The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I have to agree. What if she hadn't killed herself, but had been fired (or struck off if that's possible for a nurse) for breaking patient confidentiality. There wouldn't be the same media screams, but the affects on her and her family would still be terrible.
Prank calls are bullying, and nothing more.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
What if she hadn't killed herself, but had been fired
Well if she wasn't doing her job, that makes sense. For example, if she neglected to confirm the identity of the individuals calling, then in any situation she did that would be grounds for being fired.
On the other hand, any prank calls should be made to be anonymous (e.g., names bleeped out). A call such as this where the hospital is known is not a good setup, as the person being pranked can be publicly identified.
Don't forget the overlooked fact and that she was a nurse. When Mrs. Wifey worked for the NHS she often remarked that nurses were the bottom-feeders in the NHS and that management were very quick to pass the blame onto nursing staff as they did many times on the wards she worked on.
I believe the management at the hospital that nurse worked at have refuted any suggestion she was facing disciplinary action. Now, that might be true of a private hospital, I don't know, but it's more than possible the hospital is lying. Maybe that nurse had other issues in her life as well but she deserved better than what those two pricks in Sydney did to her. Maybe they're not responsible one iota and maybe what they did was the final catalyst. The radio station has probably made some decent money selling the rights of the interview which'll compensate them for a weekend's loss of revenue not advertising on-air.
I agree to an extent that the DJs don't deserve the ordeal they're going through but it was their doing and they take responsibility for it. It's a total mindf**k for sure but maybe it'll teach them to keep their mouths shut. Maybe if they spent more time laughing with people than they do laughing at them they'd be better for it.
"I do not have to forgive my enemies, I have had them all shot." — Ramón Maria Narváez (1800-68).
"I don't need to shoot my enemies, I don't have any." - Me (2012).
It's being mooted over here that it is to do with her Bangalore roots. Apparently when the Royal family visit there it is such a big occasion that is talked about for years after. In the article I read they were suggesting that she would have felt she had let down the Royal Family and embarrassed her own Family. The article(which I can't link to as it's in The Times which is subscription only) puts this case across a lot more convincely than I have here, but you will have more of an idea if this is BS or not?
I think also to be unknown one day and then to find yourself on the front page of every Newspaper nationally and a large number internationally the next day for something that was humiliating must have been hard for her to take and at that point she saw as the only way out. If she had waited a few days when it had all calmed down, she would have seen things differently.
You obviously have a strange sense of humour, but that's up to you. Not everyone agrees that this "prank" was funny - and the key thing is did the person on whom the prank was played did not find it funny.
The rules for these sort of calls - in the UK and in OZ - are that having carried out your amusing prank, you should ask the victim if they found it funny, and are they happy to have it broadcast. Now there are plenty of examples where this process has been followed and everyone (?) has had a good laugh.
My gripe with the distraught DJs is they didn't even consider following the rules, or give any thought to the views of the victim(s) - I'm leaving to one side the gross dereliction of duty by their employer.
So you carry on supporting them. I wonder if they will ever carry out a prank again without following the rules - isn't that in itself an admission of their guilt?
You did not say that it was funny, but you did say that it was not a bad one. Sole point of a "prank" call is to amuse - therefore it follows that the "not bad one" was "not too unfunny" - geddit?
You must have some very strange conversations if the other party can't draw conclusions from what you say. You should have a field day with this reply!
therefore it follows that the "not bad one" was "not too unfunny"
No it doesn't. Unless you have as warped a value system as you appear to have.
Not a bad one in this case means that the intent did not appear to be to cause distress. Geddit?
As for your assertions that the DJs were derelict, I take it you haven't actually been following the story in the reputable press. It looks like your response was based off the knee jerk reactions of the likes of the Daily Mail. The call was vetted by the lawyers for the media company, and they were the ones who agreed to the call being played. If you listen to the call, it's plainly apparent that it's complete rubbish - how anyone could believe it was the royal family is beyond me, but that's a different matter. I feel sorry for the nurse, but I don't believe that the DJs should be excoriated over this, and the witch hunt that's going on with the gutter press is disgraceful.
You should have a field day with this. Oh, and you can abuse vote this reply as well.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
Agreed that they don't deserve this, but if we were all rational about this then how would the media justify their witch hunt of the week?
That said, I don't agree that they should have done this particular prank - if it's phoning up someone and having a stupid conversation or generally winding them up, that's fair game. But to have a conversation which could cost someone their job, then publicly broadcast it seems a bit low.
I agree that the "prank" doesn't seem to be "bad" enough to cause a suicide let alone the attention it received before the suicide. Honestly... why does ANYONE give a rats ass about "monarchs" in this day and age?
My problem with "pranks" of this nature is that by design they publicly make unsuspecting, innocent people look like fools. That's not humour in my opinion.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
The thing about prank calls, is that you know nothing about your victim, nothing about what else they have going on, nothing about their state of mind. This is because you don't care about them, they are selected at random and you don't think about anything that will happen after you hang up.
I don't wish to excuse the British press from anything. I don't think anyone should seek to excuse the Australians either.
Prank calls are the lowest form of comedy; lazy, selfish, and designed to get laughs by humiliating the victim and encouraging others to laugh at them.
Also, for the same reason let's not persecute the two presenters. The station pre-recorded the prank and managers and lawyers passed it for transmission. If everyone involved learns lessons from this at least there'll be something good comes from it. Sadly, I don't have much faith in the press or radio DJs in general to learn anything.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
So, as we all know, the nurse who was involved in the Duchess of Cambridge prank
call died last week. And now there's a witch hunt in place from the UK press for
the 2 DJs who played the prank. I've listened to the call, and it wasn't a bad
one - certainly nothing that should have caused the kerfuffle that it did.
Misrepresentation is often criminal.
Death or injury which occurs during criminal activity, even when not directly caused by the activity, often impacts the prosecution of the first.
Exactly, look up "thin-skull" cases to find the relevant laws: a helpful page[^]
To all those who are defending the pranksters consider that they did not think their prank was inappropriate so why should they be defended from the backlash? If they can't take abuse, they shouldn't dish it out! (IMHO prank = abuse) I think they deserve all the negative attention they brought upon themselves. Through their deliberate actions they caused the death of a human being!
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits.
- Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most.
- I vaguely remember having a good memory...