Another heir to the throne

[jnjkerbin]

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.

I stand corrected!

 

[Oswyntail]

Making something bold doesn't make it right.

No - it is a standard convention for emphasising a point.

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.

I believe they can be blamed, because they willingly initiated an action that started a chain of events that (possibly) resulted in a death. No, they are probably not legally culpable in any way. But they - we all - need to appreciate that they hold responsibility for the outcome of their actions, good or ill. Saying "There, there, you're not to blame", while a common approach these days, is suitable only in dealing with small children who have not grasped the concept of responsibility. Adults should have.

 

[ainsworth74]

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

Because our police wish to conduct a thorough investigation? Clearly someone needs to get statements from the DJs involved for that to happen.

 

[jnjkerbin]

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

Because our police wish to conduct a thorough investigation? Clearly someone needs to get statements from the DJs involved for that to happen.

Fair enough, but whatever the findngs of any investigation, I would still support some sort of action taken against whoever authorised/orchestrated the phone call. Afterall, it was an invasion of privacy even if not a punishable offence.

 

[LE Greys]

Fair enough, but whatever the findngs of any investigation, I would still support some sort of action taken against whoever authorised/orchestrated the phone call. Afterall, it was an invasion of privacy even if not a punishable offence.

Surely, a bigger question is why it was considered suitable for broadcast when the unfortunate nurse had not given her permission for it to happen. Responsibility must then rest with whoever took the decision to broadcast the call under those circumstances.

 

[jnjkerbin]

whoever took the decision to broadcast the call under those circumstances.

whoever authorised/orchestrated the phone call.

Just to make it clear, I wasn't blaming the nurse or anyone at the hospital. In fact when I said this I meant the person who authorised the "prank" at the radio station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see that, amongst all the discussion on this matter, no-one has commented on how the husband of the deceased nurse must be feeling at this present time.

 

[HST Power]

I see that, amongst all the discussion on this matter, no-one has commented on how the husband of the deceased nurse must be feeling at this present time.

I'm sure all of our thoughts and best wishes are with her husband and her family during this difficult time.

Nevertheless, whilst their actions were risky, I don't think anyone could have foreseen such consequences from a prank telephone call.

The main thing is that the Radio Presenters have apologised. Whilst they will have to live with what happened, they have done the right thing in saying sorry for their actions.

Disturbingly, I heard a newspaper expert on the radio saying that the apology was just a cover. If anything, this is all the more unnacceptable.

 

[Bungle73]

Morrisey seems to think it's all Kate's fault - http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...nt-kate-middleton-for-nurses-suicide-20121212 - honestly the guy is a joke; and it's not first time he's come out with a load of cods-wallop.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

He also wore a 'The Falklands are Argentinian' T-shirt and told a Buenos Aries concert 'We all the know the Malvinas [or whatever they're Argentine name is] belong to you' or words to that effect last year around the anniversary of the conflict. He is a berk.

 

[Class172]

He also wore a 'The Falklands are Argentinian' T-shirt and told a Buenos Aries concert 'We all the know the Malvinas [or whatever they're Argentine name is] belong to you' or words to that effect last year around the anniversary of the conflict. He is a berk.

Yes, they are 'Las Islas Malvinas' to Argentina - we could start a whole new thread regarding Falklands independance if we wanted...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A thought occurred to me that whilst we on this thread can ponder upon the reasons for the death of the nurse, perhaps we should allow for the fact that she was a very deep and intensely thinking person, from what I hear from the media in south India, who may have expressed personal internal self-criticism on herself after this unhappy affair to such an extent that her self-judgment could see no other way of living with what she would have felt was solely down to her own misjudgment.

The south Indian media may well be wrong in this, but can anyone on this thread really know how her state of mind was in, during the final hours leading to her death ?

 

[Harlesden]

It's only Catholics who are banned from the throne. He or she could become a Hindu, a Muslim, a Scientologist or a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and would still be eligible.

I had always assumed that the phrase was used by young people with no belief in God and choosing to mock those with such a belief as an immensely disrespectful way of referring to Christianity

 

[MidnightFlyer]

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.

Quite GB, I don't quite know how Paul managed to read it like that, but never mind. Anyhow, the lady in question had apparently attempted suicide before. If this is true, it's exactly what I mean, so often times it's a culmination of factors rather than just one event (and no, I wasn't privy to it! :roll:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Duchess-Cambridge-attempted-kill-before.html

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Quite GB, I don't quite know how Paul managed to read it like that, but never mind. Anyhow, the lady in question had apparently attempted suicide before. If this is true, it's exactly what I mean, so often times it's a culmination of factors rather than just one event (and no, I wasn't privy to it! )

My apologies, Matt, if I did indeed read more into your posting than I should have done at the time.

Did you see my later posting that I made on 17th December regarding what was said in the media in southern India ?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

... And it's a boy. Born at 1624 today, weighing 8lbs 6oz.

 

[HST Power]

Great stuff!

Anyone for golf?

 

[Johnuk123]

Congratulations to all 3 of them.

 

[Requeststop]

Congratulations to all 3 of them.

Long Live Prince Hashtag

 

[ATW Alex 101]

That's 8% off my London Midland tickets! But in all seriousness, congratulations to the 3!

 

[33056]

... And it's a boy. Born at 1624 today, weighing 8lbs 6oz.

After all that fuss about changing the law so that a girl would become queen and it's a boy

 

[Brunswick]

Who cares another one to pay for

 

[starrymarkb]

I think Joffrey myself!

 

[Qwerty133]

That's 8% off my London Midland tickets! But in all seriousness, congratulations to the 3!

should be 86% surely

 

[MidnightFlyer]

After all that fuss about changing the law so that a girl would become queen and it's a boy

I was thinking that. Of course it could well be 2200 (the year, not 40 minutes!) now by the time a first born female becomes a monarch!

Who cares another one to pay for

Does anyone actually have any figures to support that they are expensive to the taxpayer - for example how much do they cost when the income from tourism that they generate is deducted, in comparison to say the presidents of the USA or France? I'm not super-keen on any of the royal family as people after the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh but I'd rather live under a monarchy than a republic: of course this also allows for some perpetual political neutrality in the country's governance (same with the HoL).

 

[Brunswick]

With a republic you get a say who you want to be your president here you have no choice it's done by birth and that is not right, if elected ok but I for one can't stand the royals and all the hangers on

 

[Zoe]

With a republic you get a say who you want to be your president

Not a direct say in all cases though. Presidents don't have to be elected by the public.

 

[90sWereBetter]

I've decided, because quite a number of people strongly dislike the Royal Family, and because I'm a bit of a troll, that I'm gonna start liking and supporting the Royals.

The only problem I foresee with this declaration is that people will say I'm a hypocrite because I strongly dislike Sebastian Vettel, and he's notoriously unpopular amongst F1 fans...

Congrats to Will and Kate on their baby boy, by the way.

 

[transmanche]

With a republic you get a say who you want to be your president

Not all republics elect their presidents by popular vote. Germany, for example, has a ceremonial president (whose powers are similar to those of the British Monarch) who is elected by a Federal Convention. (The convention is formed by the members of the Bundestag and an equal number of nominee from the various German states.) Having a monarch saves all that expense.

A popularly-elected President only makes sense in countries like the US, where the president is an executive one, wielding a great deal of political power.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

A popularly-elected President only makes sense in countries like the US, where the president is an executive one, wielding a great deal of political power.

Even then though it's hardly a walk in the park - under the US system, and I believe it was President Truman who said it, their power is more to persuade. Unless they have both chambers of Congress on their side they can be very weak. It all stems from Montesquieu who had the three branches of power theory and how you can't have a role in more than one - hence the executive and legislative in the US really need to be of the same ideology for anything to happen. Look at the run Obama's had for the past couple of years. Look also how long, owing to the complex system, it can take to see the slightest thing to change or policy to be implemented!