Duchess Of Cambridge Hoax Call Nurse Found Dead

[Ferangled]

Here are a few more cases of a "harmless prank" going wrong. I feel quite certain the pranksters felt what they were doing was humorous as well.

It happens more often than our apologists think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia...._Tyler_Clementi

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Megan_Meier

http://en.wikipedia....f_Ryan_Halligan

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Amanda_Todd

Actually the examples you give are of Cyber Bullying. There is a very huge difference between a woman taking a 5 second telephone call at her place of work and transfering that call to the appropriate person, to teenagers who had been harrassed, tormented and teased on social networks like facebook for months. Tragic are the examples that you give but you can't compare.

There is nothing to suggest that the poor woman in this topic took her own life simply due to a phone call she answered. It is speculation and unfounded. From what I have read she had moved into the nurses quarters why was that?

I don't know, are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?

There is everything to suggest that this poor woman took her own life as a direct result of this incident but for some reason you seem to be clutching at any and every straw that presents itself as reason for the hoax call not having an effect on her emotional outlook when it seems pretty clear it did. Is it the sole factor? I doubt it but what bearing does that have on the matter?

Whether legally the radio DJs should or shouldn't be found liable for the death of this poor woman is beside the point. If they don't feel some moral responsibility for the reactions brought about by their actions there is something very wrong here.

[chuckd]

Here are a few more cases of a "harmless prank" going wrong. I feel quite certain the pranksters felt what they were doing was humorous as well.

It happens more often than our apologists think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia...._Tyler_Clementi

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Megan_Meier

http://en.wikipedia....f_Ryan_Halligan

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Amanda_Todd

Actually the examples you give are of Cyber Bullying.

Not all of them. Read the events leading up to the suicide of young Tyler Clementi.

It began as a harmless prank, as did probably the rest of them.

What really amazes me is all the excuses, alibis and attempts at justifying the actions of the DJs on this forum.

There is no excuse for bad behavior and crude manners and these two DJs exhibited an abundance of both.

[simple1]

Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/15608440/radio-station-to-donate-500k-to-nurses-family/

[whybother]

This case would prove that statement rather false... perhaps rather than brushing this off as a "prank" we should call it what it really is, bullying; emotional bullying for the sake of getting a few laughs, not that far removed from what promotes most playground bullies.

There is bullying all of over the world, particularly evident in most schools. Most children shrug it off and deal with it but others don't. In some it creates life long issues of insecurity in others promotes them to become bullies themselves. A boy in my class at school decided to end his life as a direct result of the same sort of bullying that almost all of us were subjected to as children. There were no physical assaults involved, just daily name calling & teasing, all to gain a rise out of the other children and make the bully feel superior by getting a few laughs.

Was it then this boys fault that he was overly sensitive or ill equipped to deal with bullying or was his death a direct result of the bullying itself? A rational mind would perhaps conclude it was a combination of both but it's undeniable that the actions of one boy led to the death of the other. It may seem acceptable to some because those doing the bullying in this case are media personalities but whenever you make the conscious decision to make fun of someone else with that decision must come some acceptance of the responsibility for the actions that your humour leads to.

If someone made fun of a large, strong man and received a punch in the face for making them the butt of their jokes, we'd all pretty much accept it as "som num na", you were asking for it. Why is it that if an individual less well equipped to defend themselves is made the butt of a joke we tend to absolve all responsibility when an opposite outcome is provoked? Perhaps part of our "survival of the fittest" make up...

It's only a harmless prank when no one is harmed as a result and if someone feels they need to end their own life as a result of being the butt of your joke it would be a pretty soulless individual that could absolve themselves of all responsibility... legalities aside there is a moral compass that guides most of us and it's usually when devoid of one we look to the other to guide us.

Except that she wasn't bullied by the DJs. She was half a world away.

It seems that the DJs are getting bullied far more than the nurse was.

[whybother]

Here are a few more cases of a "harmless prank" going wrong. I feel quite certain the pranksters felt what they were doing was humorous as well.

It happens more often than our apologists think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia...._Tyler_Clementi

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Megan_Meier

http://en.wikipedia....f_Ryan_Halligan

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Amanda_Todd

Actually the examples you give are of Cyber Bullying. There is a very huge difference between a woman taking a 5 second telephone call at her place of work and transfering that call to the appropriate person, to teenagers who had been harrassed, tormented and teased on social networks like facebook for months. Tragic are the examples that you give but you can't compare.

There is nothing to suggest that the poor woman in this topic took her own life simply due to a phone call she answered. It is speculation and unfounded. From what I have read she had moved into the nurses quarters why was that?

I don't know, are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?

There is everything to suggest that this poor woman took her own life as a direct result of this incident but for some reason you seem to be clutching at any and every straw that presents itself as reason for the hoax call not having an effect on her emotional outlook when it seems pretty clear it did. Is it the sole factor? I doubt it but what bearing does that have on the matter?

Whether legally the radio DJs should or shouldn't be found liable for the death of this poor woman is beside the point. If they don't feel some moral responsibility for the reactions brought about by their actions there is something very wrong here.

"are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?"

But it's OK for the unfounded speculation that it was the DJs fault that she committed suicide?

[Ferangled]

Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.

http://au.news.yahoo...-nurses-family/

Perhaps it would be taken as a genuinely heartfelt attempt to reach out to the family if it was announced prior to the revelation that they're losing c.A$150,000 a day in advertising revenue to the companies that pulled the plug... What was the initial reaction to that? The radio station responded by removing all advertising in the short term in a pretty thinly veiled attempt at retaining other advertising deals.

It really is all about money and legality these day's isn't it? If it's legal and you can make money do it, morality be damned, hell if it's illegal and makes money do it anyway just with the aid of a strong legal team to tie up any court action until those bringing charges run out of money... Then we see these pathetic public shows of "morality" which are actually of course just sound financial advice... cheaper to pay off the family publicly than lose yet more advertising deals. What's A$500,000 actually mean to them? About 3 days ad revenue... probably even less.

To all those that harp on about the corruption in Thailand and the way the good old civilised Western societies conduct themselves, take note. This is true Western style business manoeuvring and the reality is far more brutal and callous than most under the table deals in Thailand.

[BookMan]

Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.

http://au.news.yahoo...-nurses-family/

Perhaps it would be taken as a genuinely heartfelt attempt to reach out to the family if it was announced prior to the revelation that they're losing c.A$150,000 a day in advertising revenue to the companies that pulled the plug... What was the initial reaction to that? The radio station responded by removing all advertising in the short term in a pretty thinly veiled attempt at retaining other advertising deals.

It really is all about money and legality these day's isn't it? If it's legal and you can make money do it, morality be damned, hell if it's illegal and makes money do it anyway just with the aid of a strong legal team to tie up any court action until those bringing charges run out of money... Then we see these pathetic public shows of "morality" which are actually of course just sound financial advice... cheaper to pay off the family publicly than lose yet more advertising deals. What's A$500,000 actually mean to them? About 3 days ad revenue... probably even less.

To all those that harp on about the corruption in Thailand and the way the good old civilised Western societies conduct themselves, take note. This is true Western style business manoeuvring and the reality is far more brutal and callous than most under the table deals in Thailand.

So are your saying that they should give nothing or that they should give more?

[Ferangled]

This case would prove that statement rather false... perhaps rather than brushing this off as a "prank" we should call it what it really is, bullying; emotional bullying for the sake of getting a few laughs, not that far removed from what promotes most playground bullies.

There is bullying all of over the world, particularly evident in most schools. Most children shrug it off and deal with it but others don't. In some it creates life long issues of insecurity in others promotes them to become bullies themselves. A boy in my class at school decided to end his life as a direct result of the same sort of bullying that almost all of us were subjected to as children. There were no physical assaults involved, just daily name calling & teasing, all to gain a rise out of the other children and make the bully feel superior by getting a few laughs.

Was it then this boys fault that he was overly sensitive or ill equipped to deal with bullying or was his death a direct result of the bullying itself? A rational mind would perhaps conclude it was a combination of both but it's undeniable that the actions of one boy led to the death of the other. It may seem acceptable to some because those doing the bullying in this case are media personalities but whenever you make the conscious decision to make fun of someone else with that decision must come some acceptance of the responsibility for the actions that your humour leads to.

If someone made fun of a large, strong man and received a punch in the face for making them the butt of their jokes, we'd all pretty much accept it as "som num na", you were asking for it. Why is it that if an individual less well equipped to defend themselves is made the butt of a joke we tend to absolve all responsibility when an opposite outcome is provoked? Perhaps part of our "survival of the fittest" make up...

It's only a harmless prank when no one is harmed as a result and if someone feels they need to end their own life as a result of being the butt of your joke it would be a pretty soulless individual that could absolve themselves of all responsibility... legalities aside there is a moral compass that guides most of us and it's usually when devoid of one we look to the other to guide us.

Except that she wasn't bullied by the DJs. She was half a world away.

It seems that the DJs are getting bullied far more than the nurse was.

The first point you make is mute. What has proximity got to do with anything here? I take it you understand the concept of the internet given that you are posting on here and presumably the telephone is a device you are also familiar with? Just because you can't see the person at the other end of the line doesn't mean that you can't have a profound effect on their life, negatively or positively. Are you aware of the Samaritans?

As to your second point, let me help you out; "It seems to me that the DJs are getting bullied far more than the nurse was." would be more appropriate given that to countless others it seems pretty obvious that the DJs are simply dealing with the reactions to their ill thought out actions. Perhaps before reaching out to effect the daily life of a nurse, 1000s of miles away they should have considered the possible ramifications?

[Ferangled]

Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.

http://au.news.yahoo...-nurses-family/

Perhaps it would be taken as a genuinely heartfelt attempt to reach out to the family if it was announced prior to the revelation that they're losing c.A$150,000 a day in advertising revenue to the companies that pulled the plug... What was the initial reaction to that? The radio station responded by removing all advertising in the short term in a pretty thinly veiled attempt at retaining other advertising deals.

It really is all about money and legality these day's isn't it? If it's legal and you can make money do it, morality be damned, hell if it's illegal and makes money do it anyway just with the aid of a strong legal team to tie up any court action until those bringing charges run out of money... Then we see these pathetic public shows of "morality" which are actually of course just sound financial advice... cheaper to pay off the family publicly than lose yet more advertising deals. What's A$500,000 actually mean to them? About 3 days ad revenue... probably even less.

To all those that harp on about the corruption in Thailand and the way the good old civilised Western societies conduct themselves, take note. This is true Western style business manoeuvring and the reality is far more brutal and callous than most under the table deals in Thailand.

So are your saying that they should give nothing or that they should give more?

No, neither, I'm saying that their motivation is at best questionable, especially given the specific order to which these decisions have been made.

Consider this... If they really cared about the family and wanted to make a donation to them to show their support with no ulterior motive why do so publicly? Could they not have done so privately to respect the privacy of the family (as specifically requested by them)? No far better to make a big, public donation, appease their critics and let the family worry about the fallout from such a public transfer of a large sum of money to them...

[whybother]

The first point you make is mute. What has proximity got to do with anything here? I take it you understand the concept of the internet given that you are posting on here and presumably the telephone is a device you are also familiar with? Just because you can't see the person at the other end of the line doesn't mean that you can't have a profound effect on their life, negatively or positively. Are you aware of the Samaritans?

As to your second point, let me help you out; "It seems to me that the DJs are getting bullied far more than the nurse was." would be more appropriate given that to countless others it seems pretty obvious that the DJs are simply dealing with the reactions to their ill thought out actions. Perhaps before reaching out to effect the daily life of a nurse, 1000s of miles away they should have considered the possible ramifications?

Proximity has a lot to do with the ability for them to actually bully. They didn't call her back. They didn't send her emails. They didn't put anything where she would reasonably able to see it, unless she specifically went looking for it.

Was it them bullying or was it the media in Britain bullying?

Aren't the reactions just more bullying? People are doing exactly what they are reacting against.

[BookMan]

Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.

http://au.news.yahoo...-nurses-family/

Perhaps it would be taken as a genuinely heartfelt attempt to reach out to the family if it was announced prior to the revelation that they're losing c.A$150,000 a day in advertising revenue to the companies that pulled the plug... What was the initial reaction to that? The radio station responded by removing all advertising in the short term in a pretty thinly veiled attempt at retaining other advertising deals.

It really is all about money and legality these day's isn't it? If it's legal and you can make money do it, morality be damned, hell if it's illegal and makes money do it anyway just with the aid of a strong legal team to tie up any court action until those bringing charges run out of money... Then we see these pathetic public shows of "morality" which are actually of course just sound financial advice... cheaper to pay off the family publicly than lose yet more advertising deals. What's A$500,000 actually mean to them? About 3 days ad revenue... probably even less.

To all those that harp on about the corruption in Thailand and the way the good old civilised Western societies conduct themselves, take note. This is true Western style business manoeuvring and the reality is far more brutal and callous than most under the table deals in Thailand.

So are your saying that they should give nothing or that they should give more?

No, neither, I'm saying that their motivation is at best questionable, especially given the specific order to which these decisions have been made.

Consider this... If they really cared about the family and wanted to make a donation to them to show their support with no ulterior motive why do so publicly? Could they not have done so privately to respect the privacy of the family (as specifically requested by them)? No far better to make a big, public donation, appease their critics and let the family worry about the fallout from such a public transfer of a large sum of money to them...

Yeah I don't agree with all this money to charity and family being done the way it is, it comes across as not being genuine

[Ferangled]

Here are a few more cases of a "harmless prank" going wrong. I feel quite certain the pranksters felt what they were doing was humorous as well.

It happens more often than our apologists think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia...._Tyler_Clementi

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Megan_Meier

http://en.wikipedia....f_Ryan_Halligan

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Amanda_Todd

Actually the examples you give are of Cyber Bullying. There is a very huge difference between a woman taking a 5 second telephone call at her place of work and transfering that call to the appropriate person, to teenagers who had been harrassed, tormented and teased on social networks like facebook for months. Tragic are the examples that you give but you can't compare.

There is nothing to suggest that the poor woman in this topic took her own life simply due to a phone call she answered. It is speculation and unfounded. From what I have read she had moved into the nurses quarters why was that?

I don't know, are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?

There is everything to suggest that this poor woman took her own life as a direct result of this incident but for some reason you seem to be clutching at any and every straw that presents itself as reason for the hoax call not having an effect on her emotional outlook when it seems pretty clear it did. Is it the sole factor? I doubt it but what bearing does that have on the matter?

Whether legally the radio DJs should or shouldn't be found liable for the death of this poor woman is beside the point. If they don't feel some moral responsibility for the reactions brought about by their actions there is something very wrong here.

"are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?"

But it's OK for the unfounded speculation that it was the DJs fault that she committed suicide?

I'm sorry but when cause and effect are so clearly outlined for all to see it crosses from the realm of speculation into probable cause... I think a distinct minority are holding them entirely responsible for the unfortunate incident but denying that they played any part is sheer lunacy and I tend to think it is that which people really object to.

[whybother]

I'm sorry but when cause and effect are so clearly outlined for all to see it crosses from the realm of speculation into probable cause... I think a distinct minority are holding them entirely responsible for the unfortunate incident but denying that they played any part is sheer lunacy and I tend to think it is that which people really object to.

I'm sure they played a part in it. But I think it was probably more the stress of the attention of the British media after it, than the incident itself.

[Ferangled]

I'm sorry but when cause and effect are so clearly outlined for all to see it crosses from the realm of speculation into probable cause... I think a distinct minority are holding them entirely responsible for the unfortunate incident but denying that they played any part is sheer lunacy and I tend to think it is that which people really object to.

I'm sure they played a part in it. But I think it was probably more the stress of the attention of the British media after it, than the incident itself.

I tend to agree with you. I think the radio prank initiated the situation and then external factors came into play; I'm sure the pressure of the British media amplified matters, as did the fact it was a royal patient and I believe the background and cultural beliefs of the poor girl also played a part. Rarely can we point to one factor as the sole cause in such an unfortunate incident however we can all quite clearly see what provided the initial spark without which events would not have gone down this tragic path.

The radio DJs could not have foreseen how this would pan out but had they thought the matter through just from an ethical perspective this prank should not have gone ahead. Making fun out of a situation where a young girl has been hospitalised during the early stages of pregnancy is not in the best taste is it? It is a private family matter and boundaries should be drawn. With the backdrop of Diana you would have hoped the media would be on best behaviour. Most criminal fraternities even know where to draw the line and hospitals, pregnant women and nurses are usually off limits... I guess not to today's press.

[Steely Dan]

You don't seem to get the difference between calling for someone to be charged with murder for a harmless prank which is operated tens of thousands of times a day across the globe.....and calling for them to be labelled fools perhaps, possibly reprimanded for doing an illegal act if they violated any rules....yet even that is only being granted because of hindsight.

I don't recall anyone in this topic saying that they should be charged with murder; perhaps you can link to the posts where this has been said?

Harmless prank? Which set out to obtain confidential medical information and humiliate hospital staff; which resulted in one of those staff members taking her life. You call that harmless!

Yes, as has been said many times, other radio stations make prank calls, but they do, or legally must, obtain the victim's permission before broadcasting them This pair and their bosses didn't.

I've just heard their interview on the BBC; lots of weasel words about how bad they feel, but very little expression of regret and no apology to the hospital or, more importantly, the nurses family.

The radio station say that they tried to contact the hospital 5 times before deciding to broadcast the piece; so they must have known permission was required but decided to go ahead anyway.

Steely Dan, Noel Edmonds was, and still is in my opinion, a talentless individual, but others do seem to like him. I remember the incident you refer to, but the big difference between that case and this is that he took part in the stunt of his own free will.

Yes, from the victim's point of view someone taking part in a stunt signs a disclaimer, someone who is the victim of a prank does not. However looking at this though a legal optic in order for someone to be criminally liable you have to show that the actions of those responsible are so negligent that they were likely to result in serious harm being done to somebody;- This is clearly not the case here.

Just the other day I found the wife tutting at some video clips on the internet where victims were in a lift with a coffin in it and the door of the coffin opened to predictable screams. I found it mildly amusing in a puerile sort of way, but my wife pointed out that someone with a heart condition might die of shock. In a case like that I think the negligence argument would hold more water, but we have similar shows doing similar stuff in many Countries throughout the world.

[Humbugged]

Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.

http://au.news.yahoo...-nurses-family/

What a great gesture.

No doubt some on here will still have a whine.

[thaicbr]

The call was for fun. No harm done and there is nothing to be ashamed of except those bad accepts.

Sad about the suicide. The radio station has ZERO culpability. The lady was obviously on the edge anyway and nobody killed her, she killed HERSELF.

I couldn't disagree more, no harm done you say, fun! At best the call was poor judgement, at worst it was something lese entirely and the fall out now seems to support that view.

This is the liberal view - the view that leads us to a totalitarian state where everything is banned to 'protect' the populace.

She killed herself. She obviously had issues if this was her reaction to being the butt of a joke.

Or perhaps we should ban jokes in case this every happens again.

Depends on how you define liberal. I consider myself a liberal and believe in free speech in entertainment and humor, even when it is in poor taste (many people love poor taste and that's their right). I think you are talking about something else like totalitarianism which is favored from the left AND the right.

Indeed the timing of the suicide could be totally coincidental.

really.. i wonder what you would have said if this had been "a joke in poor taste" about a lesbian or gay person which led to a suicide?

But i do agree this probably would not ave gotten the reaction if no one had committed suicide but some one did. And radio and TV hosts should be held accountable. Even if it's just an apology.

[chooka]

Here are a few more cases of a "harmless prank" going wrong. I feel quite certain the pranksters felt what they were doing was humorous as well.

It happens more often than our apologists think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia...._Tyler_Clementi

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Megan_Meier

http://en.wikipedia....f_Ryan_Halligan

http://en.wikipedia...._of_Amanda_Todd

Actually the examples you give are of Cyber Bullying. There is a very huge difference between a woman taking a 5 second telephone call at her place of work and transfering that call to the appropriate person, to teenagers who had been harrassed, tormented and teased on social networks like facebook for months. Tragic are the examples that you give but you can't compare.

There is nothing to suggest that the poor woman in this topic took her own life simply due to a phone call she answered. It is speculation and unfounded. From what I have read she had moved into the nurses quarters why was that?

I don't know, are you asking us to make more unfounded speculation as to why she moved into the Nurses quarters and the bearing that may have had on her suicide?

There is everything to suggest that this poor woman took her own life as a direct result of this incident but for some reason you seem to be clutching at any and every straw that presents itself as reason for the hoax call not having an effect on her emotional outlook when it seems pretty clear it did. Is it the sole factor? I doubt it but what bearing does that have on the matter?

Whether legally the radio DJs should or shouldn't be found liable for the death of this poor woman is beside the point. If they don't feel some moral responsibility for the reactions brought about by their actions there is something very wrong here.

NO I am not asking anyone to speculate on anything as speculation is purely unfounded on here and means very little. However so many are speculating that her 100% reason for suicide was from a 5 second telephone call from an Aussie DJ/S and why is that?

Sure there may be people responsible for her death but who are they? To blame the employee (DJ) is not totally fair. Personally I would be looking at the employer, the producers who program the show and tell them what to do. A DJ is not unlike an actor in a hollywood blockbuster, he/she doesn't write the script, direct or produce the movie they are employed to play a specific roll for a specific show or program. They are the scape goats and will have to live with what they may or may not have done for the show. We do not know what personal isues she may have been facing or why she moved into the nursing quarters but to blame the D.J,s for her death is not fair. Where will the blame lay is a D.J resorted to the same action as this woman, the radio station? or the media or social networking.

All I am saying people is be reasonable and don't look for a scape goat to drag through the streets, firing bullets into the air whilst drinking your beers.

[Fozfromoz]

Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.

http://au.news.yahoo...-nurses-family/

Perhaps it would be taken as a genuinely heartfelt attempt to reach out to the family if it was announced prior to the revelation that they're losing c.A$150,000 a day in advertising revenue to the companies that pulled the plug... What was the initial reaction to that? The radio station responded by removing all advertising in the short term in a pretty thinly veiled attempt at retaining other advertising deals.

It really is all about money and legality these day's isn't it? If it's legal and you can make money do it, morality be damned, hell if it's illegal and makes money do it anyway just with the aid of a strong legal team to tie up any court action until those bringing charges run out of money... Then we see these pathetic public shows of "morality" which are actually of course just sound financial advice... cheaper to pay off the family publicly than lose yet more advertising deals. What's A$500,000 actually mean to them? About 3 days ad revenue... probably even less.

To all those that harp on about the corruption in Thailand and the way the good old civilised Western societies conduct themselves, take note. This is true Western style business manoeuvring and the reality is far more brutal and callous than most under the table deals in Thailand.

So are your saying that they should give nothing or that they should give more?

No, neither, I'm saying that their motivation is at best questionable, especially given the specific order to which these decisions have been made.

Consider this... If they really cared about the family and wanted to make a donation to them to show their support with no ulterior motive why do so publicly? Could they not have done so privately to respect the privacy of the family (as specifically requested by them)? No far better to make a big, public donation, appease their critics and let the family worry about the fallout from such a public transfer of a large sum of money to them...

Agreed. The radio station just wants this to go away ASAP. Callous as that may sound, I reckon not to far off the truth. My instant reaction when I saw that, is the parallel to Thailand, where we dump on them. Something wrong, compensate, problem gone.

[Mosha]

Inquest is this week, DJs were interviewed, it was on BBC this morning. Devastated and heartbroken. Not as much as the family I'll wager.

[phuketjock]

Just to let you know the radio station has committed to donating A$500k to the deceased family.

http://au.news.yahoo...-nurses-family/

What a great gesture.

No doubt some on here will still have a whine.

From the same article

"It was seen a bold tactic to retain advertisers who would have been pressured to publically withdraw support from the station."

So a gesture not without motive.!!

[Scott]

Off-topic posts as well as replies have been deleted. Please stay on topic.

[Spoonman]

[chooka]

There may actually be more to this story and the reason she took her own life may have had absolutely nothing to do with the 5 second phone call. She is staying in the nurses quarters and the husband in the family home. If the suicide note provides other reasons I hope there are just as many appologies to the D.J's as there are condemnations and calls to crucify them. Being accused of killing someone couldn't be a very nice feeling if it turns out not to be the case.

The London nurse who was tricked in 2DayFM's royal prank call left a suicide note for her family which could provide an insight into why she took her life.

Jacintha Saldanha, 46, was found unconscious in nurses' accommodation near the King Edward VII Hospital last week.

The Evening Standard and UK Telegraph reported today that a note had been left for her family but it has not been revealed what she wrote.

http://news.ninemsn....ft-suicide-note

Edited December 12, 2012 by chooka

[chooka]

I like it.... Doesn't take long does it?

[chuckd]

There may actually be more to this story and the reason she took her own life may have had absolutely nothing to do with the 5 second phone call. She is staying in the nurses quarters and the husband in the family home. If the suicide note provides other reasons I hope there are just as many appologies to the D.J's as there are condemnations and calls to crucify them. Being accused of killing someone couldn't be a very nice feeling if it turns out not to be the case.

The London nurse who was tricked in 2DayFM's royal prank call left a suicide note for her family which could provide an insight into why she took her life.

Jacintha Saldanha, 46, was found unconscious in nurses' accommodation near the King Edward VII Hospital last week.

The Evening Standard and UK Telegraph reported today that a note had been left for her family but it has not been revealed what she wrote.

http://news.ninemsn....ft-suicide-note

I read elsewhere she was staying at the hospital during her work week and returning to her home on weekends to avoid excessive travel.

[phuketjock]

IMO what is or is not revealed in this poor womans suicide note is fairly irrelevant.

The facts are not so irrelevant.

These two irresponsible DJs set out with deliberate intent to ridicule, belittle and embarrass

someone for the grand motive of a cheap laugh. They achieved their intended result and

subsequently, with great glee gloated over their grand victory over some innocent caring

nurses. Unfortunately in the achievment of their goal they emotionally injured someone so

badly that she was driven to a point where the real or perceived shame she felt brought

her to the sad situation of taking her own life. Not such a grand jest eh??

The one piece of foresight the young girl may have accidently uttered was that this was the

pinnacle of her career, I for one sincerely hope that that prophecy comes true for both of them,

hopefully niether of them will ever be employed in the showbiz world for the rest of their lives.

But that was not the finish of the story, none of this would have happened at all had the cowardly

boss or bosses involved, who have so far failed to display the decency or courage to identify

themselves, had done their job properly instead of desparately seeking cheap publicity.

They claim they tried to contact the hospital on 5 occasions,( this has yet to be verified ), which

clearly implies that they were completely aware of the need to obtain the permission of the victoms

involved before they could air this stupidity but in full knowledge of the law they ignored that law and

aired the story anyway. Contemptable is too mild a word to describe their disgracefull behavior.

So to summerise all of them involved are culpable and deserve to be hauled over the coals to the highest

degree possible!!!

To Humbugged and whybother,

Yes hindsight is a wonderful thing but in this case had the slightest bit of foresight or thought been employed

there would be no necessity for hindsight would there??

Edited December 12, 2012 by phuketjock

[chooka]

IMO what is or is not revealed in this poor womans suicide note is fairly irrelevant.

The facts are not so irrelevant.

These two irresponsible DJs set out with deliberate intent to ridicule, belittle and embarrass

someone for the grand motive of a cheap laugh. They achieved their intended result and

subsequently, with great glee gloated over their grand victory over some innocent caring

nurses. Unfortunately in the achievment of their goal they emotionally injured someone so

badly that she was driven to a point where the real or perceived shame she felt brought

her to the sad situation of taking her own life. Not such a grand jest eh??

The one piece of foresight the young girl may have accidently uttered was that this was the

pinnacle of her career, I for one sincerely hope that that prophecy comes true for both of them,

hopefully niether of them will ever be employed in the showbiz world for the rest of their lives.

But that was not the finish of the story, none of this would have happened at all had the cowardly

boss or bosses involved, who have so far failed to display the decency or courage to identify

themselves, had done their job properly instead of desparately seeking cheap publicity.

They claim they tried to contact the hospital on 5 occasions,( this has yet to be verified ), which

clearly implies that they were completely aware of the need to obtain the permission of the victoms

involved before they could air this stupidity but in full knowledge of the law they ignored that law and

aired the story anyway. Contemptable is too mild a word to describe their disgracefull behavior.

So to summerise all of them involved are culpable and deserve to be hauled over the coals to the highest

degree possible!!!

To Humbugged and whybother,

Yes hindsight is a wonderful thing but in this case had the slightest bit of foresight or thought been employed

there would be no necessity for hindsight would there??

"Unfortunately in the achievment of their goal they emotionally injured someone so

badly that she was driven to a point where the real or perceived shame she felt brought

her to the sad situation of taking her own life."

Did They? Was this the ultimate reason that she took her life? You seem to know the contents of her suicide note. I am not in a position to dispute someone in the know and who is has links to this woman so I will have to agree with you as you are personally have knowledge.

If she wrote in her note that she answered a call from someone identifying themsleves as H.RH (which they did not do) then she transfered this split second call to the person/s responsible for a pregnant woman in thier care and this drove her to suicide then I am with you. No person on this earth should be placed in such a position.

Edited December 12, 2012 by chooka

[phuketjock]

IMO what is or is not revealed in this poor womans suicide note is fairly irrelevant.

The facts are not so irrelevant.

These two irresponsible DJs set out with deliberate intent to ridicule, belittle and embarrass

someone for the grand motive of a cheap laugh. They achieved their intended result and

subsequently, with great glee gloated over their grand victory over some innocent caring

nurses. Unfortunately in the achievment of their goal they emotionally injured someone so

badly that she was driven to a point where the real or perceived shame she felt brought

her to the sad situation of taking her own life. Not such a grand jest eh??

The one piece of foresight the young girl may have accidently uttered was that this was the

pinnacle of her career, I for one sincerely hope that that prophecy comes true for both of them,

hopefully niether of them will ever be employed in the showbiz world for the rest of their lives.

But that was not the finish of the story, none of this would have happened at all had the cowardly

boss or bosses involved, who have so far failed to display the decency or courage to identify

themselves, had done their job properly instead of desparately seeking cheap publicity.

They claim they tried to contact the hospital on 5 occasions,( this has yet to be verified ), which

clearly implies that they were completely aware of the need to obtain the permission of the victoms

involved before they could air this stupidity but in full knowledge of the law they ignored that law and

aired the story anyway. Contemptable is too mild a word to describe their disgracefull behavior.

So to summerise all of them involved are culpable and deserve to be hauled over the coals to the highest

degree possible!!!

To Humbugged and whybother,

Yes hindsight is a wonderful thing but in this case had the slightest bit of foresight or thought been employed

there would be no necessity for hindsight would there??

"Unfortunately in the achievment of their goal they emotionally injured someone so

badly that she was driven to a point where the real or perceived shame she felt brought

her to the sad situation of taking her own life."

Did They? Was this the ultimate reason that she took her life? You seem to know the contents of her suicide note. I am not in a position to dispute someone in the know and who is has links to this woman so I will have to agree with you as you are personally have knowledge.

If she wrote in her note that she answered a call from someone identifying themsleves as H.RH (which they did not do) then she transfered this split second call to the person/s responsible for a pregnant woman in thier care and this drove her to suicide then I am with you. No person on this earth should be placed in such a position.

You seem to have missed my point.

I said at the start of my post that what is revealed in this poor womans note IMO is not relevant because even if this stupid prank was not the cause what this radio station and it"s staff did is no less despicable.

Or are you saying if her note does not implicate the radio station what these people did is perfectly acceptable????

Edited December 12, 2012 by phuketjock

[chiang mai]

A good article here seems to focus on the issues:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/10/australian-hoax-djs-draw-line-pranks

A worthwhile read, unsuitable for readers of the Sun etc.