Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Royal Prank caller DJ to sue radio station...


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-07-2013, 10:10
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next to Consett.
Posts: 63,717
Same network. The original show was national, not sure about his new one. But there aren't that many option in radio.
Ah, okay. I thought he moved to a new station. Obviously not then.
zx50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-07-2013, 12:01
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
It's unclear exactly why she is bringing this action. There are suggestions that she remains in a sort of employment limbo whilst her co-presenter is back at work. If she is suffering from contractual issues with the station in regards to this, then she is right to take action, as anybody would be. The death of the woman in the UK is irrelevant to it.
I wonder if there's any mileage in the idea that she won't play ball with the radio station as far as their version of what happened on that day goes? It's odd that Christian went back to work seemingly painlessly and then received an award for his services.... Suspicious people might see a connection between those two things... almost like him being thanked for his 'loyalty'... while she's been left in limbo, unable to establish her employee status...

But just idle speculation...
lexi22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2013, 03:53
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,498
Mel Greig has always seemed to be very contrite over Jacintha Saldanha's death. I'd need to know much more about why she's doing this to think otherwise now.

Interesting that Keith Vaz, acting as spokesman for the Saldanha family, sounded rather supportive of this action.

I understand Mel Greig intends to come to the UK to testify at the inquest. Perhaps the radio staton don't like this?
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2013, 17:32
MadMoo40
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 1,664
By publicly humiliating her in front of millions of people, giving no regard to how she may react. By giving no consideration to how her employment may be affected by their 'joke'.The DJs obviously did not intend for Jacinda to take her own life, nor could even foresee it, but surely must have realised that such a prank could cause deep embarrassment for her and possible disciplinary measures at work?
What? She simply put the call through, hardly world-wide public humiliation. Until she committed suicide, no one even knew her name.

Sadly she was a troubled lady long before this prank call happened, and she had tried to end her life previously. Had she not succeeded this time, I have no doubt she would have tried again in the future - triggered by another even she couldn't cope with.

The actual phone call wasn't malicious, it was quite obviously a prank and I doubt the DJ's had even considered that they'd get put through as far as they did, let alone considered what they would say and do, if they did. Therefore, they didn't have a plan when they did get put through - hence why it went on for as long as it did. In hindsight, yes they should have just put down the phone and not spoken to the staff at that point, but in the heat of the moment, they just didn't think.

I really don't think they should be blamed, and the lady DJ doesn't derserve to lose her livelihood over this - she was only the public part of the production team, plenty of others have managed to avoid blame when they are just as culpable.
MadMoo40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2013, 10:37
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,222
Just to remind people these two decided to phone someone they didn't know, who was newly pregnant and ill enough to be in hospital for days. They didn't know the extent of the patients condition, but it had been widely reported it could lead to serious implications for the mother & child.

And with that knowledge they decided as a joke to phone and speak to a sick patient The full length version of the call broadcast was promoted as an attempt to speak to the patient. The first words uttered by Mel Greig was, "Could I speak to Kate please."

That was their objective, nowhere do they say we didn't expect to get through...they were basking in the glory of the call, it was only after it went pear shaped they modified their story.

The call was not broadcast live, it is possible what was broadcast was not the full extent of the call, it may have been edited to make good radio.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2013, 11:22
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,831
Just to remind people these two decided to phone someone they didn't know, who was newly pregnant and ill enough to be in hospital for days. They didn't know the extent of the patients condition, but it had been widely reported it could lead to serious implications for the mother & child.

And with that knowledge they decided as a joke to phone and speak to a sick patient The full length version of the call broadcast was promoted as an attempt to speak to the patient. The first words uttered by Mel Greig was, "Could I speak to Kate please."

That was their objective, nowhere do they say we didn't expect to get through...they were basking in the glory of the call, it was only after it went pear shaped they modified their story.

The call was not broadcast live, it is possible what was broadcast was not the full extent of the call, it may have been edited to make good radio.
Personally, I imagine initially they didn't think they'd get through so did it as filler, and then when they got information they decided to drop any hint of self-doubt and bask in the attention. So whilst they're probably being honest, when they said they didn't mean to get through, they just wanted the attention and glory that came from their "success",

I think it's a bit mean to hold them responsible for the suicide and to bring it up continuously for the rest of their lives

And, It's a fairly large radio company, somebody would have probably come across an unaltered version of the call by now if it existed.
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2013, 13:34
Like A Star
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 557
I think it's a bit mean to hold them responsible for the suicide and to bring it up continuously for the rest of their lives
I agree but I do take issue with people who act like the initial prank was no big deal, for the reasons i4u detailed.

I've never understood why so many people love pranking. I just can't see what's funny about making someone look and feel as stupid as possible, and sometimes scared. I just don't see what everyone else sees when it comes to any kind of fun or entertainment values in pranking, no matter how ultimately harmless a prank can be.
Like A Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2013, 13:42
dorydaryl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: HELP! I'm dazzled!
Posts: 10,255
I genuinely don't think the prank was the cause of the poor woman's suicide. Sounds like something else might have tipped her over the edge, at some other point. I don't think the DJs should be held responsible for so much as that. All the same, they were part of a chain of events that culminated in this event and entered into it willingly, if unknowingly. They thought it hilarious at the time. Therefore, they should learn from it, suck it up, move on and not try to deflect responsibility for their part in the chain of events. Pranks can and do humiliate and even hurt some people. Some take them well; some don't. It also depends on the nature and goal of the prank. This went horribly wrong and it won't be the first or last time.
dorydaryl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2013, 14:24
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,831
I agree but I do take issue with people who act like the initial prank was no big deal, for the reasons i4u detailed.

I've never understood why so many people love pranking. I just can't see what's funny about making someone look and feel as stupid as possible, and sometimes scared. I just don't see what everyone else sees when it comes to any kind of fun or entertainment values in pranking, no matter how ultimately harmless a prank can be.
I wasn't saying that the pranks itself was excusable, just that they were probably being honest when they said they didn't expect to be put through. The initial prank and the way it was handled was mean, and they might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but I don't think we can hold them heavily responsible for the suicide...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2013, 15:04
Like A Star
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 557
I wasn't saying that the pranks itself was excusable, just that they were probably being honest when they said they didn't expect to be put through. The initial prank and the way it was handled was mean, and they might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but I don't think we can hold them heavily responsible for the suicide...
I didn't mean you, I was more talking about the people who have told those who dislike the prank to lighten up, get a sense of humour, and generally act like anyone with anything against pranking is somehow "bad"...this attitude was especially rife when the story first broke even after the suicide.
Like A Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2013, 23:41
Bungitin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 3,130
Is she attending the inquest as a witness?
Bungitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 03:33
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,498
Is she attending the inquest as a witness?
She indicated some time ago that she intended to, and I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 03:37
AdelaideGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,504
The impression here in Oz is that she wants and intends to but the radio station doesn't want her too. Said to be another factor in the law suit. Don't know if this is true or not.
AdelaideGirl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 05:55
dee123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,233
The impression here in Oz is that she wants and intends to but the radio station doesn't want her too. Said to be another factor in the law suit. Don't know if this is true or not.
That's very interesting. Can a company actually do that?
dee123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 07:07
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,222
When the duo were due to do a series of interviews Mel Greig was said to be too distressed to continue, but it seems the decision not to go ahead was taken by the interviewers...

The Project's Carrie Bickmore and Charlie Pickering pulled out of their interview with the young duo, with producer Tom Whitty tweeting: "Mel Greig was too upset and our hosts @BickmoreCarrie and @charliepick were not comfortable."
Of the call Michael Christian claimed....

"The call to begin with wasn't about speaking to Kate. It wasn't about trying to get a scoop or anything."
Yet the first words by Mel Grieg in the broadcast version of the call were, "Could I speak to Kate please.", Christain had promoted the call as being an attempt to speak to a severely ill hospital patient.

They and the radio station haven't clarified the 'process' the call went through before it was aired.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 07:35
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,222
Here's Rhys Holleran CEO of 2Day FM avoiding answering the simple question did the station seek the permission of the nurses involved to broadcast the call, he just refers to 'processses'.

Note Holleran says the DJ's have 'agreed' not to talk about thed call.

In December 2012 an Australian paper ran a story about staff having to under go regular training re content following previous breaches of rules.

The radio DJs linked to the death of the British nurse Jacintha Saldanha had been trained "not to air any prank calls without permission" and are now "playing dumb", a source from besieged Sydney station 2Day FM claims.
The source said all 2Day FM presenters, producers and content managers were compelled to undergo "decency and standards" training every six months, in compliance with a ruling from the industry watchdog. An Austereo spokeswoman said the station ''goes above and beyond these requirements'' by running the training every three months.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 07:47
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,222
The programme was said to have a team of 7 people. The executive producer was said to have been an Emily Mills who with producer Ben Harlum, who reportedly yapped like corgis during the call.

When Ben Harlum was contacted by the media he hung up.

A response from the parent company was...

Asked who made the five calls to London, SCA chief head of content Guy Dobson would only say: "Be very careful who you name. Don't (contact) me again."
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 07:48
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,222
And finally 2Day FM has been in trouble before with the authorities and not in a minor way.

I don't know if this is true but it was reported....

2Day FM was also embroiled in controversy when former presenters Judith Lucy, Kaz Cooke and Peter Helliar revealed they were asked to host a stunt called "celebrity sperm". The station intended to ask singer Guy Sebastian for his sperm, then encourage female listeners to compete for the chance to impregnate themselves with it.

The trio refused to be part of the stunt.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 08:11
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,222
Here's the radio interview Rhys Holleran gave on Australian radio...

He doesn't cover himself in glory, he said, "Our people are very well trained."..."Presenters followed the rules." yet the presenters said they didn't know the rules/procedures.

When asked about not having the approval of the people pranked, Rhys immediately jumped in with, "It's absolutely true to say we did attempt to contact those people on multiple occasions." But did you get their approval Rhys?

Why as claimed try to contact those people 5 times.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 11:08
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,831
Here's the radio interview Rhys Holleran gave on Australian radio...

He doesn't cover himself in glory, he said, "Our people are very well trained."..."Presenters followed the rules." yet the presenters said they didn't know the rules/procedures.

When asked about not having the approval of the people pranked, Rhys immediately jumped in with, "It's absolutely true to say we did attempt to contact those people on multiple occasions." But did you get their approval Rhys?

Why as claimed try to contact those people 5 times.
Because "we tried and failed" looks better in court than "we didn't even bother"...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 01:14
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,498
That's very interesting. Can a company actually do that?
I don't think they could legally stop her, but they could probably terminate her employment if she did.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 01:15
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,498
Yet the first words by Mel Grieg in the broadcast version of the call were, "Could I speak to Kate please.", Christain had promoted the call as being an attempt to speak to a severely ill hospital patient.

They and the radio station haven't clarified the 'process' the call went through before it was aired.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they had any expectation of getting through.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:19.