As the [url=http://viewtopic.php?f=11&t=541114&start=280original thread[/url relating to this has been locked, can I mention that the full facts are hopefully now going to emerge, as the [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29145248inquest into the death of Nurse Saldanha[/url has started, for those (many) who were interested in the topic.

All I'll say until the verdict is out is I'll be following it with interest, and to point out that the [isub judice[/i rule applies to inquests too.

not again. please.

Why?

Well, because it interests me





No, not again, there's been no previous inquest.

But why does it interest you?

I believe FA is a lawyer, and I imagine this inquest could raise important legal issues that may be relevant to his job.

Or he may just be an inquest junkie

I think first, the deceased was unfairly maligned after her death, and second, nobody took responsibility in any meaningful way. I am particularly interested therefore in what comes out and what conclusions are reached in relation to the behaviour of the radio station bosses and any part their decision to broadcast the call may or may not have played in her death.

And I thought as the original events were of such keen interest to posters on here, the resumed inquest might well be, too.

I'm not sure why a few seem so keen to know, though that there should be an inquest into my reasons for starting a thread about an inquest, that's a bit weird. Do we need to state reasons? If anyone is interested fair enough, if not the thread will drop off. What is the issue?

When I saw the news about the only response is to think that the only reason this is on TV is because it involves the royals. That was why I was puzzled why you'd be so interested in this.

Then I have a look at the other thread and see you were involved in dumb arguments about it before and I guess you're wanting even more dumb arguments about it now. Now I understand why you're so interested in the inquest.

Well if that's the case, he certainly seems to have found one candidate already

I hesitate to disagree given that you're a specialist in making dumb arguments, but I'd say what would be dumb is when one person states why they are interested in a subject, and then another person completely ignores this information and instead posts a fatuous troll.

I'm interested in the psychology of the reported suicide, the inquest was told yesterday by her husband that the lady in question was "normal" in every sense, had never suffered from depression, had never spoken of taking her own life at any time, was to all intents and purposes a perfect example of a nurse dedicated to her work - how does this change in the course of three days, do all of us have a trigger inside our heads that can be flipped by some event and make us suicidal, especially a medical person who is probably well aquainted with death in others and will know of many chemical ways to end there own (probably will have access to those methods too).

All that happened is that she was tricked into giving information on the phone, at worse she probably didn't follow procedure (if there was any in place), she should have got a bollacking, possibly a bit of retraining, there was absolutely no shame in her being tricked by a couple of radio presenters, so was she unfairly pressurised by her employer, did she feel that the whole of her career was in jeopardy - were there any procedures in place for handling those sort of calls which were inevitable given the status of the patient and what disciplinary events were started ?

Ultimately within three days things had got so bad for her that she killed herself - why ?

it's interesting that the op's initials are FA, that's the same as the amount of interest from the rest of the population

Without taking a nationwide referendum there's at least two posters on the Sin Bin who have already stated an interest.
Unless you see yourself as some sort of barometer for the national populations thought process?

sorry, I should have said "majority" it was a terrible circumstance but, I am afraid, you cannot question the dead about their motives for taking their lives, it certainly isn't, in my opinion, worth debate.

Nobody is intending on questioning the dead.
It's not possible. (well I suppose it is but I doubt you'd get much of a reply).
The inquest is a judicial enquiry to attempt to ascertain the facts relating to the unfortunate death of Ms Saldanha and because of the nature and media interest surrounding her death many will be interested.

Suicide is not an instantaneous action undertaken by a person of sound psychological & emotional state, based upon a single event.

and the outcome will be, will achieve what?

all public money being spent on a pointless exercise. If someone can be prosecuted then go ahead, otherwise, it's nonsense.

If you actually don't know what an inquest achieves, JFGI.

Given that it is - and has for centuries been - compulsory in English law to hold an inquest in such circumstances, why do you suddenly in 2014 pick on one inquest to tell us your view that unless someone can be prosecuted, inquests are a "nonsense"?

Do you think Mrs. Saldanha's family share your view that they shouldn't bother with an inquest as it is a "nonsense"? What should they do, then? No, don't tell me, let me guess, should they "move on"?

It can be.

let them pay for it then, an inquest just makes parasites richer.

I'd imagine that she probably did suffer from some kind of depression caused by "other problems" and this was the final straw so to speak.
I don't think this wouldn't class her as "normal" as I think lots of people suffer huge amounts of stress/depression about/caused by issues in their lives and often suffer behind closed doors and don't tell anyone about it. I obviously don't know but that's what I'd guess at.

I just always find suicide such a sad issue. That someone feels so worthless that they feel the only option is to kill themselves. I know suicide has always happened and whatever society you live in there will always be situations where there will be suicides but I do think our society contributes toward it. A too often uncaring, cold and emotionless society especially at many workplaces where the individual does not matter, only what work is carried out and which targets are met etc.

I suggest then you attend the next meeting of the Hillsborough families group and regale them with your view that the families should be paying for the inquest.

Or maybe you could start with Drummer Lee Rigby's family.




Should Davison's family have paid for that inquest?

Do you actually know of a single person who shares your rabid view?

No, because people are weak and always looking for someone to blame, that's how parasites make money.

LIFE HAPPENS, You can't always blame someone, she took her own life, her decision, tragic I agree, but HER OWN CHOICE

"People are weak"!

Classic! Not like you though, eh?


So you concede that sometimes you CAN blame someone. Who decides? You? When did you get that job?

You also reveal that, despite railing against their existence, you don't actually understand the role of an inquest.

Nice double whammy! Keep going, we're getting a good insight into your head here.


That's as may be, but do you actually think expressing this crass opinion adds to the discussion?

Not a crass opinion, an opinion, and it adds no more than a costly inquest.

She took her own life, for whatever reason, I see no reason to buy you a new BMW to figure out anything more, as I say, an opinion.

answer me this, what did you last achieve that made the world a better place?