-
Posts
-
It was a crass prank devoid of any humour, to be sure, and the DJs did nothing wrong. When you read between the lines of the standard apologetic messages issued by lawyers and corporate press briefings, it seems they have been scapegoated by a radio station that has amassed an unenviable figure in fines that suggests they have a very dubious record for this sort of thing and don’t appear to have learned their lessons.
Although the DJs did nothing legally wrong I’m don’t think that absolves them of any responsibility. We are all entitled to some privacy, especially when in hospital, regardless of the laws that we can or cannot count on to support us. Just like shock jockeys they were trying to appease their ratings idol with a devil may care attitude.
I suspect there is some sort of security system that the blue bloods rely on to cover this sort of thing, because they will be extremely aware of press intrusion. But human error creeps into to these things, especially when you consider variable such as nurses that don’t encounter these problems on a day-to-day basis. And let’s face it, how many of us would get into a tizzy when confronted by someone who ‘appears’ to be a representative of the Royal Household? We all defer to ostensible authority without asking questions almost on a day-to-day basis. The nurses at worst were lax in their duty.
The guilty parties, in my opinion, are the DJs and the radio station for thinking a cheap laugh is far more important than personal privacy.
Also, I’m a staunch republican but I thought William and his missus acted impeccably after the fact.
So they want us to be sympathetic because Mel is close to a breakdown! Where was their sympathy to the nurse who was trying to do her job and may have had similar or worse problems??
Im sure that both DJs will be upset and full of self loathing about what happened. It should not have happened and no one disputes that, but it has, and I for one would prefer to learn by the mistakes possibly by making this sort of hoax call illegal.
There is nothing to be learnt or gained by baying for the blood of two young people who truly had no concept of the harm they were doing.
Its easy to be wise after the event, the best lesson is to ensure the event doesn’t happen again or ruin two young people’s lives to boot. I dont for one minute think they meant harm by the call. Its tragic and they should not get off scot free but I hate the sort of headlines papers like the mail think is acceptable.
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Im sure that both DJs will be upset and full of self loathing about what happened. It should not have happened and no one disputes that, but it has, and I for one would prefer to learn by the mistakes possibly by making this sort of hoax call illegal.
There is nothing to be learnt or gained by baying for the blood of two young people who truly had no concept of the harm they were doing.
Its easy to be wise after the event, the best lesson is to ensure the event doesn’t happen again or ruin two young people’s lives to boot. I dont for one minute think they meant harm by the call. Its tragic and they should not get off scot free but I hate the sort of headlines papers like the mail think is acceptable.
I agree, Mrs T. But the DJs were inept. They knew it was an invasion of privacy, and i maintain my initial thoughts about it being an ill-conceived joke.
That doesn’t mean I think they should be hung and quartered. No doubt they will be full of regret and they themselves are probably experiencing some unenviable media intrusion now.
The radio station is the real guilty party here, though, as they have a record of doing this sort of thing and have got into trouble about even worse pranks than this one on many occasions.
Haven’t seen the headline in The Mail but I can I guess that I would find it exaggerated.
@rusty trawler wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Im sure that both DJs will be upset and full of self loathing about what happened. It should not have happened and no one disputes that, but it has, and I for one would prefer to learn by the mistakes possibly by making this sort of hoax call illegal.
There is nothing to be learnt or gained by baying for the blood of two young people who truly had no concept of the harm they were doing.
Its easy to be wise after the event, the best lesson is to ensure the event doesn’t happen again or ruin two young people’s lives to boot. I dont for one minute think they meant harm by the call. Its tragic and they should not get off scot free but I hate the sort of headlines papers like the mail think is acceptable.
I agree, Mrs T. But the DJs were inept. They knew it was an invasion of privacy, and i maintain my initial thoughts about it being an ill-conceived joke.
That doesn’t mean I think they should be hung and quartered. No doubt they will be full of regret and they themselves are probably experiencing some unenviable media intrusion now.
The radio station is the real guilty party here, though, as they have a record of doing this sort of thing and have got into trouble about even worse pranks than this one on many occasions.
Haven’t seen the headline in The Mail but I can I guess that I would find it exaggerated.
. . . . get into a tizzy when confronted by someone who ‘appears’ to be a representative of the Royal Household?
Not that staunch a republican then! Must remember to wear my tiara if we ever meet . . . .
But seriously, the DJs were paid to entertain, they tried, they succeeded right up until the tragic suicide which no-one, even people who found the original prank offensive, foresaw.
There are people paid to prevent unauthorised access to the Royal Family. Not only did they fail, but they didn’t even try. They are to blame.
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Im sure that both DJs will be upset and full of self loathing about what happened. . . . . .
I really hope the DJs get over any self-loathing asap, the hoaxers didn’t even think they’d get through, making it illegal to pretend to be the queen could put the kybosh on a few jokes made at the Royal Variety Performance and technically even the stunt person at the Olympics.
No-one thought there would be a tragic outcome to this until it happened. Lessons to be learned? Make the Royal security people do their job!!!!
she did not have enough reason to take that ultimate and tragic step.
Fact.So . . . . . . . . it was obviously black Charlie from the drain pipe, in timely catburglar fashion, as Camilla threw oats from the wheelie-bin below and ate quite a few herself. You people. Most of you have surely watched Pacino, and yet still refuse to recognise the truth of how things really are.
It’s a good job I’m here.
.
@jen_jen wrote:
A woman has died just a few hours ago and you make a joke of it…tacky and tasteless [-(
Jen, you need to explain the joke first.
.
@momentaryloss wrote:
I understand that the NHS Trust involved was “supporting” the member of staff.
A breach of confidentiality is gross misconduct and can lead to a member of staff being sacked, as well as a referral to the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), which can result in removal from the register.
Public servants appear to be public enemy number one at the moment with politicians and the media calling for sackings every time a mistake is made. The management of the Trust would have been aware of this and would have been expecting serious repercussions, despite the fact that this was clearly a matter of dishonesty on the part of the DJs. (Indeed playing such a tape on radio is an offence both here and in Australia if the participants do not consent to it being played.)
The NHS has one of the most brutal management cultures in the UK, goaded on by politicians eager to make political capital. In what way was this member of staff was made explicitly aware of the situation, and the consequences for both her and the Trust (as a nurse she would have known this any case)?
In such a situation, where she clearly was at risk of losing her job and her career, I wonder how “supportive” her employers were in practice, and what effect her dilemma had on her mental state. Only the Trust and the poor woman herself will ever know the answers to these questions and sadly she is now dead.
This is not just a case of someone who made a decision because she was embarrassed by the publicity.
So who exactly is to blame?
Reading on, . . . . . . . .all seems ok now.
Momes resonates, and would be a big loss to this site.
=D> =D>
@wordsworth60 wrote:
. . . . get into a tizzy when confronted by someone who ‘appears’ to be a representative of the Royal Household?
Not that staunch a republican then! Must remember to wear my tiara if we ever meet . . . .
But seriously, the DJs were paid to entertain, they tried, they succeeded right up until the tragic suicide which no-one, even people who found the original prank offensive, foresaw.
There are people paid to prevent unauthorised access to the Royal Family. Not only did they fail, but they didn’t even try. They are to blame.
Thought I replied to this but it somehow got lost in the ether. Apologies if it duplicates.
I couldn’t agree less, Words.
We all sometimes automatically defer to authority figures without asking to many questions. The psychology experiments of Zimbardo and Milgram show just how willingly we ignore our own moral codes when confronted by a uniform (there’s a reason why dictators like epaulettes) or someone in a white lab coat. It seems quite reasonable to me that the average person might think the Royal Family and it’s representatives know how these things work more than someone on a on a switchboard. And it’s even compounded if you conclude that they think their bosses would censure them for questioning the Queen or her representatives. I think many would consider ignoring protocol in the quest to do the ‘right thing’.
Of course there are people who are charged to insulate the Royals from mere plebs like you and I, but they make mistakes too. When you and I make mistakes in our respective jobs it’s usually of the oops-check-no-one-is-looking-and-sweep-it-under-the-rug variety. Our mistakes don’t tend to be the genesis of a world-wide scandal. Furthermore, for understandable reasons, the Royals are very sensitive about how they interacts with society at large, otherwise they run the risk of appearing even more detached, privileged and superior. It’s a very sensitive gig getting nurses on a switchboard to understand that world view. Other than manning the phones themselves, and bearing in mind the things I have just stated about their precarious position, I can’t see how they could entirely protect against human error.
The DJs are paid to entertain but I find that a questionable defence, especially when it invades rights to privacy. If i am a staunch republican and believe in a meritocracy, then I have to believe that William and Kate should be afforded the same rights to privacy as you and I. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the bond of privacy between a patient and a doctor (and by extension the hospital) should be respected. And I don’t think it’s too much to ask to tread with some caution in the pursuit of ratings.
That’s not to say that I’m calling for a public hanging or putting pins in miniature dolls of aussie DJs; they made a mistake but the grave consequences were unforeseeable. However, certain checks and balances and codes of practice make this sort of thing more unlikely. Which brings me back to their employers, who have a record of doing this sort of thing then pay a fine and then repeat, they are ultimately responsible, in my opinion.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!