Pranked royal nurse dies (1 Viewer)

[Jack]

"It is much sexier to attack an Australian radio network without having done your homework to find out how much responsibility we actually bear.

"I don’t want to shift the blame. It [the prank call] is much sexier than the issue of depression or talking about what led someone to a suicide … The Australian industry seems to sit quite fairly behind us. It was only supposed to be a harmless prank."


And yet they made no attempt to make sure their target had no health issues (mental or other wise).
I hope she never gets a job on the Samaritans switch board!!

Martin

Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel. Australians should rally around our brave radio personalities. They are being attacked not for their lack of class, not for their defense of the indefensible, not for their attempt to access the personal medical records of a man who will one day be our King, and certainly not for the death of a woman they humiliated, but because they are Australian. Where does the English Press get off attacking patriots in this manner?

 

[Mitch]

we seem quick to castigate the people for a practical joke but, how many pranks have you been involved with in your army days that may have caused some harm be it slight but, you never thought, or, intended it would? I know I have been party to some and had them done to me where shock, harm embarrassment have all occurred to varying degrees that's what usually makes practical jokes so funny is their spontaneity.

I can see some form of legal action being taken just because of the way the story and the sides taken have unfolded but, the causal link is so weak from prank one off call to suicide that I can't believe it would pass the CPS threshold test but for the pressure being applied by some sections.
Mitch

"It is much sexier to attack an Australian radio network without having done your homework to find out how much responsibility we actually bear.

"I don’t want to shift the blame. It [the prank call] is much sexier than the issue of depression or talking about what led someone to a suicide … The Australian industry seems to sit quite fairly behind us. It was only supposed to be a harmless prank."


And yet they made no attempt to make sure their target had no health issues (mental or other wise).
I hope she never gets a job on the Samaritans switch board!!

Martin

 

[jazzeum]

"It is much sexier to attack an Australian radio network without having done your homework to find out how much responsibility we actually bear.

"I don’t want to shift the blame. It [the prank call] is much sexier than the issue of depression or talking about what led someone to a suicide … The Australian industry seems to sit quite fairly behind us. It was only supposed to be a harmless prank."


And yet they made no attempt to make sure their target had no health issues (mental or other wise).
I hope she never gets a job on the Samaritans switch board!!

Martin

This argument holds no water. For someone to be liable for an act they must have a duty to the person and be the proximate cause. The law is generally that if the act was one that the person, in the exercise of reasonable care, ought to have anticipated was liable to result in injury in others, then he/she is liable proximately resulting from it, although he could not have anticipated the specific injury that resulted. At least in the US, this is a cardinal principle of negligence law and one we are taught in the first year of law school (i.e., the Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road case).

Based on the foregoing, they clearly had no legal duty to her and there was no proximate cause between the act and the tragic outcome. Any attempt to argue otherwise is pure fantasy.

Brad

 

[maddadicus]

Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel. Australians should rally around our brave radio personalities. They are being attacked not for their lack of class, not for their defense of the indefensible, not for their attempt to access the personal medical records of a man who will one day be our King, and certainly not for the death of a woman they humiliated, but because they are Australian. Where does the English Press get off attacking patriots in this manner?

If our Howard Stern did such a deed and such a result happened, I hardly think we would be defending him as a "patriot"...An *** is an ***, regardless of nationality. To defend an irresponsible act using a national flag hardly makes it OK...Though history is ripe with examples ,otherwise...Michael

 

[Jack]

If our Howard Stern did such a deed and such a result happened, I hardly think we would be defending him as a "patriot"...An *** is an ***, regardless of nationality. To defend an irresponsible act using a national flag hardly makes it OK...Though history is ripe with examples ,otherwise...Michael

I see your swear words have three letters...that narrows the field!

 

[jazzeum]

I see your swear words have three letters...that narrows the field!

Yes, one may be "a" and the others have the same consonant, "s" ^&grin

 

[Combat]

This argument holds no water. For someone to be liable for an act they must have a duty to the person and be the proximate cause. The law is generally that if the act was one that the person, in the exercise of reasonable care, ought to have anticipated was liable to result in injury in others, then he/she is liable proximately resulting from it, although he could not have anticipated the specific injury that resulted. At least in the US, this is a cardinal principle of negligence law and one we are taught in the first year of law school (i.e., the Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road case).

Based on the foregoing, they clearly had no legal duty to her and there was no proximate cause between the act and the tragic outcome. Any attempt to argue otherwise is pure fantasy.

Brad

I gather the radio station is collecting money for the family. I would tell them to stuff it. On the lawsuit, I know there have been claims made by the families of kids who were "bullied" online and committed suicide. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent I couldn't say, but there seems some basis for that type of action.

 

[jazzeum]

I think bullying is different and not quite the same, plus there may be anti-bullying statutes on the books. In addition, I think it could be argued that there is linkage between the act of bullying and the act of suicide.

 

[Mitch]

I would think the difference is that bullying is more often than not is prolonged though, it does not have to be a single incident is sufficient for a variety of charges to occur. I have heard that several charges are being looked at from obtaining information by deception, impersonating public officials so, it would seem that some action however, legally shaky will inevitably be taken.

I think actions could be taken against the station more than the individuals especially in Tort because of the prolonged and repeated acts that have gone on from different employees where physical threats have been made against people by DJ's

Its interesting watching it unfold and, how actions are being almost forced because of the storm
Mitch

 

[Toy Soldier Brigade]

Bullying ? The women was on the phone for less than a minute. They're are no grounds for any criminal prosecution, or a law suit for monetary damages. This women was obviously mentally unstable. I think the only people who may have a case to sue are the DJ's who were suspend over this. How about people start taking some responsibility for their own actions, and people stop blaming everyone else for this women's suicide.

 

[Martin Tabony]

This argument holds no water. For someone to be liable for an act they must have a duty to the person and be the proximate cause. The law is generally that if the act was one that the person, in the exercise of reasonable care, ought to have anticipated was liable to result in injury in others, then he/she is liable proximately resulting from it, although he could not have anticipated the specific injury that resulted. At least in the US, this is a cardinal principle of negligence law and one we are taught in the first year of law school (i.e., the Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road case).

Based on the foregoing, they clearly had no legal duty to her and there was no proximate cause between the act and the tragic outcome. Any attempt to argue otherwise is pure fantasy.

Brad

I wasn't trying to say they were legaly liable, I was trying to point out the fact that the spokes person said "I don't want to shift blame" when she obviously did want to shift blame. And now she wants to talk about depression and what could lead to suicide, when the thought that they could cause humiliation to a stranger they are prank calling handn't entered their heads. Let alone that they were knowingly trying to make a prank call about someone they new was ill in hospital in the very early stages of pregnancy! Never mind a member of the Royal family, if someone did that to my daughter, I'd be looking for them with a length of 2x4!

Martin

 

[Martin Tabony]

we seem quick to castigate the people for a practical joke but, how many pranks have you been involved with in your army days that may have caused some harm be it slight but, you never thought, or, intended it would? I know I have been party to some and had them done to me where shock, harm embarrassment have all occurred to varying degrees that's what usually makes practical jokes so funny is their spontaneity.

I can see some form of legal action being taken just because of the way the story and the sides taken have unfolded but, the causal link is so weak from prank one off call to suicide that I can't believe it would pass the CPS threshold test but for the pressure being applied by some sections.
Mitch

I have indeed taken part in some practical jokes, and been at the but end of some. The difference is that I was always there to face the person I'd played the joke on. Also I have never played a joke on a stranger and I would never play a practical joke on some one in hospital! Were they so blinded by their own "celebrity" that no one had any common sence left?
Never mind the CPS test what about the common decency test?

Martin

 

[larso]

The radio station involved will end its hold on playing advertising soon. It says it will then donate all revenue for the rest of the year to the family, a minimum of $500,000. I think the term is 'blood money'........

 

[Rob]

I heard today that death threats have been issued to members of staff of the radio station concerned, yeah that's the way to go, someone has died so lets kill someone else!:rolleyes2:

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Natural reaction when these things happen the mental midgets come out from their holes and send their death threats. Its what happens look at the nutters who send death threats to actors and actresses when they have had on screen affairs etc these numpties actually believe the stuff is real. Its what happens when people submerge themselves in the gutter press, rag magazines about peoples lives and so called reality shows.

when your fed enough garbage it begins to become true for some. A similar issue happened a few years ago and the same happened death threats etc were allegedly sent the police investigated and it was the assistant of the person who caused, with their prank, the death of a person sending them to gain public sympathy!!!

They walk amongst us all!!
Mitch

 

[Rob]

Have no idea if this is true, but if it is it may help those two DJ's who are feeling so bad....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ss-Cambridge-attempted-kill-twice-before.html