Nurse that took hoax call

[the-e-dealer]

When I heard it I thought what a pair of schoolkids. Its recorded on this forum.

To say "No body is to blame" is so 21st Century no one taking responsibility or understanding the effects of their actions upon others. Or even caring about anyone else. Sad!

Good to hear the Journalists saying they regretted it. They also said that the expectation was the phone would be hung up as soon as they asked to be put through. And some mysterious "other" beings decided whether or not to play the recording. So the Journalists take the blame for someone else's decision. And the Nurse dies because the hospital didn't have any security procedures to prevent this.

I heard on LBC that the Hospital is a very strict and unpleasant place to work where heads would roll for this. But of course we have someone on here who knows the CEO and thinks if asked he would say they took no action against the Nurse.

[Otta]

I still think it's pretty convenient for the hospital to try to lay the blame completely at the feet of the hoax callers.

In the NHS both nurses would have at least been disciplined. I find it hard to believe that the hospital didn't take any action and that she wasn't at least verbally roasted for her part in it.

Of course after she's gone and killed herself the hospital aren't going to say "hmm perhaps we were a bit hard on her".

[Michael Palaeologus]

How is it ever appropriate to phone a hospital to seek information about somebody who you have no relationship? That the hospital should have filtered the call out sooner is actually irrelvant to this issue, the call should not have been made.

The call was made and as a result somebody killed themselves. There is causality. There is responsibility.

I agree with e-dealer, the idea of "no-blame" is part of contemporary malaise which ducks responsibility for actions.

I wouldnt credit the DJs with the title "Journalist", discredited though that is, "Irresponsible Light Entertainers" at best.

[StraferJack]

"The call was made and as a result somebody killed themselves." - direct implication - unproven. The same call could be made how many times to how many people - does it seem likely that most of those people would kill themselves if they acted in the same way? Of couse not

And I think 21st century culture is the opposite of "no blame" - we live very much in a world where people are always crying for someone to blame

It's isn't appropriate to ring a hospital and ask for records. Most prank calls are by definition "inappropriate". Again I'm not defending them , but you can't lesgislate them out of existence

[woodrot]

lazy unispired prank call to a hospital where someone famous is unwell = public lolz

lazy unispired prank call to a hospital where someone famous is unwell & someone involved in the periphery kills themselves which may/may not be related = public not lolz

The whole prankster premise is facile, seedy and unredeemingly shit, whatever the the final outcome was

[*Bob*]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And I think 21st century culture is the opposite

> of "no blame" - we live very much in a world where

> people are always crying for someone to blame

Totally agree.

The contemporary malaise is one of a perverse need to attach and over-apportion blame. Always on somebody else, of course.

[????]

I phone a hospital and say "I have those 5 million sticky plasters you ordered I'm in a van outside" - that's a crappy, unredeemable, useless prank, but only that

To phone a hospital pretending to be someoene else and try and gain information on a patient, (even if you pretend to be the queen) is a whole different kettle of fish, and just shows what foooking morons the aussie are. I am sure their intention was just a prank but they must be stupid beyond belief as their actions were actualy illegal I think on that basis (ie attempting to breach private confidentiality by impersonation).

The nurse - tragic but we don't know anything yet.

[the-e-dealer]

just read how many posters on here think 'no-one is to blame" !

[*Bob*]

Sometime last week, LBC ran a phone-in, the cut and thrust of which being that of the presenter encouraging the listeners to phone-in and run-down the entire nursing profession as - in the main - unfit for purpose and in the wrong job.

Today's phone-in sees listeners call-in to demand we declare war on Australia.

I expect it's the same people calling.

[Michael Palaeologus]

We seem to be swinging wildly from one extreme to another - the 21st Century culture of blame is wrong ergo, nobody is to blame. Twaddle.

You cant legislate pranks out of existance, but you can ensure that people know that if they cause harm, there is jeopardy. The degree of jeopardy is dependent on the degree of harm caused.

If no harm is caused, there is no jeopardy, if somebody kills themselves, then there is jeopardy. Not hard for anybody to understand and factor into their decision whether to prank or not to prank.

Similar to any other part of adult life. Act sensibly, you are fine. Act like a cock and cause harm, you are not fine.

That being the case, it is up to any given adult to make their own decision.

As you say their is a direct implication of causality, albeit unproven. That is for the Police to investigate. I believe that if causality is proven, then there should be jeopardy for perpetrators of the prank. If there is no causal link, there is no jeopardy. However, if the latter scenario is the case, perhaps they will think twice before they prank again.

[woodrot]

From the stations owners perspective

shit prank broadcast worldwide = ratings and profile boost lolz

shit prank and possibly unrelated death association = profile and ratings plummet, advertisers jump ship, all hands to the damage limitation pumps - not lolz

shit prank is still shit prank in both scenarios

[Jeremy]

It's pretty pathetic how people seem to want to pin the blame on somebody, for a situation which they really know very little about. None of us knew this woman, or what might have been going on in her mind in the days and hours leading up to her suicide. You can't just blame people for a woman's death based on guesswork and hunches, it's a really stupid thing to do.

Yes, the stunt could have been prevented by various people in the chain of command - in both the radio station and the hospital. Not to mention the global media who gave such coverage to a juvenile non-story. But none of these people could have possibly predicted this tragic outcome.

[red devil]

What Jeremy said.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The degree of jeopardy is

> dependent on the degree of harm caused.

>

> If no harm is caused, there is no jeopardy, if

> somebody kills themselves, then there is jeopardy.

> Similar to any other part of adult life. Act

> sensibly, you are fine. Act like a cock and cause

> harm, you are not fine.

In this case where was there knowing harm?

[LondonMix]

That's not how the law works. Culpability is in part determined by intent and reasonable foreseeable consequence. What you are describing is some kind of draconian, unthinking "eye for an eye" nonsense.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We seem to be swinging wildly from one extreme to

> another - the 21st Century culture of blame is

> wrong ergo, nobody is to blame. Twaddle.

>

> You cant legislate pranks out of existance, but

> you can ensure that people know that if they cause

> harm, there is jeopardy. The degree of jeopardy is

> dependent on the degree of harm caused.

>

> If no harm is caused, there is no jeopardy, if

> somebody kills themselves, then there is jeopardy.

> Not hard for anybody to understand and factor into

> their decision whether to prank or not to prank.

>

> Similar to any other part of adult life. Act

> sensibly, you are fine. Act like a cock and cause

> harm, you are not fine.

> That being the case, it is up to any given adult

> to make their own decision.

>

> As you say their is a direct implication of

> causality, albeit unproven. That is for the Police

> to investigate. I believe that if causality is

> proven, then there should be jeopardy for

> perpetrators of the prank. If there is no causal

> link, there is no jeopardy. However, if the latter

> scenario is the case, perhaps they will think

> twice before they prank again.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Somebody gets in car and drives along quite safely, they answer their mobile phone, they run somebody over.

Of course they didnt mean to run the person over, they didnt leave the house intending to harm anybody. However their actions in answering the phone contributed to them hurting somebody. Therefore there is jeopardy.

This is not a "draconian eye for eye nonsense", dont be simplistic. This is people being responsible for the impact of what they do.

As Quids notes, phoning a Hospital to seek information about a Patient is wrong. That it then may have led, in part, to a suicide, should be investigated and if it is found to have a causal link to the death, there is jeopardy.

I do not think that they are entirely culpable, I think that they may be partly culpable because their prank and its broadcasting was bullying.

[the-e-dealer]

Driving a car drunk get home noone hurt. But Police Breathalise you and get a positive- Result Fine Banned from Driving.

If you happen to kill someone when driving drunk you can get the above plus prison.

[red devil]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Somebody gets in car and drives along quite

> safely, they answer their mobile phone, they run

> somebody over.

> Of course they didnt mean to run the person over,

> they didnt leave the house intending to harm

> anybody. However their actions in answering the

> phone contributed to them hurting somebody.

> Therefore there is jeopardy.

In this example there is a known harm/jeopardy. You haven't answered my earlier question. Where was the known harm/jeopardy in making the phoencall?

[the-e-dealer]

The Nurse was humiliated as the recording was played over and over again around the world. She probably got a severe telling off - at minimum from her bosses. The Royals may have been embarrassed / hurt at their private health issues discussed in public. Oh and its very Likely the Nurse Killed herself as a result.

[woodrot]

fat tails - phone + drive = accident - high correlation, phone prank + media coverage = suicide - low correlation

[red devil]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Nurse was humiliated as the recording was

> played over and over again around the world. She

> probably got a severe telling off - at minimum

> from her bosses. The Royals may have been

> embarrassed / hurt at their private health issues

> discussed in public. Oh and its very Likely the

> Nurse Killed herself as a result.

1/10...all if's, but's and maybe's.

[the-e-dealer]

Hang on are you saying that using a phone while driving makes an accident highly likely? I see pratts doing this all the time and they don't have accidents, surely you've nailed it its unlikely that a phone user wont have an accident that's why so many people do it. If you could guarantee a crash within 5 minutes they wouldn't do it. And its the same with Phone Hoaxes - they rarely cause harm so DJs TVs Celebs etc do it more and more.

[civilservant]

The DJs now become the news and are cast in their turn as victims... Very post-modern

Support what MPalaeo said

[Lowlander]

The Hospital Director should take it in the neck for this. Senior Management should have trained all staff in how to answer calls, and I'm amazed that there wasn't greater security for the Royal Family.

To compound the issue, the phone recording was cleared by the radio station managers and lawyers.

Both nurses should have known better but are not to blame.

The DJs should have known better but are not to blame.

The whole thing is an utter tragedy, and it's all the fault of senior management (radio station managers maximising coverage, hospital for not bothering to train their staff to screen calls.

You try getting any info over the phone from an NHS hospital! This place sounds like it's being run by amateurs.

[Huguenot]

As LM says, the culpability of the DJs regarding the death will rest upon whether they could reasonably foresee their prank leading to the suicide.

I think a prosecution service would think not, and so it probably wouldn't get to trial. If they did put it to trial, I can't believe a jury would get the require majority to find them guilty.

However, it does mean that now a suicide HAS taken place, that any future prankster would have been able to foresee that consequence of the gag, and hence would have a much greater chance of being found guilty.

Regarding the acquisition of information by deception, seems likely they'll get the book thrown at them for that, but it's unlikely to be a very heavy book, and the station legal counsel will carry the can.

[red devil]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, it does mean that now a suicide HAS taken

> place, that any future prankster would have been

> able to foresee that consequence of the gag, and

> hence would have a much greater chance of being

> found guilty.

I've started self-harming after reading one too many of your posts, I guess that means you should refrain from ever posting on the forum again ;-)