Shame on them...

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:35 am

oscar;1412060 wrote: Did you ever watch Candid Camera, Beadle's about or Noel's house party? Did you sit there and laugh at the pranks they pulled on Innocent people?

No, I didn't watch them, purely because the snippets I did see of them I didn't find funny.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:41 am

Betty Boop;1412063 wrote: No, I didn't watch them, purely because the snippets I did see of them I didn't find funny. But millions of people did. That's why they got prime time TV.

Pranks have been played for years. I am not a huge fan of pranks but we are a nation of people who have hooted with laughter at the likes of Jeremy Beadle and Noel Edmonds setting people up. If we are not, then the programmes would not have run for years.

Just trying to put the 'prank' Into perspective.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:39 pm

Betty Boop;1412052 wrote: I'm quite sure they do feel shame, that's all I expected, at no point do I wish to see them being hung drawn and quartered. The radio station needs to feel the shame too along with the lawyer who ok'd it to be aired. If you put the suicide aside, it was still too sensitive a subject to be playing a hoax with, I'd still feel the same even if there had not been a suicide.

Posted by you in the opening post.

"Shame on the journalists now responsible for a death." That's a world away from " all i expected was for them to feel shame". Your opening post holds the two radio people responsible for the nurses death.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:47 pm

flopstock;1412055 wrote: This is the most bizarre post, Oscar.

.

No it's not. Oscar suffered a fraction of what these two young radio people are now going through at the hands of world media. She's making the point that if her life was turned upside down by media attention and people on internet sites who thought they had inside knowledge and were in a position to attack her, then imagine what these people are going through now. It's sensationalist, hypocritical, disgusting reporting at it's worst. The nurse had not been named but these two people had and that's the difference.

Posted by Tyr.

"A self-perception of utter humiliation on the world stage, forced by circumstances over which one has no control? I doubt she had any such "other issues" and I reckon it's unfair for anyone to make such an assumption, it just adds to the insult she suffered."

Yet, the world media now seeks to put the two young people in the same position and the hand wringers think it's acceptable behaviour to destroy their lives.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:35 pm

Peter Lake;1412076 wrote: No it's not. Oscar suffered a fraction of what these two young radio people are now going through at the hands of world media. She's making the point that if her life was turned upside down by media attention and people on internet sites who thought they had inside knowledge and were in a position to attack her, then imagine what these people are going through now. It's sensationalist, hypocritical, disgusting reporting at it's worst. The nurse had not been named but these two people had and that's the difference.

Your argument might have held a little bit of credibility if it weren't for the fact that these presenters were staging their own piece of sensationalist and disgusting game playing which makes them a part of the hysterical media we have running this world.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:43 pm

Betty Boop;1412087 wrote: Your argument might have held a little bit of credibility if it weren't for the fact that these presenters were staging their own piece of sensationalist and disgusting game playing which makes them a part of the hysterical media we have running this world.
The presenters didn't set out to destroy lives or harm anyone, it was a prank that's all. The revolting spectacle of reporting laying the blame of a death solely at their feet is sensationalist reporting. Are you now backing out of your initial opening post of "Shame on the journalists now responsible for a death."? You were more than quick to lay the blame at their feet.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:47 pm

What's being forgotten, I think, is who instigated the sequence of events. Where did the snowball start rolling, who threw it. Which party voluntarily chose to make a move which resulted in the final state of affairs.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:50 pm

Týr;1412093 wrote: What's being forgotten, I think, is who instigated the sequence of events. Where did the snowball start rolling, who threw it. Which party voluntarily chose to make a move which resulted in the final state of affairs.

I refer you to my daisy chain post.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:55 pm

Bruv;1412094 wrote: I refer you to my daisy chain post.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make there. And I wasn't actually talking about the hoax phone call either.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:56 pm

Týr;1412093 wrote: What's being forgotten, I think, is who instigated the sequence of events. Where did the snowball start rolling, who threw it. Which party voluntarily chose to make a move which resulted in the final state of affairs.

The prank could have been part of the show's format set in place long before the two presenters joined the radio station. They could have been under the directive of the shows producer. You nor anyone else at this stage knows that and can only go by what is being written in newspapers. You are making assumptions on the culpability of the presenters unless of course, you have inside information? The only reason it has reached these proportions and snowballed is because the hospital failed in it's duty of care for Kate and failure to brief their staff. How many prank calls do you imagine Buckingham palace receives each year by cranks? Do they all get through? The snowballing didn't start with the presenters. It started with the palace informing the media of Kate's exact location.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:59 pm

Bruv;1412094 wrote: I refer you to my daisy chain post.

I like that. I doubt Tyr would though, he's too busy clutching his pearls.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:08 pm

Týr;1412093 wrote: What's being forgotten, I think, is who instigated the sequence of events. Where did the snowball start rolling, who threw it. Which party voluntarily chose to make a move which resulted in the final state of affairs.

Týr;1412096 wrote: I don't understand the point you're trying to make there. And I wasn't actually talking about the hoax phone call either.

What were you 'actually' talking about then ?

Are you blaming William for impregnating his wife ?

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:11 pm

Peter Lake;1412091 wrote: The presenters didn't set out to destroy lives or harm anyone, it was a prank that's all. The revolting spectacle of reporting laying the blame of a death solely at their feet is sensationalist reporting. Are you now backing out of your initial opening post of "Shame on the journalists now responsible for a death."? You were more than quick to lay the blame at their feet.

I give up with you two, you just twist things to your own agenda and it's quite pathetic to watch.

I still hold the same people responsible, along with the radio station that allowed it to be aired without permission of the people involved, and the lawyer who said it was ok to do so. Without the fact the nurse had died I'd still be as disgusted with them over this pathetic prank, and for all they might shout about a media massacre coming in their direction I have no sympathy, after all that's what they did to the people they involved unknowingly in their prank. Innocent people were opened up to the media circus without inviting it in any way. The DJ's work within this media circus they now suddenly despise, funny that.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:35 pm

Betty Boop;1412103 wrote: I give up with you two, you just twist things to your own agenda and it's quite pathetic to watch.

I still hold the same people responsible, along with the radio station that allowed it to be aired without permission of the people involved, and the lawyer who said it was ok to do so. Without the fact the nurse had died I'd still be as disgusted with them over this pathetic prank, and for all they might shout about a media massacre coming in their direction I have no sympathy, after all that's what they did to the people they involved unknowingly in their prank. Innocent people were opened up to the media circus without inviting it in any way. The DJ's work within this media circus they now suddenly despise, funny that.

This post is a direct contradiction of your own words. Getting irate with me does not detract from your opening post where you laid the blame solely on the presenters. Your second post read " I mean the show's presenters addled cold filled brain, evidently I found the wrong words, sorry." It's evident that you believed the they should be held responsible from the get go but now reports say they two young people are in a bad way with one in danger of self harming, you're trying to backtrack your words. It doesn't wash and if the girl does go on to self harm then maybe it's because of countless threads like this that imply she killed someone.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:52 pm

Peter Lake;1412112 wrote: This post is a direct contradiction of your own words. Getting irate with me does not detract from your opening post where you laid the blame solely on the presenters. Your second post read " I mean the show's presenters addled cold filled brain, evidently I found the wrong words, sorry." It's evident that you believed the they should be held responsible from the get go but now reports say they two young people are in a bad way with one in danger of self harming, you're trying to backtrack your words. It doesn't wash and if the girl does go on to self harm then maybe it's because of countless threads like this that imply she killed someone.

Not irate Peter, just fed up with the fact no one can have any discussion around here without you or Oscar twisting things upside down and inside out.

They should feel ashamed of themselves, the lot of them involved, they are being mocked by the press, they very same circle they work in at the end of the day. I am not calling for them to have any other sort of punishment other than that, regardless of what you may think. Another life being wiped out is not going to make this all ok. Pranksters need to stop and think about what they are doing and all the possible consequences.

On your point of countless threads like this, what about the fact the nurse had to see the radio station web site and other web sites mock her over and over and watch the presenters boasting about what a big one they'd pulled on facebook and twitter, they thought they were the bee's knees then when they were belittling someone else. This will all die down and they will move on, they choose to live a public live by the very nature of their job, nurses don't.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:52 pm

The DJ's may face trial as it is against Australian law to put people on oar without their knowledge or permission.

I think it unfair to blame the presenters too much as they had no way of knowing the woman would react as she did. However what is wrong is a media culture where it is considered acceptable to intrude on people private lives for no better reason than a sensational headline. Celebrities are fair game imo as are intrusions when it is in pursuit of a story in the public interest. This is just a stupid unfunny prank that has gone badly wrong, it's also a form of bullying. I have as much sympathy for the two presenters as they had for the people they think it funny to humiliate in public. They probably used to bully people at school and piss themselves if they made somebody cry. Nor do I think much of the advertisers now withdrawing their sponsorship of the programme - it never used to bother them they played nasty tricks on people before so why the change of heart, surely someone feeling so humiliated they commit suicide is funny.

I never used to find candid camera, Jeremy beadle or noel edmunds particularly funny nor do I watch programmes like I'm a celebrity, basically all that is is lt's get a group of pathetic fame seekers together and play nasty pranks on them and get the public to vote on who gets picked on this week.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:08 pm

oscar;1411987 wrote: Did she give any thought to the effect this would have on the Royal couple or their future baby.? Did she consider the hell the media would put the presenters through?

Did you give any thought before you posted this?

In the state she would have been in before committing suicide she would not have been thinking rationally at all - depression distorts reality and the triggers that cause it might well make no sense to anyone else but they are real and they are deadly.

To say "I wouldn't have reacted like that" or "did she think of this or that" is pointless - unless the black dog is biting you in exactly the same place then the comparison and the question are meaningless.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:09 pm

Betty Boop;1412114 wrote: Not irate Peter, just fed up with the fact no one can have any discussion around here without you or Oscar twisting things upside down and inside out.

They should feel ashamed of themselves, the lot of them involved, they are being mocked by the press, they very same circle they work in at the end of the day. I am not calling for them to have any other sort of punishment other than that, regardless of what you may think. Another life being wiped out is not going to make this all ok. Pranksters need to stop and think about what they are doing and all the possible consequences.

On your point of countless threads like this, what about the fact the nurse had to see the radio station web site and other web sites mock her over and over and watch the presenters boasting about what a big one they'd pulled on facebook and twitter, they thought they were the bee's knees then when they were belittling someone else. This will all die down and they will move on, they choose to live a public live by the very nature of their job, nurses don't.
Dear oh dear. The nurse was referred to throughout by the media as one of Kate's nurses so she was not humiliated on a personal level. Have you given any thought as to what exactly the two presenters bragged about on twitter? Pranks happen all the time, you can even download prank phone calls these days. They were not bragging about the prank per say but the lack of security at the hospital and stupidity of the nurse. Buckingham palace gets hundreds of crank calls a year but none get through. That's because the staff are briefed and that's what the nurses at the hospital should have been. The radio presenters are not responsible for the lack of protocol in the hospital or the stupidity of the nurses. Of course they bragged, they had just pulled off a stunt that usually gets thwarted at the first instance. They were not targeting the nurse in particular, it was a random prank of which the outcome could not have been envisaged at the time. If they had specifically targeted that nurse asking for her by name when they called, then they may bear more responsibility but it could have been any one of hundreds of staff.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:39 pm

AnneBoleyn;1412051 wrote: I agree with you oscar. While the nurse's suicide is so shocking, to blame it on silly DJ's playing a prank for entertainment purposes is over my line. I remember Howard Stern calling in to an Italian hospital when Kurt Cobain tried to kill himself on tour. It was silly & dumb, but funny, the humor that was present in the movie 'Dumb & Dumber'. The Italian staff saw the humor in it, Howard Stern was his absurd self, & Kurt Cobain returned home to kill himself there. I read with great interest everyone's remarks on this & I see it can be analyzed to micro pieces & have relevance & importance, but, in the end, silly dumb nonsense for humorous intent ended very badly. No one wanted or could have predicted it would conclude this way. I wish the DJ's would come out boldly instead of hiding. They did nothing wrong.

I don't even blame it on the presenters, I blame it on the bosses who reviewed the tape and approved it for broadcast.

It was a crass stunt - much along the lines of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross 'phoning Andrew Sachs. They were, quite rightly, severely censured for their stunt even though it caused no deaths. What makes this worse is that this was not an impromptu, spur of the moment action. It was reviewed and considered fitting for broadcast and those that reviewed it should be made to take responsibility for their decision.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:44 pm

oscar;1412060 wrote: Did you ever watch Candid Camera, Beadle's about or Noel's house party? Did you sit there and laugh at the pranks they pulled on Innocent people?

The difference is that every prank that was shown on any of those programs had the "victims" permission before being shown. Totally different situation.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:46 pm

The tragedy for me is that a simple procedure at the hospital could and should have stopped it before it began.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:50 pm

Peter Lake;1412075 wrote: Posted by you in the opening post.

"Shame on the journalists now responsible for a death." That's a world away from " all i expected was for them to feel shame". Your opening post holds the two radio people responsible for the nurses death.

They are responsible for the nurses death - their action was the proximate cause of death. BB was NOT suggesting that they intended that death but that they should feel shame that it had happened - no contradiction between the two posts at all.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:55 pm

Bruv;1412125 wrote: The tragedy for me is that a simple procedure at the hospital could and should have stopped it before it began.

The tragedy is that the legal review of the tape could and should have stopped it before it began.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:05 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412127 wrote: The tragedy is that the legal review of the tape could and should have stopped it before it began.

We are now arguing point of order, or what ever they call it.

If you work on a construction site you wear a hard hat. Because it is known something will conflict with your head.

How much are we paying to protect the Royals for this sort of thing to hit home like it did ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:13 pm

Bruv;1412129 wrote: We are now arguing point of order, or what ever they call it.

If you work on a construction site you wear a hard hat. Because it is known something will conflict with your head.

How much are we paying to protect the Royals for this sort of thing to hit home like it did ?

Nothing in this instance - this is not a case of protecting the royals but of protecting the privacy of those the media wish to make money out of.

The fact the royals were the target does not give the media the right to broadcast the nurses response without her permission.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:15 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412126 wrote: They are responsible for the nurses death - their action was the proximate cause of death. BB was NOT suggesting that they intended that death but that they should feel shame that it had happened - no contradiction between the two posts at all.

No they are not. The hospital Is responsible. If the Palace had not broadcasted Kate's exact location, the radio station would not have been able to acquire the telephone number In the very first Instance. If the staff had put security In place and briefed the nurses, the call would not have been put through. That's where It started.

If I get In my car and not pay attention, mount the pavement and mow someone down, I am responsible for their death. If my car had a manufacturers fault that caused me to lose control when I went Into a skid to avoid a small child running out In my path, then It's not my fault.

In this case, there are contributing factors where the hospital failed Kate before the radio presenters rang.

Lessons do need to be learned. One Is, do not give Royal members exact location to the world media. Two, brief all hospital staff and security when admitting a Royal Patient.

Blaming two young people and In the event destroying more lives Is futile and If anything, It's a cop out of responsibility by the hospital.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:19 pm

Can anyone really believe that the hospital and palace were all support for this poor nurse prior to her death? IMO, we get a revised history on what went on in her life immediately after the hoax.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:29 pm

flopstock;1412134 wrote: Can anyone really believe that the hospital and palace were all support for this poor nurse prior to her death? IMO, we get a revised history on what went on in her life immediately after the hoax.

I a little Inclined to agree with you. I bet she was actually hauled over the coals by hospital bosses but of course, they wouldn't want that broadcasted now she's dead would they ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:31 pm

oscar;1412132 wrote: No they are not. The hospital Is responsible. If the Palace had not broadcasted Kate's exact location, the radio station would not have been able to acquire the telephone number In the very first Instance. If the staff had put security In place and briefed the nurses, the call would not have been put through. That's where It started.

Twaddle. It is standard practice when a royal goes into hospital for the location to be given. The radio station made a deliberate decision to run the prank call, that's where it started.

oscar;1412132 wrote: If I get In my car and not pay attention, mount the pavement and mow someone down, I am responsible for their death. If my car had a manufacturers fault that caused me to lose control when I went Into a skid to avoid a small child running out In my path, then It's not my fault.

The radio station got into their car and did not pay attention. They reviewed the tape and gave the OK to broadcast - that they did not foresee the consequences is a mitigating circumstance but they are liable.

oscar;1412132 wrote: In this case, there are contributing factors where the hospital failed Kate before the radio presenters rang.

Lessons do need to be learned. One Is, do not give Royal members exact location to the world media. Two, brief all hospital staff and security when admitting a Royal Patient.

Blaming two young people and In the event destroying more lives Is futile and If anything, It's a cop out of responsibility by the hospital.

It is a cop out of responsibility by the radio station, they chose to run the tape.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:40 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412141 wrote: Twaddle. It is standard practice when a royal goes into hospital for the location to be given. The radio station made a deliberate decision to run the prank call, that's where it started.

The radio station got into their car and did not pay attention. They reviewed the tape and gave the OK to broadcast - that they did not foresee the consequences is a mitigating circumstance but they are liable.

It is a cop out of responsibility by the radio station, they chose to run the tape. I can see that side of It but no-one could have fore-seen anyone committing suicide because of a prank.

I Imagine the two young people are mortified but ruining their lives also Is not the answer.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:43 pm

The Hospital weren't wearing their Helmet

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:47 pm

Look at this another way...

The Palace tell the world media Kate's exact location.

Some nut job arrives at the hospital and tells the nurse he's a relative of Kate's.

the nurse allows him to go up to the ward where he shoots Kate dead.

Who;s to blame ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:48 pm

oscar;1412148 wrote: I can see that side of It but no-one could have fore-seen anyone committing suicide because of a prank.

I Imagine the two young people are mortified but ruining their lives also Is not the answer.

Have the lives of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross been ruined? They went through just as much stick for their crass "prank".

Have some sympathy for the real victim of this debacle - Jacintha Saldanha.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:50 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412156 wrote: Have the lives of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross been ruined? They went through just as much stick for their crass "prank".

Have some sympathy for the real victim of this debacle - Jacintha Saldanha.

Russell Brand and Johnathon Ross caused offence by their prank. Andrew Sach's did not kill himself and the death laid at the feet of the pranksters.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:52 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412156 wrote: Have the lives of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross been ruined?
They are, it must be said, utterly despised by a fair fraction of their fellow countrymen and always will be. It's not stopped their wealth creation though.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:52 pm

oscar;1412154 wrote: Look at this another way...

The Palace tell the world media Kate's exact location.

Some nut job arrives at the hospital and tells the nurse he's a relative of Kate's.

the nurse allows him to go up to the ward where he shoots Kate dead.

Who;s to blame ?

At that point it ceases to be the nurses responsibility - it goes to the bodyguard on the door.

If you're going to posit a situation then make it realistic.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:56 pm

Try and phone your own local Hospital and ask for information about that old lady down the road, Miss Thomas, the ex school teacher.

See how far you get.

(There has to be a real person)

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:57 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412163 wrote: At that point it ceases to be the nurses responsibility - it goes to the bodyguard on the door.

If you're going to posit a situation then make it realistic.

Ok

Similarly,

The nut job arrives at the hospital and tells the nurse he's a relative of Kate's.

She allows him to go up to the ward.

The nurse and security on the ward assume that because the first nurse has allowed him up to the ward, he's been cleared.

Then he shoots her.

That's what happened except It was not someone In person but a telephone call. The nurse on the ward gave out the Info on Kate because she assumed the nurse on reception had cleared the call.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:03 pm

oscar;1412167 wrote: Ok

Similarly,

The nut job arrives at the hospital and tells the nurse he's a relative of Kate's.

She allows him to go up to the ward.

The nurse and security on the ward assume that because the first nurse has allowed him up to the ward, he's been cleared.

Then he shoots her.

That's what happened except It was not someone In person but a telephone call. The nurse on the ward gave out the Info on Kate because she assumed the nurse on reception had cleared the call.

And a realistic situation?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:09 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412177 wrote: And a realistic situation?

Who's to say that couldn't happen.? Yes, It sounds far fetched but then who would have thought a hospital would not have briefed their staff with a Royal as a patient? Who would have thought a nurse would have believed the Queen was phoning In the middle of the night?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:15 pm

oscar;1412181 wrote: Who's to say that couldn't happen.? Yes, It sounds far fetched but then who would have thought a hospital would not have briefed their staff with a Royal as a patient? Who would have thought a nurse would have believed the Queen was phoning In the middle of the night?

What says it is unrealistic is the difference between a telephone call and a physical visitor - totally different protocols and different areas of responsibility.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:16 pm

Bryn Mawr;1412183 wrote: What says it is unrealistic is the difference between a telephone call and a physical visitor - totally different protocols and different areas of responsibility.

True but equally, the call should never have got through.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:29 pm

One would think hospital security would be on High Alert when Royalty is admitted.

Protocol wasn't enforced. Info is NOT to be released.

I don't like pranks - I see it as a form of bullying

a few get together and make a joke at ones expense.

Patsy

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:50 pm

Has anyone actually stated officially that this nurse killed herself?

Or is it just presumed?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:55 pm

flopstock;1412189 wrote: Has anyone actually stated officially that this nurse killed herself?

Or is it just presumed?

No It has not been officially stated but her family are saying to the newspapers that she did.

Cause of death hasn't yet been announced.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:05 pm

Today's article and I agree with every word written here.

An article stated that while accusations had been aimed at the hospital and its staff initially for falling for the prank, the 'tide turned like a tsunami with the guilt now aimed at the Sydney radio pair Mel Greig and Michael Christian' following Mrs Saldanha's death.

The Telegraph also pointed out that the reasons for Mrs Saldanha's apparent suicide are unclear despite her part in the radio prank.

An article read: 'Mainstream media websites published thousands of comments directly blaming Greig and Christian for the death.

'Both responses are wildly out of proportion to the event. It is seductive, but too simple, to blame Ms Saldanha's death on a radio hoax.

'Suicide is a complex act and can rarely be entirely blamed on a lone event, however distressing.'

Read more: 'They're on a witch-hunt': Australian media accuses UK press of playing 'blame game' following Royal hoax call | Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:25 pm

I've seen a few people claim it was bullying. Frankly, I think that word is misunderstood and terribly overused.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:37 pm

Snooze

Which word is confusing

Bullying? Suicide?

A prank is a form of bullying - some one/group has a deliberate action on a person with out thinking of the reaction or out come. Once you PICK on one sole - it's bullying.

Patsy

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:23 am

And what do you think all this Is ?

The British press It has emerged, were hounding the two nurses who made the mistakes at the hospital.... that's bullying.

When the nurse killed herself, the press turned on the young presenters.... that's bullying.

Now nearly every forum In the world along with every newspaper Is deliberately destroying the lives of the two presenters with words such as 'blood on their hands'.... that's bullying.

Phoning up pretending to be the Queen ? Get some perspective please.

In an article yesterday, the relatives were saying they didn't understand why she had killed herself because she was such a strong person... It's not adding up.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:52 am

Bruv;1412125 wrote: The tragedy for me is that a simple procedure at the hospital could and should have stopped it before it began.

I have the notion that if one's worked on the periphery of the court and had minor contact with, say, the Princes, and watched the flunkeys discuss the Family in awed tones and spend all their visible time clearing obstacles for those they serve, then a phone call with no warning from the Monarch and Heir themselves, hoax or not, would freeze one's mind and result in blind obedience to commands irrespective of protocol. The hospital may well have had a password system in place, nobody's said as far as I'm aware. Even if it did I don't think one can blame the first nurse for what may easily have been a predictably panicked reaction, or the second for speaking to someone she thought was cleared.