Latest Breaking News

MADem

(135,425 posts)

11. They list the potential offenses in the article...

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:28 PM

Feb 2013

They can't establish INTENT for manslaughter, and the rest of the pile, which they acknowledge are a bridge too far owing to Australian nationality and unlikelihood of extradition, are

...the Data Protection Act 1998, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003

....

Bottom line, the person who gave away the information (who killed herself for reasons still unclear to us all) is the one responsible for not protecting the data. She didn't follow appropriate protocols because she was conned by a really BAD (ludicrous, in fact) imitation of the Queen.

It's a terrible shame that she killed herself, but we really never learned the full story, there.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Australian radio DJs will not be prosecuted over hospital hoax call [View all] alp227 Feb 2013 OP

Why would regular folk bother, though? The whole idea was to get the joke on the air. MADem Feb 2013 #1

Proofread ? dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #4

Ha ha ha--seriously? That's hilarious! nt MADem Feb 2013 #10

Did they really do that or was it a satire by another publication? xocet Feb 2013 #14

It was Private Eye who called them that. dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #15

Goody gum drops dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #2

Prosecuted for what? Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #3

Violating patient privacy laws? Freddie Stubbs Feb 2013 #5

how did they do that? frylock Feb 2013 #6

see #7 dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #8

I wasn't aware you have the same privacy laws in the US dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #7

i believe they are quite similar.. frylock Feb 2013 #9

They list the potential offenses in the article... MADem Feb 2013 #11

Nor should they be! Ian Iam Feb 2013 #12

The fact that it was even considered is frightening. MrSlayer Feb 2013 #13