Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t know you, TinTin, but I’ve recently seen your name in the lobby and I’ve turned into something of a post board junky, so I read your post. I must confess i was woefully ignorant about CF, as I am most things, so many thanks for being so frank and informative and I wish you the best.
Good luck with everything.
@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.
@taffygirl wrote:
It is my special holiday outfit – I know lots have posted pictures of themselves on here and I didn’t want to be left out. So if you want to know what I look like, here I am. My hair hasn’t been the same since I was in the highlands! Thank you Tinny darlin xxxx
Lol taffy. There’s always been something very attractive about people who can take the Michael out of themselves. You’re a true babe whatever you look like.
@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.
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.
Taramasalata…..
…which I often whimsically follow up with the words Afrika Bambata
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@jen_jen wrote:
Can I just enjoy the hospitality without being locked in the cupboard please?
Jen_jen, you’d be most welcome on our Ladies Day. But I’m not sure the Mem-Sahibs would be entirely comfortable with the idea of us chaps sharing un-chaperoned relaxed conviviality with fascinating women such as yourself.
Sorry, Jen Jen, the stipulations that Grandmaster Words has bought to your attention are undoubtedly anachronistic, but I’m afraid the more forward-thinking members of this institution are outnumbered by the fuddy-duddies ten to one.
I’d like to be more gallant and oppose the sticklers, but the last time I tried to sneak a fair lady through the gents’ window I was blackballed, which doesn’t sound too bad until you understand how literal these chaps are – and they used permanent dye.
When I finally found a suitable location for my assignation with the willing lassie, she took one look at my newly-painted undercarriage and ran away screaming. Alas my love life is now a distant memory, although I maintain a modicum of confidence that my black and white, ahem, equipment might persuade Panda that we could at the very least be kissing cousins.
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@jen_jen wrote:
Can I just enjoy the hospitality without being locked in the cupboard please?
Jen_jen, you’d be most welcome on our Ladies Day. But I’m not sure the Mem-Sahibs would be entirely comfortable with the idea of us chaps sharing un-chaperoned relaxed conviviality with fascinating women such as yourself.
At all other times, the only other women allowed beyond the reception desk in the club, are:
1) The Sovereign
2) Members of the Sovereign’s personal staff for the duration of any visit.
3) Members of the military, police or government security services in pursuit of their duties.
4) Other persons, at the discretion of available committee members e.g. Clergy or undertakers where appropriate.
5) Essential maintenance staff, who would normally be subject to 48 hour’s notice unless in dire emergency.
6) Entertainers engaged under contract.
The Club rules and constitution are regularly reviewed, but unfortunately for the more progressive of the members, there are several essential endowments and covenants at stake. In fact, I believe an Act of Parliament would have to be passed under certain circumstances.
*chortles*
@mrs_teapot wrote:
@rusty trawler wrote:
Any of you lovely ladies need a plus one for your Christmas party?
I think its ladies only….. but I will check with my fellow members if its allowed….. if it is will you be bringing gifts? I know that will be the first question they will ask :D :D :D
Well i know that you won’t turn your nose up at a family-size bar of Toblerone, but it wasn’t very long ago when the rest of the ladies shut the door in my face when I was bearing very expensive shoes as ploy to gain entry.
@momentaryloss wrote:
That need for multiple accusations before things are taken seriously is what I have an issue with, not the Police using Crimewatch and other methods to jog memories in the hope of solving serious crimes.
I’m defending the principle more than anything else. You’re absolutely right that things should be taken seriously prior to the intervention of the media or multiple accusations. I agree with you, but even when we may think naming the accused is merely because of shoddy, lazy police work or for small ‘p’ political purposes, I would still suggest it is difficult for us to know because we don’t have access to the evidence. I may be suspicious but I simply don’t know if the police are trying to garner further information with the naming of the latest suspects in the Saville scandal. But I do take on board your point.
