in her life. If so, the scumbags are morally responsible even if the law doesn't recognise that.

I shudder to think of how many lives have to be blighted before clowns like this are reined in.

The Skin

[graham4anything]

52. Like when hannity called Daschle names then he got thraxed

there has to be responsiblity

because all actions cause something
and they should be accessories to attempted murder or something

I do hope they never get another job again, and make ZERO money or fame from a book or movie about their stupid deathmaking practical joke.

none of that will bring back the nurse go

(and the stupid conspiracy theories are ridiculous. Those conspiracy theories are as bad as practical jokes and ct's lead to anarchy and death).

[dipsydoodle]

53. Meanwhile - outside a Sydney radio station.

[Matilda]

55. The owners of the radio station are resuming advertising, with all profits until year end

to go to the family of Jacintha Saldanha. they have guaranteed a minimum of $5000,00.

It will go some way to restoring their tarnished image, but will it change their culture?

There is an interesting article on an industry paper today about the station's decision: "Blood Money or Right Move?"

"Simon Lloyd, head of consulting at AccessPR, told B&T while payment would not bring absolution, it was a step in the right direction

"Saying you’re going to donate money should never be regarded as an easy way to fix a crisis like this. Nevertheless I think it is a very good move by Austereo

“From a PR standpoint I don’t have any issue with them resuming advertising. It would have been smarter if they’d decided to donate a bit faster but it’s always easy to be wise after the event.

“Because this is so unprecedented it’s impossible for anybody to say what is absolutely right or absolutely not right from a crisis management point of view. If I was to give them a score of how they were managing it so far it would be a B+.”

http://www.bandt.com.au/news/media/blood-money-or-right-move-pr-experts-debate-2day-f?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=BandT%20Newsletter%20-%20send%20-%3E%2012/12/2012%201:05:34%20PM&utm_content=&spMailingID=5255663&spUserID=ODcwNDQzODg5NAS2&spJobID=60551097&spReportId=NjA1NTEwOTcS1

[non sociopath skin]

56. If the culture is going to change ....

... I guess it will be in the time-honoured tradition of doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

If the commercial radio entrepreneurs decide that the risks of negative publicity and thence lost profits are too great, they will rein the shock jocks in.

Morality??? Compassion??? Empathy??? Do me a favour ....

The Skin

[Matilda]

57. Unfortunately, as we've seen with this station and at least one other,

the end result is determined by the ratings. People still continue to listen to this rubbish, and as long as they do, the advertisers will come back, and everything will go on as before.

Just as the paparazzi continue to flourish post-Diana because it's people who buy the papers to look at their photos. If they didn't, this industry would die.

I think the general population has a lot to answer for as well.