Duchess of Cambridge's nurse has reportedly been found dead

arknor · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:03

Amnesia said:
She passed a phone call through.... .

yup she passed a phone call to a ward... surely the ward nurse should determine the course of action to take......

noel edmonds gotcha etc must have caused loads of people to commit suicide :rolleyes:

some people... prank call is perfectly find they happen all the time just because some unstable woman has an episode doesnt mean they are murderers or should lose their jobs.

radio people in this country do it all the time......

SteveOBHave · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:05

Nitefly said:
You didn't answer the question and you have also changed what I said.

'Really wrong' does not equate to 'is not ok'.

Ah we're going for semantics. Yes privacy was invaded. The information was harmless (not playing the hypothetical blame game). If the situation was 'not ok' then protocol would prevent the nurse from disclosing any information until such a time as William and Kate said that it was ok and that includes the family due to patient confidentiality laws. If anyone is to blame here it's the nurse that picked up the phone, not the woman that transferred the call.

Nitefly · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:07

SteveOBHave said:
Yes privacy was invaded.

I'm glad we agree.

SteveOBHave · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:10

Nitefly said:
I'm glad we agree.

No we don't. You implied that if the news were different then the situation would be much worse so hypothetically we should be condemning those involved much more. I don't agree at all. You're making ridiculous hypothetical assertions.

Nitefly · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:14

SteveOBHave said:
You implied that if the news were different then the situation would be much worse so hypothetically we should be condemning those involved much more.

No, you misunderstood what I was saying.

I said there was a disgusting breach of privacy. An individual remarked that the information was not 'life changing'. I responded by implying that it wouldn't be any worse if the information was more serious.

A breach of privacy is a breach of privacy. The content of the information is irrelevant in that regard.

SteveOBHave · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:18

Nitefly said:
No, you misunderstood what I was saying.

I said there was a disgusting breach of privacy. An individual remarked that the information was not 'life changing'. I responded by implying that it wouldn't be any worse if the information was more serious.

A breach of privacy is a breach of privacy. The content of the information is irrelevant in that regard.

So you're saying that it privacy breach is on par regardless of the content? I disagree. It's not a black and white thing. There is a whole world of difference. Would you actually suggest that the privacy breach is the same if the duchess was having a miscarriage and that was disclosed as compared to 'she's fine'?

I still don't agree.

Ahleckz · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:18

I'm still going to say that no one did anything wrong. The nurse didn't give out any information that wasn't already public knowledge. If I was in hospital, I'd be more than happy for the nurse to let people phoning know how I was. Arguably there was just cause to discover how she was.

I think if anything, it's a sad reflection of today's world that people care enough. Celebrity culture, innit blud.

Lycosa · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:20

That poor woman must have had some serious underlying problems to top herself over this, leaving her children without a mother. Afaik, she didn't even suffer any direct consequences as a result of the prank, just shame

.

Moothead2 · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:21

Nitefly said:
No, you misunderstood what I was saying.

I said there was a disgusting breach of privacy. An individual remarked that the information was not 'life changing'. I responded by implying that it wouldn't be any worse if the information was more serious.

A breach of privacy is a breach of privacy. The content of the information is irrelevant in that regard.

I believe the content dictates the severity of the breach of privacy. It's a breach of privacy sure but it's not "Disgusting" by any means in my opinion. It's like telling a distasteful joke, you can have one that people would say isn't very nice and there are others people would describe as disgusting. It all depends on the content.

Nitefly · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:24

SteveOBHave said:
Would you actually suggest that the privacy breach is the same if the duchess was having a miscarriage and that was disclosed as compared to 'she's fine'?

The former obviously has serious implications so in that regard it is more confidential.

The point I am making is that snooping through someone's drawers is just as morally dubious if you find anything juicy or not.

Moothead2 said:
I believe the content dictates the severity of the breach of privacy.

See above.

SteveOBHave · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:32

Nitefly said:
The former obviously has serious implications so in that regard it is more confidential.

The point I am making is that snooping through someone's drawers is just as morally dubious if you find anything juicy or not.

See above.

So technically you agree with me. You just don't like the privacy invasion. I'm curious - if you call this a disgusting breach of privacy, then hypothetically, what would you describe disclosure of something a bit more serious?

Nelly · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:35

I guess these two Australian DJ hoaxsters have broken no law then?

Pretending to be someone else to obtain confidential information?

SteveOBHave · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:39

Nelly said:
I guess these two Australian DJ hoaxsters have broken no law then?

Pretending to be someone else to obtain confidential information?

I believe that in Australia it is relative to the content. If there is malicious intent then yes. Otherwise no.

Edit: In the situation of lying about who you are to obtain confidential information, then yes it is potentially illegal depending on what you are going to do with that information.

Nitefly · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:43

SteveOBHave said:
So technically you agree with me. You just don't like the privacy invasion. I'm curious - if you call this a disgusting breach of privacy, then hypothetically, what would you describe disclosure of something a bit more serious?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record player, a breach of privacy is a breach of privacy.

What would change the seriousness of that breach in my eyes would be the steps taken to make that invasion and the nature (not the content) of the information that might be disclosed, found or not.

On a scale (all without permission):

Less Serious

Reading, without permission, a text message on a friend's phone from another friend.
Reading a text message on a friend's phone from their girlfriend whom you knew was upset.
Searching on a computer for naked pictures of that girlfriend.

More Serious

SteveOBHave · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:47

This is turning into a semantic muddy waters. meh.

DJMK4 · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:47

What you have to remember is the DJs intentionally used someone else's identities (or tried to) to gain access to information that should be confidential.

Now there is no harm in that right?:confused

And phoning up pretending to be the queen??? What the hell was this plan for in the first place?

Sounds pretty wrong and illegal to me

SteveOBHave · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:50

DJMK4 said:
What you have to remember is the DJs intentionally used someone else's identities (or tried to) to gain access to information that should be confidential.

Now there is no harm in that right?

Sounds pretty wrong and illegal to me

As are all character based prank calls. This is suddenly a witch hunt against two DJs because some woman that picked up the call topped herself. If that hadn't happened then no-one would care and it would've been a non event.

Nitefly · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:54

SteveOBHave said:
This is turning into a semantic muddy waters. meh.

I don't think it is at all. It's very easy to distinguish between:

[*] The steps taken to obtain disclosure e.g. pretending to be a friend of someone, deception with false documentation, hacking a computer.

[*] The nature of the information that might be revealed e.g. favourite flavour of pop-tart, naked pictures, medical information.

[*] The actual information revealed e.g. strawberry, HIV positive.

In this discussion I have been concerned with the first two categories. Pretending to be a friend of someone to discover a person's favourite flavour of pop-tart would not in anyway be serious. Hacking someone's computer to obtain medical information would be.

Biohazard · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:55

I must have heard like three versions of this, wth happened?

Nitefly · 8 Dec 2012 at 00:57

SteveOBHave said:
This is suddenly a witch hunt against two DJs because some woman that picked up the call topped herself. If that hadn't happened then no-one would care and it would've been a non event.

Just for reference, I said in my original post that they could not be blamed for her death.