Duchess Of Cambridge Hoax Call Nurse Found Dead

[BookMan]

Did the radio station call back and say it was a prank and ask permission to broadcast it?

No.

Can I obtain confidential financial records form someone's bank in Australia as a prank and not be prosecuted?

Very odd, if so.

As for your preceding post; no use back peddling now; what you have previoulsy said is there for all to see.

Who are you asking this of 7x7?

Please try and use the quote facilities, it is very difficult to understand who you are quoting at times

[phuketjock]

So I can impersonate you and so obtain your confidential financial records from your Australian bank and would not have committed a crime in Australia.

Very odd.

It was a prank, and clearly it came across as a prank.

Not to the nurses children and family it didn't. too bad eh???

You thought it was funny.

[BookMan]

So I can impersonate you and so obtain your confidential financial records from your Australian bank and would not have committed a crime in Australia.

Very odd.

It was a prank, and clearly it came across as a prank.

Not to the nurses children and family it didn't. too bad eh???

You thought it was funny.

Did i say i thought it was funny?

I said it came across as a prank.

You and 7x7 should get together to compare inaccurate notes

[7by7]

Did the radio station call back and say it was a prank and ask permission to broadcast it?

No.

Can I obtain confidential financial records form someone's bank in Australia as a prank and not be prosecuted?

Very odd, if so.

As for your preceding post; no use back peddling now; what you have previoulsy said is there for all to see.

Who are you asking this of 7x7?

Please try and use the quote facilities, it is very difficult to understand who you are quoting at times

I am asking all those, including you, who say that by impersonating family members of a patient in order to obtain confidential information about that patient from a hospital the DJ's committed no crime.

Do try and keep up.

[BookMan]

Did the radio station call back and say it was a prank and ask permission to broadcast it?

No.

Can I obtain confidential financial records form someone's bank in Australia as a prank and not be prosecuted?

Very odd, if so.

As for your preceding post; no use back peddling now; what you have previoulsy said is there for all to see.

Who are you asking this of 7x7?

Please try and use the quote facilities, it is very difficult to understand who you are quoting at times

I am asking all those, including you, who say that by impersonating family members of a patient in order to obtain confidential information about that patient from a hospital the DJ's committed no crime.

Do try and keep up.

You could make it easier on all of us to keep up by correctly using the quote buttons and then also correctly attributing statements to people.

[phuketjock]

So I can impersonate you and so obtain your confidential financial records from your Australian bank and would not have committed a crime in Australia.

Very odd.

It was a prank, and clearly it came across as a prank.

Not to the nurses children and family it didn't. too bad eh???

You thought it was funny.

Did i say i thought it was funny?

I said it came across as a prank.

You and 7x7 should get together to compare inaccurate notes

And I said it didn't to the children and family of the dead nurse!!!

[7by7]

You could make it easier on all of us to keep up by correctly using the quote buttons and then also correctly attributing statements to people.

What by continuous use of nested quotes like you?

So. are you going to answer?

[chooka]

Did the radio station call back and say it was a prank and ask permission to broadcast it?

No.

Can I obtain confidential financial records form someone's bank in Australia as a prank and not be prosecuted?

Very odd, if so.

As for your preceding post; no use back peddling now; what you have previoulsy said is there for all to see.

Who are you asking this of 7x7?

Please try and use the quote facilities, it is very difficult to understand who you are quoting at times

I am asking all those, including you, who say that by impersonating family members of a patient in order to obtain confidential information about that patient from a hospital the DJ's committed no crime.

Do try and keep up.

Please specify the country, I'm not British so can't answer for laws in London but in Australia (N.S.W) no crime has been comitted. So we are beating a dead horse. We will continue to go around in circles. The U.K may want to try a charge them with something we will agree on that and Australian authorities have stated no criminal offence identified in Australia we can agree on that. Isn;t there another whole topic on charges running about this incident.

[BookMan]

Did i say i thought it was funny?

I said it came across as a prank.

You and 7x7 should get together to compare inaccurate notes

And I said it didn't to the children and family of the dead nurse!!!

You are the spokesperson for the children and family of the dead nurse?

or did you mean to say 'I think the family and children might have recognised it as a prank, but not a funny one, nor one in good taste, the results of which were a trigger for the suicide of the nurse'?

[BookMan]

You could make it easier on all of us to keep up by correctly using the quote buttons and then also correctly attributing statements to people.

What by continuous use of nested quotes like you?

So. are you going to answer?

Surely you know how to delete previous quotes and use only the most relevant quote you are referring to, this letting the person you are replying to know you are quoting them? In fact I know you do know how to do this because you have done so many times in various threads .

Gentleman, I will be taking a break form this thread now. I feel it is developing into a rather tit for tat to and fro.

Best of luck with your opinions and no hard feelings.

[7by7]

Chooka; I did specify the country when I first asked the question; Australia. Please read all posts since you last visited, you'll know who has said what that way.

Bookman; you wont be answering, then.

[phuketjock]

Did i say i thought it was funny?

I said it came across as a prank.

You and 7x7 should get together to compare inaccurate notes

And I said it didn't to the children and family of the dead nurse!!!

You are the spokesperson for the children and family of the dead nurse?

or did you mean to say 'I think the family and children might have recognised it as a prank, but not a funny one, nor one in good taste, the results of which were a trigger for the suicide of the nurse'?

No more than you are and I said what I meant to say.

Just because somewhere in the world some people think anything for a laugh is great fun

no matter whom it offends or hurts that does not mean the rest of the world condones or

finds it in any way acceptable. Unfortunately it has taken the unnecessary death of a

dedicated nurse at the hands of two idiot DJs and an irresponsible and grossly negligent

radio station to bring such stupidity to light. This kind of humour should be kept where it

belongs permanently in the gutter. Or if you like it so much keep it in your country, no one

else wants or needs it!!!!!!!

[chooka]

2day FM DJs may escape charges from UK police

The 2day FM radio DJs involved in the royal prank call are thought to have escaped charges from UK police, NSW authorities say.

NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldas said Scotland Yard initially made contact after the London nurse who took the call, Jacintha Saldanha, died but they had not asked to interview Mel Greig or Michael Christian.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2012/12/28/08/31/2day-fm-djs-may-escape-charges

[phuketjock]

2day FM DJs may escape charges from UK police

The 2day FM radio DJs involved in the royal prank call are thought to have escaped charges from UK police, NSW authorities say.

NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldas said Scotland Yard initially made contact after the London nurse who took the call, Jacintha Saldanha, died but they had not asked to interview Mel Greig or Michael Christian.

http://news.ninemsn....-escape-charges

Thats a definite maybe then.!!!

"There was some initial contact after the death of Jacintha Saldanha but not a lot since and because of the passage of time we believe it is unlikely any charges will be laid," he said.

I would expect nothing more from an Australian based news source.

Whether charges are laid or not does not negate the fact that these DJs and radio

stations actions have been instumental in the death of this poor woman. Lack of

charges does not remove the moral responsibility from any of them.

You are well aware of this chooka.

The nurse who took the call and transferred it, 46-year-old Jacintha Saldanha, was found dead from an apparent suicide in staff accommodation near the hospital on December 7. It is believed the hoax call had confused and agitated Saldanha, who reportedly left three suicide notes in which she blames Greig and Christian for her death.

British prosecutors to consider criminal charges in royal hoax call < br />

2012-12-23 10:32:52 GMT+7 (ICT)

Edited December 28, 2012 by phuketjock

[Bwanatickey]

This nurse ONLY transferred the call. Yes transferred the call. This nurse was a very minor part of the prank. So why do so many posts here place her at the epi centre of the prank.

So many here have deviated from the subject,and posts remain.

[phuketjock]

This nurse ONLY transferred the call. Yes transferred the call. This nurse was a very minor part of the prank. So why do so many posts here place her at the epi centre of the prank.

So many here have deviated from the subject,and posts remain.

I think you may have missed the point, the whole topic of the thread IS about

the death of the NURSE. Try reading the OP before making rash statements!!!!

[whybother]

This nurse ONLY transferred the call. Yes transferred the call. This nurse was a very minor part of the prank. So why do so many posts here place her at the epi centre of the prank.

So many here have deviated from the subject,and posts remain.

I think you may have missed the point, the whole topic of the thread IS about

the death of the NURSE. Try reading the OP before making rash statements!!!!

Apparently answering the phone and putting it through is very stressful.

[Phronesis]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

[whybother]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

I would think that it would be difficult to prove that taking a phone call was the only psychological issue that resulted in her death.

[Phronesis]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

I would think that it would be difficult to prove that taking a phone call was the only psychological issue that resulted in her death.

Then your thinking would be entirely wrong. The bulk of case law on physcological assault arises out of phone calls.

And the substance of the call need only tip the balance of probability scales over the 51%.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Phronesis

[whybother]

Then your thinking would be entirely wrong. The bulk of case law on physcological assault arises out of phone calls.

And the substance of the call need only tip the balance of probability scales over the 51%.

Is asking to be put through to some one "psychological assault"?

[thaibeachlovers]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

I know what you are saying, but while I sympathise with the nurse, there is no way I can see a jury taking someone's house over a prank call.

Let's face it, life isn't fair and bad things happen, but unless it could be proven the DJs intended malice against her, fat chance of a civil court case succeeding.

Where your case falls down entirely, is that she only transferred the call, and did not answer any questions/ was not involved with the majority of the hoax. A wet behind the ears new lawyer could prove that there was no intent by the hoaxers to cause her demise, or any harm.

Edited December 29, 2012 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

2day FM DJs may escape charges from UK police

The 2day FM radio DJs involved in the royal prank call are thought to have escaped charges from UK police, NSW authorities say.

NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldas said Scotland Yard initially made contact after the London nurse who took the call, Jacintha Saldanha, died but they had not asked to interview Mel Greig or Michael Christian.

http://news.ninemsn....-escape-charges

Thats a definite maybe then.!!!

"There was some initial contact after the death of Jacintha Saldanha but not a lot since and because of the passage of time we believe it is unlikely any charges will be laid," he said.

I would expect nothing more from an Australian based news source.

Whether charges are laid or not does not negate the fact that these DJs and radio

stations actions have been instumental in the death of this poor woman. Lack of

charges does not remove the moral responsibility from any of them.

You are well aware of this chooka.

The nurse who took the call and transferred it, 46-year-old Jacintha Saldanha, was found dead from an apparent suicide in staff accommodation near the hospital on December 7. It is believed the hoax call had confused and agitated Saldanha, who reportedly left three suicide notes in which she blames Greig and Christian for her death.

British prosecutors to consider criminal charges in royal hoax call < br />

2012-12-23 10:32:52 GMT+7 (ICT)

Were I to commit sideways, I could name several dozen people that contributed to my demise, however, I doubt any court would allow a case based on that letter.

[Phronesis]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

but unless it could be proven the DJs intended malice against her, fat chance of a civil court case succeeding.

Where your case falls down entirely, is that she only transferred the call, and did not answer any questions/ was not involved with the majority of the hoax. A wet behind the ears new lawyer could prove that there was no intent by the hoaxers to cause her demise, or any harm.

Wrong again.

Intent is not in issue. This is a hypothetical civil claim not a criminal offence.

There is NO onus to prove intent (Mens Rea in latin).

Civil liability can arise out of an ommission on the part of the DJs.

What was their ommission...that they didn't turn their mind to the possibility that their stupid prank may cause psychological injury to the person that took the call.

In determining fault, the jury would be asked to ponder the question "Should the DJ's have turned their mind to the possibility that their call may have a negative psychological impact upon the person who received it.

If the jury (who will consist of hand picked middle aged monarchists) find that it was REASONABLE that the DJ's SHOULD have turned their minds to this possibility, fault will be established.

In response, the DJ's may then seek to rely on the rubric of "proximity" to minimise the quantum of the damages...but that is another issue better left for an expert, such as thaibeachlovers, to adumbrate.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Phronesis

[BookMan]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

but unless it could be proven the DJs intended malice against her, fat chance of a civil court case succeeding.

Where your case falls down entirely, is that she only transferred the call, and did not answer any questions/ was not involved with the majority of the hoax. A wet behind the ears new lawyer could prove that there was no intent by the hoaxers to cause her demise, or any harm.

Wrong again.

Intent is not in issue. This is a hypothetical civil claim not a criminal offence.

There is NO onus to prove intent (Mens Rea in latin).

Civil liability can arise out of an ommission on the part of the DJs.

What was their ommission...that they didn't turn their mind to the possibility that their stupid prank may cause psychological injury to the person that took the call.

In determining fault, the jury would be asked to ponder the question "Should the DJ's have turned their mind to the possibility that their call may have a negative psychological impact upon the person who received it.

If the jury (who will consist of hand picked middle aged monarchists) find that it was REASONABLE that the DJ's SHOULD have turned their minds to this possibility, fault will be established.

In response, the DJ's may then seek to rely on the rubric of "proximity" to minimise the quantum of the damages...but that is another issue better left for an expert, such as thaibeachlovers, to adumbrate.

Could ANYONE bring a civil case against the DJs?

[thaibeachlovers]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

but unless it could be proven the DJs intended malice against her, fat chance of a civil court case succeeding.

Where your case falls down entirely, is that she only transferred the call, and did not answer any questions/ was not involved with the majority of the hoax. A wet behind the ears new lawyer could prove that there was no intent by the hoaxers to cause her demise, or any harm.

Wrong again.

Intent is not in issue. This is a hypothetical civil claim not a criminal offence.

There is NO onus to prove intent (Mens Rea in latin).

Civil liability can arise out of an ommission on the part of the DJs.

What was their ommission...that they didn't turn their mind to the possibility that their stupid prank may cause psychological injury to the person that took the call.

In determining fault, the jury would be asked to ponder the question "Should the DJ's have turned their mind to the possibility that their call may have a negative psychological impact upon the person who received it.

If the jury (who will consist of hand picked middle aged monarchists) find that it was REASONABLE that the DJ's SHOULD have turned their minds to this possibility, fault will be established.

In response, the DJ's may then seek to rely on the rubric of "proximity" to minimise the quantum of the damages...but that is another issue better left for an expert, such as thaibeachlovers, to adumbrate.

You may be correct, but in that case, I can think of a few hundred cases that I would like to take against people that have caused me psychological harm!

PS. No matter my sympathy for the victim, were I on the jury there is no way I could find against the hoaxers. However, should the person that answered the questions have offed herself, that would be a different situation, and I might be persuaded to find against them.

Edited December 29, 2012 by thaibeachlovers

[Phronesis]

Establishing criminality is difficult. The onus of proof is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"...think 99%

Establishing negligence and liability for damages is a lot easier. The onus of proof is "On the Balance of Probabilty"...think 51%

That is why OJ Simpson escaped the murder charge but was subsequently sued successfully for civil damages for wrongful death.

The family of this poor nurse need to engage a legal represantive, and have him move quickly to place a caveat over the houses or any other assets of the two purile and idiotic DJs.

The civil claim could be based upon the rubric of physcological assault resulting in wrongful death. Lay down hand for the family of the nurse...

but unless it could be proven the DJs intended malice against her, fat chance of a civil court case succeeding.

Where your case falls down entirely, is that she only transferred the call, and did not answer any questions/ was not involved with the majority of the hoax. A wet behind the ears new lawyer could prove that there was no intent by the hoaxers to cause her demise, or any harm.

Wrong again.

Intent is not in issue. This is a hypothetical civil claim not a criminal offence.

There is NO onus to prove intent (Mens Rea in latin).

Civil liability can arise out of an ommission on the part of the DJs.

What was their ommission...that they didn't turn their mind to the possibility that their stupid prank may cause psychological injury to the person that took the call.

In determining fault, the jury would be asked to ponder the question "Should the DJ's have turned their mind to the possibility that their call may have a negative psychological impact upon the person who received it.

If the jury (who will consist of hand picked middle aged monarchists) find that it was REASONABLE that the DJ's SHOULD have turned their minds to this possibility, fault will be established.

In response, the DJ's may then seek to rely on the rubric of "proximity" to minimise the quantum of the damages...but that is another issue better left for an expert, such as thaibeachlovers, to adumbrate.

Could ANYONE bring a civil case against the DJs?

Whether or not some one has "standing" to bring a civil claim is an issue that will also be determined upon the rubric of "proximity".

Most of you old Pommies will remember that dreadful day when the soccer stadium collapsed killing many people.

A lot of people sought to bring civil actions for physcological shock after witnessing the tradgedy.

As you can imagine, the House of Lords needed to impose some sought of filter to limit the amount of people who had standing.

They relied upon proximity to provide this filter.

Interestingly, proximity can not only be determined by distance from the event itself, but also the closeness of ones relationship with a victim.

For example, if you were a member of the House of Lords back then, whom of the following would you have granted standing to bring a claim:

1. A person at the stadium, who witnessed several other strangers killed

2. A person at the stadium, who witnessed one of their own family killed

3. A mother sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed her own son killed

4. A person sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed some strangers killed

Edited December 29, 2012 by Phronesis

[BookMan]

Whether or not some one has "standing" to bring a civil claim is an issue that will also be determined upon the rubric of "proximity".

Most of you old Pommies will remember that dreadful day when the soccer stadium collapsed killing many people.

A lot of people sought to bring civil actions for physcological shock after witnessing the tradgedy.

As you can imagine, the House of Lords needed to impose some sought of filter to limit the amount of people who had standing.

They relied upon proximity to provide this filter.

Interestingly, proximity can not only be determined by distance from the event itself, but also the closeness of ones relationship with a victim.

For example, if you were a member of the House of Lords back then, whom of the following would you have granted standing to bring a claim:

1. A person at the stadium, who witnessed several other strangers killed

2. A person at the stadium, who witnessed one of their own family killed

3. A mother sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed her own son killed

4. A person sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed some strangers killed

2 & 3, without giving it too much thought.

[Phronesis]

Whether or not some one has "standing" to bring a civil claim is an issue that will also be determined upon the rubric of "proximity".

Most of you old Pommies will remember that dreadful day when the soccer stadium collapsed killing many people.

A lot of people sought to bring civil actions for physcological shock after witnessing the tradgedy.

As you can imagine, the House of Lords needed to impose some sought of filter to limit the amount of people who had standing.

They relied upon proximity to provide this filter.

Interestingly, proximity can not only be determined by distance from the event itself, but also the closeness of ones relationship with a victim.

For example, if you were a member of the House of Lords back then, whom of the following would you have granted standing to bring a claim:

1. A person at the stadium, who witnessed several other strangers killed

2. A person at the stadium, who witnessed one of their own family killed

3. A mother sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed her own son killed

4. A person sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed some strangers killed

2 & 3, without giving it too much thought.

Then, by your logic, the family of the nurse, and perhaps her close friends and colleagues in her work place, may be granted standing by the Court to bring a claim against the DJs.

If I was family, or a work colleague, of the Nurse, I would approach the Nurses' Union were the victim was a member and ask that they provide, or assist with, funding for the action.

Most Unions also have a working relationship with legal counsel who, mostly likely, would commence the required litigation on a no win, no fee basis.

A smart thing to do would be to seek "punitive civil damages" this is an award of money, but its purpose is to demostrate publicly that what the DJs did is wrong and that similiar behaviour will not be tolerated by a reasonable society. A claim such as this would also stand a better chance of getting up in the Court because it has a moral objective and is not just a money grab.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Phronesis

[BookMan]

Whether or not some one has "standing" to bring a civil claim is an issue that will also be determined upon the rubric of "proximity".

Most of you old Pommies will remember that dreadful day when the soccer stadium collapsed killing many people.

A lot of people sought to bring civil actions for physcological shock after witnessing the tradgedy.

As you can imagine, the House of Lords needed to impose some sought of filter to limit the amount of people who had standing.

They relied upon proximity to provide this filter.

Interestingly, proximity can not only be determined by distance from the event itself, but also the closeness of ones relationship with a victim.

For example, if you were a member of the House of Lords back then, whom of the following would you have granted standing to bring a claim:

1. A person at the stadium, who witnessed several other strangers killed

2. A person at the stadium, who witnessed one of their own family killed

3. A mother sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed her own son killed

4. A person sitting at home watching the live broadcast, who witnessed some strangers killed

2 & 3, without giving it too much thought.

Then, by your logic, the family of the nurse, and perhaps her close friends and colleagues in her work place, may be granted standing by the Court to bring a claim against the DJs.

If I was family, or a work colleague, of the Nurse, I would approach the Nurses' Union were the victim was a member and ask that they provide, or assist with, funding for the action.

Most Unions also have a working relationship with legal counsel who, mostly likely, would commence the required litigation on a no win, no fee basis.

A smart thing to do would be to seek "punitive civil damages" this is an award of money, but its purpose is to demostrate publicly that what the DJs did is wrong and that similiar behaviour will not be tolerated by a reasonable society. A claim such as this would also stand a better chance of getting up in the Court because it has a moral objective and is not just a money grab.

By my logic, in answering 2 & 3, it would not apply in this case