Another heir to the throne

[yorksrob]

Of course, it may never happen. If the Queen lasts as long as her mother, Charles will be 80 by the time he finally gets the throne. He may not last that long, we just don't know. Still, I reckon he will stick with the name, it's what he's been known as for as long as he's been alive. So, 'Charles III' gets my vote.

As for the new one, I'm rather hoping they choose something not seen before. Or perhaps, if its a girl, name her after her grandmother.

I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that he was planning to become George VII.

 

[Searle]

And then they have a few joke names, such as Waynetta (1000/1). Pick of the bunch has to go to Paddy Power though, with Hashtag (500/1).

Laughed for a good 30 seconds after looking up Hashtag. I would happily place some money on that just for the novelty.

 

[wintonian]

Time to quite with the joke I'm afraid.

Duchess of Cambridge hoax call nurse found dead

A nurse at London's King Edward VII hospital who took a hoax call about the Duchess of Cambridge has been found dead, the BBC understands.

The hospital, which has paid tribute to "a first class nurse", named the woman as Jacintha Saldanha.

Police were called at 09:35 GMT to reports of a woman found unconscious at an address in central London.

Details of the pregnant Duchess's medical condition were unwittingly revealed to two Australian DJs.

The pair, from Sydney radio station 2Day FM, posed as the Queen and Prince Charles.

The hospital said in a statement: "We can confirm that Jacintha was recently the victim of a hoax call to the hospital.

"The hospital had been supporting her throughout this difficult time."

It added: "Jacintha has worked at the King Edward VII's Hospital for more than four years.

"She was an excellent nurse and well-respected and popular with all of her colleagues."

BBC

 

[Jonny]

That's assuming that she (the nurse) wasn't done away with and disguised as suicide...

 

[Ivo]

Very sad. I just hope the initial belief that the circumstances are not suspicious turns out to be true

These DJs from Sydney have got a lot of explaining - and grovelling - to do.

 

[wintonian]

That's assuming that she (the nurse) wasn't done away with and disguised as suicide...

 

[MidnightFlyer]

These DJs from Sydney have got a lot of explaining - and grovelling - to do.

It was a practical joke that went wrong and had quite sad consequences, however they did not dictate those consequences and as such I'm not sure what they have to grovel about. They didn't have the intention for her to kill herself, it's sad yes, but I don't hold the two Aussies directly responsible. I don't see why they should have to grovel etc for her killing herself, if they are held responsible for that then where do you end that chain? And should you apply it to other cases worldwide, not just this one? How do we know this wasn't just a culmination of factors, not just the phone call?

 

[richw]

It was a practical joke that went wrong and had quite sad consequences, however they did not dictate those consequences and as such I'm not sure what they have to grovel about. They didn't have the intention for her to kill herself, it's sad yes, but I don't hold the two Aussies directly responsible. I don't see why they should have to grovel etc for her killing herself, if they are held responsible for that then where do you end that chain? And should you apply it to other cases worldwide, not just this one? How do we know this wasn't just a culmination of factors, not just the phone call?

They didnt believe how easily they got through. If previous poster says they need to grovel, are you of the opinionthey should be trialled for causing her death?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Nope, I'm not a big fan of practical jokes anyway, but to say they need to grovel for forgiveness / stand trial isn't correct in my eyes. I don't think they're guilty of her death, certainly not, nor should they be treated that they are.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It was a practical joke that went wrong and had quite sad consequences, however they did not dictate those consequences and as such I'm not sure what they have to grovel about. They didn't have the intention for her to kill herself, it's sad yes, but I don't hold the two Aussies directly responsible. I don't see why they should have to grovel etc for her killing herself, if they are held responsible for that then where do you end that chain? And should you apply it to other cases worldwide, not just this one? How do we know this wasn't just a culmination of factors, not just the phone call?

Whilst you are of the specific opinion that you hold, you must realise that others will take a diametrically opposite point. If the broadcaster they were employed by took your opinion, there would be no retribution. We shall see what actually does happen there.

You state "How do we know this wasn't just a culmination of factors, not just the phone call ?" What are the "culmination of factors" to which you refer and I must ask how you are privy to this information.

The "prank" telephone call by Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand had consequences affecting their careers in the immediate aftermath of that matter.

 

[Oswyntail]

... I don't think they're guilty of her death, certainly not, nor should they be treated that they are.

[Assuming, for now, that there aren't any other factors] I disagree. The consequence of their action was her death, so they are guilty. It may be that no one could have foreseen the consequence of the action, but it was their action that had that consequence. I am not saying they should be strung up or put on trial. But I do believe we too easily allow people to avoid the consequences of their actions. This was a (totally pointless and unfunny) prank that went horribly wrong. I also believe that what they did is beneath the standards that we should be expecting of public media, regardless of the outcome. So, they are utter di**heads and should feel guilt and remorse

 

[richw]

I was about to open a new thread about this until I seen it being discussed here. When I had heard about it, whatever strange it may be, I thought that is it possible somebody had done her because she gave details away. I doubt it, but it is possible somebody who is close to the Duchess is unhappy and decided to take thinks into their own hands

The nurse may have been disciplined for misconduct, possibly gross misconduct.
I have found the following on the hospitals website, doesnt state the level of misconduct for failing to comply. Having heard the recording there is a distinct aussie accent in the call posing as Queen.

Generally disclosure of confidential clinical material to someone other than the patient will be an actionable breach of confidence. There are, however, three circumstances when clinicians can release confidential clinical information:
1.
when the patient has given their consent;

2.
when the law requires disclosure (either under statute or a court order);

3.
when there is a public interest in disclosure.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ITV news at 630 have reported that when one of the Royals called up that the Royal joked they were an Australian radio presenter. ITV news suggested this may have added to the distress of the nurse

 

[Darandio]

The nurse may have been disciplined for misconduct, possibly gross misconduct.

The BBC "understands" that the nurse was not disciplined.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with MattE2010 in this circumstance. The two broadcasters could have expected to cause severe embarrassment (and possibly in extremis the loss of an innocent person's job - which surely counts as ill advised and in poor taste at any rate). However, to suggest that they could have anticipated this tragic death even from such an ill advised action is a step too far for me.

 

[Ivo]

To suggest that they could have anticipated this tragic death even from such an ill advised action is a step too far for me.

Maybe - but it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have committed this practical joke in the first place.

Meanwhile, the radio station have confirmed that the presenters in question are effectively suspended (or rather, suspended from the show they host) until further notice, out of respect for Ms Saldanha.

 

[yorksrob]

Maybe - but it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't have committed this practical joke in the first place.

Absolutely true. That bloke shouldn't have gatecrashed Windsor Castle a few years ago. I see these as similar levels of stupidity.

 

[Butts]

I agree with MattE2010 in this circumstance. The two broadcasters could have expected to cause severe embarrassment (and possibly in extremis the loss of an innocent person's job - which surely counts as ill advised and in poor taste at any rate). However, to suggest that they could have anticipated this tragic death even from such an ill advised action is a step too far for me.

Totally agree, someone who commits suicide over an event like this must have had deeper issues. She only put them through from the reception desk.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Looking at it deeper, is it ever right to laugh at someone else's expense deliberately?

Just a thought......

 

[Smudger105e]

One other thing that occurred to me when reading about this tragic event, when a UK Citizen commits an offence from the UK against the US authorities, they can get extradited for trial there, IF these radio presenters are found to have committed an offence against UK Law (I know its a big if and I am talking hypothetically here), should they be extradited to the UK to stand trial?

 

[GB]

If the broadcaster they were employed by took your opinion, there would be no retribution. We shall see what actually does happen there.

What their employers say and do in public maynot coincide with their true private feelings on the subject. They have a public image to uphold.

You state "How do we know this wasn't just a culmination of factors, not just the phone call ?" What are the "culmination of factors" to which you refer and I must ask how you are privy to this information.

Did you actually read Matts' post? He didn't suggest there was other factors or that he was "privy" to them. He simply pointed out the possibility and that none of us know for sure.

 

[starrymarkb]

I quite liked this comment (now removed by the mods) on the Daily Mail site

 

[fgwrich]

I quite liked this comment (now removed by the mods) on the Daily Mail site

An ironically tough but true stement. Then again, the media self regulation works well dosent it...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Totally agree, someone who commits suicide over an event like this must have had deeper issues. She only put them through from the reception desk.

Not necessarily. It can just be one event. Remember that we're looking at it from an outsider's objective viewpoint. That nurse will have had her subjective conscience to deal with - conscience can be a horrible thing sometimes.

That said, there was no way the DJ's could have predicted it turn out this way and it is unfair to pin the blame on them.

 

[Oswyntail]

An ironically tough but true stement. Then again, the media self regulation works well dosent it...

The radio station is itself part of the media.What right did it have to invade the privacy of an ill woman, and then deliberately (because the decision was taken to broadcast) share the information? IMHO, this points out the impossibility of anything other than self-regulation in a world of global and "social" media. Sadly, such regulation depends on a sence of decency, which we all seem to be losing

.....That said, there was no way the DJ's could have predicted it turn out this way and it is unfair to pin the blame on them.

They took deliberate actions that resulted in an unforeseen consequence. They (amongst others) are to blame. Fairness comes into how society penalises them for that act.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Making something bold doesn't make it right.

If it was unforeseen then how can they be to blame? They can be blamed for the release of information. They can be blamed for a poor taste prank call. They can be blamed for fraud even. They can't be blamed for the completely unexpected and unpredictable suicide of someone involved.

 

[jnjkerbin]

IMO, whether or not the radio station are responsible for this nurse's death, if they are found to have comitted a crime under UK law then they should be extradited to the UK to face whatever sentence would be given to someone who impersonates a (in want of a better word) celebrity to gain sensitive information about another "celebrity".

 

[Ivo]

One other thing that occurred to me when reading about this tragic event, when a UK Citizen commits an offence from the UK against the US authorities, they can get extradited for trial there, IF these radio presenters are found to have committed an offence against UK Law (I know its a big if and I am talking hypothetically here), should they be extradited to the UK to stand trial?

IMO, whether or not the radio station are responsible for this nurse's death, if they are found to have comitted a crime under UK law then they should be extradited to the UK to face whatever sentence would be given to someone who impersonates a (in want of a better word) celebrity to gain sensitive information about another "celebrity".

The police have contacted their Australian counterparts (source). Make of that what you will.

 

[Bungle73]

IMO, whether or not the radio station are responsible for this nurse's death, if they are found to have comitted a crime under UK law then they should be extradited to the UK to face whatever sentence would be given to someone who impersonates a (in want of a better word) celebrity to gain sensitive information about another "celebrity".

I'm pretty sure that's not a crime, and even if it were I see no sense in commencing extradition proceedings for something so minor.

 

[jnjkerbin]

I'm pretty sure that's not a crime, and even if it were I see no sense in commencing extradition proceedings for something so minor.

If it is not a crime then why would our police be contacting the Aussie police?

Although I agree with you that it isn't a serious crime (if indeed it is a crime), my concern is that where can we draw the line between a minor and a serious crime? As far as I'm aware ( I'm sure someone will pull me up on this if I'm wrong) there is no legal discrimination between minor and serious.

In the UK, regardless of Lord Leveson's enquiry, if a British newspaper like the Guardian/Sun etc. carried out such a trick, there would surely some repercussions for the individual/group involved.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As far as I'm aware ( I'm sure someone will pull me up on this if I'm wrong) there is no legal discrimination between minor and serious.

Yes there is; an offence is either indictable, triable either way or summary. Summary offences are usually minor ones, with indictable offences being the most serious.