quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

This radio station does have form. I was reading about the 14yo dragged on for some Jeremy Kyle type crap with a lie detector and telling her idiot mother she was actually raped. And that doesn't seem to be the only stunt they've pulled.

You mean this?

quote:

In yesterday's segment, the 14-year-old, who was brought on to undergo a lie detector test because of her mother's concerns about her drugs and sex experience, told Sandilands before the questions started: "I'm scared ... it's not fair."

After asking her daughter if she had skipped school, the mother asked: "Have you ever had sex?"

The 14-year-old replied: "I've already told you the story about this ... and don't look at me and smile because it's not funny."

After a pause she then raised her voice and said: "Oh, OK … I got raped when I was 12 years old."

The girl was brought on by her mother. Her mother knew about the rape. Her mother insisted on questioning her, and by the daughter's own words was smiling at her when questioning her. How is that the fault of anyone other than the mother? She knew her daughter had been raped and still subjected her to that on air.

quote:

I don't think the hospital not having proper procedures in place changes, for me, the sheer idiocy of trying it on in the first place.

What's the greater idiocy? Djs making a prank call or a hospital not bothering with proper security measures?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
Better yet, ask Bob one on misogyny.

quote:


Despite the girl's protests that she was "scared" and believed the questions were not "fair" the "Kyle & Jackie-O" radio show host encouraged both the girl and her mother to discuss whether she was sexually active, to which the girl responded: "I've already told you the story of this and don't look at me and smile because it's not funny. Oh, okay. I got raped when I was 12 years old."

To which the host replied: "Right. And is that, is that the only experience you've had?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

What's the greater idiocy? Djs making a prank call or a hospital not bothering with proper security measures?

The DJs. Is it a starter for 10?

quote:

There is also a very real risk of if you manage to con the nurses (whom they must have expected to get past), that they could lose their jobs.

quote:

They didn't seem to worry too much about that either. But yet they should now be absolved because the stupid dead nurse put them through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I can understand why people would be concerned about some of the stupid and frankly vile stuff that's been aimed at the DJs who perpetrated it, but I don't think that's any reason to mitigate their responsibility for their own prank.

I'm not. I'm saying they don't deserve all the blame. And the fact that people are more than willing to give the hospital a pass just suggests to me they want their outrage and they don't care about proportion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The condition she has was made public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/hyperemesisgravidarum1.shtml

The doctors discussing it on the news made clear stress was to be avoided. So I don't know what you know but unless they're lying about her having a relatively rare condition, the woman does not have a common condition that she'll just 'get over' - she might have about another 3 months of it, minimum. Perhaps your mate's wife had normal morning sickness - which is also something that shouldn't be dismissed, deeply unpleasant as it is. I do recall a discussion between one of the presenters and a female GP about whether male GPs were likely to deal with the potential complications properly given some kind of wide acceptance that some men dismiss morning sickness without understanding how debilitating it can be (the female GP strongly defended her male colleagues BTW arguing that most men had dragged themselves out of the dark ages wrt the tackily dismissive 'womens' problems'). .

So I don't really care how the presenters feel - it was a dumb and fairly shitty joke in the first place and they clearly didn't give a toss that getting as far as they did could have gotten someone into trouble and have been getting off on their worldwide publicity ever since. Now they get the other side it probably doesn't feel quite so funny. Tough.

Mate... SOMEBODY FUCKING DIED! Yes, it was a stupid joke, but do you REALLY think that this is ore important than a massively wealthy woman is going to throw up for a few more weeks?

Seriously?

I'm not really sure what you mean - I haven't said any of that. I was simply disagreeing with your statement regarding the condition she has.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I can understand why people would be concerned about some of the stupid and frankly vile stuff that's been aimed at the DJs who perpetrated it, but I don't think that's any reason to mitigate their responsibility for their own prank.

I'm not. I'm saying they don't deserve all the blame. And the fact that people are more than willing to give the hospital a pass just suggests to me they want their outrage and they don't care about proportion.

And I think it's down to the active vs passive thing. These people actively wanted to cause sensation and actively chose to do something that could hurt and embarass people. I think it's natural to find that harder to forgive than incompetence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I can understand why people would be concerned about some of the stupid and frankly vile stuff that's been aimed at the DJs who perpetrated it, but I don't think that's any reason to mitigate their responsibility for their own prank.

I'm not. I'm saying they don't deserve all the blame. And the fact that people are more than willing to give the hospital a pass just suggests to me they want their outrage and they don't care about proportion.

And I think it's down to the active vs passive thing. These people actively wanted to cause sensation and actively chose to do something that could hurt and embarass people. I think it's natural to find that harder to forgive than incompetence.

Djs looking to shock on one hand, serious failings in hospital security on another. And it's really the djs who deserve all the blame here? There's no urgent need for security to be addressed, to look into how this happened, to examine why the nurse was even put in the position in the first place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
And thank you for proving my point. If you genuinely were outraged by this, you'd be looking to share the responsibility around all concerned. Of course, you're not. You just want to jump a moral bandwagon.

quote:


If it had been your wife in hospital and someone phoned up asking for medical information and the nurses put them through without checking their identity thoroughly, would you want them to lose their jobs?

quote:


Yeah, and the hospital should be absolved of its responsibility to patients because it's easier to point the finger in one direction instead of looking at everyone responsible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I can understand why people would be concerned about some of the stupid and frankly vile stuff that's been aimed at the DJs who perpetrated it, but I don't think that's any reason to mitigate their responsibility for their own prank.

I'm not. I'm saying they don't deserve all the blame. And the fact that people are more than willing to give the hospital a pass just suggests to me they want their outrage and they don't care about proportion.

And I think it's down to the active vs passive thing. These people actively wanted to cause sensation and actively chose to do something that could hurt and embarass people. I think it's natural to find that harder to forgive than incompetence.

Djs looking to shock on one hand, serious failings in hospital security on another. And it's really the djs who deserve all the blame here? There's no urgent need for security to be addressed, to look into how this happened, to examine why the nurse was even put in the position in the first place?

I think they'll probably already have done that, don't you? And that's probably why the nurses weren't disciplined. The family have also already said they didn't raise a complaint to the hospital.

quote:

I don't think it will take much examination anyway. They didn't have a receptionist as it was 5.30 which probably means it works pretty much like most hospitals. The phone will ring for ages and if anyone's passing (and the stories refer to her as doing so) they'll answer it. Half 5 in the morning, near end of shift (unless private hospitals have weird shifts that aren't like the NHS which I don't believe to the case).

quote:

It's an admirable one-man fight for balance but, personally, I think intent more than tips the scale. The hospital screwed up, they didn't deliberately set out to do anything. The radio station was deliberate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob


Didn't really know there was only one stage of denoucing something, and its set to the standard of "outraged".

quote:

No, in this circumstance even before the death I wouldn't want someone sacked for an honest mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
I'm talking about the internet response from certain people, which is tying itself in knots trying to show a sense of moral superiority against the djs, but refusing to recognise the equal responsibility of the hospital in this situation. If there's genuinely a feeling that the prank calls are a form of bullying, how does the rabid responses of some on this situation make them any better?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
But why don't they have a receptionist given the nature of the patient? Why aren't all calls diverted straight to the royal security team? These aren't questions I'm seeing asked, I'm just seeing this DJS ARE EVIL!!!!!! response, which to me seems both completely unbalanced and counter-productive. Why aren't the media being taken to task for building this up so much? Give the djs shit, I have no problem with that, I just have a problem with everyone else getting an easy ride and them getting all the hatred for this.

quote:


But the intent wasn't to cause a tragedy, it was to get a stupid bit they could play and get a little publicity.

quote:

I don't think for a second they honestly thought they'd get through, they were probably hoping to play on the responses of the receptionist. If people want to call that a thoughtless prank, that's fine. But this idea that they're responsible for a death is equally thoughtless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I can understand why people would be concerned about some of the stupid and frankly vile stuff that's been aimed at the DJs who perpetrated it, but I don't think that's any reason to mitigate their responsibility for their own prank.

I'm not. I'm saying they don't deserve all the blame. And the fact that people are more than willing to give the hospital a pass just suggests to me they want their outrage and they don't care about proportion.

And I think it's down to the active vs passive thing. These people actively wanted to cause sensation and actively chose to do something that could hurt and embarass people. I think it's natural to find that harder to forgive than incompetence.

Djs looking to shock on one hand, serious failings in hospital security on another. And it's really the djs who deserve all the blame here? There's no urgent need for security to be addressed, to look into how this happened, to examine why the nurse was even put in the position in the first place?

I think they'll probably already have done that, don't you? And that's probably why the nurses weren't disciplined. The family have also already said they didn't raise a complaint to the hospital.

I'm talking about the internet response from certain people, which is tying itself in knots trying to show a sense of moral superiority against the djs, but refusing to recognise the equal responsibility of the hospital in this situation. If there's genuinely a feeling that the prank calls are a form of bullying, how does the rabid responses of some on this situation make them any better?

quote:

I don't think it will take much examination anyway. They didn't have a receptionist as it was 5.30 which probably means it works pretty much like most hospitals. The phone will ring for ages and if anyone's passing (and the stories refer to her as doing so) they'll answer it. Half 5 in the morning, near end of shift (unless private hospitals have weird shifts that aren't like the NHS which I don't believe to the case).

But why don't they have a receptionist given the nature of the patient? Why aren't all calls diverted straight to the royal security team? These aren't questions I'm seeing asked, I'm just seeing this DJS ARE EVIL!!!!!! response, which to me seems both completely unbalanced and counter-productive. Why aren't the media being taken to task for building this up so much? Give the djs shit, I have no problem with that, I just have a problem with everyone else getting an easy ride and them getting all the hatred for this.

quote:

It's an admirable one-man fight for balance but, personally, I think intent more than tips the scale. The hospital screwed up, they didn't deliberately set out to do anything. The radio station was deliberate.

But the intent wasn't to cause a tragedy, it was to get a stupid bit they could play and get a little publicity. I don't think for a second they honestly thought they'd get through, they were probably hoping to play on the responses of the receptionist. If people want to call that a thoughtless prank, that's fine. But this idea that they're responsible for a death is equally thoughtless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
Well what with you calling for them never to be allowed to work in radio again and refusal to attribute any blame anywhere other than the djs you seemed a little outraged.

quote:


Yet you're perfectly happy to call for the djs not to be allowed to work in radio again. Oh of course, I forgot. They were completely to blame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

I've been fairly shocked by this story, and I have to say Rawls I can't agree with your stance. If (and it is still an if, it would still be premature to draw conclusions at this stage even as apparent as it seems) it turns out this nurses committed suicide as a result of this prank call I fail to see how responsibility lies at her (or the hospitals) door rather than the prank callers. Blaming lack of procedural security is perilously close to a Squidward defence. A woman was hoodwinked into breaching sensitive information about a very famous woman. She then may have committed suicide as a result. Where, if we are looking for blame, does it lie? With her? That seems cold to say the least. There is an element of victim blame associated with this that makes me feel deeply uncomfortable, and while the DJ's aren't directly responsible for this woman's death, passing the buck to failures in hospital security seems very misguided. If you were the designated driver and someone spikes your drink and you had an accident, is it your fault? Or the fault of the person who spiked your drink?

The bottom line is, if you play a prank that causes shit, it's usually is your fault.

quote:

Where, if we are looking for blame, does it lie? With her?

quote:

If you were the designated driver and someone spikes your drink and you had an accident, is it your fault? Or the fault of the person who spiked your drink?

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
That's a completely different situation though. There's an intent there to cause harm to the spiked person. There's no harmless reason for spiking someone's drink.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
I'm talking about the internet response from certain people, which is tying itself in knots trying to show a sense of moral superiority against the djs, but refusing to recognise the equal responsibility of the hospital in this situation. If there's genuinely a feeling that the prank calls are a form of bullying, how does the rabid responses of some on this situation make them any better?

The internet posters are commenting directly about the public actions of these individuals. Actions which the DJs were more than happy to enjoy the notoriety yesterday. A minority will always go too far, however you comparison just doesn't work.

quote:

Because the DJs are ultimately responsible, it isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

quote:

If they hadn't made the call would the nurse be dead? Yes there are other circumstances which may have contributed to the ultimate result, but without their actions this wouldn't have happened today and that's what everyone is talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
I'm not blaming her though. I'm blaming the hospital. And yes, I do think an organisation that has taken on responsibility for a patient's safety while under their care has the lion's share of the blame to take. There wasn't a proper receptionist on duty. Why not? Why was a nurse having to take time out of her schedule to answer a phone that wasn't her responsibility? Why wasn't there a strict level of security put in place that said that any calls had to be properly verified and have that information given to all staff? It's more misguided to me to say that someone making a prank call deserves all the responsibility rather than asking how it was allowed to happen. If the hospital weren't going to discipline the nurse, she obviously didn't violate a procedural code. So why not? You have a patient who has to have a high level of security, why isn't as simple as security clearance having to be obtained before any information at all is given about that patient? How is that not relevant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Do you really think that someone deliberately setting out to do something it morally equivalent to incompetence/a mistake? Or is it really more that you're reacting, understandably, to the torrent of abuse being directed to one side and it's that that's making you queasy more than anything? And I know you're letting them off, you've made clear it's balance you're arguing for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob

A point I think you've made over, and over, and over again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
I'm not blaming her though. I'm blaming the hospital. And yes, I do think an organisation that has taken on responsibility for a patient's safety while under their care has the lion's share of the blame to take. There wasn't a proper receptionist on duty. Why not? Why was a nurse having to take time out of her schedule to answer a phone that wasn't her responsibility? Why wasn't there a strict level of security put in place that said that any calls had to be properly verified and have that information given to all staff? It's more misguided to me to say that someone making a prank call deserves all the responsibility rather than asking how it was allowed to happen. If the hospital weren't going to discipline the nurse, she obviously didn't violate a procedural code. So why not? You have a patient who has to have a high level of security, why isn't as simple as security clearance having to be obtained before any information at all is given about that patient? How is that not relevant?

Sorry Rawls, I simply cannot agree with this. I cannot see how this is the responsibility of the hospital above the DJ's. I just can't. Whatever failures the hospital may be responsible for, they didn't deliberately seek to obtain sensitive information by unethical means (and comedic purposes doesn't excuse anything in this instance). The staff involved behaved in good faith, no matter how erroneous that may have turned out. There is only one element that behaved disgracefully, and you are excusing them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I would plough my way through MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

I desire MonsterCat to go down on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
Here's the thing, I'm not blaming the nurse. I'm blaming the hospital for not having procedure hammered in to all its employees that a high security patient comes with the risk that people will try and breach that security. The fact that the hospital have said they weren't going to discipline her means she obviously didn't violate their codes. People can get as outraged as they like that the call was made in the first place, but I think there should be even more outrage that security is that lax. And that problem ultimately rests with the people in charge, not with someone answering a phone. If it was her fault, she'd have been disciplined.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson
But they are the ones with a duty to protect that sensitive information, and they failed. Is it really asking that much that everyone pointing their finger at the djs stop for a minute and ask how the hell they managed to get away with it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flatulent_Bob

A point I think you've made over, and over, and over again.

I'm sorry Bob, I didn't mean to step into your territory of endlessly repeating the same old stuff over and over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

But they are the ones with a duty to protect that sensitive information, and they failed. Is it really asking that much that everyone pointing their finger at the djs stop for a minute and ask how the hell they managed to get away with it?