Jump to content

Recommended Posts

MP:

"Even if the intent is not to bully but just to "have a bit of fun", if the impact is that somebody feels bullied, its is bullying. "


No. If you feel bullied but there was no bullying intent, that's not bullying. That's perhaps being over-sensitive.

Same for feeling someone is being rude, boasting etc.

Let's not go down the route of if you feel it, it MUST be the case.


Otherwise you're never going to take the piss out of anyone again, be snide, or sarcastic.

We're not Germans goddamnit !

Agree!


KidKruger Wrote:

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

> MP:

> "Even if the intent is not to bully but just to

> "have a bit of fun", if the impact is that

> somebody feels bullied, its is bullying. "

>

> No. If you feel bullied but there was no bullying

> intent, that's not bullying. That's perhaps being

> over-sensitive.

> Same for feeling someone is being rude, boasting

> etc.

> Let's not go down the route of if you feel it, it

> MUST be the case.

>

> Otherwise you're never going to take the piss out

> of anyone again, be snide, or sarcastic.

> We're not Germans goddamnit !

So she hung herself. This may or may not be directly or indirectly linked to the Radio Prank. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the prank while there is the slightest possibility I had contributed to this terrible outcome. Its so sad I don't even want to associate on here with anyone who says "hey its no-ones fault" and other childish failures to see the effects people can have on others. So I too feel this is the end of the conversation.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Maybe the answer is that with any sort of hoax

> > call or hidden camera show, you will need to

> get

> > the consent of the "victim" before broadcasting

> > it.

>

> xxxxxxx

>

> Very good point.


I thought this did happen with hidden camera show pranks, seem to remember on Trigger Happy that some faces got fuzzed out, whereas others didn't, so presumed that the fuzzed out ones either hadn't been told they had been filmed, or they didn't agree to their faces being shown???...

Were they able to release either of the nurses' names? What would be the equivalent of a fuzzed out face on the radio?


red devil Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jeremy Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Maybe the answer is that with any sort of

> hoax

> > > call or hidden camera show, you will need to

> > get

> > > the consent of the "victim" before

> broadcasting

> > > it.

> >

> > xxxxxxx

> >

> > Very good point.

>

> I thought this did happen with hidden camera show

> pranks, seem to remember on Trigger Happy that

> some faces got fuzzed out, whereas others didn't,

> so presumed that the fuzzed out ones either hadn't

> been told they had been filmed, or they didn't

> agree to their faces being shown???...

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Were they able to release either of the nurses'

> names? What would be the equivalent of a fuzzed

> out face on the radio?


I don't think there could be a radio equivalent if it was live or even slightly delayed, as it all relies on the voice, nothing visual. If it was pre-recorded, then maybe it could be edited/pulled. A lot of radio prank calls back in the day were set-up in conjunction with someone knowing the 'victim', e.g. a relative, same with some TV e.g. Game For A Laugh, so they would've been fairly certain beforehand that the 'victim' would've taken the prank in good spirit...

Yes, I suppose the sound of one?s voice is very identifying, even without a name being released etc. Somehow, I feel that I could recognize all my relatives if I saw them on TV with just their faces blurred. I can't explain, how or why but for my husband I am 100% positive that would be the case.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> Even if the intent is not to bully but just to "have a bit of fun", if the impact is that

> somebody feels bullied, its is bullying.

>

> That the media have been able to behave in this way for so long doesnt make it right.


Actually, there is probably a greater chance that this woman did not commit suicide directly as a result of the prank call (since she actually played such a small part in it) but because of subsequent hounding by the UK media.


But, again, until the result of the inquest is made known it is all speculation.

I don't understand why she blamed herself - Kate Middleton is a human like the rest of us- when my other half was in ICU after a traffic collision I gave my mobile number to a nurse and after that I was plagued with calls from companies offering their legal services- not all hospital staff have scruples.

red devil Wrote:

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

> I thought this did happen with hidden camera show

> pranks, seem to remember on Trigger Happy that

> some faces got fuzzed out, whereas others didn't,

> so presumed that the fuzzed out ones either hadn't

> been told they had been filmed, or they didn't

> agree to their faces being shown???...


That's because certain TV shows have all persons appearing sign clearance (effectively permission to use the material and a waiver to any copyright) forms before broadcast. It protects them from being sued.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Let's wait and see how many affordable family homes and affordable housing actually get built. 
    • I had thought it was to the actor Gary Cady, but apologies if that is wrong. The 'problem' with it as a restaurant venue is that it is built, as it were, to offer a 'country house' experience, but it is in an area where there is no passing trade, but where, quite close, there is a plethora of good restaurants. It therefore does not have a compelling niche or offer. When it's the only posh game in town, driving out to a country house venue has obvious attractions, but not when you can readily choose many other offers relatively close. It would only work if it could get a ** or *** Michelin rep, but it's never been able to build that. Hence looking for wedding or more dubious gigs. It has offered good 'nights' (such as night-club style magic performances) but it can't keep up sufficient regularity to build a loyal customer base. Ideally it needs, perhaps, an excellent existing up-market restaurant brand to move there, but again its positioning away from good public transport (West Dulwich doesn't have enough trains) doesn't make a compelling offer  in London.
    • So posh chicken then. Shame then that the supply of chicken is going to become harder to acquire and more expensive through the increased prevalence of bird flu 
    • Well yes, never heard those terms or used, so it was a case of googling to find out what they mean. Others may know or be acquainted with those activities on here???
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...