You are so busy trying to be clever you seem to misunderstand your own posts as well as everyone elses.
Rumplestiltskin says there is more to come out. You challenge it and talk about conspiracy theories when the highlighted section of your post suggests you agree with rumpelstiltskin that there is more to come out about the hospitals management decisions.

I went to Housesteads and Vindolanda 30 years ago ( this coming March ) on a school residential and they are both worth visiting.

So because he gets the impression the family haven't embraced the hospital's statement that they were supporting her, you deduce he thinks there's more to it? The family will have only seen her side of the story and subsequent reaction - a distraught woman, humiliated at what she's done and presumably terrified at hearing her voice and mistake broadcast repeatedly to the world. She was an internet user - she'll have seen the global headlines, seen social media, read the comments, etc. I'm not surprised she found it impossible to handle.

That ANYONE thinks there's "more to the story" baffles me. The entire sorry episode was played out in front of the world's media. Yes, there is a [isuspicion [/ishe may have had other mental problems but there's no evidence of that other than reaching our own conclusions. Funny how we're all suddenly psychologists.

FA's post is pretty clear. You're reading into it what you want to see. But then everyone loves a conspiracy, don't they?

The House of Windsor bumping off a nurse for putting a prank call through. Really?!! It seems a whole new level of idiotic batsh*t lunacy has emerged.

You appear to be a tad confused as to the timings. Your "World Wide storm" did not blow up until AFTER it became public knowledge that the unfortunate woman may have commited suicide. Prior to this, it was only the pursed lips Brigade who took umbrage over the Aussies p1ss take.
As there was very little, other than idle speculation, on what part she may have played in this charade, or what her possible state of mind could be, and with very little hard facts in the public domain, I would suggest, the knee jerkers have had a field day over the weekend.

I would also suggest, that had her employers taken the view that her part, in what for them was a highly embarrassing cock up, was anything other than minor, there would have been a very quick investigation, followed by the appropriate measures.

Let's be right here. If every receptionist who miss directed a phone call felt the need to throw themselves under a bus, there would be a hell of a lot of rather cold disgruntled passengers!




Indeed. Were I of a more cynical turn of mind, I might think you were the author of the more nuttier theories.....

No, I am not trying to be clever, and no, I don't misunderstand my own posts.

Whereas you, OTOH:

... clearly misunderstand the above post. Ignoring your "crazy" emoticons, which don't add a lot to the weight of your case, you fail to read the "more to come out" claim in context. Which was:

* His "first thought" about the death was, apparently, "What a stroke of luck for the hospital authorities". (Yes, that is what he says his first thought was).

* His second thought was "what reasonably normal person kills themselves over a work incident, for which their employers consider too minor.... (etc)

* And his conclusion is "there is a lot more to this to come out in the wash."

So, the death was as he sarcastically describes it, "a stroke of luck" for the hospital; in other words, the very clear implication is that it was anything BUT a stroke of luck, the suggestion he is making is, such "strokes of luck" do NOT in fact happen by chance. Next, that the nurse, who by implication he takes to probably be "reasonably normal", surely cannot have killed herself over this "minor work incident".

So, she is dead; it is "a stroke of luck", he doesn't accept she would have killed herself, and thus we have all the ingredients for some half-assed assassination conspiracy theory.

As for "more to come out", the issue was never is there or isn't there, but WHAT is likely to come out:
(a) OBVIOUSLY there is a "lot more to come out". In the sense that there will be a full inquest and everything apart from the few basic details so far released will be forensically examined. (Is that strange somehow to you?); but
(b) what is NOT going to come out is anything in support of this sort of bat loony conspiracy claptrap.

So, I was saying, and am saying, that NO such drivel as the OP alludes to is even remotely going to come out in the wash. If you'd taken the trouble to read a bit more carefully, you wouldn't have dropped such a bollock.

But when the sad facts are established at inquest, feel free to join the OP in a denouncement of the coroner as just a lackey in the establishment cover-up.

Including yourself. Apparently.

For the benefit of the easily baffled......"there's more to come out of this story"....simply means that there will be an investigation, evidence will be examined, and conclusions based on facts reached. Oh and of course, an obligatory appearance of the Management on the Hospital steps promising that lessons will be learnt, whilst deploring the very idea of a prank phone call! Although, to be fair, I do think that Hospitals should be generally off limits.

No conspiracy theories....no rabid speculation, and probably a bit of a let down for some of the more exitable posters on here.




Simple really

So we can now ignore what you said in your earlier post. Good, glad that's cleared up.

So again FA and Cronus seem to be vreating an arguement where there is none.
It is simple really Is there more to come out than we already Knoiw. YES or NO. i think YES.

did she have other problems, did management deal with it in an appropriate way, was any of the above connected to her death, did she even commit suicide. Obviously FA and Cronus know the answers to all these questions.

I dont. I think there is more to come out. But carry on having an arguement where there is one.

Odd statement that, because it was you who chose to wade in, mistakenly accusing FA of contradicting himself after he made a reasonable post.

Talk about creating an argument where none exists.



To be clear: as I've said, we actually know nothing definite about her mental state, and those who bang on "there's more to this story" or "there is a lot more to this to come out in the wash" are simply implying and hoping for some conspiracy or sordid detail they can tut and nod meaningfully, as if they're 'in the know'. I suggest you go back to 'Loose Change', seems to be more your cup of tea.

Yes, details will emerge in an investigation. Bears also sh*t in woods. But it ain't gonna be 009 with chloroform and a rope.

Not at all. Acknowledging that there is a [isuspicion [/iof mental illness is not the same as saying "I think she was mentally ill". I would guess the majority of suicides involve mental illness to some degree.

However, none of us know what her personal demons were - indeed, none of us know whether she had any personal demons prior to this event. All we know is something humiliating happened to her and a day or so later she killed herself, and statements by the hospital and the gesture of a large donation by the radio station seem to suggest a causal link.

I do find it strange that your "first thoughts on hearing about this incident was "what a stroke of luck for the Hospital Authorities!"". I'm not sure I see your warped logic, even ignoring your lack of compassion: her death escalated worldwide media focus exponentially whereas the prank call alone would have soon fizzled out following a quick investigation and a few statements acknowledging procedural errors and subsequent changes. How was it "luck"?

I think you meant, "where there is NONE". I don't suppose it crossed your mind that if there is no argument, and you agree with (e.g.) me, what are you then posting about?

It is really, [ireally[/i stupid for you to postulate that I think I know "all the answers" to your questions, it's asinine and pure misdirection. Eg I know NOTHING about "how management dealt with it", nor could I, nor have I suggested any such thing. Indeed I did comment that reports from her family suggest they are unhappy at her treatment by the hospital. (Though other reports suggest her family didn't even know of the incident's connection with her.)

But "did she even commit suicide"? Well, yes. She did. For this I rely not on any claim to personal knowledge, or presence when it happened, or clairvoyance but on the simple reported facts, which include that she is believed to have committed suicide; that she was found hanged; that she left a suicide note for her family; that her family have not made a single reported remark questioning this point; and (pay attention to this one) that the police are not treating her death as suspicious. If you don't know what that is code for, then look it up.

In the face of the bleedin' obvious, I find completely speculative suggestions that she may have been killed to be the worst sort of baseless conspiracy speculation of which so many seem to be so fond.

You seem to have turned into FA.

We know nothing about her mental state but those who bang on about their being more to this story are all some sort of conspiracy theorists is bizarre.

I dont think there is any conspiracy but there is more to this story. You say so yourself.

When we have the information then we can draw conclusions as opposed to you who says we have not got the information but there is no conspiracy.

Eerm, I think I offered up an explanation for my viewpoint in the first paragraph of that post, but as always, happy to shine a light:

[i My first thoughts on hearing about this incident was "what a stroke of luck for the Hospital Authorities!" Their apparent failure to follow long established protocols regarding access and Media intrusion to members of the Royal Family, could now be conveniently forgotten in the witch hunt fanned by a post Leveson Press, all eager to display their "lessons have been learned credentials"[/i

Reasonably concise and pretty clear I would have thought. No hint of the conspiracies so beloved by your comedic partner FA, so which part of my opinion on why this tragic event could be spun by the Hospital is causing you difficulties? You might disagree with my rather cynical logic, but at least make an attempt to read before having an attack of the vapours.

And as for compassion. Thank you, but I'll take no lectures on that subject. Life is precious. As is the health to enjoy it, and for me, any compassion I have will not be for those who commit suicide, but will be for the family and friends who are left to pick up the pieces.

Quick, turn on Channel 5. Just your cup of tea.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not "cynical logic" - it's simply not logical at all. You say that the 'post-Leveson witch-hunt' would cover up the failure to screen the call. However, whilst the call received publicity, it was a brief flash in the pan and was already yesterday's chip paper pending an internal enquiry at the hospital. The story had passed. The world had moved on. Then, as you've already acknowledged, the 'world wide sh*tstorm' exploded with news of the suicide - and the focus and scrutiny into the events and on the hospital also exploded exponentially, out of all proportion to the original event.

Far from covering up the hospital's failures, it highlighted them to the world a hundred-fold. That's not luck at all, it's the polar opposite. Your logic isn't cynical, it's completely f*cked up. What it actually is, is you looking for some form of cover-up. Unfortunately, in your haste you got your logic wrong.


Yet your "first thought" was regarding (incorrectly) a hospital cover-up, not for the family. Perhaps you were correct with your use of the word 'cynical' earlier. What a sorry mindset.

sounds like you have accepted your post was idiotic with you seeing people suggesting conspiracy theories when no one suggested it.

In your words: "I dont think there is any conspiracy but there is more to this story".

Why do I feel I need to add a 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink' at the end of that?

"I'm not racist but..."

You still have not answered the questions. Do you think there is more to this or do you know everything.
Do you know what her Mental health was ?
do you know whether management dealt with it properly?
do you know what factors led to her death. ?
If you dont then the answer is simple there is more to this.

If you do know the answer then please enlighten us. Or are you still seeing conspiracy theorists when there are none.

A word of advice when in a hole stop digging

I suspect that whilst most of us will have a fairy or star atop our Christmas tree, in the case of Cronius or FA, it'll be a sparkly straw man.

I believe details will emerge, but nothing too exciting. Yet there you go again, implying "there is more to this" with a conspiratorial wink.




No, and I believe I said precisely this in 3 posts on page 16 alone. You're banging on about something I've already acknowledged. Do you actually read before posting or are you a bit stupid?


That depends on what you deem 'proper'. They were well within their rights to discipline her, however their solicitor has already stated they were treating it as nothing more than a prank, that she was blameless and that they were not taking disciplinary action. What do you feel would have been 'proper'?


The rope round her neck was a big factor. But we do know that she was found hanged 3 days after the call, that her husband hadn't heard from her in 2 days, and that friends have said she was "terribly upset" and "traumatised by it and the media coverage".

It may have been the call alone, or the call may have been the tipping point for other issues. We just don't know. Again, I have said this several times, but I can only assume you missed all that.

However, there are fairly strong indicators out there. That the radio station have offered AUD500,000, that the hospital have all but blamed the radio station in their letter and that the husband is "furious" at the DJs would indicate they all feel there is some causal connection between the call and her death.


A word of advice - try reading posts before you try being clever.

Oh no, of course there are no conspiracy theorists...but [i"there is more to this"[/i....

Yours will be an MI6 agent with a chloroform-soaked hankie, no doubt.

At least the 'conspiratorial theorists' help to balance out the 'blame gamers'.

Perhaps it would be, if that was someone's argument. It isn't. You must know this, if you can read. As your echo Rumpelstiltskin would say, you are putting up a whopping great straw man. What excuse have you got for falsely conflating these two completely separate propositions, when the point has been explained ad nauseam?

And which "straw man", exactly, would that be then? Do you actually know what one is?

Tip: you'd look less foolish if you either addressed the points put to you, rather than play to an imaginary gallery, or if you can't deal with debate, then STFU.

Oh there is a gallery, it's not imaginary, and we rather like spats.


Encore!