Suicide of nurse who connected DJs to Princess Kate - an unexpected tragedy

Kate Middleton's nurse who took her own life has been referred more to her employment rather than her name Jacintha Saldanha. Apparently her existence  was owed more to the royalty she served.

It is indeed a tragedy of the worse kind in recent times. From middle aged on, most of us would have received surprising news of deaths from causes other than terminal illnesses. Accidents and suicides that extinguish young lives are the a lot harder to accept, more so if the victims still have many good years ahead, have families who love them dearly and dependents who have most to lose with their departure. 

While it is cruel to crucify Australian DJs who are merely "doing their job" and had no intention of killing an innocent person with their pranks, they cannot totally escape indirect blame. Neither is it cool or magnanimous to absolve the two DJs from any responsibility. 

Some people are more fragile than others. Although majority may be able to sail through trials and tribulations, a minority may have complex personal issues. Setbacks could spiral into depression and resort to extreme and drastic actions to resolve their dilemma.

It cannot be denied that the victims' weak constitution, pressure of their professional pride and society's expectations are all partly to be blamed. Unfortunately, a coincidence of external events can trigger unexpected outcomes. Just because most people have the capacity and tolerance to survive pranks, bullying and backstabbing, does not mean that these actions are excusable. 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-tragedy-but-who-is-at-fault-20121208-2b29q.html

It is unlikely that the case will be pursued further than the internet debate. From the legal perspective, how would the prank gone wrong be judged fairly? 


The eggshell skull rule is a legal doctrine that says the wrongdoer takes the victim in the condition he/she finds him. There is no allowance for an already weakened state of the injured party. If a defendant negligently injures someone, the defendant is responsible for all the consequences, whether they were foreseeable or not.The rule is applied in tort and criminal cases involving a plaintiff in a vulnerable, weakened state or suffering from a medical condition.

A rebuttal to the eggshell skull rule is the crumbling skull rule. This rule argues that the harm suffered by the victim was inevitable and the defendant's acts only had a minimal effect upon the already deteriorating circumstances.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/eggshell-skull/

In real life, incidents cannot be measured in legal terms. Human viewpoints influenced by individuals' values and experiences would continue to shout across cyberspace. These noises are unlikely to help the victims' families. Given our short memories and inability to reconcile differences, these incidents will make a mark but sadly may not help us to avoid similar tragedies in future.

NSW doctor smitten by love, fell victim to dating con couple - lost love and fortune more than 3.3 million AUD

"A fool and his money are soon to be parted" hold truth. So is "love is blind".

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/swindlers-turned-doctor-into-a-3m-fool-for-love-20111130-1o770.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/nsw-doctor-fooled-into-giving-3m-to-match-making-service-for-love-that-was-a-lie/story-e6frg6nf-1226210907328

We've been hearing immediate outcry against "pretty woman" who has disappeared. Her identity is not bona fide, creating obstacles to further police investigation. She could also be a victim of flesh slavery trade, if not a partner in crime, taking the crumbs of what the Mladenis couple had profited illegally.

In this connection, should not the pimps / matchmaker / dating agency bear the brunt of the liability, being the mastermind and main beneficiaries of the money siphoned from Dr Wallman's account?

It is not unheard of for Australian ladies who are eyeing a good match to seek help from matchmaking service providers. How do you tell whether one is genuine or fake?

At the minimum, we ought to be wary of beautiful women with an agenda and their handlers whatever their nationality.

We would remember that two Swedish women have trapped Wikileak maverick Julian Assange under rape accusations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8864604/Julian-Assange-rape-accusations-timeline.html

Even the most intelligent, capable and seasoned professional could be prey of conmen once their weakness is exposed for exploitation.

Hackers have become more sophisticated - making email and internet activities safer

One of my friends who is educated and cautious, as a matter of fact, a member of the security industry, has had her email hacked and important data stolen. It sends a chill down the spine of people who know her well.

When one's email password has been hacked, it becomes viral. All the contacts will become potential victims if they are not careful.

There are a few simple precautionary habits one could adopt to avoid losses are very simple.

Use a strong password that is difficult to break such as alphanumeric and symbols/signs included.

Do not click on strange web links especially within an email unless you fully trust the sender and have explored that site before. Never give away your password.

Never disclose your password on the computer. Old fashioned, hand written and locked away are the safer bet.

Do not store important bank data or disclose to anyone online. Your bank will never ask for your password verification in an email link. This is most likely a trap, so don't fall for it.

Make sure you are on the genuine website and not a copy / imitation. Look for 'https' and the little lock as indications of secure websites. Hackers have become sophisticated and are able to produce a window very similar to your email service provider. It is always safer to type in the website address to ensure you are visiting the safe site and not fake ones. Scrutinise carefully. When in doubt, contact the real Mckoy.

Be extra cautious when using a public computer. Clear all cookies before leaving to ensure that your information is not cache or stored to be viewed or exploited by the next user.

The internet is a wonderful invention but like all good things, there are flaws that crooks could utilise to trick innocent people.

Feasibility of cherry picking selected sharia laws for economic gains?

Australia is a secular country and the law of the state is fair, just and unprejudiced, and presumably all-encompassing and capable of taking care of interests of citizens and foreigners regardless of religions, cultures and political affiliations.

Common law originated in England and comprises statutes (legislation) and precedence of judge-made laws. Other than the moral basis of Christianity and Anglo-Saxon cultural tenets, the courts are given much flexibility interpret and adapt laws to new circumstances. It is progressive unlike certain static laws that are non-negotiable.

It is difficult to conceive how minorities in the country and the world could justify imposing their religious laws unless there is siginificant historical and social meaning, such as Aboriginal land rights.

The bizzare incident of a single crazy Muslim taking Sharia law into his own hands and defying the rules of the land has not found supporters even among majority of the educated moderate Muslim Australians nor the Islamic authorities.

While the originators of Sharia law expect the legal system to be taken in totality, it has been limited to family law in countries that have adopted some aspects of it. Since the ancient expectation of holistic application of Sharia is not feasible or realistic in the modern world, it is difficult to fathom how much Sharia could undermine the existing legal framework with the ground rule that where contradictions exist, the state laws prevail.

Moreover, the strong resistance from other conservative religious quarters who see any concession as capitulation would likely limit the influence of Sharia in years to come.

However, investor dollars are luring academics and governments to make compromises and exceptions. How the authorities could balance economic interests with fair protection and cultural chauvinism tendencies would be quite a challenge.

Laws are evolving. Civil law systems are learning from common law. The World Trade Organisation adopts a rule-based formula similar to civil law.

Intelligent and wise legislature and judicary probably matter more than mere prescriptions.

QUOTES

It's doubtful that sharia specifies the use of electrical cables in this sort of retribution, but that might not be the worst of it. Suggestions have emerged "from one local Auburn source" that the victim may have owed money to a number of people. If so, this could be a normal bit of roughing-up to speed the return of outstanding funds – not unknown in Australia or other common law countries as a method of settling debts.

---

Clearly, the government is keen for Australia to dip into $1.6 trillion worth of Islamic investment.

As academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq write in the University of NSW Law Journal, finance is part of "good sharia law", which has an emphasis on profit sharing instead of charging interest and excluding investment in things contrary to Islamic principles.

If we can made a quid out of adapting our principles to include Islamic methods of finance and investment, then sharia has a welcome place in our system.

On the other hand (a phrase with a special meaning in parts of the Muslim world) Black and Sadiq point to Islamic family law, such as the recognition of polygamy and Muslim divorce, which is regarded as "bad sharia law".

---

The hudud punishments of hand severing, stoning to death and beating with cables are confined to a few countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran. As far as we know there is no credible proposal that they be allowed to function in parallel with the Australian legal system, although you wonder when you see Australians screeching at accused persons as they are driven away in police vehicles.

---

The vast majority of Muslim countries and Muslims have moved on from the middle ages. It was interesting to see a number of Islamic organisations condemn the alcohol-tippling/debt-recovery punishment. Sheikh Taj el-Din al Hilaly, of the Lakemba Mosque, said the attackers should be "assessed for a mental disorder" and those found guilty deported. Guilty of a mental disorder takes our law into uncharted waters, so maybe it's best to say no more about it.

In Britain there are close to 100 sharia tribunals that deal with matters such as domestic relations and inheritance, with appeals to the civil courts.
In Australia, law reform commissions have recommended that aspects of Aboriginal customary law be permitted to function alongside white man's law. The Law Council of Australia welcomes that and, indeed, it has been recognised in the Northern Territory.

Our system of laws is not immune from the the imprecations of Christian fundamentalism, either. For instance, the Reverend Fred Nile is forever trying to impose some sort of Christian sharia on his flock, the people of NSW. Maybe he should be allowed to have his own courts to impose special punishments on prostitutes, gays, and students who skive off from scripture classes.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-good-sharia-is-championed-in-some-surprising-quarters-20110721-1hqy0.html#ixzz1SywuRirw