Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 5164
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
Allen Carbon wrote:
I think that pranks are funny and the fundamental reason for jokes can't be changed just because one person may disagree with it. And here we have a problem. Something is only 'a joke' if the 'humorous' result is seen that way by all parties concerned. Many 'jokes' are actually the acts of bullies or insensitive people who are making fun at another's expense in order to inflate their ego / presence further.
In this instance there is absolutely no way that the end result would be seen as a 'joke' by either the staff or the patient involved. Therefore, irrespective of the outcome, it was not a joke.
Photographer
Allen Carbon
Posts: 1532
Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
photoimager wrote:
And here we have a problem. Something is only 'a joke' if the 'humorous' result is seen that way by all parties concerned. Many 'jokes' are actually the acts of bullies or insensitive people who are making fun at another's expense in order to inflate their ego / presence further.
In this instance there is absolutely no way that the end result would be seen as a 'joke' by either the staff or the patient involved. Therefore, irrespective of the outcome, it was not a joke. Yeah no.. no matter how you dress that up. A joke is a joke. Take aside this death.
The Radio show & people listening to the show would have found it amusing at the time.
You can't just jump from one end of the spectrum and say that any joke that one person may find offensive is automatically an act of bullying.
I refuse to believe that the world has gone way too PC that every joke must be PG.
A joke can't be restrainted, it does not have to be on the expense of others but at the same time you can't put constraints and say. "This is the margin of which you can make jokes by, otherwise it is not funny"
I guess you didn't laugh at all when those burglars rolled on the marbles and hurt themselves in Home Alone?
Edit: I'm still not even convinced that she committed suicide because of this joke. She's not even the one that gave them delicate information, she just passed it onto someone. There must be something else involved and the press just rolled with this as the perfect scapegoat to a headline.
Photographer
Robb Mann
Posts: 12327
Baltimore, Maryland, US
Its hard for us in the states to understand the relationship between the Royals and their subjects. This prank was at a whole different level than say, prank calling a hospital to get medical info on the Presidents family.
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 5164
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
Robb Mann wrote:
Its hard for us in the states to understand the relationship between the Royals and their subjects. As emphasised by the fact that for most of us it does not matter whose information was sought. It is not a matter of the person being Royalty. Patient confidentiality is a right for every person in the UK in medical situations. The fact that it was Royalty just makes it gain more headline space. I somehow don't think the 'presenters' who carried it out would have bothered if it was 'Aunt Mavis from down the road'.
Whilst technically UK citizens are 'subjects' it only seems to be people from the US of A who focus on this. Our politicians run the country in the same sort of democratic way as they do in other countries with an elected government. The Royal Family are figureheads here, not political masters.
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 5164
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
Allen Carbon wrote:
Yeah no.. no matter how you dress that up. A joke is a joke. Either you ignored or missed this key part:
photoimager wrote:
Something is only 'a joke' if the 'humorous' result is seen that way by all parties concerned By the way, movies are not real life.
Model
Saedcantas
Posts: 445
Saint Saviour, Saint Saviour, United Kingdom
Allen Carbon wrote:
That's why i don't think it's because of the prank. If it is then what a terrible mom she is leaving her kids to fend for themselves just because she feels ashamed.
It's sad that she is dead yes. But it is tragic that those kids no longer have a mom.
The bigger consequence and question should be the moms commitment to her kids.
cause otherwise she would have put her ego and the royal family above her own children. Ultimately it's clear that you neither understand or know anything about the mind of the average person considering suicide. Their mental state is far from "standard".
A suicidal person might literally see themselves as such a failure and their situation as so unfixable that their kids lives would be better off without them.
Photographer
Allen Carbon
Posts: 1532
Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
Saedcantas wrote:
Ultimately it's clear that you neither understand or know anything about the mind of the average person considering suicide. Their mental state is far from "standard".
A suicidal person might literally see themselves as such a failure and their situation as so unfixable that their kids lives would be better off without them. Thread very carefully. You don't know the history of my life.
Photographer
Allen Carbon
Posts: 1532
Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
photoimager wrote:
Allen Carbon wrote:
Yeah no.. no matter how you dress that up. A joke is a joke. Either you ignored or missed this key part:
By the way, movies are not real life. I guess you missed my entire point.
A joke can't be restrained. It doesn't need to be at the expense of others but at the same time i don't believe a joke can be measured and put into borders.
and like before, I say that outside of the obvious tragic events.
I don't think it's fair however to witch hunt these Radio Presenters for doing what radio presenters do.
Clearly there was something more, she wans't even the one who's prank was pulled on.
by the way, I said that as a joke. I guess you missed that joke too.
Model
DEACTIVATED ACCOUNT
Posts: 1294
Čaġčarān, Ġawr, Afghanistan
I'm watching the hosts interview now. It's unedited and shown in full. These people are just complete liars, seriously unable to answer any simple questions, crying on command and repeating themselves rather than making any new points.
I'm so over this, they're a disgrace to Australia. they should face the legal repercussions of misleading others in order to gain private medical information. Regardless of who they were gaining the information on, it's still confidential files and only seriously low people would go to such lengths to gain it.
Photographer
John Photography
Posts: 13811
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Mary Thomson wrote:
I'm watching the hosts interview now. It's unedited and shown in full. These people are just complete liars, seriously unable to answer any simple questions, crying on command and repeating themselves rather than making any new points.
I'm so over this, they're a disgrace to Australia. they should face the legal repercussions of misleading others in order to gain private medical information. Regardless of who they were gaining the information on, it's still confidential files and only seriously low people would go to such lengths to gain it. Was that the Today Tonight interview?
Model
DEACTIVATED ACCOUNT
Posts: 1294
Čaġčarān, Ġawr, Afghanistan
AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
Was that the Today Tonight interview? No, it was on A Current Affair. But there was another on Today Tonight that I haven't seen.
Model
misszara
Posts: 6715
Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)
Compass Rose Studios wrote:
What I'm trying to figure out is was it a prank that went off the rails in a way they didn't expect or did they have criminal intent to try and get personal information? They've done an interview over here and the 2 DJ's confessed that they believed they'd be hung up on. They said the humour was in their awful accents and they believed this prank would have been pulled 100 times before and were expecting to be hung up on.
Also, it was pre-recorded. The prank was then passed onto producers and executives who had the decision to leave it or play it.
Model
misszara
Posts: 6715
Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)
Alec Dealty wrote:
The nurse was the one who did the most wrong here by divulging information she shouldn't have. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but in the US her actions were a clear violation of HIPAA. At the same time she was not the one who answered the call. She was put through by the other nurse, meaning she must have thought they'd screened the call and made sure it was legitimate.
Model
misszara
Posts: 6715
Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)
Mary Thomson wrote:
I'm watching the hosts interview now. It's unedited and shown in full. These people are just complete liars, seriously unable to answer any simple questions, crying on command and repeating themselves rather than making any new points.
I'm so over this, they're a disgrace to Australia. they should face the legal repercussions of misleading others in order to gain private medical information. Regardless of who they were gaining the information on, it's still confidential files and only seriously low people would go to such lengths to gain it. Misleading others to gain private medical information? From what we heard in the call they asked about visiting times and joked about corgis.
Model
DEACTIVATED ACCOUNT
Posts: 1294
Čaġčarān, Ġawr, Afghanistan
misszara wrote:
Also, it was pre-recorded. The prank was then passed onto producers and executives who had the decision to leave it or play it. But don't you think they would of reached a stage and thought, fuck they're actually giving us private details of this persons life, maybe we should stop asking such intimate questions that we have no right to know? They asked the questions, they pushed for further information and they promoted it as being absolutely hilarious with no consideration for the humiliation and distress it would cause either nurse or the duchess. It might have gone through further people before being aired (people they couldn't actually name or give job titles to in their interview might I add) but that doesn't mean they can just push the responsibility onto somebody else because they have a fucked moral compass.
Model
DEACTIVATED ACCOUNT
Posts: 1294
Čaġčarān, Ġawr, Afghanistan
misszara wrote:
Misleading others to gain private medical information? From what we heard in the call they asked about visiting times and joked about corgis. I didn't listen to the call, it isn't my kind of humor. But they said they were someone else, in order to gain private and secure information. Just to put it in perspective, if you were to become seriously ill and you were retained in hospital and I was to call the hospital (not knowing you personally, and with no right to your private files) and pretend to be your mother to gain that information that is illegal.
If I was to call your phone company and pretend to be you in order to see how much you spend per month, that is illegal.
Model
misszara
Posts: 6715
Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)
Mary Thomson wrote:
But don't you think they would of reached a stage and thought, fuck they're actually giving us private details of this persons life, maybe we should stop asking such intimate questions that we have no right to know? They asked the questions, they pushed for further information and they promoted it as being absolutely hilarious with no consideration for the humiliation and distress it would cause either nurse or the duchess. It might have gone through further people before being aired (people they couldn't actually name or give job titles to in their interview might I add) but that doesn't mean they can just push the responsibility onto somebody else because they have a fucked moral compass. You then said in your next response "I didn't listen to the call", so where are you getting this from?
They asked how she was, when a good time to visit was and joked about walking the corgis in terrible accents. From what was broadcast they didn't ask personal questions.
Model
misszara
Posts: 6715
Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)
Mary Thomson wrote:
I didn't listen to the call, it isn't my kind of humor. But they said they were someone else, in order to gain private and secure information. Just to put it in perspective, if you were to become seriously ill and you were retained in hospital and I was to call the hospital (not knowing you personally, and with no right to your private files) and pretend to be your mother to gain that information that is illegal.
If I was to call your phone company and pretend to be you in order to see how much you spend per month, that is illegal. That is illegal, but that wasn't what the DJ's intended to do. They never intended to gain private and secure information, rather to pull a prank which they believed would never work.
They shouldn't have called the hospital, that was stupid, but at the same time radio stations pull stupid pranks and they didn't intend to find information.
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Photographer
Eastfist
Posts: 3582
Green Bay, Wisconsin, US
It's funny at whose expense "happy" people pull their pranks on isn't it?
Makeup Artist
KC hmua
Posts: 184
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Its certainly been very interesting to see everyones reactions and funny no one has really gotten to the source of the issue. The media is to blame for this as this is a clear example of bad reporting.
Firstly yes the djs did a stupid thing, i listened to their prank on air and the impersonation was soo soo soo bad it was pathetic. It was a joke that that is all it takes to get through a private hospitals security.
I am not angry at the djs they do stupid things for a living like every other dj on this planet. If it wasnt them it would have been someone else.
Secondly what if it was a terror group doing it trying to get information on the royals????? that would change things differently.
I see this as purely a ridiculous breech of security ( or lack thereof) You would think that the royals would have better security and the hospital involved would be under heavy scrutiny for their lack of protocols and procedures. I certainly would not like to be in that hospital right now. The uproar in the uk should be directed at the hospital not at the djs. There will always be some nutcase testing your security it is up to you to develop your security measures to weed them out. Why wasnt there a receptionist rostered on to screen calls rather than leaving it up to the nurses? Funding cuts in europe must be really bad....... hmm...
Thirdly, it is terrible that this nurse has committed suicide. Im sure this is not the reason why she killed herself merely the straw that broke the camels back. If this didnt set her off then something else eventualy would. If the family and her workplace knew she was suicidal then they should have gotten her some help.
These djs are not responsible for her death. It is a series of bad events that coincided together.
What should be done is procedures in place to stop this from happening.
Aus stereo should not go after the djs but rather th station manager that approved it to go to air....
Food from thought
Photographer
Natural Means
Posts: 936
Yamba, New South Wales, Australia
Allen Carbon wrote:
Yeah no.. no matter how you dress that up. A joke is a joke. Take aside this death.
The Radio show & people listening to the show would have found it amusing at the time.
You can't just jump from one end of the spectrum and say that any joke that one person may find offensive is automatically an act of bullying.
I refuse to believe that the world has gone way too PC that every joke must be PG.
A joke can't be restrainted, it does not have to be on the expense of others but at the same time you can't put constraints and say. "This is the margin of which you can make jokes by, otherwise it is not funny"
I guess you didn't laugh at all when those burglars rolled on the marbles and hurt themselves in Home Alone?
Edit: I'm still not even convinced that she committed suicide because of this joke. She's not even the one that gave them delicate information, she just passed it onto someone. There must be something else involved and the press just rolled with this as the perfect scapegoat to a headline. Yeah, no. Your mixing movies and real life up.
Prank calls have never achieved anything.
Photographer
deletedxxx
Posts: 149
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I'm curious as to how people would expect a hospital to verify somone's identity over the phone. Most places you call (like a bank or insurance company) who verify your identity do it using information you have already supplied them at some other point in time.
I can't imagine someone who is pooing their pants at speaking to someone who has identified themselves as one of the most important and influential people in the world to ask for thier full name, address date of birth and secret password before passing a call on to someone who can give them the information they request. (and the Queens full name, dob, address, mothers maiden name aren't exactly information only known to people who her well!)
It's not like there's a data base for anyone who wants to verify someones identity that that holds everyones personal information for verification purposes but for privacy it can only be accessed by a person needing to verify the information and no-one else! (not possible!)
I also love the reponse from the DJ's "we didn't think" and "everyone does it".
Yeah great.
Model
DEACTIVATED ACCOUNT
Posts: 1294
Čaġčarān, Ġawr, Afghanistan
landofy wrote:
I also love the reponse from the DJ's "we didn't think" and "everyone does it".
Yeah great. +1
Photographer
Stay Puft
Posts: 2413
Ofu, Manu'a, American Samoa
Alec Dealty wrote:
The nurse was the one who did the most wrong here by divulging information she shouldn't have. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but in the US her actions were a clear violation of HIPAA. misszara wrote:
At the same time she was not the one who answered the call. She was put through by the other nurse, meaning she must have thought they'd screened the call and made sure it was legitimate. Again, I don't know the law in the UK, but in the US you can't divulge information to anyone other than the patient over the phone, period. They are not even allowed to leave a voicemail on the patient's own phone saying anything other than "please call your doctor."
So, believing it was screened or not would not have made a difference in the US.
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
studio36uk wrote:
thump thump ................thump thump
Studio36 Yep, and now CNN is reporting that the coppers (U.K. and Oz) are talking. Oopsie!
Photographer
Compass Rose Studios
Posts: 15979
Portland, Oregon, US
Lohkee wrote:
Yep, and now CNN is reporting that the coppers (U.K. and Oz) are talking. Oopsie! You seem to be taking a great deal of pleasure in this. Why so much schadenfreude for these two?
They're just a couple of talk show radio people from down under doing their schtick; it's not like they're neo-nazis or serial killers.
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Compass Rose Studios wrote:
You seem to be taking a great deal of pleasure in this. Why so much schadenfreude for these two?
They're just a couple of talk show radio people from down under doing their schtick; it's not like they're neo-nazis or serial killers. I think I've made my position **very** clear in this thread. Pranking any type of emergency service is just plain DUMB! I hope they roast!
Photographer
Compass Rose Studios
Posts: 15979
Portland, Oregon, US
Lohkee wrote:
! I hope they roast! Because someone died or just for making the call in the first place?
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Compass Rose Studios wrote:
Because someone died or just for making the call in the first place? Just for making the call. . . . . . .
Photographer
Compass Rose Studios
Posts: 15979
Portland, Oregon, US
Lohkee wrote:
Just for making the call. . . . . . . I see.
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Compass Rose Studios wrote:
I see. Given your replies to this thread, I'm not so sure that you do see.
Photographer
Compass Rose Studios
Posts: 15979
Portland, Oregon, US
Lohkee wrote:
Given your replies to this thread, I'm not so sure that you do see. I never said I agree. That doesn't make incapable of understanding your pov, just not in alignment with it.
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Compass Rose Studios wrote:
I never said I agree. That doesn't make incapable of understanding your pov, just not in alignment with it. Understood. You seem to think pranking emergency services is acceptable for grins and giggles. I got that. We just (strongly) disagree. No problem.
I am curious. Where do you draw the line? Is it o.k to game the telco and send SWAT to someone's house in the middle of the night?
Photographer
Compass Rose Studios
Posts: 15979
Portland, Oregon, US
Lohkee wrote:
Understood. You seem to think pranking emergency services is acceptable for grins and giggles. I got that. We just (strongly) disagree. No problem.
I am curious. Where do you draw the line? Is it o.k to game the telco and send SWAT to someone's house in the middle of the night? I don't put calling a hospital to ask for someone and faking a call that will send in SWAT on the same level. But that's a very complicated level of differentiation for some.
I also think that in retrospect though those dj's are probably all too aware that this probably wasn't a wise thing to do - I don't think they should 'roast for it'. They made an unwise decision. They didn't maliciously commit a crime.
We still don't know what prompted the lady who patched them thru to kill herself so that's that.
And I think if this hadn't been the 'royals' - which is really a pretty offensive little concept to laud in the 21st century when you stop to think about it - no one would know about this happening because it never would've made much news.
If other revelations change the details, I might change my perspective.
But that's what I think right now.
Photographer
Raymond Irvine
Posts: 316
Camarillo, California, US
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the hospital. If anyone should be assigned blame, they should be at the top of the list! They had a high profile patient and should have expected all sorts of calls from media, tabloids, concerned citizens and, yes, even crank radio DJ's doing pranks. So what do they do? Assign a poor nurse who was out of her depth and unprepared. On top of that, she was perhaps a little bit unstable. The DJ's probably did nothing compared to what the tabloids or even some legitimate media might try to get a story.
DJ's pull these kinds of pranks all the time and people don't just off themselves. This was an extraordinary circumstance. It was so unlikely to happen that it would have been unreasonable for the DJ's to even seriously consider it. The hospital however, should have known that their front line person on the phone could face tremendous pressure and should make sure to have that position staffed by someone experienced, well enough prepared and confident enough to handle the situation. The main reason the hospital should insist on such an individual is to protect the patient's privacy and prevent the unauthorized release of information. As we have seen from this incident though, a person may need those qualities just to protect themselves.
Stop looking half-way around the world to place the blame on the DJ's. They are really victims too. The real culprit is the hospital and the incredibly poor judgement they used in assigning that nurse to the phones while there was high profile patient.
Photographer
John Photography
Posts: 13811
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Mary Thomson wrote:
No, it was on A Current Affair. But there was another on Today Tonight that I haven't seen. Yeah I guess they were not that upset that they got paid from both channel 9 and 7 to do those interviews........ The one on 7 was pretty much the same interview as ACA and that girl looked sad and forlorn.....
Model
DEACTIVATED ACCOUNT
Posts: 1294
Čaġčarān, Ġawr, Afghanistan
AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
Yeah I guess they were not that upset that they got paid from both channel 9 and 7 to do those interviews........ The one on 7 was pretty much the same interview as ACA and that girl looked sad and forlorn..... Oh they made it very clear at the start of the interview that neither host were paid. But that was just for ACA, I don't know about the other one. I can understand her feeling sad, I get it, regret it whatever. But when have prank calls ever been funny? I don't think I've ever heard a prank call that wasn't with the intent to scare or humiliate the respondent. I was bullied with prank calls in my early high school years and I still think its just such a ridiculously low form of humor. I dont even listen to the radio now due to the low quality of the presenters.
EDIT: and that's not a recent thing, just to point that out. I've chosen CD's over radio for about a year now. Whenever I'm in anyone else's car the ads drive me insane!
|
