You are a banker.

Sorry, lawyer.

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 -

Are you now calling yourself a MORON !!!



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.







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.







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







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.
















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




.


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.



.
see above. I have more evidence than you seem to be using to support your arguements.







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 s 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






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.







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




The Rl fans forum sin bin public. I demand you withdraw your comments you said on a public forum

Ohhhhh so close, just one out.

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.

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.

No, we don't. For reasons I've explained at least twice, and so won't repeat.

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.

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.

Eh? "Cured"? Of being "in a position"? Is this point in English?

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?

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.

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.

{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:





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.

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.

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!

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.

"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.

{sighs, resignedly} Rather than repeat myself [iad nauseam[/i 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

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:

Will that do?

Well then you mus be quite mad. It isn't a reasonable thought.

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.

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.

That's good. I've never heard it before. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

Your odd advice is noted, but I'll say exactly what I like, when I like, thanks.


Ah yes, the killer hypothesis of insightful genius. I have a similar one. "The sun will rise in the morning".
Quote2. (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"icon_wink.gif 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"icon_wink.gif 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,

Er . . . she wasn't. As you said earlier in your rant:

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.

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?

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.

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.

Google the distinction between police and CPS.

... 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?

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.

Leaving aside that (as is now seemingly obligatory) you misquote me, you accept that you were wrong to say I complained.

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 wroteicon_surprised.gifn page 11 you stated that anyone who said the call was a prank was a MORON.



and yet a quick look back on page 11 reveals....



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.

Happy New Year, one and all.

First of all, Happy New Year, Rump.

You, my friend, suffer from a failure to be able to read. I made a generalisation. An insult is something you say to someone to insult them. I did not insult anybody. I did say (as you kindly quoted, if not actually read), that I have no time for morons who claim this was [ia prank call like any other prank call[/i. It is the last bit that you carelessly missed, but it makes all the difference. That is because anyone who says this was a prank call like any other prank call is, indeed, in my opinion of course, a moron.

This would not be an insult, it would be a statement of my opinion of any such person. As in, I think they would be a moron.

So, and to be clear, if YOU claimed this was [ia prank call like any other prank call[/i, then you would indeed be moron.

The alleged offender doesn't determine whether what they say is insulting or not, it's down to how it is received. If someone is insulted by what you say then it is an insult. Even if you meant well (backhanded compliment etc) it is still an insult if it is considered to be pejorative by its recipient.

You are within your rights to say you didn't mean to be offend (though I think, in this case, it is obvious that you did), but you can't go about re-branding the definition of insult to 'your opinion'.

So, identify the person whom I "meant to offend".

Anyone who said it was a prank call. HTH

Indeed. Try again.

So you lose the arguement and then you make up quotes.

You have tried to define the definition of insult.
Now you try to define quote.

Funnily enough even then you try to defend yourself by trying to redefine the notion of a prank call.

Whether you found it funny, whether it worked, whether it was executed well is all a matter of opinion but no you have to try to re define it as not being a prank call.

You have the ability to pick arguements with anyone. Then when you are shown up just tell everyone that you are right because they do not understand what you have said. When they show up the fact they understood exactly what you said how you try to re define the English language.

There are some very strange things going on in your head.
Black is white, night is day, FA understands and no one else does.

I suggest your psychiatrist sends you for an MRI scan.

Emphatically not. The ball is in your court.


Exactly where did I do that, then? Go on, I dare you! But in fact, misquoting has proved YOUR speciality.



Except that's all just your usual [size=150total bullcrap[/size, because contrary to your inevitable mis-quote, I did not say that it was not a prank call. The words (which were requoted just above, but you are so lazy or stupid that you keep failing to see the printed word) were:



In other words, it was a prank call that was not like thousands of other prank calls. If I had stopped writing at the same point you obviously stopped reading, then you would have a point. As the sentence did not stop there, you don't.

Let me give you a hypothetical example: "Durham giant is not an idiot just like thousands of other idiots, he is an absolute, total, class-leading, blithering idiot". There. Using the same technique, you can now put in your sig a "quote" from FA that "Durham Giant is not an idiot". Which would really be an accurate summary of what I said, wouldn't it.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark Exactly where did I do that, then? Go on, I dare you! But in fact, misquoting has proved YOUR speciality.'" So when you put this in your post in a quote box 2 posts back this is not a made up quote ? Quote Durham Giant wrote:I can't actually comprehend that which is there for me to read. That's why I compulsively misquote. '" So what you will do now is deny you said it. Then when someone points out that you did make that quote you will say it is not a , "quote" in the way you understand it it was piece of sarcasm or poetic licence. Then when challenged on that you you will claim that it is everybody elses misunderstanding because in your world "quote" does not mean it has to be a quote but if it slightly paraphrases something. Then when that is challenged you will just call the other person an idiot. What you seem to misunderstand is that your techniques for winning an arguement or confusing the issue works quite well in a verbal discussion but not so well when written down. Obfuscation, mis direction, parody, misquoting , confusion can work but when you leave a trail of evidence it does not work so well. Quote Except that's all just your usual [size=150total bullcrap[/size, because contrary to your inevitable mis-quote, I did not say that it was not a prank call. The words (which were requoted just above, but you are so lazy or stupid that you keep failing to see the printed word) were: In other words, it was a prank call that was not like thousands of other prank calls. If I had stopped writing at the same point you obviously stopped reading, then you would have a point. As the sentence did not stop there, you don't.'" What you said was on page 11 Quote I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't. The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. '" Which clearly shows that you are redefining the definition of a prank call in your head to justify your position. In your world you rule it out as a prank call because =#FF0000The Truth is revealed afterwards The radio station stated very clearly they tried to contact the hospital 6 times to do exactly what you asked. The listeners when it was introduced knew it was a prank call =#FF0000humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Again your interpretation . The humour could also be in the ludicriousness of it all, the funny accents, the cheek of laughing at the establishment. =#FF0000Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. Yet you do not know this. It may have been considrered but ignored. But in your world your interpretation is all that matters. www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... prank-call www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ank%20call en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prank_call None of these mention your charcteristics as being defining of a prank call. Now if you had said Quote FEROCIOUS AARDAVARK SHOULD HAVE SAID I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't, BASED ON MY DEFINITION OF A PRANK CALL The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. '" I could have agreed with your post. Still in Aardvark world albeit not in the real world you are always right. I suggest you discuss this with your psychiatrist.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark Exactly where did I do that, then? Go on, I dare you! But in fact, misquoting has proved YOUR speciality.'" So when you put this in your post in a quote box 2 posts back this is not a made up quote ? Quote Durham Giant wrote:I can't actually comprehend that which is there for me to read. That's why I compulsively misquote. '" So what you will do now is deny you said it. Then when someone points out that you did make that quote you will say it is not a , "quote" in the way you understand it it was piece of sarcasm or poetic licence. Then when challenged on that you you will claim that it is everybody elses misunderstanding because in your world "quote" does not mean it has to be a quote but if it slightly paraphrases something. Then when that is challenged you will just call the other person an idiot. What you seem to misunderstand is that your techniques for winning an arguement or confusing the issue works quite well in a verbal discussion but not so well when written down. Obfuscation, mis direction, parody, misquoting , confusion can work but when you leave a trail of evidence it does not work so well. Quote Except that's all just your usual [size=150total bullcrap[/size, because contrary to your inevitable mis-quote, I did not say that it was not a prank call. The words (which were requoted just above, but you are so lazy or stupid that you keep failing to see the printed word) were: In other words, it was a prank call that was not like thousands of other prank calls. If I had stopped writing at the same point you obviously stopped reading, then you would have a point. As the sentence did not stop there, you don't.'" What you said was on page 11 Quote I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't. The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. '" Which clearly shows that you are redefining the definition of a prank call in your head to justify your position. In your world you rule it out as a prank call because =#FF0000The Truth is revealed afterwards The radio station stated very clearly they tried to contact the hospital 6 times to do exactly what you asked. The listeners when it was introduced knew it was a prank call =#FF0000humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Again your interpretation . The humour could also be in the ludicriousness of it all, the funny accents, the cheek of laughing at the establishment. =#FF0000Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. Yet you do not know this. It may have been considrered but ignored. But in your world your interpretation is all that matters. www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... prank-call www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ank%20call en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prank_call None of these mention your charcteristics as being defining of a prank call. Now if you had said Quote FEROCIOUS AARDAVARK SHOULD HAVE SAID I have no time for morons who claim this was a prank call just like thousands of other prank calls. It wasn't, BASED ON MY DEFINITION OF A PRANK CALL The "joke" in most prank calls is that at the end of the call, the truth is revealed, and the humour for the listener is in the reaction of the pranked person. Here, though, the pranked person was never considered. '" I could have agreed with your post. Still in Aardvark world albeit not in the real world you are always right. I suggest you discuss this with your psychiatrist.

Some people were on the pitch just then, they thought it was all over...

We just require BG or Wanderer to say..............[iit is now.[/i

I can only assume you and Jerry were not fans of Mon ty Python then.

The thoughts in FAs head are as surreal as anything , cleese, palin et al did.

This debate has attained a greater surreality than any of the Pythonians could have ever wished to muster.

[size=200KILL THIS F*@$#%/G THREAD ALREADY[/size

I think it would be suitable to see FA and DG partake in "The Fish Slapping dance" by way of settlement(see the tube thingy).

Only thing is, they would argue for 20 pages about who had the big fish at the end

Ah, but was it really a voluntary tackle...?

No. It is taking the pis5.


Not a bit. I merely point out the (very great) difference between this prank call, as opposed to other prank calls.


No. I don't. What you are again somehow conflating is the various stages of what happened.
(a) callers with funny accents talk to reception
This bit was recognisable as a pretty straightforward prank call
(b) callers get second nurse to breach patient confidentiality
In my book, that bit cannot be dismissed as a prank. The presenters no doubt intended it to be, and presumably due to youth, inexperience and getting giddy in the moment, they did it. They now regret that.
(c) radio station incredibly makes the considered decision to broadcast the recording
To broadcast the first part, they would have needed the consent of Mrs. Saldanha and her employers, but they did not get it. To broadcast the second part, (leaving aside the question of criminal offences) they would have needed the consent of the second nurse, the hospital and the patient, but they did not get it.

For convenience and shorthand, we refer to the whole incident as 'the prank call'. But the combination of (b) and (c) is what I have an issue with. And also why this prank call was different from a typical prank call.

Also for completeness, whilst I am replying, I'm almost certain that these points did not escape you. I reply just in case they bizarrely did.


No I don't, however many times you pathologically lie that I did.


The hospital say the radio station never spoke to them. I have no reason to doubt it, do you? If they "tried", that indicates they knew they should; so if they failed, why not wait until they succeeded? I find it is not hard to get through to any hospital I've ever tried to ring.

I presume as evidence they have tapes of these attempts to get through? (I refuse to believe that they made five or whatever proper efforts to phone, but nobody picked up.


It could be, but all this misses the point. It is NOT FUNNY to get a nurse to reveal confidential patient data.

I should interject here that, contrary to your implication, I have already agreed that, had the "funny accents" etc led merely to an exchange between presenters and reception, and she had twigged, and eventually terminated the call, then some may have found it funny; I didn't, but that's not relevant. No harm would have been done. The call would be a self-contained prank, and provided the nurse and hospital agreed to it's transmission, then would all have been hunky dory.

But this was not a prank call like any other prank call. As I keep saying. Because the presenters fooled the first nurse, and got put through. THAT is where the joke, such as it was, ends and where the call clearly should have ended. Receiving confidential patient information by deception is not a prank, it is an offence, and it isn't funny. It doesn't matter who the patient is.

So they should not have carried on and done that but, again as I have said, I do not particularly blame them as clearly they didn't think on their feet, and made the wrong decision. But the radio station, OTOH, made the considered decision to broadcast despite the plain breach of patient confidentiality and despite the lack of any consent.

And even if they had broadcast without consent, I would suggest no harm would have befallen Mrs Saldanha, if she had not been fooled, and had not put the call through to anyone, even if using the material without her consent would be pis5poor behaviour.


I don't know it, but 'considering but ignoring' would in my book be far worse than not having considered.


Which definition says a prank call can cause a nurse to divulge confidential patient information?


This is odd. I gather from that, the penny has finally dropped and you now almost understand my point. But I am not trying to define or redefine a prank call, which would be neither sensible nor necessary. I am pointing out why this prank call was different from your average ranch stash prank call.

I said what the joke "in most prank calls" is. The use of the word "most" clearly allows for the existence of other types of prank calls, and therefore, by definition, is not an attempt at a definition. Even to a word-twister like your good self.

But I do note that, in any case YOU AGREE with what you see as my "definition"; so it turns out you ONLY objection is you thought I was offering a dictionary definition of "a prank call", despite my use of the word "most". You have kicked up an argument over what turns out to be yet another failure to properly read my words. Well done.


It seems to be very important to you to end your posts by referring to "my psychiatrist" or some such. Does this reveal some sub-conscious need to self-congratulate your own posts by self-declaring some imaginary victory, and repeatedly declaring your opponent psychiatrically ill? For my part, I would suggest you discuss the thread with your English teacher. If you haven't got one, you need one. Not an insult, genuine advice.

Twenty five thousand views? You can't disappoint so many addicted viewers, surely?

How many types of prank phone calls can there be? A prank phone call is a prank phone call is a prank phone call! In FA world there appears to be an infinite number of variations, each a little sub set of the genre.

At the risk of sending Bradford's finest legal mind into another bout of outraged footstamping, could this whole sad episode not be a prank call at all, but rather a hoax?

I simply offer this up in the quest for accuracy.....

I think we'll end this here.