# When is a prank not a prank?



## delgirl (7 Dec 2012)

It appears that the Receptionist who took the call at the hospital where Kate Middleton was staying recently for treatment from 'The Queen' and 'Prince Charles' has committed suicide.

Not sure yet if she was subject to any form of disciplinary action by her employer.

The reaction of the Australian Radio Station who set up the prank will be interesting.


----------



## truthseeker (7 Dec 2012)

Oh my god, thats awful, the poor girl. I heard the call and she really did think she was talking to the Queen.

I would have imagined that the hospital had procedures in place when treating royalty, I was shocked the receptionist who answered the phone put the call through at all. Surely its very dangerous to be presuming the person on the phone is the Queen?


----------



## Odea (7 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Surely its very dangerous to be presuming the person on the phone is the Queen?


 
Some poor innocent girl....awful.


----------



## truthseeker (7 Dec 2012)

Odea said:


> Some poor innocent girl....awful.



Yes, the hospital are at fault here for not having procedures in place to protect their staff.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Dec 2012)

I'm gutted for her and her family. I dont know if I'd blame the DJ's though, the nurse's employers should have supported her, given her counselling if they thought she was taking it that bad.

The prank would be tomorrow's fish & chip paper, more or less a 'no harm done' scenario if the nurse hadnt taken that drastic action. Ok the DJ's should have called a halt (or probably the lawyers checking the recording) when it got to medical details, but I wouldnt be blaming them for her death as such. (e.g. in South America dont guys occasionally jump off the top tier of stadia when their team loses - would you blame the players in that scenario?)


----------



## truthseeker (7 Dec 2012)

You wouldnt know what kind of other issues are going on in someones life and perhaps this public humiliation was the last straw, or perhaps she was facing some kind of disciplinary action in her job, or perhaps it was unrelated to the incident or perhaps it wasnt suicide at all.

Whatever the reason, its a terrible tragedy.


----------



## BillK (7 Dec 2012)

Who would you blame if not the DJ's?


----------



## HMC (7 Dec 2012)

I too was very surprised that a strict procedure was not in place when dealing with the royal family. RIP.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Dec 2012)

BillK said:


> Who would you blame if not the DJ's?



it wasnt as if they left her with no choice, she obviously totally overreacted


----------



## becky (7 Dec 2012)

HMC said:


> I too was very surprised that a strict procedure was not in place when dealing with the royal family. RIP.




There is more than likely a procedure for dealing with all callers.  If it's anything like where I work you could spend the whole day reading them.  By the time you're finished, you could start all over again and find there are 20 new ones.

I don't see why the royal family should have their own special one.  

I'd be of the view there were other issues but who knows.  It certainly is a tragedy.

As for the DJ's, their managers cleared this.  I certainly feel for them.  It was a prank (very bad taste but that's what it was).


----------



## truthseeker (7 Dec 2012)

becky said:


> I don't see why the royal family should have their own special one.



Because as historical figures and monarchs they are a security risk and their private lives are of interest to the general public. Its highly unlikely the Queen ever makes a phonecall herself unless its to a private individual who is a friend. Anyone could be (and was) on the other end of the phone.

I would have thought it was obvious that if you deal with the royal family you should put special procedures in place for security and privacy reasons.

Id expect the same for the head of any state tbh.


----------



## becky (7 Dec 2012)

I agree there should be a procedure but the one would do.  Heads of state can easily be covered by it.


----------



## Leper (9 Dec 2012)

Bottom Line:- The Receptionist is dead.
The Radio Station People are responsible.

Ask the receptionist's family what they think of the "prank."

And what information do some of the people on here know that the queen rarely makes a telephone call?


----------



## Sunny (9 Dec 2012)

You can't say the radio station or the DJ's were responsible for the tragedy. None of us anything about the poor woman and what was going on in her life. It's very very rare that one event causes people to take their own lives. 

Having said that, even if this tragedy hasn't happened, the prank was not funny and a ridiculous thing for them to do. They put ordinary working people in a position where they could have lost their jobs.


----------



## oldnick (9 Dec 2012)

What exactly is a prank ?
Is it tricking innocent well-meaning people into breaching confidentiality,  or to performing an action that exposes them to public ridicule, and/or to causing discomfort to other innocent people.

Isn't this what conmen do ?  Is that funny?


----------



## delgirl (9 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> And what information do some of the people on here know that the queen rarely makes a telephone call?


She doesn't, unless it's to a family member. Calls always come from her private secretary or other member of the Royal Household. 



Sunny said:


> Having said that, even if this tragedy hasn't happened, the prank was not funny and a ridiculous thing for them to do. They put ordinary working people in a position where they could have lost their jobs.


I think everyone believes that they had no intention to cause this level of harm, however as Sunny points out, it would have been reasonable for the DJ's to assume that had their prank call been successful, someone could have possibly lost their job for disclosing private information about a patient, and a royal one at that.

The Australian authorities are looking at this 'reasonable assumption' angle to decide whether to bring legal action against the DJ's or the station.  Another offence they're looking at is if it is illegal to record a telephone conversation for broadcast without the permission or knowledge of the person to whom they are speaking.

The least that should happen is that they should lose their jobs. Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand lost theirs with the BBC for a prank call that had a much less serious outcome.


----------



## bullbars (9 Dec 2012)

oldnick said:


> Isn't this what conmen do ? Is that funny?


 
No, conmen are after financial/material gain.


----------



## bullbars (9 Dec 2012)

sunny said:


> you can't say the radio station or the dj's were responsible for the tragedy. None of us anything about the poor woman and what was going on in her life. It's very very rare that one event causes people to take their own lives.
> 
> Having said that, even if this tragedy hasn't happened, the prank was not funny and a ridiculous thing for them to do. They put ordinary working people in a position where they could have lost their jobs.


 
+1.


----------



## oldnick (9 Dec 2012)

Bullbar  -like conmen , tv/radio pranksters do their pranks for financial/material gain.


----------



## truthseeker (9 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> And what information do some of the people on here know that the queen rarely makes a telephone call?



Ah. More disbelief. 

Publically available information. Google is your friend.


----------



## Leper (9 Dec 2012)

. . . and you believe everything you read on Google . . . Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## PaddyBloggit (9 Dec 2012)

.... when it causes the death of a person.


----------



## ajapale (9 Dec 2012)

Do the hospital management have any questions to answer?

Why was this excellent nurse put in a position that she had to answer phone calls from the public?

Did the hospital have a protocol or standard operating procedure for dealing with such calls from the public?


----------



## bullbars (10 Dec 2012)

oldnick said:


> Bullbar -like conmen , tv/radio pranksters do their pranks for financial/material gain.


 
To call comedians con men is a stretch. I never recall Mike Murphy or Jeremy Beadle being accused of being conmen after many years of provifing such entertainment.

To say its now on the same lines as fraud is nonsense.


----------



## Leper (10 Dec 2012)

As far as I know Mike Murphy or Jeremy Beadle never contributed to a death.  The Australian DJ's went beyond the elastic limit and caused the tragedy.

Put yourself in the Receptionist's place.  It is not unthinkable that the queen would ring the hospital.  It is likely that she has the use of a private mobile phone, you know, and she is entitled to use it.

Hospitals have protocol and operating procedures but on the spur of the moment these can cease especially at a busy hospital reception area. I heard on the early RTE radio news that the DJ's responsible have gone into "hiding."


----------



## delgirl (10 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> . . . and you believe everything you read on Google . . . Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Not read on Google, first hand knowledge and it's alsolutely correct.

Unfortunately, the poor nurse who answered the phone wouldn't have known that this is the case and thought she was talking to the Queen.


----------



## truthseeker (10 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> It is not unthinkable that the queen would ring the hospital.  It is likely that she has the use of a private mobile phone, you know, and she is entitled to use it.



Its totally unthinkable. You dont end up on the phone to the Queen of England by accident.

But clearly this poor woman didnt know that.


----------



## casiopea (10 Dec 2012)

Sunny said:


> None of us anything about the poor woman and what was going on in her life. It's very very rare that one event causes people to take their own lives.



I agree  - but that is what really gets to me about prank callers.  They often know little or nothing of the victim, maybe this lady was suffering from depression, or was going through a divorce, or financial issues or was homesick and this was the final straw.  Who knows, at any one time we are all going through a myriad of emotions and issues, none of which prank callers care about.

This has become a big story because she has committed suicide but if she hadnt it still would have had potentially very serious ramifications for her including potentially losing her job and that too would have effected her family and children.

Why is humiliating someone, ie prank calls, still considered - by some - funny?


----------



## MrMan (10 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> As far as I know Mike Murphy or Jeremy Beadle never contributed to a death.  The Australian DJ's went beyond the elastic limit and caused the tragedy.
> 
> Put yourself in the Receptionist's place.  It is not unthinkable that the queen would ring the hospital.  It is likely that she has the use of a private mobile phone, you know, and she is entitled to use it.
> 
> Hospitals have protocol and operating procedures but on the spur of the moment these can cease especially at a busy hospital reception area. I heard on the early RTE radio news that the DJ's responsible have gone into "hiding."



Explain how they contributed to her death? Was she not responsible for her own actions? She put a phone call through, she wasn't even the one giving out the details. If I got sacked in the morning, and I killed myself, should my boss be held responsible?


----------



## ajapale (10 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> As far as I know Mike Murphy or Jeremy Beadle never contributed to a death.



But back in the 80's Noel Edmond's silly stunts did. here.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Dec 2012)

The egg-shell skull theory is a theory in law which states that the victim of a crime must be taken as they are- so in normal circumstances if I flick my finger at someones head, the worst they will experience is a simple momentary hurt. But if that someone's skull is egg-shell thin, I could kill them. Am I responsible for their death? 

Poor old Mattie McGrath seems to have been the latest victim of a telephone prank. Frankly you'd think the callers would have outgrown such a childish prank. http://www.independent.ie/national-...e-bank-tds-pizza-prank-backfires-3319830.html


----------



## bullbars (10 Dec 2012)

ajapale said:


> But back in the 80's Noel Edmond's silly stunts did. here.


That wasn't a prank, that was an accident. i.e. Noel Edmunds didn't unfasten the carrabiner clip for a laugh.


----------



## WizardDr (10 Dec 2012)

Would the panel answer this - if you stood idly by whilst a stranger drowns even if you could have saved him - could you be found guilty of murder or manslaughter?


----------



## T McGibney (10 Dec 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Poor old Mattie McGrath seems to have been the latest victim of a telephone prank. Frankly you'd think the callers would have outgrown such a childish prank. http://www.independent.ie/national-...e-bank-tds-pizza-prank-backfires-3319830.html



This reflects very, very badly on the 5 TDs involved, who sat in their offices laughing at a colleague who was doing his best to represent and defend a family having goods forcibly repossessed. I really wonder what they found funny about that.


----------



## bullbars (10 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> This reflects very, very badly on the 5 TDs involved, who sat in their offices *at the expense of the Irish people*, laughing at a colleague who was doing his best to represent and defend a family having goods forcibly repossessed. I really wonder what they found funny about that.


 
FYP

I don't even think the family were from Mattie McGraths constituency yet he was still trying to help.


----------



## liaconn (10 Dec 2012)

It was a really stupid and irresponsible prank and no, it wasn't a bit funny to broadcast private details about a pregnant woman who was ill in hospital. It is unbelievable that the station managers thought it was suitable for broadcasting or that the DJs thought it was something to boast and brag about on Twitter.

However, at the end of the day, that's what it was - stupid and irresponsible. The people involved were at best thoughtless, at worst very uncaring of the embarassment and potential trouble they were causing to innocent people. They were not malicious people deliberately taunting and bullying someone to her death. Yet, if you were to read some of the comments being made, those two DJs are practically guilty of murder. 

I don't in any way condone what they did, but I think they deserve a bit of sympathy for the horrific consequences of their joke which will no doubt cast a shadow over their lives for a long long time.


----------



## DerKaiser (10 Dec 2012)

This raises two (general) questions:

1) How does the hospital typically establish the identity of callers before providing private medical information

2) What process the Radio station has for screening recorded calls / interviews in terms of being open to potential litigation

I'm sure any organisation would have weaknesses in thees processes and their implementation, so it's very hard for us to apportion blame without knowing whether the processes in place were adequate and whether those people charged with implementing the processes had appropriate training.

It would seem particularly unfair to blame the DJs in this case as they do not decide on whether recordings can be aired.

As for the nurse, everyone makes mistakes at work and most of us will have been subject to some kind of reprimand. It's part of everyday life and you have to assume that people can make a mistake, take their sanction and move on, otherwise nothing would get done.


----------



## truthseeker (10 Dec 2012)

DerKaiser said:


> 1) How does the hospital typically establish the identity of callers before providing private medical information



I dont think any private medical information was aired beyond "she has stopped retching" (I could be wrong).

The problem is, even if the hospital dont 'normally' give out any kind of medical information over the phone, if someone actually believes they are speaking to the Queen of England, normal protocol probably goes out the window because the person is awestruck and wants to please Her Majesty.

Perhaps the hospital management thought it was so obvious that the Queen wouldnt be making calls to reception that they didnt think they had to spell it out for staff? 

It is worth noting that the receptionist who passed on the call and subsequently died did not give out any medical information, she simply put the call through.

Unfortunately if you are going to play an irresponsible prank on someone you dont know personally, you do not know beforehand if that person is already close to the edge of things for whatever personal reasons and that one more incident could be enough to push them over the edge. That is why these types of pranks are silly and irresponsible.


----------



## MeathCommute (10 Dec 2012)

I don't accept that what the receptionist did was directly caused by the DJ prank. She must have been unstable. It's a tragedy, for sure, but I wouldn't blame anyone


----------



## Leper (10 Dec 2012)

MeathCommute said:


> I don't accept that what the receptionist did was directly caused by the DJ prank. She must have been unstable. It's a tragedy, for sure, but I wouldn't blame anyone


 
And you have medical or psychiatry qualifications to back this up?


----------



## ajapale (10 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> It is worth noting that the receptionist who passed on the call and subsequently died did not give out any medical information, she simply put the call through.



She was a highly regarded professional nurse and not a receptionist.

Her voice and that of her nurse colleague on the wards was secretly recorded and effectively broadcast to the entire world without her consent. This was cruel, mean and heartless hoax perpetuated by simpletons for the commercial gain by the owners of a tacky Australian radio station.


----------



## truthseeker (10 Dec 2012)

ajapale said:


> She was a highly regarded professional nurse and not a receptionist.



She was manning reception and answering the phones at the time, she was the receptionist in the context in which I used the term. 

Its hardly relevant anyway. She put the call through, that is all she did. I dont believe that 2 Australian DJs are responsible for her death. We are all responsible for our own actions. The are responsible for being eejits, but thats not a criminal offence as far as I can tell.


----------



## Leper (11 Dec 2012)

The Australian DJ's must shoulder most of the blame for the tragedy.  If the call was not made would the nurse have died? Furthermore, the DJ's were media trained and veterans of such situations and they were dealing with people who were not media trained.  

I saw their pleas on the internet last night.  They are as shallow as a puddle in July.  "We were expecting that the phone would be hung up, that's all we wanted" (not an accurate quote). 

Later last night I listened to an Irish DJ (shock-jock, I think they call some of them) screaming the innocence of the Australian DJ's.  

That nurse was literally a lamb to their slaughter.


----------



## DerKaiser (11 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> we are all responsible for our own actions. The are responsible for being eejits, but thats not a criminal offence as far as i can tell.


+1


----------



## MrMan (11 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> The Australian DJ's must shoulder most of the blame for the tragedy.  If the call was not made would the nurse have died? Furthermore, the DJ's were media trained and veterans of such situations and they were dealing with people who were not media trained.
> 
> I saw their pleas on the internet last night.  They are as shallow as a puddle in July.  "We were expecting that the phone would be hung up, that's all we wanted" (not an accurate quote).
> 
> ...



Why should they shoulder the blame, can you cathegorically claim that they were the reason for her death? Would a 5 second phone call send you over the edge? If you are mentally balanced I would assume that such a call would not make an impact.
They were dealing with people who are not media trained, but if Ajapale is to be believed, then she was a highly regarded professional nurse, so surely she has seen actual trauma, and dealt with high pressure situations.


----------



## Ceist Beag (11 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> The Australian DJ's must shoulder most of the blame for the tragedy.  If the call was not made would the nurse have died? Furthermore, the DJ's were media trained and veterans of such situations and they were dealing with people who were not media trained.
> 
> I saw their pleas on the internet last night.  They are as shallow as a puddle in July.  "We were expecting that the phone would be hung up, that's all we wanted" (not an accurate quote).
> 
> ...


What a load of hysterical twaddle! How many dramatic exaggerations can you introduce into one post Leper! A 30 and 25 year old are described as veterans while a 46 year old nurse is described as lamb to the slaughter. 
You know for a fact that their pleas were shallow do you?
I certainly would not describe the DJs as veterans - as others have said, a pair of eejits would be more apt.
Hundreds of people are the butt of radio DJ pranks every week - a lot would come out of these pranks with a lot more egg on their faces than this nurse did.


----------



## Purple (11 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I dont believe that 2 Australian DJs are responsible for her death. We are all responsible for our own actions. The are responsible for being eejits, but thats not a criminal offence as far as I can tell.



+1
I don't like prank calls or anything that makes fun of people by attacking their dignity but they didn't kill the woman.


----------



## delgirl (11 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I dont believe that 2 Australian DJs are responsible for her death. We are all responsible for our own actions. The are responsible for being eejits, but thats not a criminal offence as far as I can tell.


I also don't believe that the 2 DJ's are responsible for her death, however, their prank did contribute to it.

They passed the recording on to management and the station's legal expert and they are the ones who gave the go ahead for the broadcast.

The Radio Station management is now saying that they tried to contact the hospital on 5 separate occasions, to get permission to broadcast the prank call. 

As the station went ahead without permission and the nurses were recorded without their knowledge, this is apparently an offence in Australia and the Australian authorities are looking into it.

There's also the issue of shame and 'losing face' in Asian culture, particularly in South East Asia. It has to do with a combination of social standing, reputation, influence, dignity, and honor. Causing someone to 'lose face' lowers them in the eyes of their peers and, as this lady was internationally humiliated for believing that the Queen was on the phone, this may have contributed to her anguish.


----------



## T McGibney (11 Dec 2012)

Ceist Beag said:


> What a load of hysterical twaddle! How many dramatic exaggerations can you introduce into one post Leper! A 30 and 25 year old are described as veterans while a 46 year old nurse is described as lamb to the slaughter.
> You know for a fact that their pleas were shallow do you?
> I certainly would not describe the DJs as veterans - as others have said, a pair of eejits would be more apt.



I guarantee you those "eejits" were each getting paid an awful lot more than the nurse they humiliated.


----------



## Ceist Beag (11 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> I guarantee you those "eejits" were each getting paid an awful lot more than the nurse they humiliated.



What has their salary got to do with it?


----------



## ajapale (11 Dec 2012)

This nurse was humiliated literally in front of the whole world and for what - the profit of a juvenile radio station.

I heard the clip of both nurses and was struck by their professionalism and their measured and kind words offered to what they thought was a concerned relative.

I would have thought that at the very least the radio station would have gained the consent of the individuals they sought to ridicule for profit.


----------



## T McGibney (11 Dec 2012)

Ceist Beag said:


> What has their salary got to do with it?



With rewards come responsibilities.


----------



## bullbars (11 Dec 2012)

ajapale said:


> This nurse was humiliated literally in front of the whole world and for what - the profit of a juvenile radio station.


She wasn't the hospital was due to it's handling of issuing confidential information and not having the correct security protocols in place.

The nurse in question, was an unknown name until her death. The second nurse is unknown. 

She made a mistake, a stupid one but fairly minor one that did not result in any real damage at the time.  

Honestly, who picks up the phone and accepts the Queen is on the other end of the line? It's farsical. 



ajapale said:


> I heard the clip of both nurses and was struck by their professionalism and their measured and kind words offered to what they thought was a concerned relative.


 
You were "struck" by nurses being professional? What did you expect? 
Also in their mind it wasn't just a concerned relative on the phone, It was the Queen of England. 



ajapale said:


> I would have thought that at the very least the radio station would have gained the consent of the individuals they sought to ridicule for profit.


 
Does Mario Rosenstock or the Apres Match team ask permission before the take the proverbial out of many high profile figures, no. Yet they are very popular acts on radio/television. 
How many impressionists and TV/Radio pranksters have come and gone and only now it's an issue because one woman could not deal with the result of her actions? 
If I made a mistake in work today, committes suicide tomorrow, can my family sue the company for causing my death?


----------



## bullbars (11 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> With rewards come responsibilities.


That still doesn't answer why levels of pay are to be compared though?


----------



## truthseeker (11 Dec 2012)

ajapale said:


> This nurse was humiliated literally in front of the whole world and for what - the profit of a juvenile radio station.



But no one knew who she was until she died. She was just a voice on a phone. Her name wasnt released as part of the prank. Nor was her image.


----------



## liaconn (11 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> The Australian DJ's must shoulder most of the blame for the tragedy. If the call was not made would the nurse have died? Furthermore, the DJ's were media trained and veterans of such situations and they were dealing with people who were not media trained.
> 
> I saw their pleas on the internet last night. They are as shallow as a puddle in July. "We were expecting that the phone would be hung up, that's all we wanted" (not an accurate quote).
> 
> ...


 
That's way OTT.  How in the name of God could the DJs have foreseen that anyone would commit suicide as a result of being caught out by two pranksters.
I think, as Truthseeker said, they were a pair of eejits who should have foreseen the embarassment they could have caused and the fact that they could have got someone into a lot of trouble. But there is absolutely no way they could have seen that this nurse would actually take her own life. Everyone is stunned by that.


----------



## TarfHead (11 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> That nurse was literally a lamb to their slaughter.


 
The most absurd statement I have ever seen posted on AAM.

Literally


----------



## ajapale (11 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> She was just a voice on a phone.



Sad.


----------



## delgirl (11 Dec 2012)

2day FM have offered A$500,000 (approx. €404,000) to the family of the nurse who took her life after the prank call.


----------



## truthseeker (11 Dec 2012)

ajapale said:


> Sad.



Way to take something out of context. She was just a voice on a phone in terms of identification. Obviously she was far more than just a voice on a phone, seriously, does that need to be made explicit?


----------



## roker (11 Dec 2012)

She could have been depressed, and would have taken her life anyway. We cannot make judgement without knowing the circumstances.


----------



## liaconn (11 Dec 2012)

ajapale said:


> Sad.


 
Bit melodramatic. We can all read the full post and see perfectly well that's not what Truthseeker meant.


----------



## MrMan (11 Dec 2012)

This story is just fuel for the fire for the media, I can't believe how many people think that she was actually the nurse that gave out the info.


----------



## Leper (11 Dec 2012)

Many of us are jumping to conclusions.  We dont know if there were any kind of problems with the victim.  Depression was mentioned.  Another said she "must" have had difficulties.  Many are saying that the DJ's had no cause which could be attributed to them.  Others say the hospital is to blame. Let's wait until any inquiry is finished and the results are made known.


----------



## One (11 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> she was manning reception and answering the phones at the time, she was the receptionist in the context in which i used the term.
> 
> Its hardly relevant anyway. She put the call through, that is all she did. I dont believe that 2 australian djs are responsible for her death. We are all responsible for our own actions. The are responsible for being eejits, but thats not a criminal offence as far as i can tell.


 
+1


----------



## Thirsty (12 Dec 2012)

There's a key part being missed here.

When these 'pranks' are played be that on radio or TV, the perpetrators own up at the end of the skit & get permission for the piece to be aired (or not as the case may be).  

The DJs in question didn't do that and so the telephone call was recorded without the either nurses' permission and was also broadcast without permission from either of them.

Anyone like to comment on the legalities of that?


----------



## Leper (12 Dec 2012)

Well spotted, Thirsty.  Your post puts a whole new complexion on the issue. I had thought the DJ's informed their victim of the situation.  How I feel for that poor nurse, her children and family.


----------



## Bronte (13 Dec 2012)

Leper said:


> How I feel for that poor nurse, her children and family.


 
I don't think there is anybody who doesn't feel that way.  But this was a stupid prank and I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody would commit suicide leaving behind a husband and two children because they incorrectly put though a phone call, that doesn't sound normal to me.  

I also feel sorry for the idiotic radio DJ's, but they couldn't have known what would happen as a result of their actions and I guess they are in a very bad place right now.   

If this means that nobody ever can do a prank or say anything negative, or have a joke than what kind of world is that.


----------



## T McGibney (13 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> But this was a stupid prank and I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody would commit suicide leaving behind a husband and two children because they incorrectly put though a phone call, that doesn't sound normal to me.



Suicide is never "normal". Nor in each case do those left behind ever understand why it happened.


----------



## Thirsty (13 Dec 2012)

> If this means that nobody ever can do a prank or say anything negative, or have a joke than what kind of world is that.


No one is saying they can't; but the people in question left out a crucial bit which was to get permission to broadcast a recording made without permission.  That's what should be shouted loud & clear and I can't understand why no one is saying that.


----------



## ajapale (13 Dec 2012)

Thirsty said:


> ... left out a crucial bit which was to get permission to broadcast a recording made without permission.



I agree.


----------



## MrMan (13 Dec 2012)

Thirsty said:


> No one is saying they can't; but the people in question left out a crucial bit which was to get permission to broadcast a recording made without permission. That's what should be shouted loud & clear and I can't understand why no one is saying that.


 
I like most people would have assumed that no permission was given, because why would the hospital or employees want to highlight that it didn't protect its patients confidentiality. Why do you think that an obvious fact is so important now? 
You could ask, what procedures are in place to protect patients from such breaches now, and is there any procedure in place to help monitor the mental stability of the hospital employees.


----------



## Vanilla (13 Dec 2012)

liaconn said:


> Bit melodramatic. We can all read the full post and see perfectly well that's not what Truthseeker meant.


 
I completely disagree, it is not melodramatic. Actually I thought it was understated. That is if we need to categorise posts now.


----------



## amtc (14 Dec 2012)

Got another perspective on this today - my aunt and my nana came home from Australia today for Christmas. They are 40 years in Perth. Their attitude was 'stinking poms, whining as per usual'. I couldn't get it through to them that it was a pointless prank on a girl who was vulnerable and sick, and a nurse who obviously was deeply affected (whether or not she had underlying issues). It just shows though how it is being viewed within Australia.


----------



## Leper (14 Dec 2012)

If there's one thing I have learned over the years is to discard most of what is said by most Australians.


----------



## Purple (14 Dec 2012)

If there's one thing I've leaned over the years it's to ignore all generalisations


----------



## michaelm (14 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I dont believe that 2 Australian DJs are responsible for her death. We are all responsible for our own actions. The are responsible for being eejits, but thats not a criminal offence as far as I can tell.


Absolutely agree.  It was a stupid prank that wasn't newsworthy yet the general media propagated it around the world.  Now these two clowns are being hounded, say one of them takes their own life, who will be blamed next?   We are all responsible for our own actions.


----------



## MrMan (14 Dec 2012)

amtc said:


> Got another perspective on this today - my aunt and my nana came home from Australia today for Christmas. They are 40 years in Perth. Their attitude was 'stinking poms, whining as per usual'. I couldn't get it through to them that it was a pointless prank on a girl who was vulnerable and sick, and a nurse who obviously was deeply affected (whether or not she had underlying issues). It just shows though how it is being viewed within Australia.



The Australians are being fed one spin, and we are fed another, that is why so many on this side are being so sanctimonous about the whole thing.


----------



## Thirsty (14 Dec 2012)

> ...would have assumed that no permission was given.


If permission was not given to broadcast then it should not have been aired; and I'm pretty sure their own broadcasting guidelines say exactly that. 

My argument is in regards to the legalities of what the radio station did; not patient confidentiality, which is a bit of a red herring in this particular instance.

The *recording* was made without knowledge or consent of the other party

To the best of my knowledge, the legal position is, that whilst you can record your own conversations, you cannot broadcast them without the consent of the other party.


----------



## Bronte (14 Dec 2012)

Thirsty said:


> To the best of my knowledge, the legal position is, that whilst you can record your own conversations, you cannot broadcast them without the consent of the other party.


 
Is that UK law?  Is that Australian law.  Does it apply in either of those jurisdictions if the crime is committed on UK soil by a non resident. I'd say it's a complete new area of law.


----------



## Leo (14 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> Is that UK law? Is that Australian law. Does it apply in either of those jurisdictions if the crime is committed on UK soil by a non resident. I'd say it's a complete new area of law.


 
The laws of the jurisdiction the act took place in prevail, so in this case, Australia.

Residency doesn't come into it.


----------



## Thirsty (16 Dec 2012)

Most democracies have privacy protections in place.

In fact a quick bit of googling quickly finds the answer

"The New South Wales state Surveillance Devices Act prohibits the broadcast of recorded private conversations without participants’ permission, with violations punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $58,000."

Relevant Act is here:


----------



## ajapale (16 Dec 2012)

Yes that's the criminal law but there is also the civil law in these jurisdictions.

Notwithstanding the law (criminal or civil) I think its wrong to profit from these "pranks" without the consent to the victims.


----------



## Latrade (17 Dec 2012)

One thing we can always rely on is that the media and even society will always find a scapegoat in these tragedies because that's easier than having a discussion on suicide prevention.

Whether it be a stupid prank, (ill-advised, immature, humourless, it doesn't matter, it was a stupid prank) or on-line bullying, or whatever. They may be a trigger for a suicide, but they are not the cause and we shouldn't draw a direct link between the two because it exaggerates one act and belittles and diminishes mental health issues.

Sadly, until we can just discuss mental health without any stigma, without any need to label, blame individuals or blame acts, we'll continue to have people needlessly left with the idea that they only have one option available to them to end the turmoil. 

Of course, two idiot DJs in Austrailia are responsibile for all that.


----------



## liaconn (17 Dec 2012)

Vanilla said:


> I completely disagree, it is not melodramatic. Actually I thought it was understated. That is if we need to categorise posts now.


 
It was taking a few words of a post and reposting them completely out of context to try and make out that Truthseeker was dismissing the nurse as 'just a voice' on the end of the telephone.
Very unfair and, yes, melodramatic in my view.


----------

