young people can be very reckless... a hoax to the death

[Duncan Gibbs]

So, it seems that in some quarters it is believed that the famous are, if not wholly responsible for the nasty events that transpire around them, are at least deserving of them because of their fame.

Interesting.

Not really... I find it all particularly banal.

To say that there isn't some kind of symbiosis between the famous and the media, which is so keen to follow them, and the adoring public, that is willing to pay for information about the famous would be just plain wrong. I don't really care for any of them unless they've actually given something of merit to the society that exalts them. A few that have passed away recently - Dave Brubeck and Patrick Moore for example - are people that the public can look to for inspiration because of what they have achieved and not merely who they are. In this context I fail to see the merit of any kind of monarchical system in this day and age, including the feeding of nationalism which can lead to some really nasty action. Or in this instance misplaced grief and shame that has resulted one family's tragic loss.

The hoax originators and their management - in this specific instance - should, and most likely will shoulder the lion's share of the blame. But more broadly we should start to examine why we have this useless obsession with celebrity and how this anaesthetic nexus can be shattered.

[The Bigfella]

Not really... I find it all particularly banal.

To say that there isn't some kind of symbiosis between the famous and the media, which is so keen to follow them, and the adoring public, that is willing to pay for information about the famous would be just plain wrong. I don't really care for any of them unless they've actually given something of merit to the society that exalts them. A few that have passed away recently - Dave Brubeck and Patrick Moore for example - are people that the public can look to for inspiration because of what they have achieved and not merely who they are. In this context I fail to see the merit of any kind of monarchical system in this day and age, including the feeding of nationalism which can lead to some really nasty action. Or in this instance misplaced grief and shame that has resulted one family's tragic loss.

The hoax originators and their management - in this specific instance - should, and most likely will shoulder the lion's share of the blame. But more broadly we should start to examine why we have this useless obsession with celebrity and how this anaesthetic nexus can be shattered.

I'd be extremely cautious about saying anything like that in Thailand. You'd probably end up in gaol. They absolutely adore their King. I think its based on the desire of people in that region to have a leader that they can admire. There was an attempt by America to introduce democracy to Laos, for example... which failed miserably and its still a communist state (and I could point out plenty of failings with it btw)... and it was because what the people really wanted was a leader... not democracy.

[downthecreek]

I fail to see the merit of any kind of monarchical system in this day and age, including the feeding of nationalism which can lead to some really nasty action. Or in this instance misplaced grief and shame that has resulted one family's tragic loss.

Strangely enough, some of the least nationalistic and most socially equal nations on this earth are constitutional monarchies. And some of the most nationalistic and least equal are republics. So I think you would have a hard time finding evidence for this statement.

On the whole, I am rather in favour of a constitutional monarchy as a form of government, although I am quite sure that nations like Australia, where the attitude to the "mother country" are so ambivalent (to say the least) and where the changing demography is steadily weakening the links, can and should become republics. It is interesting, though, that so many former members of the British empire choose to remain members of the Commonwealth and also, in many cases to retain a constitutional monarchy.

Some people here have taken the opportunity to do a bit of "royal bashing" (the royal family being, of course, a favourite Aunt Sally) but, as Andrew rightly states, this is not and never has been about the royal family. Peter says it wouldn't happen to his daughter. Well, of course it wouldn't. But it might well happen to Obama's daughter, or Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's daughter (if they have one - few things interest me less than "celebs" and my celeb awareness is pretty much non existent. And, of course, being generally in favour of a constitutional monarchy most certainly doesn't equate with being interested in the personal lives of the royal gang)

But, of course, the fact that this situation arose in relation to the Duchess of Cambridge, rather than some other international celebrity, is, quite simply, irrelevant.

[seanz]

On the whole, I am rather in favour of a constitutional monarchy as a form of government, although I am quite sure that nations like Australia, where the attitude to the "mother country" are so ambivalent (to say the least) and where the changing demography is steadily weakening the links, can and should become republics. It is interesting, though, that so many former members of the British empire choose to remain members of the Commonwealth and also, in many cases to retain a constitutional monarchy.

I don't think the demography has changed that much since the referendum on the republic. I'm now in favour of a constitutional monarchy because of my deep respect for the democratic process.

[downthecreek]

I don't think the demography has changed that much since the referendum on the republic. I'm now in favour of a constitutional monarchy because of my deep respect for the democratic process.

We don't seem to hear much from NZ about republicanism. I presume there is a movement there too?

Your sentiments are well justified. Constitutional monarchs have been rather effective as defenders of democracy - both against dictatorship (e.g. Spain) and, internally, the excesses of over mighty governments and the short term politicisation of every aspect of the nation's life (e.g. Lizzie and Maggie)

[seanz]

We don't seem to hear much from NZ about republicanism. I presume there is a movement there too?

Your sentiments are well justified. Constitutional monarchs have been rather effective as defenders of democracy - both against dictatorship (e.g. Spain) and, internally, the excesses of over mighty governments and the short term politicisation of every aspect of the nation's life (e.g. Lizzie and Maggie)

Not so much. This country is still in the process of wading through the compensation process with the Waitangi Tribunal and its treaty settlements, so it's "steady as she goes". Prince Charles and Camilla Duchess of Cornwall paid a visit last month and were well received. I don't think I even heard a mention of a republic.


Just a note.....I voted in the Australian Republic referendum..... I'm not actually a Kiwi.....I just live here for the bouncy castle effect.

[PeterSibley]

I rather like the idea of a republic but only if we can find a reasonable way of choosing a head of state that in no way resembles the USA's circus !

[downthecreek]

I rather like the idea of a republic but only if we can find a reasonable way of choosing a head of state that in no way resembles the USA's circus !

Were I an Aussie I would vote Peter Sibley

[PeterSibley]

Exceptionally kind but I suspect you would be in limited company !

BF would probably vote for me though.

[downthecreek]

Just a note.....I voted in the Australian Republic referendum..... I'm not actually a Kiwi.....I just live here for the bouncy castle effect.

Well, I won't ask the obvious question.........

Republican or monarchist or somewhere in between I don't think anyone can deny that the British royals do their bit for the gaiety of nations - including the republics .................. except when something truly horrible happens as a result of their celeb status as it did this time.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The argument for a constitutional monarchy goes something like this:

1. We need a head of state who enjoys wide support.

2. Politics, as Bismarck observed, is like making sausages; you may enjoy the result but you don't want to see the process.

3. So separate the head of state from the running of the country.

The idea of separating the handshaking and ribbon cutting from the sausage making is not new - see the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan...

4. You can either elect a President and give real power to a Prime Minister (see, eg, Ireland) or you can leave the choice to the accident of birth. The latter choice works out cheaper as you save on elections, pensions, tableware*, etc. But there is not much in it.

* at State Banquets, Queen Elizabeth uses a service that was made for George IV, her great great great great uncle. The White House buys new for each President.

[Duncan Gibbs]

Strangely enough, some of the least nationalistic and most socially equal nations on this earth are constitutional monarchies. And some of the most nationalistic and least equal are republics. So I think you would have a hard time finding evidence for this statement.

And you can find a host examples where the complete inverse is also true, both historical and contemporary. I find the notion that your life's station is determined by birth not only anachronistic but also somewhat offensive to my own ideals of meritocracy. The UK (and Australia by direct association) is pretty benign I grant you, but I don't see the possibility of catastrophic diminution of democracy in either place by replacing the monarchy with a republic. And I speak as someone who passed up the chance to hold dual citizenship of Australia and the United Kingdom by virtue of my Mother and Fathers' place of birth.

But, of course, the fact that this situation arose in relation to the Duchess of Cambridge, rather than some other international celebrity, is, quite simply, irrelevant.

Correct: It's all to do with the notion of 'celebrity' royal or otherwise.

[PeterSibley]

Essentially our best choice would be to rename the Governor General, President and maintain the same level of power, or even a little less bearing in mid events of a few decades ago. The trouble is that the majority here seem to like if not the US model something with a more "active" President. I'm not at all sure how that would pan out, it seems much better to have a head of state somehow divorced from party politics.

[m2c1Iw]

Exceptionally kind but I suspect you would be in limited company !

BF would probably vote for me though.

We could have a poll no need to involve the electorate the WBF will do and a lot cheaper.

Oh and I see the radio station is to donate $500,000 to a charity, noble sentiment perhaps well I hope.

[PeterSibley]

A poll might be very embarrassing !


for me .

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Wikipedia's list of current absolute monarchies is :

Brunei
Qatar
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Swaziland
The Vatican

Some of us would add North Korea, Syria and Cuba.

[Duncan Gibbs]

I like the Irish method, which is essentially the same as the GG here or HM in Britain but elected. It at least is a litmus for the current crop of politicians on the public mood. The monarchy has been subject to similar forces over it's history in Britain, but rather more violently.

George the Fourth's table service could still be used, whilst it's equivalent here be put to the same.

On a boat note I should point out that the great Sam Devlin designed a wonderful 15' micro-cruiser called Nancy's China because it cost less than the table service ordered by Nancy Reagan.

[PeterSibley]

I like the Irish method, which is essentially the same as the GG here or HM in Britain but elected. It at least is a litmus for the current crop of politicians on the public mood. The monarchy has been subject to similar forces over it's history in Britain, but rather more violently.

George the Fourth's table service could still be used, whilst it's equivalent here be put to the same.

On a boat note I should point out that the great Sam Devlin designed a wonderful 15' micro-cruiser called Nancy's China because it cost less than the table service ordered by Nancy Reagan.

It's some how keeping the head of state out of the mire that I'd be interested in Duncan .


Thanks for the titbit about "Nancy's China", I've been wondering about that since reading a thread in Building

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

On a boat note I should point out that the great Sam Devlin designed a wonderful 15' micro-cruiser called Nancy's China because it cost less than the table service ordered by Nancy Reagan.

iirc Nancy's China cost less that ONE CUP AND SAUCER in the table service ordered by Nancy Reagan!

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Most people would say Australia is the place where the "Westminster model" of a constitutional monarchy was actually used most recently - although Canadians may differ, in the light of recent events.

[downthecreek]

And you can find a host examples where the complete inverse is also true, both historical and contemporary.

Historical is irrelevant, since the point in question is the constitutional monarchy. Would you like to mention some of these hosts of examples? Even if you have examples, they don't "prove" that constitutional monarchy must lead to the excesses of nationalism you imply.

your life's station is determined by birth

That is demonstrably the case whether you have a monarchy or not - more or less, depending on the nature of the society, but ones like Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Canada etc. and, indeed, your own Australia, that have the greatest levels of social equality and mobility also happen to be constitutional monarchies. Some of the most unequal ones are republics. Monarchies where the monarchs hold unconstrained power or political influence are irrelevant.

I have no great quarrel with the hereditary principle for a monarchy. The alternative is the inevitable politicisation of every aspect of national life. Continuity has its merits and a good monarch (such as Lizzie) is a great asset to the country, while a poor one can do little real harm. See Andrew's post.

However, I do believe that membership of the royal family is an unenviable fate. An argument against, perhaps.

I don't see the possibility of catastrophic diminution of democracy in either place by replacing the monarchy with a republic.

Did anyone suggest such a thing?

And I speak as someone who passed up the chance to hold dual citizenship of Australia and the United Kingdom by virtue of my Mother and Fathers' place of birth.

I don't think your own nationality is relevant. There are republicans and monarchists galore in both places.

It's all to do with the notion of 'celebrity' royal or otherwise.

Agreed

[Duncan Gibbs]

A good many constitutional monarchies have gone south in their day. Greece, Iran, Afghanistan, Brazil, Romania, Bulgaria to name a few. Tonga was still an absolute monarchy until two years ago, but questions still remain as to how much the royal family there holds onto power in the background, by holding onto most of that nations cash.

[downthecreek]

A good many constitutional monarchies have gone south in their day. Greece, Iran, Afghanistan, Brazil, Romania, Bulgaria to name a few. Tonga was still an absolute monarchy until two years ago, but questions still remain as to how much the royal family there holds onto power in the background, by holding onto most of that nations cash.

The question was not about constitutional monarchies that have been overthrown, one way or another, but about nationalism and consequent nasties resulting from constitutional monarchies.

Thus I am not sure of the relevance of this post. Neither am I sure that these countries are, in the main, less nasty or nationalistic than they might have been when their constitutional monarchs were in place.

Any contemporary examples?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Conversely, Spain restored its monarchy - and the King of Spain went on to provide a "textbook" demonstration of why a constitutional monarchy can be a good idea on the 23rd February 1981.

[Duncan Gibbs]

Any contemporary examples?

As Ian pointed out Thailand has had some pretty extreme laws concerning "insulting" its monarchy. But on the street, both here in Australia and certainly in England skin-headed thugs waving the flag of St George, the Union Jack or the Australian Flag would not make my dinner guest list! I suppose this is what I was alluding to in my original statement concerning nationalism. We've certainly had our fair share of this kind of crap becoming inflamed to the point of riot here, and the extreme right in Britain leans heavily upon having the royals.

I guess crappy people are crappy people and will do crappy things based upon crappy excuses where-ever.

[downthecreek]

As Ian pointed out Thailand has had some pretty extreme laws concerning "insulting" its monarchy. But on the street, both here in Australia and certainly in England skin-headed thugs waving the flag of St George, the Union Jack or the Australian Flag would not make my dinner guest list! I suppose this is what I was alluding to in my original statement concerning nationalism. We've certainly had our fair share of this kind of crap becoming inflamed to the point of riot here, and the extreme right in Britain leans heavily upon having the royals.

I guess crappy people are crappy people and will do crappy things based upon crappy excuses where-ever.

So the "hosts of examples" are really a bit of a myth? One country that reveres its monarch and prohibits criticism (not the case anywhere else - our "royals" are mercilessly lampooned and criticised, as you know, and with complete impunity) but gives him limited powers, and a few "nationalistic" thugs.

About the latter -

Yes, the thugs are pretty unpleasant, but do you really believe they are only to be found in monarchies? If I look west and you look east you will find some pretty unpleasant examples in the mighty republic of the USA. Or the republic of Germany? No shortage of neo-nazi thugs there. I could find you lots of other instances of nationalistic republican thugs.

These thugs may look to the symbols of the state they think they are "protecting" but that is the same whether those symbols are monarchs, flags, slogans, badges or whatever. Living over here as I do, I really cannot agree with you that our thugs draw any particular inspiration or strength from the monarchy. Indeed, the "values" they proclaim (if they proclaim any coherent "values" at all, which mostly seems not to be the case) are very different from those for which the monarchy stands.

You are really scraping the barrel. I don't think you really have any legitimate basis for your initial statement. You may not like monarchies - fair enough - but nationalism and consequent nasties really don't hold up as an argument against them.

[Phillip Allen]

So the "hosts of examples" are really a bit of a myth? One country that reveres its monarch and prohibits criticism (not the case anywhere else - our "royals" are mercilessly lampooned and criticised, as you know, and with complete impunity) but gives him limited powers, and a few "nationalistic" thugs.

About the latter -

Yes, the thugs are pretty unpleasant, but do you really believe they are only to be found in monarchies? If I look west and you look east you will find some pretty unpleasant examples in the mighty republic of the USA. Or the republic of Germany? No shortage of neo-nazi thugs there. I could find you lots of other instances of nationalistic republican thugs.

These thugs may look to the symbols of the state they think they are "protecting" but that is the same whether those symbols are monarchs, flags, slogans, badges or whatever. Living over here as I do, I really cannot agree with you that our thugs draw any particular inspiration or strength from the monarchy. Indeed, the "values" they proclaim (if they proclaim any coherent "values" at all, which mostly seems not to be the case) are very different from those for which the monarchy stands.

You are really scraping the barrel. I don't think you really have any legitimate basis for your initial statement. You may not like monarchies - fair enough - but nationalism and consequent nasties really don't hold up as an argument against them.

are these 'thugs' anything like the hooligans that have caused such mayhem at soccer games, etc?

[downthecreek]

are these 'thugs' anything like the hooligans that have caused such mayhem at soccer games, etc?

Stereotypes are always out of date. Soccer hooliganism is a thing of the past in this country. I believe there was some trouble in Italy recently, though, when England fans (who are now seen as being amongst the best behaved) were attacked and knifed by thugs from the Italian Republic.......

Not nationalism, though. Tribalism.

[Phillip Allen]

well, from here it looks similar... perhaps both groups are a result of something 'in common'

but what is tribalism but another form of 'nationalism'?

[downthecreek]

well, from here it looks similar... perhaps both groups are a result of something 'in common'

but what is tribalism but another form of 'nationalism'?

Tribalism is not confined to "inter-national" conflict.

Did you perhaps miss the point? The issue is not the existence of nationalism, but whether it is specifically linked with the system of constitutional monarchy. As a citizen of what is, possibly, the most aggressively nationalistic nation on earth, you might want to comment?

[Phillip Allen]

Tribalism is not confined to "inter-national" conflict.

Did you perhaps miss the point? The issue is not the existence of nationalism, but whether it is specifically linked with the system of constitutional monarchy. As a citizen of what is, possibly, the most aggressively nationalistic nation on earth, you might want to comment?

my comments were in isolation from the rest of the thread, so, yes, I didn't get the point

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I have got bored with ignoring Peter Sibley.

[Peerie Maa]

I have got bored with ignoring Peter Sibley.

These young people of today. No staying power.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

These young people of today. No staying power.

Oh, I don't know - look over at Ford's thread on flaming!

Having now read what Peter wrote whilst I was ignoring him I will offer a grudging (grudging, mind!) and partial apology..

So there you are, Peter, I'm a little bit sorry!

[seanz]

Now, everybody hate Morrissey.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...ys-into-royals

On New Zealand television ahead of his tour, known anti-monarchist Morrissey has apportioned the blame of Saldanha's suicide on the Duchess for being in hospital .

''Even with the recent story about the nurse killing herself in King Edward Hospital, there's no blame placed on Kate Middleton, who was in the hospital as far as I could see for absolutely no reason,'' he told 3News.
''She feels no shame about the death of this woman, she's saying nothing about the death of this poor woman. The arrogance of the British royals is staggering, absolutely staggering. And why it's allowed to be I really don't know,'' Morrissey said.


''Does she have a health condition...? What is the health condition? I mean morning sickness already? So much hoo haw and then suddenly as bright as a button as soon as this poor woman dies she's out of hospital? It doesn't ring true.
''And I'm sure the Palace and Clarence House put maximum pressure on this poor receptionist and nurse, and of course that's kept away from the press.
"I'm sure the British press hounded this poor woman to her death, that's kept away.
''And by this time next week she'll be forgotten. And that's how the British royals work.''





What? Everybody already hates Morrissey....

[PeterSibley]

Oh, I don't know - look over at Ford's thread on flaming!

Having now read what Peter wrote whilst I was ignoring him I will offer a grudging (grudging, mind!) and partial apology..

So there you are, Peter, I'm a little bit sorry!

Thank you Andrew , I am also a little bit sorry .

[Duncan Gibbs]

These young people of today. No staying power.

Pathetic really!

What? Everybody already hates Morrissey....

Well... How soon is now?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Returning to our muttons, here is a new twist from the blogosphere:

In a sensational development overnight in the case of Royal nurse Jacintha Saldanha, her husband Benedict Barboza has been described by family members as ‘furious’ about the media coverage in relation to his late wife. Former colleagues with whom she worked in Mumbai insist that she would have never have committed suicide. The opinion is shared by her former classmates, and also her family. Yet in Australia, there are calls for the two pranksters to face jail.

Friends, colleagues and managers who knew her during her college days at the Father Muller’s School of Nursing in Mangalore describe today her as bold, smart and “a very hardworking girl”. This we knew already, but the almost 100% dismissal of her death as suicide resulting from one prank call alone outside the UK is marked….and is in stark contrast to the media coverage in Britain.

“She was not the type who would chicken out of difficult situations,” says former colleague Stella M, “Never had we imagined that she could take away her own life. She was not the type of person who would commit suicide.”

“We are all shattered. I have worked with her and was her junior in college,” says an Abu Dhabi-based nurse currently working in a government hospital there, “She was a very practical person, very clever and never weak hearted. That is why her suicide is very suspicious. Friends of ours who know her grandmother in India are being told that she had never discussed anything about the hoax call in her last phone call just days before she died,” the nurse added, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Reliable reports in the Mumbai and Indian mainstream media are appearing that suggest Jacintha Saldhana’s family members in Karnataka suspect “foul play” and want an independent inquiry into the episode. Close family friend Ivan D’Souza concurred with The Slog view posted yesterday when he told IANS news that “the family is anxiously waiting for the postmortem report and the outcome of the inquest by the Scotland Yard, because they suspect foul play in her tragic death, as she was a strong woman and would not have resorted to suicide”.

Mr D’Souza, who lives at Shirva, about 60 km from Mangalore, met Barboza’s family members at Shirva along with their former local MP Vinay Kumar Sorake. Sources close to Sorake, I understand, have said that they “greatly suspect” the speculation about suicide.

The UK media set has repeated several times that Mrs Saldhana was found hanged and left a suicide note for her family. But a source writing to The Slog suggests that it wasn’t a suicide note. A person claiming to be a close family friend emailed The Slog following yesterday’s posting, to allege that Mr Barboza and his wife regarded the prank incident as “very minor”, and to disagree with threaders suggesting that a form of cultural pride had led to her suicide. The imputation was that Barboza is furious at the assumption by both hospital and media that the prank alone led to suicide. I also gather that he is not angry at the two Australian DJs now thrust into the centre of the scandal.

This is turn seems to fit the Guardian version of events as depicted there last Saturday. The paper described an interview with the dead woman’s mother-in-law Carmine Barboza, who said that neither Saldanha nor her husband, Benedict Barboza, had talked of the hoax phone call or given any clue that she had been under any pressure or strain.

“Benedict used to call every day but neither he nor Jacintha said anything about what had happened. Everything seemed normal,” she told the Guardian. Significantly absent from Keith Vaz’s statement after meeting the family at the House of Commons were (a) any absolution of the hospital’s role in Jacintha’s death and (b) any criticism of the two Disc Jockeys who made the prank call.

In many ways, the spotlight now turns on Saldhana’s widower Benedict Barboza, the contents of the note, and suspicions about events after the prank call. But the Daily Star reports this morning that the DJs Michael Christian and Mel Greig could face up to five years in jail. ‘Bosses at the radio station whose prank call led to a nurse at Princess Kate’s hospital killing herself could be jailed,’ led the page one piece, ‘Lawyers in Australia said managers could be prosecuted because they did not get the hospital’s permission to air the recorded conversation. They face a fine of up to £30,000 or even five years in prison if convicted.’

One wonders a little bit if some of those involved in this case have been reading the advice of Aussie-loving expat Lord McAlpine about how to manipulate and distract the media. I’m becoming increasingly suspicious at the way these two Aussies are being turned into global patsies here. I must also say that, when this all comes out of the wash, if I were Christian and Greig, I’d chuck a gigantic law suit The Star’s way for that brazen ‘led to a nurse at Princess Kate’s hospital killing herself’ libel in the paragraph above.


http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/12/...edia-coverage/

[PhaseLockedLoop]

It has never made much sense to me that the woman would kill herself (or die of a stroke, which was the first report) in mortification about a mistake about which she was receiving support and understanding from her employers. Even if she were the target of extreme scorn, it's a stretch to think she'd kill herself, but as it is, she hadn't been publicly identified, and was receiving no pressure privately. The assumption that, being Indian, she must be deadly sensitive about such things is nothing more than back-stereotyping. Is there something I've missed that suggests that the prank was the proximate cause, or even contributing cause, of her death, other than post hoc ergo propter hoc?

[Peerie Maa]

I too have seen no more than a couple of words about the finding of a note reported in the Independent, the same report noted that the family were Catholic, which makes suicide perhaps even less likely. I have thought for a couple of days now that we need to wait for the inquest, as the sad death could also have been an accidental overdose of sleeping pills needed as a sleeping aid because of stress and working the night shift.
We should back off of the feeding frenzy until we have definitive facts.

[Captain Intrepid]

This is why I haven't put my oar in. With the facts of the case still so nebulous, what's the point of speculation?

[Peerie Maa]

An inquest has been opened and adjourned. It does confirm suicide.

Kate hoax nurse was found hanged

Jacintha Saldanha put the call from the presenters through to another nurse
A nurse fooled by a hoax call to the London hospital treating the Duchess of Cambridge was later found hanged, an inquest has heard.
Jacintha Saldanha was found dead in her nurses' quarters on Friday, three days after the call from Australian radio presenters pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles.
There were also injuries to her wrist, Westminster Coroner's Court heard.
The inquest was opened and adjourned until 26 March.
Det Ch Insp James Harman told the court: "On Friday 7 December Jacintha Saldanha was found by a colleague and a member of security staff. Sadly she was found hanging.
"There was also injuries to her wrist. The London Ambulance Service was called to the scene. At this time there are no suspicious circumstances."
Two notes were found in Mrs Saldanha's room and another among her possessions, the court was also told.

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20710644

[downthecreek]

This is why I haven't put my oar in. With the facts of the case still so nebulous, what's the point of speculation?

Not really very nebulous - but there is a lot more information known by people from the hospital than has been made public up to now. The fact that this was suicide, for example.

The full inquest hearing will be in March and will, no doubt concentrate on the factors that led up to this desperately sad situation. Personally, I would be very surprised if the timing of this poor women's suicide turned out to be coincidental.

[downthecreek]

Correct: It's all to do with the notion of 'celebrity' royal or otherwise.

I would add to that the culture of heartlessness and cruelty that promotes humiliation as a source of entertainment. It is widespread across the nations and it has long disgusted me.

[skuthorp]

The whole affair is somewhat out of control, due to death and violence threats the perpetrators and some other staff and their families have been moved to secure accommodation. Now it's just another excuse for the crazies. I not a British MP is making a meal of this also and I think is not helping at all.

[Duncan Gibbs]

I would add to that the culture of heartlessness and cruelty that promotes humiliation as a source of entertainment. It is widespread across the nations and it has long disgusted me.

It was a dumb and tasteless jape is all. No malice was intended, nor built into the hoax. I doubt that "humiliation" was a primary motive. You should read The Dreadnought Hoax by Adrian Stephen (Virginia Woolf's brother) to see that a long history of these things exist and that even Virginia Woolf took part in such stunts.

I find there are far more serious things to find offence from, like the fact there are 5 million people dying each year from vitamin A deficiency which could be prevented by a 5 cent capsule. That's a whole $250,000 that could prevent 5 million people from dying. Now THAT is offensive! And that is but one mighty injustice that makes this jape appear to be nothing more than a prod with one's pinky finger.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The Dreadnought Hoax was neither dumb nor tasteless; it was very clever and very funny.

[downthecreek]

It was a dumb and tasteless jape is all. No malice was intended, nor built into the hoax. I doubt that "humiliation" was a primary motive.

Of course not. But it's what made the thing worth broadcasting as a hilarious joke, several times, as I understand it. The presenters and producers no doubt thought they had "struck gold". So much more "hilarious" than the brush off they were expecting. Except for the two bewildered nurses, trying to do their jobs. That is the humiliation.

I'm not quite sure where you have got hold of the idea that I think that hoaxing is something new. Of course not. But routine humiliation through media pranks perpetrated on unsuspecting and innocent victims and broadcast to the world most certainly is a more recent development and a very ugly one.

This is the tip of an enormous, hideous iceberg. And it is the subject of this thread - not the infinite woes of the whole world, which you could, I suppose, bewail in a new thread if you were so minded.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

The Dreadnought Hoax was neither dumb nor tasteless; it was very clever and very funny.

And the origin of the expression "Bunga Bunga", later to be popularised......

[Phillip Allen]

Of course not. But it's what made the thing worth broadcasting as a hilarious joke, several times, as I understand it. The presenters and producers no doubt thought they had "struck gold". So much more "hilarious" than the brush off they were expecting. Except for the two bewildered nurses, trying to do their jobs. That is the humiliation.

I'm not quite sure where you have got hold of the idea that I think that hoaxing is something new. Of course not. But routine humiliation through media pranks perpetrated on unsuspecting and innocent victims and broadcast to the world most certainly is a more recent development and a very ugly one.

This is the tip of an enormous, hideous iceberg. And it is the subject of this thread - not the infinite woes of the whole world, which you could, I suppose, bewail in a new thread if you were so minded.

of course it was intended as a joke... except that at least one b rat says if it's NOT funny then it was not intended as a joke (I just answered him on another thread). that 'distinction' is important and speaks to the ability (that some have assumed they have) to devine motive.