So do those Jerk Aussie DJs deserve to be fired?

[TimG]

Oh, did they ask Kate for some cash? I did not know that.

If someone tells the truth and someone gives them money they have done no wrong. If someone tells a lie and someone gives them money believing that the lie is true they have committed fraud. The difference is the deception - not the fact that money changed hands.

For that reason there is no moral difference between these DJs and the con-men that prey on seniors. Con-men should be fired.

Edited December 10, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

If someone tells the truth and someone gives them money they have done no wrong. If someone tells a lie and someone gives them money believing that the lie is true they have committed fraud.

Ok

None of that being relevant to this case as I know it.

The difference is the deception - not the fact that money changed hands.

For that reason there is no moral difference between these DJs and the con-men that prey on seniors. Con-men should be fired.

If we use our laws as the basis , then no fraud occurred. No money changed, no property obtained, nor valuable security.

[TimG]

If we use our laws as the basis , then no fraud occurred. No money changed, no property obtained, nor valuable security.

But I did not say they did something against the law. I said they violated ethics - lots of things are unethical even if they are not illegal. Using deception for personal gain is clearly unethical IMO. Edited December 10, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

But I did not say they did something against the law.

Yes you did.

What is the difference between the DJs and those people who call up seniors pretending to be grandchildren in distress in order to bilk them out of money?

You equated the two as the same...fraud

Fraud is a civil and legal wrong.

I said they violated ethics - lots of things are unethical even if they are not illegal. Using deception for personal gain is clearly unethical IMO.

YOu also made the co-relation.

[Guest American Woman]

Evidently the DJ's show has been terminated, there's now a company wide ban on pranks, and the DJ's remain suspended.

Read more: http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/world/article/Australian-DJs-apologize-for-royal-hoax-call-4104192.php#ixzz2Eh7RTSPc

Greig and Christian are receiving psychological counselling to deal with the tragedy. Evidently they've even received death threats, which I don't see as any more ethical than the prank itself. Funny how some stoop to the same level of behavior that they are criticizing.

[TimG]

You equated the two as the same...fraud

No I did not. I said there was no ***moral*** difference. That did not imply there is no legal difference. The issue is what is ethical and what is not. These guys used deception for personal gain. That is unethical. Edited December 10, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

No I did not.

Actually you did. You opined there is no difference (no mentiuon of moral yet), and if there is no difference then they are equivalent.

I can see perhaps it is not what you meant so ...ok.

I said there was no ***moral*** difference. That did not imply there is no legal difference. The issue is what is ethical and what is not. These guys used deception for personal gain. That is unethical.

Now you are, then you didnt.

[wyly]

They were bragging about what they did until the lady offed herself. So their contrition is only a result of the suicide and not because they did a really cruddy thing to those ladies.

I don't what the laws are concerning patient confidentiality in the UK but in Canada those nurses could've been fired for revealing personal patient information to an unknown caller...

[TimG]

Actually you did. You opined there is no difference (no mentiuon of moral yet), and if there is no difference then they are equivalent.

Try reading what I said:

For that reason there is no moral difference between these DJs and the con-men that prey on seniors. Con-men should be fired.

Now you are, then you didnt.

I did then and I do now. You just did not read what I wrote.

[guyser]

Try reading what I said:

.

sure!

What is the difference between the DJs and those people who call up seniors pretending to be grandchildren in distress in order to bilk them out of money?

So the above says, there is no difference between bilking seniors of money (ie Fraud) and what the DJs did.

Later on you bring in the moral word.

Thats what I was talking about, you changed it, so no problem. Sometime we dont write what we meant.

[TimG]

Thats what I was talking about, you changed it, so no problem. Sometime we dont write what we meant.

Except you quoted my text with the moral qualifier and you responded as if that qualifier was not there:

For that reason there is no moral difference between these DJs and the con-men that prey on seniors. Con-men should be fired

If we use our laws as the basis , then no fraud occurred. No money changed, no property obtained, nor valuable security.

Edited December 11, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

you changed it .

Good.

[Guest]

The DJs are just bullies. They try and make themselves look good by making other people look bad. The airwaves are absolutely full of people like that. There's another thread going currently here regarding elevators and ghosts which does the same thing, and it's not a stretch to imagine tragic consequences in that example too.

I am reminded of Russel Crowe's character in "Gladiator". "Are You Not Entertained?"

If the plebs didn't watch, or listen, or read this dreck, it wouldn't exist.

No, they shouldn't be fired, imho.

Edited December 11, 2012 by bcsapper

[wyly]

the nurses weren't really the victims in this prank, the DJs asked for info on a patient and were given it, where is the victim? it wasn't the nurses it was Kate Middleton, it was her confidentiality that was infringed, the nurses shouldn't have supplied the information...that one of the nurses took personal responsibility for the slip up and killed herself wasn't the fault of the DJ's...

[cybercoma]

the nurses weren't really the victims in this prank, the DJs asked for info on a patient and were given it, where is the victim? it wasn't the nurses it was Kate Middleton, it was her confidentiality that was infringed, the nurses shouldn't have supplied the information...that one of the nurses took personal responsibility for the slip up and killed herself wasn't the fault of the DJ's...

Uh... yes they are. The DJs committed fraud by impersonating someone to get confidential information. The nurses were defrauded into giving up information on the Duchess. The blame stops with the DJs.

[Bonam]

Here's the way I see it:

1) If the nurse had not committed suicide, would anyone have thought it was a big deal or that the DJs should get fired? I think the answer here is a clear no.

2) Could the DJs reasonably have foreseen that making a prank call would cause someone to commit suicide? I think the answer here is also a clear no.

In fact I think it is absurd that someone would commit suicide over something like that. Clearly, she must have had severe emotional/mental problems for such a small thing to cause her to commit suicide. Someone that unstable working in a hospital may well pose a potential danger to patients, and frankly I am dismayed that said instability was not detected earlier.

3) Given that the DJs could not have reasonably been expected to foresee the effect of said prank call, unless said call was in violation of some law, or some code of conduct in their workplace, there is no grounds to fire them. Of course, if cybercoma is right and such calls have a precedent of being deemed as criminal fraud in a court of law, then of course they should be fired, but I don't know that that's the case.

4) Given the negative publicity, the station pretty much has to fire them or else likely face severe loss of business and respect, regardless of whether or not there are any real grounds to fire them. They have to be thrown under the bus for the good of the company.

[dre]

Id be willing to chalk the whole thing up to a relatively innocent prank gone wrong... except that they were still on the air laughing about it after the suicide.

They deserve to endure threats and have to live in hiding and fear for a few years.

[cybercoma]

Here's the way I see it:

1) If the nurse had not committed suicide, would anyone have thought it was a big deal or that the DJs should get fired? I think the answer here is a clear no.

2) Could the DJs reasonably have foreseen that making a prank call would cause someone to commit suicide? I think the answer here is also a clear no.

In fact I think it is absurd that someone would commit suicide over something like that. Clearly, she must have had severe emotional/mental problems for such a small thing to cause her to commit suicide. Someone that unstable working in a hospital may well pose a potential danger to patients, and frankly I am dismayed that said instability was not detected earlier.

3) Given that the DJs could not have reasonably been expected to foresee the effect of said prank call, unless said call was in violation of some law, or some code of conduct in their workplace, there is no grounds to fire them. Of course, if cybercoma is right and such calls have a precedent of being deemed as criminal fraud in a court of law, then of course they should be fired, but I don't know that that's the case.

4) Given the negative publicity, the station pretty much has to fire them or else likely face severe loss of business and respect, regardless of whether or not there are any real grounds to fire them. They have to be thrown under the bus for the good of the company.

I stand by what I just posted regardless of her death. Her suicide certainly shined a spotlight on the situation though.

[Bonam]

I stand by what I just posted regardless of her death. Her suicide certainly shined a spotlight on the situation though.

Except that if not for her death, neither you or I would likely even know anything about said prank call, and so your stand on this issue would not exist.

[TimG]

If the nurse had not committed suicide, would anyone have thought it was a big deal or that the DJs should get fired? I think the answer here is a clear no.

Actually, using deception to trick someone into giving you information is ethically wrong. They deserved firing whether the nurse died or not. The only thing the publicity did is raise the profile of the issue to the point where people around the world are talking about it. Edited December 11, 2012 by TimG

[wyly]

Uh... yes they are. The DJs committed fraud by impersonating someone to get confidential information. The nurses were defrauded into giving up information on the Duchess. The blame stops with the DJs.

try call the ER next time someone you know gets admitted and see if you can get any pertinent info...mrs wyly was in the ER years ago after a serious auto collision, the ER called me at home and told me mrs wyly had been in accident and to come in, no amount of questions from me could pry any info out as to mrs wyly's condition, they just kept repeating the original request for me to come to the ER...the important point here is they called me and still they would not tell me anything, because they could not verify it was me on the phone...

I'm assuming that the rule is the same in the UK, no matter who the caller claims to be they should've refused to give any information...

Edited December 11, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

Actually, using deception to trick someone into giving you information is ethically wrong. They deserved firing whether the nurse died or not. The only thing the publicity did is raise the profile of the issue to the point where people around the world are talking about it.

from what I've read on the issue the radio station cleared it first with it's lawyers, so the radio station knowingly took active part in the deception... firing employes who carried out the deception isn't on the stations behalf isn't ethical...and if the lawyers are correct they broke no laws...

[TimG]

from what I've read on the issue the radio station cleared it first with it's lawyers, so the radio station knowingly took active part in the deception... firing employes who carried out the deception isn't on the stations behalf isn't ethical...and if the lawyers are correct they broke no laws...

Well - if the station is complicit then the employees cannot be fired. I am not sure how you punish a company for being unethical but not illegal.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well - if the station is complicit then the employees cannot be fired. I am not sure how you punish a company for being unethical but not illegal.

The advertising market is already punishing the radio station where it hurts the most.

[Guest American Woman]

The autopsy results will show if it was indeed suicide. Without a suicide note or cause of death, it is possible that it was not suicide.