Did the presenters or the radio station for one minute think this would be a possible consequence of their actions? Almost certainly not.
But that's the point, they probably didn't "think" too much about it at all.
We don't want to live in a sterile world - and everyone will have their own views on where the line should be drawn - but people don't seem to want to face up to their responsibilities these days, it's too easy to "blame" someone else.
None of us know the full circumstances of the tragic death of this lady so summising there any other factors and apportioning responsibility...
The real fact of the matter is that we know next to nothing about it, and quite possibly never will. According to the last radio report I heard (about 10am this morning), it had still not even been confirmed as suicide. So, everyone is surmising not only that it was a suicide, but that there is a causal link between the prank and the death. I admit that it does seem likely given the close proximity of the two, but it is by no means cut and dried. So your surmising that the call was a causal factor is, at this stage, probably every bit as inappropriate as thinking that there might be other factors.
Stig, have you not seen the letter sent by the King Edward VII Hospital to the Australian radio station? There is no doubt about what they believe led to her death!!
This sort of thing isn't exactly a recent phenomenon. Prank shows on TV or radio have been going on for years and will continue to do so. Whether people find them funny or not is a different matter, was this hoax funny? In my opinion not particularly but I'm sure at the time some people did. Even when I first heard it and I'm sure most (if being honest) our first thought would not have been, "think of that poor nurse who answered". And I'm sure no one (those that do not know her) would have thought "I hope she doesn't do anything silly."
The thing is I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot of phone calls to that hospital asking about the Duchess' situation so I'm sure there must have been some sort of process to deal with them. It is just unfortunate this particular nurse answered especially in the mental state she must have been in.
This sort of thing isn't exactly a recent phenomenon. Prank shows on TV or radio have been going on for years and will continue to do so. Whether people find them funny or not is a different matter, was this hoax funny? In my opinion not particularly but I'm sure at the time some people did. Even when I first heard it and I'm sure most (if being honest) our first thought would not have been, "think of that poor nurse who answered". And I'm sure no one (those that do not know her) would have thought "I hope she doesn't do anything silly."
You're right, but I don't think you can compare today with the past. In the past if you were in that position you might feel a bit foolish, but the audience would have been small - maybe the listeners of one particular show on a local radio station - and it would all be soon forgotten. Now, with 24 hour news media and the internet, I would imagine the whole thing is much more intense and, perhaps crucially, is played out in front of a global audience. The pressure must be unbelievable.
Fair point Offy, but even then I don't think someone who is of sound mind would take their own life just because of this
That's probably true enough, but there are lots of people about who are delicately balance - life is bloody tough sometimes. If one good thing comes of this it might be that people are perhaps a little bit more sensitive to others, but I doubt it.
Just goes to show that when something like this goes wrong he can really backfire. I haven't heard it but agree that it's not particularly funny to pull a joke on anyone, regardless of who they are, who is in the first stages of pregnancy and could miscarry it just isn't funny. However it was just a prank which even if you were acutely embarrassed shouldn't insitigate suicide so I guess there is a little more to this than meets the eye. That said it is tragic for the nurses family and I hope that the two Aussie's learn their lesson because whatever we think I seriously doubt they wanted this outcome.
what I don't get is that the DJ's are getting pelters and now being accused of being complicit in this ladies death BUT it was a pre-recorded prank and before being aired was run past the station bosses and the stations lawyers so surely if anyone is culpable, and I don't think they are, then they are too and not just the presenters.
It's simple; a silly prank that you'd think couldn't cause any real harm backfiring with sad consequences. No-one could predict that the nurse involved would react so her mistake in such an unstable way. Sure, I would be mortified and incredibly embarrassed at breaching hospital confidentiality/policy and would be fearful of the consequences from potential disciplinary action but to comit suicide within 24 hours of the event indicates extreme mental instability. I can't imagine what she was going through and feel so sorry for her
It's simple; a silly prank that you'd think couldn't cause any real harm backfiring with sad consequences. No-one could predict that the nurse involved would react so her mistake in such an unstable way. Sure, I would be mortified and incredibly embarrassed at breaching hospital confidentiality/policy and would be fearful of the consequences from potential disciplinary action but to comit suicide within 24 hours of the event indicates extreme mental instability. I can't imagine what she was going through and feel so sorry for her
How can you say calling a hospital up is a silly prank? It's not a funny situation, being in a hospital ...end of.
I still don't understand why such a prestigious hospital with a high profile royal in their care did not have an experienced receptionist on duty to field phone and other enquiries but left it to a nurse who was on duty as a nurse.
Obviously the awful thing is someone has died and left a young family behind. The rest of it is essentially irrelevant. The only thing I will say about the dj's is that they were fully prepared to receive any benefits from the joke, increased exposure and fame etc, and they should be prepared to take any negative repercussions that come their way now that its all gone wrong.
Jarman - an Australian DJ pretending to be the Queen for a cheap laugh = silly prank. Kate wasn't dying. The DJ didn't expect anything other than to be hung-up on. Chill out.
I still don't understand why such a prestigious hospital with a high profile royal in their care did not have an experienced receptionist on duty to field phone and other enquiries but left it to a nurse who was on duty as a nurse.
Because it's just probably part of her job description. While sitting at the desk, you are required to answer the phone. But I don't think it matters what the profession is of the person answering the blower, I mean if the receptionist had answered it could well have had the same out come.
Jarman - an Australian DJ pretending to be the Queen for a cheap laugh = silly prank. Kate wasn't dying. The DJ didn't expect anything other than to be hung-up on. Chill out.
Im with Jarman on this.
Really dont see whats funny about it, or was ever gonna be funny.
Hospitals, containing sick people, shouldnt have to put up this pointless phonecalls or be subject to practical jokes.
This whole story is very sad. I'm not sure why all the recriminations to be honest though. It's an awful situation, but no-one could reasonably have foreseen that. To all those who have got it in for the DJs who made the call, just have a think about when you first heard the news story. Did anyone at the time think, what a stupid thing to do they could kill someone with a prank like that? Of course not, no-one could reasonably be expected to predict that such a thing could happen. It's only a couple of months ago that there was a pranks thread here on Charlton Life. I wonder if any of the people who wrote on that stopped to think what the most outrageous consequences of their japes could be. Frankly, I hope they didn't - if everyone regulated their behaviour to avoid any risk no matter how minimal the chances of it occurring, no-one would ever do anything.
My sympathies are with the friends and family of the lady who died, they must be going through hell at the moment. As for the DJs, I can't help but think that their suffering will be tremendous. Everyday there a millions of practical jokes played on people; it's all part of the fun of life. Just because one goes tragically wrong is no reason to start a witch hunt, especially as at the moment it is unknown what factors caused the poor lady's death. As a few others have said, I'd be very surprised if there weren't deeper underlying factors.
Sums up my feelings on the matter. I absolutely guarantee that nobody, upon hearing that prank call, thought "This could cost someone their life". Anyone pretending otherwise is enjoying the benefits of 20/20 hindsight.
Jarman - an Australian DJ pretending to be the Queen for a cheap laugh = silly prank. Kate wasn't dying. The DJ didn't expect anything other than to be hung-up on. Chill out.
Im with Jarman on this.
Really dont see whats funny about it, or was ever gonna be funny.
Hospitals, containing sick people, shouldnt have to put up this pointless phonecalls or be subject to practical jokes.
Just let them do their job.
In fairness to the Aussie DJ's I don't think the intention was ever to actually obtain information - the premise of the joke was that their fake accents were so bad (and they had other "comic" effects like fake corgis barking in the background). They apparently assumed they be hung up on in seconds and so were really trying to send themselves up-what followed was an unintentional tragedy.
The question as to why Australians still find any sort of prank call is funny in the first place is a genuine one however.
There's something delightfully ironic about the tabloids (especially the Daily Mail) getting on its high horse about this situation given they've built an entire business model around bringing private business into the public domain.
More generally whilst the call was hardly groundbreaking humour, it was not cruel and it was clearly so ludicrous that it was indeed reasonable not to expect to be given confidential information (indeed Prince Charles seemed to acknowledge as much the following day). Given that they did receive such information (a failure of the hospital), the decision to go ahead and broadcast it was in turn an editorial failure on the part of the radio station.
Yes, NY Addick has hit the nail on the head. It's not all hindsight. Guidelines & codes of practice are tedious & stifle creativity - but they have a purpose, and it's to stop these things happening. The radio station was supposed to get permission from the nurses/hospital before broadcasting (the guidelines are very clear), and they didn't. ("we tried 5 times" is not a valid excuse).
The radio station (by ignoring very clear guidelines) has a lot to answer for. The hospital may not have covered itself in glory either - we need the full facts.
I make no comment here about the DJs - I will keep my opinions about them to myself.
But to those that say the radio station didn't do anything wrong here's an extract from the relevant Aussie Codes of Practice for your consideration: A licensee must not broadcast the words of an identifiable person unless: (a) that person has been informed in advance or a reasonable person would be aware that the words may be broadcast; or (b) in the case of words which have been recorded without the knowledge of the person, that person has subsequently, but prior to the broadcast, expressed consent to the broadcast of the words.
Clearly that didn't happen but presumably nobody at the station had any scruples about breaching their own industry codes?
There are, also, potentially some legal aspects which, perhaps, the plod are considering. One example - and it is only one example - is the Fraud Act which makes "gain" by false representation a criminal offence. It is interesting to note that in this context "gain" includes keeping what you already have. Maybe that includes your continuing employment as a DJ on a low rent Australian radio station.
The prank was no different to what has been done on shows like Candid Camera, Beadles About etc.
As often happens the wrong scapegoats are fingered. The DJs did nothing much different to what Noel Edmonds might have done. Taste apart though, Noel Edmonds would have been realised from the outset that consent from the nurses and the hospital to broadcast it would not have been given and it would not have been contemplated.
The joke, as I understand it, and having seen part of the interview with the DJs, was them badly impersonating the Queen and Prince Phillip. They never expected to get very far.
The BIG difference between Candid Camera etc and this prank, is that these shows NEVER showed anything unless the subject of the joke was brought into the joke and happy with being made to look foolish or be embarrassed. Also, just because it's impossible to know in advance how the joke will be taken or if it will get out of hand I believe the subjects might also have been screened in advance. No one expected such a tragic outcome, but it shows why these checks and balances are in place as a safety check for the one in a million prank that picks the wrong subject with serious adverse consequences.
The fault, in my view is entirely with the radio station which has no concern for the well being of the subjects of the prank and for not seeking permission of the nurses and the hospital to broadcast and not operating risk based controls.
In contrast, my niece once accidentally captured footage of some American priests after a wedding ceremony in full gear furtively hiding having a quick drag on rather large rolled up cigarettes round the back of the church. She sent it in to Beadle but it was rejected because the subjects of the tape had not given any consent even though it looked very amusing.
Comments
Did the presenters or the radio station for one minute think this would be a possible consequence of their actions? Almost certainly not.
But that's the point, they probably didn't "think" too much about it at all.
We don't want to live in a sterile world - and everyone will have their own views on where the line should be drawn - but people don't seem to want to face up to their responsibilities these days, it's too easy to "blame" someone else.
The thing is I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot of phone calls to that hospital asking about the Duchess' situation so I'm sure there must have been some sort of process to deal with them. It is just unfortunate this particular nurse answered especially in the mental state she must have been in.
very sad and avoidable
Post Diana this country has really gone soft in the head.
It's not a funny situation, being in a hospital ...end of.
Really dont see whats funny about it, or was ever gonna be funny.
Hospitals, containing sick people, shouldnt have to put up this pointless phonecalls or be subject to practical jokes.
Just let them do their job.
Those DJ's will have to live with that thought, which is punishment enough.
The question as to why Australians still find any sort of prank call is funny in the first place is a genuine one however.
More generally whilst the call was hardly groundbreaking humour, it was not cruel and it was clearly so ludicrous that it was indeed reasonable not to expect to be given confidential information (indeed Prince Charles seemed to acknowledge as much the following day). Given that they did receive such information (a failure of the hospital), the decision to go ahead and broadcast it was in turn an editorial failure on the part of the radio station.
The radio station (by ignoring very clear guidelines) has a lot to answer for. The hospital may not have covered itself in glory either - we need the full facts.
But to those that say the radio station didn't do anything wrong here's an extract from the relevant Aussie Codes of Practice for your consideration:
A licensee must not broadcast the words of an identifiable person
unless:
(a) that person has been informed in advance or a reasonable person
would be aware that the words may be broadcast; or
(b) in the case of words which have been recorded without the
knowledge of the person, that person has subsequently, but prior
to the broadcast, expressed consent to the broadcast of the
words.
Clearly that didn't happen but presumably nobody at the station had any scruples about breaching their own industry codes?
There are, also, potentially some legal aspects which, perhaps, the plod are considering. One example - and it is only one example - is the Fraud Act which makes "gain" by false representation a criminal offence. It is interesting to note that in this context "gain" includes keeping what you already have. Maybe that includes your continuing employment as a DJ on a low rent Australian radio station.
As often happens the wrong scapegoats are fingered. The DJs did nothing much different to what Noel Edmonds might have done. Taste apart though, Noel Edmonds would have been realised from the outset that consent from the nurses and the hospital to broadcast it would not have been given and it would not have been contemplated.
The joke, as I understand it, and having seen part of the interview with the DJs, was them badly impersonating the Queen and Prince Phillip. They never expected to get very far.
The BIG difference between Candid Camera etc and this prank, is that these shows NEVER showed anything unless the subject of the joke was brought into the joke and happy with being made to look foolish or be embarrassed. Also, just because it's impossible to know in advance how the joke will be taken or if it will get out of hand I believe the subjects might also have been screened in advance. No one expected such a tragic outcome, but it shows why these checks and balances are in place as a safety check for the one in a million prank that picks the wrong subject with serious adverse consequences.
The fault, in my view is entirely with the radio station which has no concern for the well being of the subjects of the prank and for not seeking permission of the nurses and the hospital to broadcast and not operating risk based controls.
In contrast, my niece once accidentally captured footage of some American priests after a wedding ceremony in full gear furtively hiding having a quick drag on rather large rolled up cigarettes round the back of the church. She sent it in to Beadle but it was rejected because the subjects of the tape had not given any consent even though it looked very amusing.
This involved a real hospital.