Receptionist who put the call through

1555657585961»

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 353
    Forum Member
    habby wrote: »
    You had to dig up a "dead" thread just to try to create a reaction? :confused:



    Yeah. Ridiculous.

    Exactly and anyway the Queen is out now
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGz7YFEV0rk#

    And I'm sure after what happened they wouldnt be so stupid as to do it again
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,510
    Forum Member
    The nurse in question did not die as the result of a prank call, she died after suffering from depression for a number of years, she'd made two serious attempts at taking her own life whilst she was in India which resulted in her being in intensive care, phone call or no phone call, sadly this lady was doomed by her illness.

    ^^ This... the only sensible post on here
  • Betty BritainBetty Britain Posts: 13,721
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    I don't think the radio station or DJ's have answered the question did they obtain permission to broadcast the call or let those called in on the prank. Looking at how the DJ's & the radio station gloated I don't think they'd given a toss about Jacintha even if they knew she was a vunerable person.

    For christ sake the DJ's knowingly attempted to speak to and prank a newly pregnant woman as she lay vunerable ill in a hospital bed.

    I know they did.. But let's be honest ..if both nurses had done their job properly ..the phone would of been put down as soon as the call was answered because it was so obviously a prank..
  • grantus_maxgrantus_max Posts: 2,744
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Exactly and anyway the Queen is out now

    You're joking... :eek:

    First Richard Wilson, now the Queen... ;)
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,923
    Forum Member
    I know they did.. But let's be honest ..if both nurses had done their job properly ..the phone would of been put down as soon as the call was answered because it was so obviously a prank..

    If the two idiots and their producers had been doing their job they'd not made such a call to a person laying ill in hospital, but having done so you'd think they make sure those pranked see the joke before broadcasting the call.
  • grantus_maxgrantus_max Posts: 2,744
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    If the two idiots and their producers had been doing their job they'd not made such a call to a person laying ill in hospital, but having done so you'd think they make sure those pranked see the joke before broadcasting the call.

    The outrage is strong in you, Obi Wan... :rolleyes:
  • Betty BritainBetty Britain Posts: 13,721
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    If the two idiots and their producers had been doing their job they'd not made such a call to a person laying ill in hospital, but having done so you'd think they make sure those pranked see the joke before broadcasting the call.

    Let's get real here.. They NEVER expected to get on the phone to Catherine.. And let's be real here they should never of got past the first nurse.. NO ONE except her family knew she had tried to commit suicide TWICE before this call.. She obviously kept it from her employers ( maybe through fear of losing her job) It was a PRANK nothing more nothing less.. The over the top reaction by the media may of instigated the sad death of this lady.. But she wasn't stable and shouldnt of been in such a high pressure job... I'm sorry for her family that this poor lady took such drastic action..
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,923
    Forum Member
    Let's get real here.. They NEVER expected to get on the phone to Catherine.. And let's be real here they should never of got past the first nurse.. NO ONE except her family knew she had tried to commit suicide TWICE before this call.. She obviously kept it from her employers ( maybe through fear of losing her job) It was a PRANK nothing more nothing less.. The over the top reaction by the media may of instigated the sad death of this lady.. But she wasn't stable and shouldnt of been in such a high pressure job... I'm sorry for her family that this poor lady took such drastic action..

    What was on the original uncut version of the broadcast, is at odds with what the radio station and the two DJ's said afterwards.

    The DJ's knew they were attempting to prank a newly pregnant woman who was in hospital because doctors thought she and her baby could be at risk.

    That for a starting point is reason enough for two so called professional presenters, especially Mel Greig, to have had second thoughts about the idea.

    I've explained what they should have done having made the call and carried out the prank.
  • grantus_maxgrantus_max Posts: 2,744
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    What was on the original uncut version of the broadcast, is at odds with what the radio station and the two DJ's said afterwards.

    The DJ's knew they were attempting to prank a newly pregnant woman who was in hospital because doctors thought she and her baby could be at risk.

    That for a starting point is reason enough for two so called professional presenters, especially Mel Greig, to have had second thoughts about the idea.

    I've explained what they should have done having made the call and carried out the prank.

    I don't think anyone denies that as pranks go, it was a crap idea.

    What's puzzling me is why you're ringing every last morsel of disapproval out of it... :rolleyes:
  • DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't think anyone denies that as pranks go, it was a crap idea.

    What's puzzling me is why you're ringing every last morsel of disapproval out of it... :rolleyes:

    Exactly. The prank was crass, and the radio station should have got clearance from Jacintha and the other nurse before broadcasting anyway (they've claimed they did, but it all sounded a bit shifty). They screwed up. But no-one could have reasonably foreseen the devasting effect. From the interview they did, I do believe that the DJs (especially Mel Greig) are thoroughly contrite.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In real life people have all sorts of medical conditions.

    Heart conditions, cancer, depression....

    If a burglar breaks into a home and scares a person so much that a pre-existing heart condition is made worse and they die... we don't say "no one could have possibly foreseen..."

    The thing is, if a person does something outside the bounds of reasonable behaviour and that behaviour is a contributing cause of a persons death... then they are held to be partially responsible. And punished.

    At least that used to be the case. In law-less Britain it might not be any more. If you aren't famous or a politician or rich then it probably still is.

    Did they murder the woman? No. Did they contribute to her death? Yes. A pre-existing condition is not a defence.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The fact that a person is likely going to die anyway is not a defence for the manslaughter of that person, as some people appear to be suggesting,

    Everyone is going to die after all.
  • DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    In real life people have all sorts of medical conditions.

    Heart conditions, cancer, depression....

    If a burglar breaks into a home and scares a person so much that a pre-existing heart condition is made worse and they die... we don't say "no one could have possibly foreseen..."

    The thing is, if a person does something outside the bounds of reasonable behaviour and that behaviour is a contributing cause of a persons death... then they are held to be partially responsible. And punished.

    At least that used to be the case. In law-less Britain it might not be any more. If you aren't famous or a politician or rich then it probably still is.

    Did they murder the woman? No. Did they contribute to her death? Yes. A pre-existing condition is not a defence.

    It's a rather different situation from that, as Jacintha is presumed to have committed suicide. No-one is held criminally liable for suicides in this country unless they actively aided or abetted them - nor was there a time when they were. In Australia, you can be held liable for a suicide in cases of relentless bullying and harassment, but that clearly doesn't apply here.
  • DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    The fact that a person is likely going to die anyway is not a defence for the manslaughter of that person, as some people appear to be suggesting,

    Everyone is going to die after all.

    But since this case isn't manslaughter, except in the eyes of the deluded, that's not relevant.
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,257
    Forum Member
    i4u wrote: »
    If the two idiots and their producers had been doing their job they'd not made such a call to a person laying ill in hospital, but having done so you'd think they make sure those pranked see the joke before broadcasting the call.

    :eek: I don't even know where to begin.....
  • grantus_maxgrantus_max Posts: 2,744
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    The fact that a person is likely going to die anyway is not a defence for the manslaughter of that person, as some people appear to be suggesting,

    Everyone is going to die after all.

    Manslaughter? Really?

    Honestly... get a grip eh?
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We're back on this merry go-round ?
  • whatever54whatever54 Posts: 6,456
    Forum Member
    We're back on this merry go-round ?

    seems so. I wonder what the hospital inquiry found, I am still curious about how they reacted at the time and why Keith Vaz seems to have lost interest
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whatever54 wrote: »
    seems so. I wonder what the hospital inquiry found, I am still curious about how they reacted at the time and why Keith Vaz seems to have lost interest

    Well i'd say Keith Vaz lost interest when it became obvious he couldn't squeeze any more publicity for himself out of it.

    Anyway, i'm glad Mel Grieg is going back to work. I hope she can get on with her life and be happy.
  • whatever54whatever54 Posts: 6,456
    Forum Member
    Well i'd say Keith Vaz lost interest when it became obvious he couldn't squeeze any more publicity for himself out of it.

    Anyway, i'm glad Mel Grieg is going back to work. I hope she can get on with her life and be happy.

    you're probably right but if so what an awful man for parading the husband and child out for pics if he had no intention of following it through. Yes I agree re; the DJ's. I still wonder how the hospital dealt with the case at the time, probably we'll never know
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,923
    Forum Member
    Exactly. The prank was crass, and the radio station should have got clearance from Jacintha and the other nurse before broadcasting anyway (they've claimed they did, but it all sounded a bit shifty). They screwed up. But no-one could have reasonably foreseen the devasting effect. From the interview they did, I do believe that the DJs (especially Mel Greig) are thoroughly contrite.

    They didn't actually say they had clearance. Rhys Halleran, CEO of the station said they 'attempted' to make contact 5 times. In a phone call Rhys talked of the DJ's being trained and proccedures being in place, but was very evasive as to what that meant.

    In their interview the 2 DJ's give no indication if they knew if approval had been granted, they just refer to proccesses. Asked if they had training they talk of others making decisions for them.

    As I've said before the radio station has previous for doing one thing and denying it afterwards. In 2009 a group of lawyers suggested certain systems should be in place regarding training and proceedures, which seemed to be lacking.

    As previously with this radio staion, what the DJ's said after the call played down or ignored what they said before and during the call, here's a partial transcript with a link to the complete broadcast.
  • DavetheScotDavetheScot Posts: 16,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    They didn't actually say they had clearance. Rhys Halleran, CEO of the station said they 'attempted' to make contact 5 times. In a phone call Rhys talked of the DJ's being trained and proccedures being in place, but was very evasive as to what that meant.

    In their interview the 2 DJ's give no indication if they knew if approval had been granted, they just refer to proccesses. Asked if they had training they talk of others making decisions for them.

    As I've said before the radio station has previous for doing one thing and denying it afterwards. In 2009 a group of lawyers suggested certain systems should be in place regarding training and proceedures, which seemed to be lacking.

    As previously with this radio staion, what the DJ's said after the call played down or ignored what they said before and during the call, here's a partial transcript with a link to the complete broadcast.

    Thanks. I remembered there'd been an issue over consent and the radio station had been shifty on the matter. That clarifies it a lot.
Sign In or Register to comment.