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.
Ms Raccoon lives in the Monbazillac area of South West France, renowned for its fine wines and gourmet food, so she frequently finds better things to do than sit in front of a computer all morning. She is liable to take off traveling at a moment's notice. Consequently this blog only gets updated these days when it is raining - and it doesn't rain very often round here...
{ 112 comments }
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.
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!
Seconded
Thirded !
Fourthed!!
Fifthed!
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.
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…..
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.
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.
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).
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.
‘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”.
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
And wasn’t Kier Starmer personally responsible for that?
Yes: another not fit for purpose!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Here’s a link to the prank call: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20610197
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
Thanks for the correct link; I note that this version has only attracted 500 views so far.
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.
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’.
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’.
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?
I hope I can still order at the bar? I have some really good cocktail recipes and I do love your blog.
So I am all the things in your article except the lynch mob!
ps I am happy to say that the people that follow me and whom I follow were NOT part of the twitmob.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
Incorrect. Any government or consortium of governments can control the internet.
The greatest lie perpetuated is that the Internet is free.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Mina, the phrase was either though choice or economic circumstances. Dont’ quote just the ‘chose to work miles away’in isolation.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
Waiting for official confirmation of cause of death is sooo last year, dahling!
“…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”.
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.
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”?
“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…
Agreed, however the overwhelming evidence supports my contention.
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.
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 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?
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?
even plebs have rights.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
*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.
You had me at “Anna”
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?.
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).
“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….!
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
**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.
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.)
You’ve done this before, haven’t you?
Yes!
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
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.
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?
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.”..**
Indeed. They are also a potential terrorist target. Amazingly slack security. Do they want Kate to become another Diana?.
“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.
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.
Well, if that is the case, then our Australian friends may still end up waltzing Matilda and camping by a billabong.
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.”
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
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
For the predecessor to Twitter and Twitterati, see Curtain Twitchers and Twitcherati.
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.
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.
@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.”
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.
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
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/
Comments on this entry are closed.