Hospital Nurse Who Took Kate Hoax Call Found Dead

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by lurvylurker, Dec 7, 2012.

  1. bek

    bek Guest

    There's a HUGE difference between tricking someone into lets say getting in a pie fight. And tricking someone into revealing (even a little) private medical information. And doing something that could cause someone to lose their job.

    These folks impersonated a head of state in order to get access to private information. That should be a crime-I believe. And to be frank these "pranks" shouldn't be allowed on the air without the folks permission.

    Isn't it illegal to tape someone's voice without their permission. I know the rule is unless their is a public interest. But considering these bozos were asking for information-they had no right to do.....One could argue no "public interest" there.
     
  2. Garden Kitty

    Garden Kitty Tranquillo

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    25,058
    I think you're probably right, but I also think that's a bad thing. Jokes made at someone else's expense or that are designed to make someone look stupid aren't funny - they're just mean. Too often there is pressure on the victim to laugh along and pretend it's funny or look like a bad sport - but people shouldn't be put in that position for someone else's amusement.
     
  3. Twilight1

    Twilight1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2001
    Messages:
    7,594
    I am more into the self-depreciating sense of humour or completely dark humour... not really into the type that can get people in trouble.

    I am so sad for that family. Losing a loved one at christmas sucks.
     
  4. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    Who gets to decide what's harmless? You never know how someone is going to respond, especially if that someone is a stranger. Like you keep saying, their intent was not that this woman killed herself. Their intent could be - and was by many, including Prince Charles - considered harmless.

    Bek - do you think it's Prince Charles' fault too? He laughed.

    I don't think the DJs should be fired - they did their jobs and made people laugh. It was in bad taste and I don't think they'll be doing it again soon, but I don't think they're responsible for the woman's death.
     
  5. suep1963

    suep1963 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,978
    And this is where we disagree--the DJs are the ones who set up and did this--they are to blame for it. They are the ones who did this particular action--they did not have to do this, they chose to do so, and chose to do so for very immature reasons. Just because everyone else is doing it is no argument--if everyone jumps off the bridge, does that mean we all follow? At some point you have to take responsibility for your own actions and not try to justify what you did with spurious reasons.
     
    PeterG and (deleted member) like this.
  6. bek

    bek Guest

    Look don't get me wrong. The hospital needed to have proper protocol and if they did have proper protocol and that was violated than the nurses are to blame in that situation. But even though the nursers were to blame for not verifiying information.

    That doesn't mean what the DJs did was okay. In the end they were the ones in the beginning to blame, because the purposely lied to get info they weren't eligible for. And while I do think some pranks go to far there's a huge difference between playing a prank that makes someone look silly and jeapordizing someone's career with your prank. So responsibility goes to the nursers/who ever didn't have protocol. But the primary responsibility goes to the people who came up with this to begin with. Hospitals and nursers have enough to deal with. They shouldn't have to vet out people to make sure they are really the sick family members friends. People should be decent enough to leave the sick and their family members alone. Banks shouldn't have to ferrit out people. People should be decent enough to leave people's personal finances alone.

    This isn't oh give me gossip about Kate's newest dress.
     
  7. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    I agree, but obviously many don't. These kinds of shows have been on for years, and obviously have an audience to stay on. We have no idea how the prank-ee really felt. Some may be traumatised for life, some may kill themselves five years later because they can't get past being humiliated on TV. We just don't know. This is being made a much bigger deal because it involve the royal family, but some in the royal family found it funny. We only look at instant laughs, not long term effects.
     
  8. bek

    bek Guest

    Sometimes I may laugh about something but still be angry about it as well. I may laugh because I don't want to be a poor sport. Prince Charles may have laughed but I'm sure to the hospital other words were said. Frankly, I think when it comes to pranks, if your going to air them on radio or on national television. I frankly think that you should get permission from the person you pulled the prank on.... Nobody should be able to make money off someone without their permission. There's nothing newsworthy about a prank after all.

    I think they might be able to make the case with the right lawyers that these DJs committed a crime by impersonating a royal person into order to get access to privileged information.

    And as for their jobs, well than if their bosses told them to do it-the bosses should get punished too. However fact of the matter is when you cross a line you cross the line. These DJs didn't care if their actions cost their nurses their jobs. So why shouldn't it cost them theirs. Part of their jobs too is to represent the company in a good matter. Right now their radio station is losing advertisers and facing derision.

    I did my job is what a lot of people argue. Heck you have soldiers who commit war crimes who argue "I did my job." To be frank once again what the DJs did could be called not just a prank-but rather fraud. How is this any different from hackers hacking in and getting private social security numbers?

    This one crosses the line between prank and fraud IMO. I mean at this point people can get information all they want and say haha we were just pulling a "prank".

    Right now what these DJS are getting Angel, is a bit of karma. They are getting a taste of their own medicine.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2012
    *Jen* and (deleted member) like this.
  9. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,507
    Yes, they are to blame, and I'm sure they'll never, ever do anything like it again.

    But it's kind of chicken and egg, the rest of it. Who's leading and who's following? Commercial radio stations are businesses. Their aim is to make money and they do that by attracting listeners. Morally, they shouldn't pull stunts like that, but people seem to love listening to it. Idealistically, they shouldn't do it, but they will as long as people tune in. The listeners in general lead the stations in that sense.

    It's easy to point the finger at the DJs and say it's their fault 100%, but I just don't agree. I'd put it at 50/50 between them and the people who listen gleefully.
     
  10. suep1963

    suep1963 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,978
    If you want that kind of audience, then yes, you'll do those kinds of stunts. However, just because you say "people want to listen to this" doesn't mean the station has to give it to them. That is their choice. And if they choose to do these kind of stunts, then I say they are responsible for their actions 100%.
     
  11. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,507
    Maybe. But are tobacco companies 100% responsible for people who smoke? People choose to smoke, knowing it's bad for them, and their choice counts for something.

    I think it's the same here. People choose to listen to a show that does these stunts regularly. Sure, the presenters chose to make the call, but people have a voice, they have agency. It's their choice to listen, to appreciate and to enable it to continue, or to shut it down.

    I do see your point, and to an extent I agree with it, but the media doesn't operate in isolation of society. They cater to it, feed off it, do what it wants.

    Hence, chicken and egg :)
     
  12. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    Listeners = advertising. They can be responsible for their actions, but they can't be 100% responsible for other people's reactions to their actions. And again, we really have no idea whether the nurse killed herself as a reaction to the prank.

    The DJs set up a prank call, some found it funny, some didn't. A nurse who answered the phone and transferred it to someone else, who gave out confidential information to some ridiculous-sounding idiots. Lots of people laughed, which is the DJs jobs, to get people to laugh. Later the nurse who transferred the call killed herself. So all of a sudden, the DJs are to blame? The DJs did their job, they got some people to laugh. They can't be responsible for how every single person reacts.

    This woman killed herself, doesn't she bare some responsibility for that? I know it's controversial, but if you do something mean to me - deliberately or not, if I later kill myself, are you to blame? If I kill you, who's to blame? If you call me an idiot in front of my boss, and I later kill myself, or you, or the boss for laughing - who's fault is that? Are we not all responsible for our actions? Or are we responsible for others' actions and reactions too?

    If this woman had killed the DJs instead of herself, would it be the DJs fault?

    I'm really just thinking out loud, because I suicide brings up different emotions in people. If person A kills someone, it's almost always person A's fault. If person A kills themselves, we always look for someone/something else to blame. I don't think it's ever as simple as we make it. We're a complicated bunch, humans.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  13. suep1963

    suep1963 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,978
    Tobacco companies do not have to make the product available to consumers. Radio stations do not have to make prank calls to be viable in the market. When you choose to do something, make something, define yourself in a certain way, then that is your choice, and you are responsible for that choice. No chicken and egg here.
     
  14. bek

    bek Guest

    I disagree here a bit.. People may be okay with some pranks but there is a line that can be crossed. For example I use to watch the Bachelor and yes the guy/girl broke up on tv but for me everyone knew that game. I felt the show crossed the line when they convinced one girl the show was over had her get attached to a fiance onscreen and then had the engagement broken off on scream. For me I was done with the show.

    People might be fine with some pranks. But trying to get someone's medical info broadcast on air-is an entirely different matter. My opinion is yes there are pranks but there's a line and this line got crossed. They were asking for priviliged legal information after all. Completely unacceptable.

    Its not like the audience asked them to find out about the Duchesses's medical situation. That was all on the journalists.
     
  15. *Jen*

    *Jen* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    11,507
    Okay, fair point, morally at least. Legally though, they're in the clear, because society tolerates it. Well, up till now.
     
  16. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    People can choose to change the station and not listen, just as people can choose not to buy the cigarettes. Companies choose to make things available, but the public chooses whether to not to make use of it or not. Tobacco companies make cigarettes available to make money, radio stations do pranks, to get listeners, which gets advertisers, which gets money.
     
  17. bek

    bek Guest

    Do they though? I mean how many prank calls actually involved someone trying to get medical information about another person. Confidential medical information that is privileged by law. The hospital can face fines for releasing private information. The nursers licensing. So this then ceases to be just a prank IMO.

    For example the company I work with huge fines if we release private information-including our business... So why should some nim wad calling in pretending to be someone they are not and then broadcasting said breach on the air be treated as oh just a funny prank? Yes responsibility of those protecting the info. But something to be said with those fraudently and yes fraudently trying to get the information.

    This is a perfect test case to get some limits on this type of thing. If not than people can do anything and can it a prank and get away with it. (Easily this one can be called fraud-easily)

    Angel Skates once again I'm a radio station and I do pranks. That doesn't give me the right to break the law while committing a prank. And fraudently saying your someone else to get legal information your not entitled to-that's breaking the law.
     
  18. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    They did. Prince Charles laughed, as did many others.

    Of course that has all changed now; no one's laughing at the death of the nurse, but many did laugh at the prank.
     
  19. bek

    bek Guest

    Just because they laughed doesn't mean anything. And some said that Prince Charles laugh may not have meant he wasn't seething... Not everyone thought it was haha funny. People will laugh at anything-doesn't mean its right. And plenty were upset about it. This person probably felt her entire was life was destroyed. And nursing organizations were already seething over this. Plenty of people complained before.
     
  20. julieann

    julieann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,548
    I agree with you, this was just a joke but everyone involved is lucky the information they did get wasn't use in a malicious manor to harm the Dutchess or her family. This wasn't a case of constant bullying until the victim couldn't take it; I think the woman's suicide is on her.
     
  21. bek

    bek Guest

    How was it not a case of bullying till the victim couldn't take it. The two nurses had what happened put on international television everywhere for the world to see. These two nimwads KNEW and promoted and exclaimed this prank for all too see. They knew full well these nurses would be made laughingstocks. So by broadcasting it everywhere and giving permission for other outlets to broadcast everywhere. The radio station did bully these nursers.

    And not to mention it wasn't Prince Charles' medical information or Prince Charles wife. I'm sure at this point the royals try to make light as much they can but if you think the hospital didn't hear it you have another thing coming. As someone who handles private information over the phone, and who can lose her job over crap like this I'm sorry-I fail to see how this is some funny "ha ha joke".. This was someone's life's work we are frankly talking about,.

    Once again nurses and hospitals deal with enough pressure every day and life and death information. That they have to put up with pranks like this.

    And maybe people thought it was ha ha funny because they didn't realize this ha ha funny moment could cost someone their job.

    This is at the point where the Royal family is getting extremely tired of the media. I hope an example is made of the station and these jocksters.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2012
  22. suep1963

    suep1963 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,978
    So what I'm seeing here is as long as it's legal, and society (or some of society) tolerates it, it is OK (and some say justified) to engage in unethical and questionable behavior, because heaven forbid, anyone takes responsibility for their actions. We can just go ahead and do whatever we want because it makes money for someone, someone may find it funny and all will be well in the world. No one is at fault for their actions or the choices they make and we must all just "live and let live" because somewhere, someone laughed and that makes it perfectly fine. Good--glad I got that understood.
     
    milanessa and (deleted member) like this.
  23. Angelskates

    Angelskates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    Suep, I don't understand what you're saying. Do you think I should be responsible for my actions, and you're actions/reactions? This nurse wasn't bullied by the DJs, her colleague may have been, but she wasn't. If I kill myself because you pretend you're a policeman and ask my friend some personal information about someone else, which she gives, is it your fault?

    Morals and ethics differ for individuals. Everyone has their own, which is what makes us unique. Do you think the law should choose which morals and ethics are "right", whose does it choose? People make choices, that's what freedom is about. We are responsible for our choices, should we also be responsible for the choices of others? When and how would this work?

    You seem to want to make this simple, it's the DJs fault. I don't think it's that simple. The DJs didn't ask this nurse the confidential information. Nothing has been proven to show the prank was the reason for her suicide.

    You haven't yet answered, if she'd killed someone else, whose fault would it have been? If she killed the DJs, would you say it was their fault? What if she'd killed the nurse who gave the information?
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2012
  24. misskarne

    misskarne Spirit. Focus. Ability. Tenacity. Aussie Grit.

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,656
    The thing is, this IS bullying. The DJs set out to humiliate someone. That was their end goal because for DJs like that it is ALWAYS the end goal.

    Whether their aim was to get a nurse flustered and be told to piss off, or to get the information, somewhere along the line these DJs KNEW someone was going to be embarrassed. And so they went for it.

    Then they promoted the hell out of it, which only served to seal the deal and ensure that the nurses involved were going to be completely humiliated, made laughing stocks of, even recieve threats and be told they should be fired.

    Sorry, at what point is this NOT bullying?


    I LOATHE those shows where practical jokes and pranks are played. Humiliating someone is NOT funny.
     
    missing and (deleted member) like this.
  25. bek

    bek Guest


    Impersonating a police officer is a crime. I believe impersonating a royal (especially in order to get information that only the royal is privy too) is also a crime. just because these shock jocks have gotten away with these things for so long doesn't mean they aren't committing fraud when they pretend to be people they aren't. At least before when they were pretending to be people they were not they weren't getting access to private information that they weren't legally entitled too.

    And yes these folks are indirectly responsible. This lady may have feared her job-and losing one's jobs have led plenty of people to suicide...Add in concepts of honor in other societies and its very possible this lady would not have done this (we won't know for sure) if it weren't for these people.

    They may not have intended for this lady to die. But they definetly intended to humilate her. (So one could argue yes they were intending HARM when they did this one.)

    Just because these shock jocks have gotten away with this for so long, its their job, and people think its ha ha funny. Doesn't make it a-okay. After all drug dealers are just doing their jobs, and plenty of people want their product.

    Now do I want to see these people in jail for life nothing like that. (I'd likely give them probation)...But I think this radio station deserves to lose its license and them their jobs.

    Now that a life has been lost due to these funny ha ha jokes. Its time to put in an end to it.

    I'm just doing my job when I'm harming or hurting another person. Doesn't work. And nobody likes to be humiliated. Now you have the radio station CEO claiming "we are humans too" And acting like they are the victims. Apparently when they are publically humilated its not so fun. But its perfectly fine for them to humilate others.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2012
  26. suep1963

    suep1963 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,978
    I am saying that every human being is responsible for their actions and their choices. Not that of others. I am not talking about the nurse dying--however she died. I've never mentioned her. I am sick and tired of everyone saying the DJs did nothing wrong because 1) radio stations need to do stupid things in order to have listeners and therefore stay in business 2) this wasn't a terrible thing because Prince Charles laughed for goodness sake, 3) society tolerates such behavior, therefore it's acceptable.

    I am not talking legalities--I have never mentioned the law or if this is even a legal matter--I am talking ethics and quite frankly, I do not believe ethics and moral are different and we can just pick and choose something that makes us feel OK and good and say that is ethical, that is moral. Doing an action with the end purpose to score points off of someone else is unacceptable behavior--no matter what kind of spin you wish to put on it. "Haha--got you on that one you stupid bint--you are too stupid to know that it wasn't real--what a joke." Lovely behavior to be sure.

    As for your last question:

    where in the hell did that one come from? Have I been talking about death and killings? How can I have possibly have answered such a question that didn't even exist until you decided to pose it to me for whatever reasons of your own? Why should I be addressing an issue that didn't even exist until your post? "I haven't answered yet"--you make that sound like you and other posters have been asking me this and I've been ignoring it. What planet did THAT question just drop down from?

    I have said, in every post that I have written in this thread that there has been a deplorable lack of responsibility for the DJs choice of action. They did it, no one else placed that call. To say that it's society's fault, the media's fault, or anyone else is just an excuse--and a lousy one at that. And that to excuse that lack of responsibility is not acceptable either.
     
  27. bek

    bek Guest

    And even if it isn't a crime it doesn't mean abusing others and humilating them is morally a-okay.
     
  28. Cachoo

    Cachoo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,430
    If this was indeed a suicide I have a hard time believing the prank was the sole reason she took her life: I do believe that sort of humiliation could be a tipping point for someone who might already be on the edge. And I think the DJ's were paid to engage in this type of behavior as it garners ratings. My problem would then be with the people (owners/managers) who promote this sort of programming. And for chrissakes---this was a hospital---Kate was there because she was ill. Their actions may not have been illegal but what a TOTAL lack of sensitivity towards someone having a tough time.
     
  29. AragornElessar

    AragornElessar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,283
    For those who are saying they did nothing illegal...

    It is in the actual statutes of the Aussie Communications Act that when talking to the public over the air, you should never misrepresnt yourself or why you have contacted the person you are speaking on air w/.

    That's fraud BTW. Not to mention the fact they shattered the Code of Conduct that all broadcasters work under, whether they're shock jocks or serious journalists. Being on air brings w/it certain reponsisblities.

    These brainless idiots clearly thought they were above that. Also up till 10pm EST on Thursday night, the Station's website was trumpeting this as "The Best Royal Prank EVER!!" on the main page of their site w/a picture of Kate under the banner. I went over to add my own disgust at what these twits had done in the Comments area, which is how I know about that up there.

    I also hope these two end up being fired. As soon as Jacintha put them through and they realized this was actually working, was when they should have hung up.

    Oh...I'm sorry, I keep forgetting...They really didn't mean any harm by this. That is nothing but the stuff that fills my Nephew's cat's litter box. They were out to embrass someone and thought it was a huge joke.

    No one's laughing now.

    One thing I can't figure out is this though. This station's been nailed w/two separate five year Probation periods for stunts like this in the past. How on earth knowing that, did the Lawyer not stop this from going forward? He/She had to know putting this on air would end up creating a storm and the people saying "Who knew it would blow up like this?" in this day and age are being pretty naive about that part of all of this. That's the part that boggles my mind.
     
  30. MacMadame

    MacMadame Internet Beyotch

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    16,067
    I never watched any of those shows all the way through unless I was in a situation where I couldn't control the tv. I think those shows are dumb and not funny and I don't play elaborate practical jokes and hate April Fools Day.

    But I am not outraged by the prank, either. I suspect that a lot of people who are outraged wouldn't be if the nurse didn't die.

    First of all, I don't think there is. Tricking people is tricking people. Second, the DJs did not set up their prank in order to trick anyone into revealing private medical information. They were trying to get to speak to Kate, not her nurses.