The Secret Court of the Twitteratti makes the Court of Protection look positively transparent. We do not know who sits in the Court of Twitteratti, most judges rejoice in cloaking their identity behind amusing non de plumes. Some are professional judges, paid to inform opinion in one direction or another; others are rank amateurs. We only ever hear part of the evidence – that given or retweeted by those that follow us and thus appear on our personal timeline. Out there in cyberspace, opinions are being formed by a far larger body of evidence. Judgements can be strangely inconsistent with logic, but no one seems to mind. The considered opinion of the Twitteratti, is, however, becoming iconic in the minds of government ministers.

Take humour for instance. A matter which much occupies the minds of the Twitteratti.

A threat to blow up Robin Hood airport was ‘obviously a joke’ – one that only a mindless jobsworth could possibly take seriously in these days of terrorist threats. The Twitteratti scrambled to noisy defence of the joker. The airport official who reported this threat was offered no ‘support’, e’en as he was lustily denounced as a humourless moron who wouldn’t see a joke if it was towing the Queen Mary behind it.

Yet Australian accents imitating a barking corgi and requesting to be put through ‘to my grand-daughter Kate’, the Twitteratti are quite convinced, could only have had malign intent, was obviously ‘not a joke’, and call as evidence the sad suicide of the nurse who put the call through to the Duchess of Cambridge’s nurse. This morning the cyber judges are demanding  that the jokers be fired, charged with manslaughter, and burned at the stake.

Of course the death of a young girl through suicide is a tragedy, but there is little questioning of what other factors might have been playing on her mind. The statement of the management of King Edward VIIs hospital was unequivocal.

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. 

Was she really the ‘victim‘ of that hoax call? Certainly she handled the call in the sense that she was manning the switchboard – and why was this ‘highly trained and valued’ nurse doing night duty as a switchboard operator? She didn’t put the call through to Kate’s beside phone; she wasn’t the person who actually gave out information concerning the Duchess’s medical condition. She quite correctly put the call through to the nurse responsible – what was she supposed to do? Say, “I don’t like your accent your Majesty, I’m cutting you off”? Failing to put the Queen through to Kate’s nurse on the grounds of some dodgy barking in the background that sounded more like Labradors than Corgis would have been the cause of a far more serious complaint.

She wasn’t suspended, she didn’t receive death threats from the Twitteratti; I hope that the Australian DJs who have been suspended, and have received death threats are being supported by their management.

I just wonder who was originally responsible for this groundswell of Twit-o-pinion that has sat in judgement on the Australian jokers and pronounced them guilty ‘with blood on their hands’. It is so very convenient in the current climate of condemnation of the media. ‘Our Brian’ or Lord chief Justice Leveson as I should refer to him, is conveniently in Australia, from where, having said that he would not be commenting on his report, he was happy to tell the assembled hacks:

The prank call by Australian radio presenters who got a condition report from the Duchess of Cambridge’s nurse by pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles proves the need for new privacy laws, Lord Justice Leveson has said.

 Ah so – pay £625 quid a head for rubber chicken in Oz, and Leveson is prepared to comment! Now he thinks we should have more regulation – though how that would have any effect on an Australian radio station beats me. Isn’t it slightly odd that no one has any qualms about us knowing that the Duchess is cuddling the nearest toilet chucking her guts up, but utterly offended that a nurse should inadvertently tell us that she is being ‘freshened up’?

Leveson also thinks that Britain should have more laws that stop European magazines publishing pictures of a topless Kate. Good luck with that one too. Leveson, the global legislator.

I see he is is also pissed off with:

 “Bloggers [who] rejoice in placing their servers outside the jurisdiction where different laws apply.”

Aye, Brian, that’ll be me and a few others. We do it because people like you want to control opinion in the UK, and we know full well that your powers stop at the Wash, with the North Sea lapping over your shoes, no matter how commanding the tones you incant your Dalek lines. “Regulate, Regulate, Regulate” Pity that.

We do it because Britain has become so politically correct that you can only mock religion if it is Christianity; can only hold adverse opinion if it is of someone white, middle class, and male – always providing that they are heterosexual. Because jokes go to the court of Twitteratti opinion, manipulated by God knows who, and are only passed as funny if the ‘victim’ is a white middle class male airport operative.

If the joke happens to pass briefly through the hands of someone female who was trained by the almighty NHS – but then left to work in the private sector – who chose to live and work hundreds of miles away from their family and children for more than half of each week, whether by genuine choice or force of economic circumstances; who may have been subject to all sorts of unknown pressures in their private life; and who may not even have committed suicide, the result of the autopsy being as yet unknown – then the joke is pronounced very unfunny, and used to bolster the case for more regulation as to what we may say or think on and off line.

My sympathies to the Saldanha family at what should be a very private time of grief for them – but I fear that Jacintha has just become the latest log thrown on the bonfire of free expression. Truly those who would regulate us out of existence will stoop to anything. Even wallowing in a young girls despair and death. Normally the left wing would be foaming at the mouth at the thought of a NHS trained nurse working in the private sector. In death she has become their heroine.

Mewsical December 11, 2012 at 20:49

It gets sadder and sadder. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/11/hoaxed-kate-middleton-nurse-left-suicide-note.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat+Sheet

Moor Larkin December 11, 2012 at 21:41

That Getty picture is from a collection where the family members have met
Keith Vaz at Parliament…. ??
She worked in London, away from the family
home in Bristol. Vaz is MP for Leicester…. ??
Nice to see someone in the
media has wondered too:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100193800/keith-vaz-brings-solace-to-jacintha-saldanhas-grieving-family/

Mewsical December 11, 2012 at 19:03

I see the radio station has given her family a considerable amount of
money. As far as personal dignity and England, well, I’m a Brit and if I’d
committed such a faux pas – and after being aware of the ‘drill’ – then I’d
certainly be very cross with myself, but don’t know if it would be bad enough
to take my life. What I don’t get is why ANYONE thought the Queen would be
making phone calls at 5:30 am, and surely everyone had been briefed on how to
handle the Duchess’s situation vis a vis security. It’s all a bit odd, I must
say. I don’t know if we’re getting the entire story, or if we ever will.

Moor Larkin December 11, 2012 at 08:08

@If I was an investigative reporter, I would be looking very hard at Nurse
Saldhana’s connections with this lot@

I think you credit the radio station with more “investigative” status than
they probably merit. If the events have any connection I would guess it had
more to do with the woman’s sense of *dignity*. Perhaps her sense of
self-importance was inflated by the perceived chance to deal with *Royalty*…
then came the realisation that she was just a Patsy, and by the implication of
the laughing radio presentation, she had also been revealed as a rather silly
one. Personal dignity is viewed differently in Britain to many other parts of
the world.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/saldanhas-bosses-intended-to-have-a-chat-with-her/article4181827.ece
“Ms.
Saldanha was reportedly asked how she came to transfer the call to the ward
nurse. Apparently, the drill is that when the reception is closed for the
night the duty nurse is only supposed to take down phone messages — and not
transfer any calls.”

Mewsical December 11, 2012 at 02:06

I thought it was odd, and a bit disrespectful frankly, for the male culprit
to refer to Nurse Saldhana as “Jacintha,” as if she was someone he was
personally acquainted with. Let alone I’m so not buying into this specious
claim that the radio station attempted to contact KE7 on at least five
occasions, to advise them they had this recording, but they were “unable to
get through.” That was apparently not a problem at 5.30 am, with nobody but
Nurse Saldhana on the phones. If I was an investigative reporter, I would be
looking very hard at Nurse Saldhana’s connections with this lot.

Moor Larkin December 10, 2012 at 23:57

The Wisdom of Crowds is a very seductive concept for those in charge of
democracy, as are the numbers of Followers that celebrities seem to be able to
attract. http://twittercounter.com/pages/100

It’s always about the numbers.

Saul December 10, 2012 at 20:14

For the predecessor to Twitter and Twitterati, see Curtain Twitchers and
Twitcherati.

Saul December 10, 2012 at 20:10

We live in a 24hr a day news world, that demands a new drama every day. If
the story isn’t quite dramatic enough, then the media have ways of spicing it
up. This will soon be yesterdays news.

Cascadian December 10, 2012 at 18:09

Eleanor, you make the mistake of assuming that our younger generations even
understand the meaning of a word. Such is the coarsening of the culture that
frequently words are used to mean the opposite of their dictionary meaning
(Example deficit is often referred to as investment). Even when a paragraph of
words are tumbled out in a coherent fashion, people rarely understand what is
being said. I seem to remember after Diana’s demise a great gnashing and
wailing across the land, and absolute consensus that “something had too
change” and royals would not be harassed at every turn, it was as we can see
absolute nonsense, nothing more than a sordid, feel-good, temporary,
outpouring of juvenile emotions with no intent to change at all. I have no
doubt that the Australian tricksters nonsense would be very popular in Britain
too if it were broadcast.

Whether we like it or not, the culture has changed, this was never more
evident than the Olympic opening ceremonies when the trashier yoof were much
celebrated alongside failing institutions-and the prime minister thought that
was wonderful.

Elena ‘andcart
December 10, 2012 at 18:35

Thanks for assuming that I am old, Cascadian. Is that the difference
these days? Those who can and those who can’t understand The Queen’s
English?
Sorry, I never was a fan of Diana who I believe behaved quite
appallingly, and consequently cause a lot of her own problems by courting
The Media in the first place.
Actually, I don’t really have any great
right to comment on any of this since I haven’t lived in Britain for a very
long time, and wouldn’t now if you paid me. And if The Trickster’s nonsense
would be popular in Britain, then heaven help you all. But I do lack
conversation in English on occasions, which is why I sometimes feel
motivated to comment.
Good here, innit.

Cascadian
December 11, 2012 at 04:48

Eleanor, my already high estimation of your opinions has been boosted
further. Anybody who saw through Diana is OK in my view. I used her merely
as an example of the juvenile nature of modern public opinion, and how
willing they are to turn over their rights for a quick emotional fix, she
was I believe at the forefront of the collapse of the culture.

My comments like yours are posted far away from England’s shore, I
thankfully left a long time ago but remain in contact with family who
confirm all my worst opinions.

It certainly is good in here, especially when you get in early a get
seat by the fire, which I rarely do due to time zone differences.

Elena
‘andcart December 11, 2012 at
09:20

I rarely discuss politics with my children, Cascadian, who seems to
have inherited their father’s opinion that all women are a bit thick.
But then most children seem to think any person past the age of sixty is
in terminal, intellectual decline. I shall remind them all of this
before very much longer.
As it is, I think that I am the only member
of the family that actually ventures on Twitter, and when I explain that
I only do this to test my word skills, they smile indulgently and say,
“You have a good time, Mother.” But then they are still having trouble
dealing with the fact that I know how to boot up my laptop.
The main
problem with Twitter seems to be that a large number of them aren’t even
remotely interested in the opinions of anyone else, and mostly just
mouth off a load of rubbish. It has crossed my mind that they might be
testing their own word skills, but if so, they patently don’t have any
as they often resort to singular capital letters with the odd number
thrown in. C U 4 T. Decipher that if you can.

Ho Hum December 10, 2012 at 22:43

A long time ago, when I was trying to encourage my 5 year old to read
more, and regaling him with what my childhood had consisted of, he pulled me
up short by expounding, at some length, as to what exactly was different
about the environment in which he now lived, in terms of “We children
today”, what sort of things made a difference, and he finished off by
telling me, quite adamantly, “It’s different today, Dad!”

On reflection, he was quite right. The main difference then, between his
generation and, some of, mine was that we could not have been quite so
honest with our parents.

His world today is very different, possibly more so than mine was
different from my parents. My parents vision of my ‘growing up’ was that I
would be like them. The danger of doing so, is failing to grasp that change
is inevitable and to fail to see that underneath it all, all too often today
is merely the same as yesterday, and that it is just the way in which things
are expressed, and our expanded knowledge of the whole, that is different.
Those who fail to grasp that, sadly, create their own generation gap, and
miss the point

BTW, if, by the ‘tricksters nonsense’ you mean prank telephone calls,
that sort of thing has been broadcast on radio and television here for as
long as I can remember. You can’t be listening to, or watching, the relevant
programmes. As for the Olympics, if the LSO, Rowan Atkinson, Frank Turner,
Mike Oldfield, Dizzee Rascal, Sir Kenneth Branagh, Emieli Sandi, David
Beckham, Sir Steven Redgrave, Daniel Craig, Arctic Monkeys, and Sir Paul
McCartney constitute ‘yoof’, you must be Sir Patrick Moore, and as you died
yesterday, please accept my condolences

Cascadian
December 11, 2012 at 04:21

I don’t believe I have missed any point, of course generations are
different and as you suggest we should accommodate the change. That is a
very good thing while the culture is improving.

I believe what is demonstrably different today is the culture is in
steep decline, and I see no reason to adopt what is obviously inferior.
Hence my comments directed at yoof and inane radio programmes. If you find
these entertaining, then fill yer boots.

Ho Hum
December 11, 2012 at 10:04

But people have always been saying that everything is in decline in
some manner or other. Since at least the 3rd or 4th Century BC, to take
this rather well known example

‘Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?”’ :
Ecclesiastes 7:10

Different, yes. Worse? Not really, or, at the very least,
debatable.

But, of course, one’s perception in that regard will depend, anyway,
on where you start from, on the spectrum of how good, or bad, people
have always been

Elena
‘andcart December 11, 2012 at
10:20

I have to admit that I was pretty boring and a dreadful “know it
all” as a teenager. Although I was completely unaware of this at the
time.

Mewsical December 10, 2012 at 17:54

If the corporate lawyers approved it, let the lawyers and the corporation
pay the price. These two are not supposed to able to figure the legalities
out, and did the correct thing by asking for permission from their employers,
who should bear the brunt of blame, imo. It was a glaring case of invasion of
privacy, and the lawyer(s) need to turn in their bar cards accordingly. If it
can be reasonably proven that Mrs. Saldhana took her life as a direct result
of being caught up in this thoughtless stunt (a better word than prank), then
a case could be made for wrongful death, which would be very serious for the
Australian corporation.

Mewsical December 10, 2012 at 16:15

Well, they’ve agreed to quit their jobs (or stay off the air, whatever that
might mean in terms of employment), and they’re miserable as well. I don’t
know that any further punishment is really necessary for them, but what about
their bosses, who must have known that this prank was in the works and gave
them the green light to go ahead? All anyone had to do was briefly research
privacy laws in the UK to realize that they were taking a very foolish risk
legally. Australia has medical privacy laws also. https://ama.com.au/privacy-resource-handbook-2010 – at least
the Mail and other outlets have not door-stepped the other nurse.

Elena ‘andcart
December 10, 2012 at 17:06

It was The Radio Station’s Lawyers who agreed to this being Broadcast.
And they didn’t try very hard to get permission. You can Google The Hospital
Contact Details and Email Address in about ten seconds flat.
Are these
silly pillocks responsible? I am not sure. It wasn’t at all funny as a
“Prank”, even while they were doing it. But where did they drag up the
“Prank” word, which was last in common usage about fifty years ago. Or do
they all despise The Queen’s English?
And just how old are their
Lawyers?

There is a malaise loose in The Word that thinks it is fun to mock
anyone. And, sorry. but something has to be done about this. This is not
Free Speech.

m.barnes December 10, 2012 at 13:07

I wonder how the lynch mob will respond now they can see the DJ’s reaction.
Will they back off? Or will they up the fury? That’s 3 lives thoroughly
screwed up for a not-very-good prank. I do wish the UK media would get another
story, I have a bad feeling about this one.

Jonathan Mason
December 10, 2012 at 13:36

I don’ think I am a member of a lynch mob, but I think they should be
prosecuted if they have broken laws. I will leave that determination up to
those whose job it is to make the decision.

However I do think that there is no point having medical confidentiality
laws if they are not going to be enforced.

Having see the interviews one gets the impression that these two are just
pawns in a game, manipulated by other unnamed back room producers, managers,
and lawyers, who have been set up to to take the fall.

What I didn’t like in the interviews was them saying things like “no one
could have predicted this outcome”. This is a bit like Condoleeza Rice
saying that no one could have predicted that terrorists would hijack planes
and use them as suicide bombs (except that author Tom Clancy had already
outlined the scenario in a novel that she obviously hadn’t read).

Well they know now, but they still didn’t seem willing to say that they
would never do anything like this again, so I am not sure that they really
understand the seriousness of the issue.

Of course they are not licensed professionals like nurses and doctors,
and there is no expectation that they should act according to professional
standards. They come across as young, immature, and naive. However I do
think that there is no point having medical confidentiality laws if they are
not going to be enforced. People are often fined for speeding in their cars
when they have not seen the speed limit sign or their mind is elsewhere
(this has happened to me), but that is no excuse in the law. If these two,
or the people behind them, are prosecuted, that might save other people in
their business from making similar mistakes due to ignorance or lack of
ability to calculate possible consequences.

Elena ‘andcart
December 10, 2012 at 06:18

I have also wondered what Lord Leveson thought might be done about Foreign
Servers. Short of blocking them from UK Broad Band, I don’t think there is
much. And I certainly wouldn’t like that. But I do think that something has to
be done.

Twitter can be a useful exercise in saying precisely what you mean in 140
characters without resorting to what I consider to be unintelligible rubbish.
But a pastime only to contemplated when you’ve got nothing better to do.

Mewsical December 9, 2012 at 15:54

The hospital needs to do something about the phones on the night shift, so
that nurses don’t answer them. Mentioned this before. Btw, here in the States
family members are usually entitled to information without HIPAA waivers, is
that the case in the UK? So, if the first idiot said she wanted to speak to
her ‘granddaughter’ wouldn’t the nurses think that was okay? Not that the D of
C is the Queen’s granddaughter of course – that should have been a huge clue,
but who’s at their sharpest at 5:30 am? Do we know if HM had called before off
her own bat and spoken to the nursing staff? (Seems rather unlikely – let
alone I’m going to assume that the D of C has a cellphone that she can speak
to the rellies on and they can reach her that way.) The thing that really
bothers me is that Jacintha really did nothing to aid this stupid stunt, so
why did she take this so seriously? Just fielded the call and let the duty
nurse breach patient confidentiality. And we know nothing about this nurse,
except she’s alive.

Anna
Raccoon December 9, 2012 at 17:23

There is also the small matter we all seem to have overlooked – where was
her personal bodyguard? Wouldn’t he automatically field all calls? Or are we
to believe that the future Queen of England was left lying in a hospital bed
with only a nurse to protect her from evil intent – other patients, other
nurses, how could anybody say where the risk might come from?

babel6 December 9, 2012 at 19:01

You make a very good point there, unless we believe Team HM’s Security
Unit felt that the throng of cameras, reporters and greater media scrum
camped outside day and night was in itself enough to discourage anyone of
‘evil intent’ attempting to enter the hospital.

However, I still feel that the hospital, as a matter of protocol, would
have been obliged to involve ‘The Patient Confidentiality Police’ in
connection with the situation and the nurses would certainly have been
invited to attend a discussion session regarding how they had dealt with
the hoax call. I wouldn’t be surprised if the matter of a serious breach
of patient confidentiality was mentioned. I wouldn’t be surprised if the
matter of an internal inquiry was mentioned. I wouldn’t be surprised if
brows were furrowed and several seriously disapproving looks were shot at
the nurses during the hospital’s ‘support during this difficult time’. I
wouldn’t be surprised if possible disciplinary action was mentioned, on
protocol grounds, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this all scared the
living daylights out of both nurses.

A breach of patient confidentiality concerning a member of the Royal
family becomes headline news around the globe? King Ed’s puts the above
investigation in place immediately, as per protocol and guidelines. One of
the nurses involved was found dead just a couple of days later? King Ed’s
finds itself in the difficult situation of having to issue a statement
about her death. The statement of the management of King Edward VIIs
hospital was unequivocal.

**..”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.”..**

Observor
December 10, 2012 at 05:42

Indeed. They are also a potential terrorist target. Amazingly slack
security. Do they want Kate to become another Diana?.

Jonathan Mason
December 9, 2012 at 17:46

“Btw, here in the States family members are usually entitled to
information without HIPAA waivers, is that the case in the UK?”

I don’ think that is right about the US. Usually the patient can name one
or two persons who may receive information, which is documented on their
chart. Otherwise there would be no limit to the number of people who might
request information. Real life is not like “Dallas” where the whole Ewing
clan gathers at the hospital waiting to grab a doctor by the lapels as he
exits the elevator, saying “Tell me doc, is he going to make it?”

As in the example I gave above, the husband of a battered wife is not
necessarily entitled to information about the condition of his wife. The
wife might nominate her parents, but not her husband, for example. I know
that I often had to deal with phone calls where I could not even confirm or
deny the presence of a named patient in the hospital without authorization
from the patient naming the person who was inquiring. If I didn’t have such
authorization, I might ask the person for their number and give the name and
number of the person inquiring to the patient saying that this or that
person wants to get in touch with him/her.

In the US it is, however, a breach of federal law (i.e. very serious
offense) to disclose confidential medical information without authorization.
Apparently in the UK there is no such law.

Ho Hum December 9, 2012 at 19:41

Believe me, Information Governance is deadly serious territory within
in the NHS. Data and Information handling breaches are treated as Serious
Untoward Incidents and reported up organisation’s governance chain, to the
most senior levels, for appropriate action, both disciplinary and
corrective. Training is mandatory, and you will be locked out of your
employer’s IT systems if you have not successfully completed certain
online courses within a given time period. There is also a raft of
relevant national guidance, which expressly states the professional
standards expected, and the related underpinning legislation where
relevant to specific requirements. A few examples are to be found
below

http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/infogov

(you won’t be able to see, or use, parts of that site if you are not
have an NHS employee, whose employing body has applied for you to be given
access rights)

http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/infogov/caldicott/caldresources/guidance

http://www.knowledge.scot.nhs.uk/media/CLT/ResourceUploads/4014631/Caldicott%20Guardian%20Manual%20Scotland%20-%20June%202012.pdf

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_079616

Most local bodies also publish a simplified public summary, eg

http://www.ashfordstpeters.org.uk/caldicott-and-data-protection

The NHS certainly doesn’t dwell in some sort of archaic, or anarchic,
hill-billy land when it comes to this issue.

Jonathan
Mason December 9, 2012 at 21:10

Well, if that is the case, then our Australian friends may still end
up waltzing Matilda and camping by a billabong.

Jonathan
Mason December 9, 2012 at 21:24

I t seems difficult to find information about penalties, which only
seem to be fines and not prison sentences. It doesn’t sound like an
extraditable offense to me, though perhaps these DJ’s might be charged
if they ever came to England.

Here is a relevant quote from the ICO Web site.

“Unlawfully obtaining or accessing personal data is a criminal
offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The offence
is punishable by way of a financial penalty of up to £5,000 in a
Magistrates Court or an unlimited fine in a Crown Court. The ICO
continues to call for more effective deterrent sentences, including
the threat of prison, to be available to the courts to stop the
unlawful use of personal information.”

Ho Hum
December 10, 2012 at 10:44

I maybe should have made it clearer that I was dealing with the
guidance and sanctions etc that apply to employees, including those
employed on an agency basis. With regard to the latter, you can also
find examples of NHS short term induction procedures on the web and
can see that they require confirmation that even short term nursing
agency staff are expected to have been advised as to their
responsibilities on confidentiality principles. The references given
were those mainly directed at making sure those inside do not leak
stuff externally, as I was really following up with a bit more info on
the point you were making on disclosure requirements

As for the DJs having done anything illegal, I very much doubt it.
Frankly, if anyone tries to prosecute them over this this, I shall
revise my opinion on Flat Earthers, as it will be likely that they are
right and that we can collectively fall off the edge

Mewsical
December 9, 2012 at 23:44

That appears to be the case, JM. Usually when a patient is admitted,
various family members either come with them, or show up pretty soon
thereafter to visit, so they’d be known to the medical staff anyway. It’s
up to the social workers to get the necessary paperwork completed and
added to the chart, and if the patient is in for a longish stay, and may
be transferred from ward to ward, this paperwork has an annoying tendency
to be mislaid. I understand the necessity of protecting the patient’s
privacy, but my experience has been that it is a cumbersome and
inefficient way of doing so.

Jonathan
Mason December 10, 2012 at 12:34

@Ho Hum

“As for the DJs having done anything illegal, I very much doubt
it.”

That would be something for the department of prosecutions to decide.
As I quoted above: “Unlawfully obtaining… personal data is a criminal
offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998.”

I would think that personal data would include information on a
person’s medical condition, for instance frequency of vomiting or
retching. The term “unlawfully obtaining” seems like a circular
definition, as a court would have to decide whether this was done
unlawfully. The radio station apparently claims that no laws were
broken. So in the opinion of their lawyers impersonating a head of state
to obtain confidential medical information is legal, at least in
Australia.

Whether something is legal or illegal, as we have seen with the
Savile pedophilia witch hunt ir the Robin Hood Airport fiasco, is
largely a matter of opinion on the part of those who have the power to
make such decisions. For example the department of prosecutions might
decide to pursue a case against these DJs as a way of deterring those
who might follow in their footsteps domestically, even if there was
realistically little chance of a successful prosecution. (However the
chances might be quite good in front of a home team jury.)

Overall, though, I would agree that it is unlikely that attempts will
be made to prosecute them.

Also interesting to compare this to the Gary McKinnon case.

Ho Hum
December 10, 2012 at 21:17

It would be interesting if the UK media could be prosecuted for
further disseminating the information. I’d like to see how they
presented that as being within the DPA ‘public interest’ defence

And if the Australians were to be prosecuted, the DJs et al as
individuals or the Radio Station corporately, so too should be the
remaining nurse, who did give the information, the hospital management
and the hospital corporately. That would go down well, wouldn’t it?
And as for a fair trial, well, maybe in Patagonia.

And what are we going to do, anyway? Extradite them here, convict
them, and then sentence them to penal servitude in the colonies? How
about that place called Australia?

Utter nonsense. Everyone will want this to go away as quickly as
possible. Except maybe the Daily Mail, whose page click rate will be
through the roof.

babel6 December 9, 2012 at 13:46

**The statement of the management of King Edward VIIs hospital was
unequivocal.

“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.”**
………………….

Anyone who has worked in a hospital, in any capacity, has it repeatedly
drummed into them that if they are involved in any breach of patient
confidentiality it will be considered to be, and subsequently dealt with, as
the number one Cardinal Sin any member of staff can commit. I find it
impossible to believe that Jacintha and the other nurse involved were just
taken into a quiet room and given sweet tea and biscuits to help them over the
ordeal; the tea and the biscuits may well have been offered but I have an
unshakeable suspicion that the branch of the ‘hospital police’ which deals
with patient confidentiality will also have been blue-lighted in to stress, in
no uncertain terms, to the nurses involved that their handling of the hoax
call must be viewed as a very serious matter which would need to be addressed.
So the above statement from the hospital, made after Jacintha’s death and
delivered by the hospital’s ashen-faced CE, should perhaps be re-read.

Jonathan Mason
December 9, 2012 at 14:09

Hard to say. Based on my experience, both Jacintha and the other nurse
would have been required to complete an incident report form and probably
also a full written statement or affidavit for the Quality Assurance
department. This in itself might have been experienced as extremely
stressful due to the need to be truthful without being self-incriminating or
contradicting the other nurse.

As has been pointed out, top management would have surely freaked over
this major breach of confidentiality due to the effect it could have on the
hospital’s reputation and ultimately its bottom line. Everybody from the CEO
down, including middle management, would have been very concerned to be seen
to be taking the necessary remedial steps and to deflect any potential blame
from themselves. (For example the head of staff training would no doubt be
checking training records to make sure that both nurses involved had signed
documentation to show attendance and competency is training on patient
confidentiality and phone calls. If for some reason they had missed the
training, that could easily rebound on the person responsible for
training.)

Ho Hum December 9, 2012 at 14:15

You’ve done this before, haven’t you?

Jonathan
Mason December 9, 2012 at 14:34

Yes!

Ho Hum December 9, 2012 at 14:13

Yes. I did wonder at the time if a word was maybe missing from their
originally saying that the nurses were not subject to disciplinary action
(or something close to that). ‘Were not ‘yet’ subject to’ felt a much more
likely position.. But I am old and cynical

Observor December 9, 2012 at 12:06

I disagree with Ms Racoon’s comments re: Leveson and the internet.
Obviously Anna (sensibly) hides behind a pseudonym for the reasons of not
being attacked. But she is very reasoned in her comments and doesn’t defame
anyone, or if she did she could be eventually traced.

I’ve had 2 experiences with 2 friends who have been totally devastated by
anonymous blogs defaming them and calling them all sorts of names. It has been
relentless for 4 years now.
One is a Dr who was involved in research. Since
the blogs began she has been unable to work for 3 years. Every time she
applies for a job they do an internet search as is the norm now. Between 100
candidates the one with 4 blogs claiming she stole money from a church, was
involved in all sorts of illicit actions (all untrue)- she never gets a call
back.

Those who have never been the target of a determiined nutter/psychopath
have no idea of the damage that can be done. My doctor friend has now
mortgaged her house to sue Google for hosting the blogs after an historic case
in Australia where she has worked 3 times and had a good reputation.

I’m always amazed at the general public who think ‘Google is their friend’
rather than what they are : a giant rapacious corporation (employing minimal
staff) and sucking the lifeblood out of advertising around the world.

The US government is currently negotiating a fine with Google of $4Billion
under antitrust laws. It will be a quarter of their takings last year.

Leveson is entirely correct that the ordinary Joe in the street deserves
protection. Those who don’t agree I challenge you : send me your real name and
details and allow me to create just one blog devoted to you. I will base it in
Mexico where you cannot get me.
I guarantee I will make your life a living
hell ..you will not be able to ignore it.. I will expose every minute detail
of your life, invade your Facebook friends with subtle messages related to you
that raises doubt ibn your head.. I will defame your family and dearest and
nearest. I guarantee you will beg me to stop.
We never accepted the concept
of the Poison Pen Letter. Why do we accept today’s equivalent on the Net
?.

Re; the Aussie DJs. It’s the Daily Mail being the most vicious and who are
they to condemn anyone?. But they did a very stupid and highly unethical thing
: most announcers who play these tricks inform the target afterwards and
before broadcasting and ask for permission. That si waht they should have done
and there is no excuse.
I see them as a symptom of our ghastly media where
every person is a target to be humiliated for profit. I am still surprised the
general public still believe our media is some sort of public service or a
charity (apart from the BBC which seems to groveling in the gutter with the
red tops).

Anna
Raccoon December 9, 2012 at 12:46

“or if she did she could be eventually traced”.

Just click on the contact page Observer, that’s the quickest way – or
Google – I’ve been outed more times than I’ve had hot dinners….!

Ho Hum December 9, 2012 at 13:56

I could not agree more, Mr Watcher

The need to be careful about what you put on line on a personal basis has
never been greater. I use differing nom de plumes, tailored to the scenario,
dependent on the site, be it gentile as here, or something else more
appropriate in more robust settings. I also vary my descriptors and language
from place to place to make cross platform searching less easy. What I would
be prepared to say also differs from site to site, and only fools engage in
sock-puppetry, unless they choose to use the more devious technical methods
available. Anna could tell straight away if I was doing that here – in fact
she can probably tell you a fair bit about me already, but only in general
terms. If this conjures up a picture of some paranoid individual, siting in
a room lined with tin foil and wearing a hat to match, let me provide an
example as to what can be done. It’s probably even more dangerous out there
than you think

I have played for years on a well known MMO. I have player ‘friends’
there who, having been in contact with them over the years, have given
sufficient detail, probably seen at the time as small passing irrelevancies,
to let themselves be able to be identified directly from their cumulative
use. In large part, this has been aided and abetted by Google which, in the
various incarnations of its falling over to help you, has made the linking
of personal data more and more easy.

One day I told one of them, an American lady, fairly average education,
reasonably sensible, responsible job, etc, that I thought that I had some
sort of ability to make psychic connection over the net. So, from the depths
of Southern England, I proceeded to ‘link up to her head’ and take her on my
‘mental walk’ down her street, pointing out the different road layouts,
places and other features, until I think she could have quite believed that
I had a real talent for wired telepathy. I finished by taking her to Google
Maps and feeding in a set of ‘random’ numbers which, on entry, took her
right to her house, a small detached building in an unremarkable suburb of a
big city in Texas. Gave her quite a turn. Now, that’s to very much condense
a long story, something checked out on a VERY limited set of data, but
handled properly on a personal basis, with lots of humour and very tongue in
cheek. We had a good laugh, and she knows that I am one of the good people.
But she is more careful now, thankfully, as anyone other than me might have
dropped in by on her doorstep, hopefully just for coffee but, in this freaky
world, maybe hoping for more.

She’s not the only one whose real identities I have sussed, either. I
like the intellectual challenge involved, but they are very fortunate that I
am not some psychopathic creep

Google definitely may not be your friend. Good advice is to be found
here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmg86CRBBtw

Ho Hum December 9, 2012 at 04:59

Anna

I don’t really give the ass of a rat about most of what is written on
Twitter or, for that matter, most blogs or similar commentaries.

As regards Twitter, the @2FMSydney thread relating to the Radio Show prank
merely shows that most commenting do not have two neurons to rub together, and
the one that they do have is shared in such a way that the person who has it
on any particular day is, for some reason, not able to access a keyboard to
contribute whatever limited sense it might generate. It also shows a level of
malice that far exceeds the intent of the two wallybees (a dreadful pun, I
know) who perpetrated the jape in the first place

As for a large number of blogs, well, so far, no-one with any sense, or
those normally in such positions of power gives them the opportunity to make a
real difference to the world, is likely to believe those who peddle tales of
extra-terrestrial shape changing lizards, the troofers who still think that
one can project 3d images of Boeing 767′s flying over New York to fool the
entire world, birthers whose hatred for the President of the United States is
probably confounded by their inability to distinguish man from simian because
they see fail to recognise the latter as being the image of themselves that
they see in the mirror every morning, and such other miscellaneous single
topic ranters or political axe grinders as will attract those that would offer
their throats up to hone the blades. And that goes for the commentators too,
those who Hum and Ho, those who sound Musically melodious and even those who
might have the misfortune to live in Barnes. They may all potentially be
unhinged nonentities, drooling over a keypad, in their day release in suburban
Lambeth, or esconsed in a cave on a hillside in Wales. Almost none should be
trusted implicitly, and those that do seem slightly more lucid than usual
should probably be treated with even greater wariness

However, like others earlier, I do worry about your dismissing Leveson too
promptly. I don’t at all like the idea of curtailing speech or expression – I
would probably prefer an environment with no censorship of any kind and,
indeed, I wish that we in the UK had some of the Constitutional protections on
speech, as also extrapolated to lifestyle expression, offered to US citizens.
They knew what they were doing when they threw us out

But there are two aspects to Leveson.

Firstly, I think it is quite reasonable to expect higher standards from
anyone who works in, and is paid as a professional member of, the mainstream
media. They purport to be telling the ordinary man about events, the facts of
which they could not normally possibly research for themselves. One should
also expect them to have some sort of ethical standards relating to how they
do their work, and how they deal with their clients affairs and information.
Every other reputable profession in the 21st century has such, although their
implementation is admittedly patchy. One might also expect minimum standards
of training and qualification. At present some press output looks like it was
put together by the editor’s sons or daughters doing mum or dad a Saturday
favour – quite often in the nature of how to cut and paste in Google
Translate, or applying what they gleaned from GCSE Biology or other Science
coursework. And the professional media’s client interface shouldn’t really be
an extension of what they learnt about bullying their classmates round the
back of the bike sheds. There, Leveson seems to have got most things fairly
right. And there should be proper quasi legal remedies, with whatever body is
dispensing them backed up by statute if necessary – the Danes, the Irish
manage it OK, so we should be able to too. It cannot go on as is

Secondly, as regards the Internet, I think he may actually be expressing
correctly what the ultimate response may, regrettably, have to be, ie some
restriction on what may be said, but maybe not necessarily presenting it from
the best starting point. If put forward on purely legalistic base, ie as a
means of extending the letter of the present law, dry and dusty as it is, as
that applies to the world now, that would be a nonsense, as the world has
changed too much to try to fit what is now, into what was then. That would be
merely a lawyer’s reactionary response, seeking to perpetuate the status quo
in a changed world. That has always been doomed to failure..

The real problem we will face relates to the increase in mass web
participation, something that is bound to occur.

While many blogs, such as the Racoonery etc, are havens of reasonable
respectability, and its commentators seem sensible – subject to the caveats
mentioned above – they are a minority sport, one that will probably become
more so as the number of idiots abroad on the net grows exponentially. One
only has to look at the Daily Mail & Guardian sites, and the more populist
political bloggers, to see how they attract the loons and quines from both
ends of the political spectrum, with poured out wrath and hatred on a varied
range of subjects from, one one side, the nasty HRA imposed on us by the EU –
wrong (don’t get me started on this, as I can bore anyone to death on it) –
to, on the other, the nasty Tory cuts imposed on the Health Service – wrong
again, as Labour’s plans were to do the same. But they are not likely to be
the real problem either, while they remain as they are, with some degree of
moderation, both internal and in response to the public.

The real issue will lie in the growth of the more extreme rantings, and the
effect that those start to have on those migrating to the web who, contrary to
the description I gave above of present incumbents, have limited knowledge and
sense, who are normally not in such positions of power or responsibility that
give them the opportunity understand what is good, bad, practical and
consequential, are more credulous about whatever is shoved in front of them,
and cannot understand (or maybe even do but are as malevolent as positively
promote such), how their participation and furtherance of ideology may impact
the world in real terms, and lead to power structures and regimes that will
give practical expession to their logical consequences, ultimately causing
individuals or other groups direct personal harm.

Small groups always have, and will continue to, do a certain amount of real
damage, but – ignoring weapons potential – they will remain limited. But what
might conceivably happen though, if the idealistic descendents of Herr
Shicklgruber, Joseph Vissarionovich, or Pol Pot started to make some real
impact on the net, and attract tens, even hundreds of thousands of followers,
far more than today? Their expressed ideologies are merely their opinions too,
aren’t they? My in-laws lived in China through the revolution, and it’s not
merely some nice, hypothetical, intellectual game played out on paper. Mass
impact really will matter.

We see now how opinion is influenced. Presently, the UK press is awash with
its efforts to try to toss all the blame for the fate of that poor nurse back
on those awful Australians. Twitter is full of the unthinking hatred and
malice that comes from those who have bought into that. Worse, on top of it
all, the press is playing the double game of highlighting the worst of that,
drip feeding it to the crowd – that same crowd which earlier this week, in
their own pages, was crying out for the defenestration of the hospital and the
nurses – shamelessly saying that maybe old Leveson has a point when it comes
to the net, thus furthering their own interests in its control

But leaving aside exactly who does it for why, the bottom line is that some
perimeter has to be drawn. You don’t have to be left wing to believe that.
There just can’t be a free for all. If we had never ever had restrictions on
what might be said, and consequently no-one necessarily believed anything that
anyone else said without first exercising some reasonably informed thought,
fine, there could be. But it’s just not like that. We all know enough history,
or have otherwise seen for ourselves, evil, and its ideas, triumph, even where
good men and women try to do something. Taking no responsibility, and doing
nothing, as opposed to doing something, however imperfect, is not a tenable
position. Libertarianism is fine, and by far and away the hardest option to
exercise when dealing with others, as one often has to really grit one’s teeth
to defend and maintain the freedoms of those you don’t necessarily like,
either as people, or for what they do. But I don’t believe you, nor any of the
rest of us, wouldn’t draw any lines anywhere. So where would they be?

Or would you maybe not, and take the risk of letting everyone go to Elena
‘andcart.?

(Apologies for length – Being concisely, precisely, comprehensive is not
yet a skill I have mastered)

Anna
Raccoon December 9, 2012 at 06:32

*Sighs with pleasure* – so early in the morning too…..

“While many blogs, such as the Racoonery etc, are havens of reasonable
respectability, and its commentators seem sensible”

Thank you for that Ho Hum, and thank you for a magnificent and erudite
contribution. No need to apologise for length, no complaints from Ms
Raccoon!

You are absolutely right, I think, and many will agree with you.

Saul December 9, 2012 at 10:42

You had me at “Anna”

Observor December 9, 2012 at 12:16

I presume Ho Hum you have a very good reason for using that name
(assuming it’s not you real one).

Re: my post below : anyone who thinks anonymously authored blogs are the
work of conspiracy theorists and involve a NWO/Nigerian Obama/Rothschild etc
etc, just haven’t yet been attacked relentlessly.
They haven’t been
targeted and what Leveson said was correct :it is a daily, weekly, yearly
never ending and merciless attack. It’s like everyone in the Village getting
a Poison Pen Letter devoted to you…with enough information to confirm they
know you intimately…but with the truth twisted enough to cause doubt…- every
day of the week, with them stuck up in every shop window , day after day,
week after week , month after month.

Those who criticize Lord Leveson’s comments tell me this : why should
anyone have to suffer like that ?. Why?.

Mewsical December 9, 2012 at 01:51

Twitter has this ‘shoot first ask questions later’ air to it that doesn’t
attract me, though I did sign up when they first came on line. I also don’t
care for the 140 characters limit, unless that’s changed. Facebook is better
in that regard.

It looks as if the legal issue has reared its lovely head vis a vis the
prank. The advertisers on the Oz radio station/network are pulling out in
droves, so the corporation has canceled all adverts, the two morons are off
the air, the chairman is appearing with his shirt collar sticking out bleating
disclaimers, but refusing to fire these losers. Maybe he’s hoping they’ll
quit. They should. And never be heard from again.

Engineer December 8, 2012 at 22:48

Perhaps there’s still an element of ‘new toy’ about Twitter. All the
kiddies are playing with it, and some haven’t really learnt the rules yet.
Some will find out the hard way that if you publicly defame someone, you’ll
pay a price, just as you would with any other form of publishing. Use it
sensibly, and it’ll be a useful communication tool. Given time, it’ll settle
down; the idiots will find another new toy to play with. Also, there will be a
gradual learning process as people are prosecuted for going too far It’s
rather hard to see it can be regulated anyway (apart from the drastic step of
banning it completely, which I can’t see any government with any pretence to
anything other than totalitarianism contemplating). Those in authority will
learn, too. The Nottingham Airport prosecution was a shot in the foot by the
judicial system, so they (hopefully) won’t go that far again. As with so many
new things, it’ll all settle down in time.

Mewsical December 8, 2012 at 21:21

This wasn’t funny because it just wasn’t funny. You can’t compare this
ham-fisted amateur attempt at humor with skilled shows like Candid Camera, who
wouldn’t have thought to call a hospital to find out the condition of a
patient, at the expense of the nursing staff. That’s what was really stupid
and not remotely amusing. What were we supposed to laugh at, exactly? The
awful screeching imitation of the Queen? The ridiculous attempt to sound like
Prince Charles? It was B-grade, kindergarten humor at best.

Dave K December 8, 2012 at 21:14

For those who appear to lack a sense of humour, have you not heard of the
programme Fonehacker? The guy who does that has no doubt made a fortune from
doing just the same as the Aussies. Yes it looks that on the surface to have
gone wrong, but that seems purely circumstantial at present. Can you not
remember the advert where a spouse rings her other half and it distracts him
whereupon he crashes the car, should she suffer the full force of the Twitter
law?

Prank shows have been popular for decades, Candid Camera, Game for a Laugh
and numerous shows around the world including outrageous Japanese ones.
Speculation as to why the poor lady died does no good, but unfortunately the
headlines will be remembered and used for ill purposes, as most things
nowadays.

Engineer December 8, 2012 at 22:35

I think it was ‘Fonejacker’, but whatever…this, Candid Camera and the
others you mentioned were prerecorded, and before being broadcast, the
‘victims’ were contacted and asked if they minded the clip, or edited clip,
being broadcast. As I understand it, the Aussie prank gave the ‘victims’ no
such courtesy.

True, such programmes, or such techniquies used as part of comedy
programmes, have been about for a long time. When done with some care, it
can be amusing, but when it just makes a complete fool of the ‘victim’ it
ceases to be funny and just becomes cringe-making bullying. As is the case
with all ‘entertainment’, intelligent and sensitive people can do it well,
but too many copy-cat morons with little sensitivity for their ‘victims’
devalue it as entertainment.

Alan December 10, 2012 at 11:37

For me the much bigger issue than it being a prank is what they learned
by doing it and what they did afterwards. To use an analogy if Beadle’s
About happened to record a crime should they have broadcast it?

Mewsical December 8, 2012 at 19:50

I wonder if she left a note of explanation. Btw, I’ve only heard the call
which involved both nurses, not just Jacintha, who simply put the call through
to the ward. I was also given the impression that she was simply passing by
the switchboard and happened to see the incoming call, not that she was parked
by the phone. Her involvement was very brief.

cascadian December 8, 2012 at 19:32

The Leveson report is playing out like “The Life of Brian”, a monumental
farce premised on wrong assumptions. Our Brian has only recently realised this
and is scrambling to save whatever reputation he can.

Perhaps because the terms of reference were too narrow, the focus was on
journalistic use of cel-phones and email ignoring twitter, facebook and secure
email provided for cabinet members, predictably nothing useful was achieved
beyond calls of further restrictions of the public to interact freely and
lawfully. Any unlawful behaviour by journalists can already be dealt with by
current law, this has been ignored, there is NO reason to enact further
restriction.

The fact that the camoron and most members of parliament use twitter is
reason enough for me to avoid it, its use demonstrably reduces clear
thoughtful communication and exposes one to the inane yammerings of people who
I wish to avoid.

The tragic circumstances of Jacinta Saldanha’s death about which we know
next-to-nothing are sobering, a family has been destroyed for the fleeting
amusement of morons. How ridiculous is it that part of Leveson’s enquiry dealt
with the oh-so-special privacy of a third-rate comedian similar to the
Australian “jokers”?

JuliaM December
9, 2012 at 08:13

“The fact that the camoron and most members of parliament use twitter
is reason enough for me to avoid it, its use demonstrably reduces clear
thoughtful communication …”

Ah, no, actually. It’s just the medium. If you are a thoughtful, incisive
person on your blog, you’ll be one on Twitter too. If you aren’t, well…

cascadian
December 9, 2012 at 19:21

Agreed, however the overwhelming evidence supports my contention.

Observor December 9, 2012 at 12:20

No.. Lord Leveson made one very important point and recommendation : that
the general public have access to a libel tribunal which the tabloids would
have to take notice of or face huge fines. He is asking for one area of the
law that can only be accessed by the rich to be available for all.

How can anyone criticise that ?. Unless you are an editor of The Sun,
Daily Mail, etc etc.

cascadian
December 9, 2012 at 19:18

Are you saying “the general public” (for want of a better term, lets
just call them plebs) have now been given permission by the great high
lord to sue for libel? (Nah, can’t be, they always had that right.) How
wonderful of him, and who do you suppose funds this tribunal? At a guess,
I would say the plebs, unless of course Lord Leveson and his colleagues
suddenly find a conscience and decide to do a good deal of pro-bono
work.

And so, I rather think I will continue criticising Leveson, even though
I am not an editor of the Guardian or Daily Mirror etc, etc.

I love the
BBC December 9, 2012 at 20:19

I really think you need to check up on what Leveson’s proposals
really are cascadian. That would explain the funding.

And my understanding is the majority of the press are saying they
actually rather liked that part of the deal, and are willing to finance
it.. Criticism of the proposals for the sake of it is just silly isn’t
it?

cascadian
December 10, 2012 at 00:35

Well I have skimmed the executive summary, http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/11/29/leveson-report-executive-summary-in-full

It seems to me that the industry are paying by way of “membership”
(Summary of recomendations, para 6.) which is a cost that will be
passed onto the newspaper subscribers, hence the plebs pay (again).
The arbitration service (para 22) makes the point that the service
should be quick and inexpensive, Levesons colleagues are not well
known for being either, so I have no faith in such bromides.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

If the press “rather like” decreased revenues, who am I to
complain, it’s their business.

I criticise Leveson because further oversight of free speech is the
thin end of the wedge.

My criticism is well-founded, there are codes of practice and laws
in place to deal with the egregious actions of some journalists, why
have the National Union of Journalists not sanctioned members and why
have the legal community that have their panties in a bunch not
proposed to represent “the victims” pro-bono?

Observor
December 9, 2012 at 23:30

even plebs have rights.

cascadian
December 10, 2012 at 00:40

Speaking as a fully signed up pleb, I agree.

I do not rely on Leveson and his colleagues who have made the
lawyering business in Britain so infernally expensive to pretend that
a low cost alternative can be implemented.

I love the BBC
December 8, 2012 at 18:32

No she was not young, and no-one on the left wing is ‘wallowing’ in her
death either. I find that a rather silly claim.
I am also of the opinion
that the prank phone call was directly responsible for her death. Or to be
exact, the subsequent media coverage it received, with her voice – not the
other woman who actually spoke to them – being played on a loop on every TV
and radio station. She was humiliated. I also don’t think it is at all
surprising or out of the ordinary for a nurse to answer a phone in the middle
of the night.

Anna
Raccoon December 8, 2012 at 18:40

I am also of the opinion that the prank phone call was directly
responsible for her death

Are you not willing to wait for the autopsy?

JuliaM December 9, 2012 at 08:11

Waiting for official confirmation of cause of death is sooo last
year, dahling!

Humble
Observer December 9, 2012 at
10:57

“…and no-one on the left wing is ‘wallowing’ in her death …” It
sounds like you’re a spokesperson for ‘the left’.

Do you still love the BBC? – given that it was at the forefront of
“…the subsequent media coverage it received…being played on a loop on
every TV and radio station”.

I love the
BBC December 9, 2012 at 20:15

No I’m not waiting for the autopsy.
I don’t believe in coincidence
as a driving force in the Universe Anna, that’s why.

Mewsical December 8, 2012 at 18:12

Living in Bristol does present some commuting problems, even with
high-speed trains. I’d imagine her schedule probably allowed for a couple of
days off here and there to return home, but otherwise she was living in
accommodations provided for the nursing staff on Weymouth Street. Perhaps she
might have been having some family problems, but that would be purely
speculative. As Jonathan says, more will be revealed.

Lord Glenarthur wrote a letter to the Chairman of the corporation that owns
the radio station, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/full-text-of-letter-from-king-edward-vii-hospital-chairman-lord-glenarthur-to-2day-fm-parent-company-southern-cross-austereo-8395651.html
– not sure what he expects from them, but dismissal of the culprits springs to
mind.

Robert Edwards
December 8, 2012 at 17:44

I agree that the ‘practical joke’ was a singularly witless undertaking, but
apparently Australian radio thrives on this sort of crap. I am told (but do
not know) that the audience pool is so small that constant efforts are made to
‘shock’ in order to create ripples and be whatever the Ockers mean by ‘edgy’.
Australia doesn’t seem to get ‘edgy’ as a culture (and I’m not sure I do,
either) and, with one or two exceptions, they don’t get humour or irony
either, unless Aussie rules football qualifies.

If advertisement revenue was the object of this silly and squalid little
exercise then it must qualify as an epic exploding cigar, which fact, although
nicely symmetrical, does not balance sufficiently with the unhappy outcome. I
dislike practical jokes at the best of times, as I have seen far too many of
them go wrong; (see: New Labour) but I feel sure that this poor woman must
have had other, weightier matters on her mind if she did what she was reported
to have done. And even that, at this juncture, is supposition.

So, over-reaction? Certainly. Predictable over-reaction? Utterly. “Give me
half the facts: I want to make a quick decision…”, etc. Worth regulating? Of
course not; taste and decency should cause this practice to cease under its
own momentum without any assistance from zealous nutters, thank you very much.
Given the architecture of t’interweb it would require a global pierce of
legislation, which is beyond the means of even the most dedicated of the
twatterati…

PH December 8, 2012 at 17:25

“but then left to work in the private sector”

So?

What an ugly sneer. Would her suicide be more tragic if she was working in
a state hospital?

Makes the rest of your piece irrelevant.

Mewsical December 8, 2012 at 17:48

It’s not a sneer, it’s an observation. KE7 also accommodates army
personnel (retired) through grants. The fact that it is a private hospital
doesn’t denigrate this nurse in any way. In fact, because I do know the
former matron, I can assure you that these nurses work to a very high
standard. It indicates that Jacintha was above average in her nursing
skills. What happened we may never know, but if anyone thinks that a prank
phone call caused this situation, I think it exacerbated something else that
was going on in her life. It’s very sad and I feel sorry for her family in
Bristol.

Mina Field
December 8, 2012 at 17:51

I too feel uncomfortable about that part of the piece. Again,’chose to
work miles away’ contains implicit criticism. As Mewsical says, she was not
a ‘young girl’ either.

Anna
Raccoon December 8, 2012 at
18:36

Mina, the phrase was either though choice or economic circumstances.
Dont’ quote just the ‘chose to work miles away’in isolation.

Mina Field
December 8, 2012 at 18:54

Anna, I just don’t understand the relevance of her
working/accommodation arrangements or whether she was NHS employed or
otherwise. If yours had been a sympathetic piece about how her anquish
may well have been heightened through being away from home, then it may
be relevant, but it wasn’t, and I apologise again because I usually
enjoy your writing.

Anna
Raccoon December 8, 2012 at 18:34

Would her suicide be more tragic if she was working in a state
hospital?

Neither more nor less.

However, the left wing are normally climbing all over anybody who trains
in the NHS and then works in private hospitals – on this occasion she has
become their heroine.

If you were a more regular reader you would be aware that I thoroughly
support the private sector and a mixed private/public NHS.

Mewsical December 8, 2012 at 17:23

Jacintha was 46 years old, btw. Here’s a photo that some Hollywood blogger
came up with. http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/12/08/jacintha-saldanha-pic-kate-middleton-nurse-commits-suicide/

There has to have been some other factors involved with her life, besides
this mindless prank by two bone-heads who think this sort of childish behavior
is somehow amusing – to whom exactly, I wouldn’t know. Do they deserve to be
fired because this daft thing went sideways? No. No damage was done, the other
nurse, who was really responsible for coughing up the information, such as it
was, was more culpable, but she’s not overreacting in any way. It was
certainly not funny in any respect. They have to live with the consequences of
their stupidity, and that should be punishment enough.

The DJs themselves have said, before they were probably told to go home,
that they were very surprised that they got as far as they did with the awful
accents, let alone the Queen doesn’t a) place her own telephone calls unless
to family and friends, certainly not to a hospital, and b) calls the Duchess
“Katherine.” P Charles actually made a joke out of it himself, before Jacintha
died, so nobody was really too bothered.

A friend of the family used to be matron at KE7, I did some carol singing
there over Christmas. My mother died there. It’s not a very large hospital.
The fact that Jacintha was picking up phones at 5:30 am, indicates that they
need to make sure that the phones are forwarded to a ward, imo, or get an
answering service who can ring through to the hospital if necessary. And,
honestly, wouldn’t anyone in their right mind be suspicious of THE QUEEN
calling at 5:30 am?

Jonathan Mason
December 8, 2012 at 17:47

Yes, if there is no night shift phone operator on duty, which might not
be necessary in a small hospital with no emergency department, then calls
are usually routed to the extension of the senior nurse on duty, who will
have been trained in the relevant hospital policies.

There are not many calls during the night and calls that come during the
night and early morning are often from staff who are going to be out sick
that day, or possibly just checking on their schedule before going to bed
(or families of staff working on the night shift calling to ask them
something, or off-duty members of the night shift calling to speak to
coworkers).

However, this forwarding of calls from the switchboard to the relevant
person would be a standard procedure because it is essential to make sure
that whomever receives the calls and forwards them is aware of the
hospital’s policies on receiving outside calls, identifying callers,
preserving patient confidentiality, and so on. The KE7 hospital is quite
used to hosting patients with high profiles who have confidentiality
needs–for example the Duke of Edinburgh was recently a patient there–and
would have strict policies in place and ensure that employees were trained
to know them.

It is all a bit of a mystery, but no doubt more will be revealed.

ivan December 8, 2012 at 14:55

Leveson is just like all politicians, he and them do not understand the
internet. Since it was designed and built to be resilient to a couple of
nations throwing atomic bombs about, his wanting to regulate it, and free
speech, isn’t going to work – no matter how much he, and the government,
splutter.

Bill
Sticker December 8, 2012 at 15:18

Agreed. The politicians would have to build a completely new, totally
controllable structure with all their ‘safeguards’ built in before tearing
the current Internet down, globally. TCP/IP would have to be replaced as a
networking protocol for something newer yet slower and more difficult to
administer.

Observor December 9, 2012 at 12:21

Incorrect. Any government or consortium of governments can control the
internet.

The greatest lie perpetuated is that the Internet is free.

m.barnes December 8, 2012 at 14:44

Sorry Anna, I believe your antipathy to Leveson and lynch mobs generally is
skewing your view. I too dislike lynch mobs and have no truck with them.
Hounding the DJ’s actually repeats their offense. The ‘prank’ was witless and
careless and showed no regard for the people who got between the DJ’s and
their target only for it’s legality. The DJ’s and their radio station were
delighted with the publicity it got them. Whether it was a nurse or a
receptionist or a janitor who took that call really doesn’t matter. I
absolutely hate practical jokes. They are borderline bullying and only funny
to the people committing them. And the worst part of them, the really horrid
part, is that if you are on the receving end of a practical joke you are
expected, once you’ve been allowed into the joke that is, to say how funny it
all was. And if you don’t say how funny it all was, well then you have no
sense of humour, take yourself too seriously – I mean sheesh it was only a
joke!
Maybe this poor woman had other things going on, maybe not. Frankly I
think she and her family have suffered enough of an invasion of privacy so I
don’t want to know really. Did the DJ’s think this would happen – of course
not. But terrible things happen because of careless actions. Say I shove
someone, expecting them to stumble and fall in a funny way but they fall
badly, hit their head and die a few days later from it. My intention was
benign, the result terrible. Should I be punished for my careless act, well
yes. Punished as though I were a murderer who had plotted it all – no.Those
calling for the heads of those stupid, witless, selfish DJ’s are wrong but so
is excusing what they did by saying they couldn’t have expected the nurse to
commit suicide. Did they think no-one would feel bad at all?
And as a wee
sidebar, this womans family and their neighbours will undoubtedly come under
enormous investigatory scrutiny by any number of media outlets and bloggers,
each with their own axe to grind. I seriously doubt its helping.
I bloody
hate practical jokes.

Edna Fletcher
December 8, 2012 at 14:55

I agree with you on this. Amusement at the expense of those who cannot
defend themselves or are innocent is not funny in the least. It is one thing
for us to make light of the establishment and state apparatchik, who will
‘eat us for breakfast’, but quite another to ‘dupe’ someone who cannot
respond to the joke,because ‘they don’t get it’.

Anna
Raccoon December 8, 2012 at 14:56

Surprisingly, m.barnes, I agree with your view on practical jokes – my
intention was to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Twitter crowd who howled
like stuck pigs over the Robin Hood joke fiasco, but have now turned all
pious and puritanical over this ‘joke’.

m.barnes
December 8, 2012 at 21:26

And I agree with you that the twitstorm was a) predictable and b) OTT,
self-righteous and downrigtht nasty. Lynch mobs always are. I despise
lynch mobs – populated by cowards.

I thought the Robin Hood prosecution was ludicrous. I intensly disliked
this prank even before it turned tragic. I use a nom-de-plume cos the
internet is full of insane muppets with too much time on their hands. It
was a little accidental really. I saw a load of comments on a Torygraph
story that were just too precious, bashed off a response and so M. Barnes
(couldn’t hit the side of one etc) was born. Not nearly as inventive as
other nom de plume, ho hum. So all my cards are out there. I never type
anything I wouldn’t say in person – up to and including industrial
strength language. I like reading things I don’t necessarily agree with
because it makes me think and at least justify or recognise my vanities.
Okay, like might be putting it a bit strong….. I make a point of blah
blah. And I tweet… or is that twit?
So I am all the things in your
article except the lynch mob!
I hope I can still order at the bar? I have some really good cocktail
recipes and I do love your blog.

ps I am happy to say that the people that follow me and whom I follow
were NOT part of the twitmob.

Bill
Sticker December 8, 2012 at 15:14

I too dislike ‘practical jokes’, because they are rarely funny, mostly
performed by the witless, and often serve no worthwhile purpose. Why
regulate what should be treated to no more than a sarcastic rolling of the
eyes?

As for the deceased lady, we’re told ‘suicide’ but do not yet know the
full story. On the other hand, I have a nasty suspicious mind regarding
knee-jerk calls for regulation, and I’m thinking ‘bait and
switch’.

Engineer December 8, 2012 at 16:00

Here’s another one agreeing with you, m.barnes. Working in an environment
in which ‘practical jokes’ and aggravated piss-taking is not discouraged can
be a very miserable experience. Banter and general japes may be acceptable
among a close-knit group who know each other well enough to shrug it off,
but that’s about the limit.

For an unsuspecting nurse, not trained in the ways of ‘the media’, to
make a mistake over the care and confidentiality of one of her patients must
have been horrible for her, but to hear it broadcast repeatedly, and with
glee, over the airwaves on every news bulletin must have been truly awful. I
note the BBC ceased broadcasting the clip and played a very straight bat
after the news of her demise broke; it is a great pity that they didn’t play
a straighter bat before the event. I’m sure the BBC’s (and other
broadcaster’s) actions played a part in the poor nurses state of mind. I
think they deserve censure, too.

As for the Australian DJs – well, let’s just hope these events will
hasten their growing up a bit.

Chris Squire
December 8, 2012 at 13:54

Here’s a link to the prank call: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20610197

alan December 8, 2012 at 14:41

Nope, the audio has been removed. The UK scumedia appear to have a self
imposed D notice.

The full audio of the hoax can be found here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDp6h_3Z0UA

Chris Squire
December 8, 2012 at 19:51

Thanks for the correct link; I note that this version has only
attracted 500 views so far.

Chris Squire
December 8, 2012 at 13:51

According to one account I read J was the solitary night nurse. The call,
intended as an innocent prank which obviously could succeed, came at 5.30 am
through to her automatically as there was no receptionist. She was caught
unprepared, suspected nothing and took the call at face value. No harm was
done by the call itself to anyone.

Using phoney phone calls is a routine tactic for tabloid journalists – even
the Guardian resorted to a fake fax on one occasion when they were fighting
Jonathan Aitken. The hospital bosses should have realised that fake calls from
journalists were likely and had someone else on site who knew how to respond,
e.g by ringing the Palace to check while keeping the call on hold.

Better to make no public comment on J’s very sad death until we read what
is said at the inquest, I suggest.

Chris Squire
December 8, 2012 at 19:50

It seems from C4 News this evening that I am wrong: J was on the
switchboard but the conversation about the DofC was with the duty nurse. So
it was not in fact J who disclosed the confidential information. Her mistake
in putting the caller through is real enough but it is small compared to the
mistakes, ‘adverse events’ as they are known, that happen in health care all
the time, some of which she must have made herself as an experienced nurse.
Her identity was unknown to the outside world until her death.

Jonathan
Mason December 8, 2012 at 23:28

There is something very odd about the phone call. I have listened to it
a few times.

The female caller does not identify herself as the Queen. She just asks
to speak to her grand-daughter “Kate” and immediately the woman who
answers the phone says “just one moment” and transfers the call to the
Duchess’s room without asking for further identification. Now there may
not have been many patients in the hospital but how did she know that Kate
Middleton was the woman’s grand-daughter, bearing in mind that Kate
Middleton is not actually the Queen’s grand-daughter. There might have
been an employee or another patient who also went by the name of “Kate”.
At least one would normally make some kind of check to verify before
forwarding the call.

Now the nurse who picked up the call might have called the nurse in
Kate Middleton’s room said something like “There is a woman on the line
asking for her grand-daughter Kate. I think it’s the Queen” and then put
the call through to the room. However the odd thing is that the second
nurse did not ask for any form of identification EITHER before she started
giving out information.

I wonder if there was not an earlier call made from the radio station
by someone sounding official, saying something like “HM the Queen will be
calling for an update on Kate Middleton in about fifteen minutes” so that
the nurses at the hospital were already primed to expect a call from the
Queen, sitting by the phone expecting the call, and therefore didn’t check
her identity in the normal manner. It’s just a hunch, but it would explain
a lot.

Mewsical
December 8, 2012 at 23:57

Let’s not forget this was at 5:30 am. I would be entirely suspicious
of any relative of anybody calling at that hour, personally. What would
the Queen, of all people, be doing making phone calls at that hour? And
that P Charles was apparently with her, when he and the D of Cornwall
live elsewhere entirely. It’s all extremely odd and someone has a lot of
explaining to do. A lot.

Jonathan
Mason December 9, 2012 at 02:34

Yep, just out of interest, here is the transcript of the first part
of the call:

Partial transcript of call

Christian: Let’s give this hospital a call and see if we can get
Kate Middleton or maybe even Prince Wills on the phone tonight. So the
number is going in … oh Jeez, I hope this happens.

(PHONE RINGS)

Receptionist: Hello, good morning, King Edward VII Hospital.

Greig (Queen voice): Oh hello there, could I please speak to Kate
please, my granddaughter.

Receptionist: Oh yes, just hold on ma’am.

Greig: Thank you.

End of transcript.

Now since the Queen is not the grandmother of Kate Middleton, how
did the “receptionist” instantly make this leap and put the call
through?

Anna
Raccoon December 9, 2012 at
06:36

Well thought out Jonathan, an earlier phone call, perhaps saying ‘the
call may be recorded’ – for security perhaps? It would explain why the
Australian lawyers were prepared to let it be broadcast, I had been
wondering why they were ignoring that requirement under Australian law,
but your theory of two calls could explain that.

You and Ho Hum are excelling yourselves today – there’s an extra pint
behind the bar for both of you.

Jonathan
Mason December 9, 2012 at 13:57

Thanks for the kind words. Mine is a St. Clemens (orange juice and
lemonade).
y
Yes, although permission to record would not equate
with permission to broadcast. However the pre-call could explain why
J. felt so bad, if she had accepted the first call, prepped the second
nurse, then dumped her in the “merde” as I think it is known in France
(here in the Dominican Republic “mierde”.)

Also note in the transcript of the call the pranker does NOT
initially identify herself as the Queen, but merely as the grandmother
of someone called Kate. (As I already pointed out, the Queen is not
the grandmother of Katherine Middleton Windsor.)

I don’t think she asks for any patient information about Kate
Middleton either, which might be a potential legal defense against
obtaining medical information by deception. When she speaks to the
nurse at the nurse’s station she just says that she is calling about
her “grand-daughter Kate” and her “tummy bug”, though later in the
call she does state that “I am the Queen”, which might be a legal
offense in itself.

I find it hard to believe that neither obtaining medical
information by false representation, nor impersonating the Queen are
legal offenses in the UK, though maybe they are not extraditable
between Australia and the UK.

A point made in some comments on the case elsewhere point to the
problems inherent in employing nurses for whom English is a second
language, as they may miss some of the nuances that native speakers
would catch. However, it is likely that foreign-born nurses may be
preferred as they fall outside the English class system (always a
consideration in a place like KE7 that serves royalty and aristocrats)
and they probably work for less money too. I should add that I had
Filippino nurses working for me in the US, and their job performance
was generally better than that of American-born employees–for example
they were rarely distracted by personal phone calls while at work,
didn’t smoke, etc.

Ho Hum December 8, 2012 at 12:49

FWIW, on the Paul Chambers/Robin Hood case, the real problem was neither
the handling by the airport staff, or that of the police. It was apparently
the CPS who decided to pursued the matter, and who continued to pursue through
Magistrates Court, an Appeal at Crown Court and twice through subsequent
appeals at the High Court

JuliaM December
8, 2012 at 17:53

And wasn’t Kier Starmer personally responsible for that?

Ted Treen
December 8, 2012 at 23:57

Yes: another not fit for purpose!

Ho Hum December 8, 2012 at 12:41

‘Remember that the ‘murdered Millie Dowler’s phone hacked’ story was
eventually admitted to be untrue by the Guardian’

Millie Dowler’s phone WAS hacked. What the Guardian got wrong was who
deleted some of the messages and they expressed regret for their error.

To quote Leveson, he stated “that the essential gravamen of the Guardian’s
original story, namely that Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked by or on the
instructions of journalists employed by the NoW, was correct, and is now the
subject of criminal charges”.

Edna Fletcher
December 8, 2012 at 12:31

The judges of the @twitterati court love martyrs to maintain their upper
hand on the plebs, no doubt many of our ministers are helpful in this
respect.

Jonathan Mason
December 8, 2012 at 12:26

Politically correct as the UK has become, it is still surprising that in
these days of Data Privacy, etc. apparently it has no law against obtaining or
attempting to obtain confidential medical information by false pretences.
Guardian reports this morning that executives of the radio station say no laws
were broken, and presumably this information comes from their lawyers.

I agree we don’t have the whole story on Saldanha and what may have been
her suicide. Why indeed was a nurse operating the switchboard at 5:30 a.m.
Nurses are highly trained technicians and are paid at a higher rate than
receptionists. Is it possible that she had already been reassigned to a non
clinical position, because of some issue of discipline or competency to
practice? I am sure that more news will come out over the next few days that
may change perspectives on the whole story.

Anna
Raccoon December 8, 2012 at 12:33

I am sure that more news will come out over the next few days that
may change perspectives on the whole story.

So am I Jonathan – but by then opinions will have hardened, and the
clamour for more regulation will have grown louder. Remember that the
‘murdered Millie Dowler’s phone hacked’ story was eventually admitted to be
untrue by the Guardian – but by then we had Leveson on the strength of
it…..

Observor
December 10, 2012 at 05:44

I’m not so sure it was found to be untrue but rather not proved. The
Guardian did however apologise correctly and point out their error in a
prompt position, unlike the hysterical Daily Mail.

Jonathan Mason
December 8, 2012 at 12:42

Of course the other issue is that surely the hospital must have been very
well prepared for an onslaught of media and paparazzi attention due to the
presence of the celebrity patient. It is hardly conceivable that management
will not have been expecting calls from all and sundry seeking information
about the Duchess. In such situations the usual practice is for hospitals to
give the authenticated family members a secret code or PIN number to prove
their bona fides. It is not unusual at all in hospitals for callers who are
NOT authorized to seek information by phone, as even information as to
whether a person is in the hospital may be of value. (For example the
husband of a battered wife might want to know if she is still in the
hospital.)

You just don’t tell your switchboard operators: “If her Maj. calls, just
put her straight through to the ward.”

You just don’t, and this is coming from a retired hospital manager.

Humble
Observer December 8, 2012 at 13:10

Very well put Jonathan.

With regards to the ‘prank call’, did the Aussies expect to be
immediately rumbled & told to: ‘ha ha nice try, now bugger off you
cheeky scallywags’ or did they genuinely expect to be successful. If the
latter, perhaps they could claim as a defence that they were doing it with
the honourable intention of highlighting geuine security concerns…

PS: No, I haven’t heard the ‘prank call’, so I’m not (I hope) passing
judgement, just thinking allowed (sic).

GildasTheMonk
December 8, 2012 at 12:10

A fine piece, Anna. As for the sad death of this poor lady, it is a matter
upon which I have pondered, and i see your point. What was intended as a stunt
or a prank may well have had disastrous consequences – but we dont know what
other factors may have been in play. I would suspect that tipped the poor lady
over the brink – who can say? But I can’t say my own life has not in younger
days been entirely free from larks and pranks and general silliness, all
intended in good part. But the law of unintended consequences is
immutable.
Much more important is your blast at Leveson. Spot on. So the
State appoints a judge – an employee of the State – to make recommendations
about the Press. The judge recommends – more laws. What a surprise! Couched in
such reasonable terms…Not so much smashing down the door opens the way to a
State approved Press, more like just picking the lock and leaving the door
invitingly open…
The Wild West was a lawless place, but for all that it was
a free place!

Joe Public
December 8, 2012 at 12:36

Seconded

JuliaM December 8, 2012 at 17:52

Thirded !

Frankie
December 8, 2012 at 18:26

Fourthed!!

Ancient +
Tattered Airman December 8, 2012 at
19:23

Fifthed!

Belsay Bugle
December 8, 2012 at 11:47

All spot on!
Brian has shown his hand because he knows it will make no
difference. Gove was right to doubt his commitment to free
speech.
Meanwhile the Marxist takeover of the west rolls on apace, just as
Gramsci predicted, aided and abetted by all the useful idiots, like Dave C and
his crew.
The remaining pockets of opposition are being mopped up before
our eyes, and we still don’t get it.