So do those Jerk Aussie DJs deserve to be fired?

[guyser]

She was a victim. Pranks generally have victims. Whether or not people find this type of thing funny is really irrelevant; when it puts someone's job in jeopardy, it should be considered the wrong thing to do. Furthermore, I think impersonating someone to get information that one isn't privy to should be against the law.

She answered a phone. She passed on the call to another nurse who made the critical error to release info. I am failing to see where she was a victim. I put victims in the category of being harmed and she doesnt appear so harmed.

Her job was not, nor would have been in jeopardy for putting thru a call. Now the Nurse who gave out info, she is and should be nervous for violating privacy concerns.

As for the law, I think it is one in Australia, but not in the UK.

[Guest American Woman]

She answered a phone. She passed on the call to another nurse who made the critical error to release info. I am failing to see where she was a victim. I put victims in the category of being harmed and she doesnt appear so harmed.

She made the decision to pass the call on, so she put the radio station in contact with Kate's nurse. I would say that's as "critical" an error, too.

She is a victim. Pranks, by their very nature, have "victims." Furthermore, I would say being humiliated worldwide would be considered "being harmed."

Her job was not, nor would have been in jeopardy for putting thru a call. Now the Nurse who gave out info, she is and should be nervous for violating privacy concerns.

How do you know what the correct protocol is? She put a call through to Kate's nurse, on the belief that it was a call from the queen. But for her making that decision, Kate's nurse wouldn't have been in the position to give out the information. Both fell for the prank, both were victims of the prank.

As for the law, I think it is one in Australia, but not in the UK.

It should be against the law everywhere to obtain private information under false pretenses.

Edited December 13, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

She made the decision to pass the call on, so she put the radio station in contact with Kate's nurse. I would say that's as "critical" an error, too.

Really?

What about the operator at the main line who put the call to this womans unit before she forwarded it to the Nurse who gave info out.

How do you know what the correct protocol is? She put a call through to Kate's nurse, on the belief that it was a call from the queen. But for her making that decision, Kate's nurse wouldn't have been in the position to give out the information. Both fell for the prank, both were victims of the prank.

She was asked to put through a call like she is asked a thousand times a day.Kates nurse made the decision to release the info over the phone and she is the wrong one here. Just because someone put a calll through they too are blamed for violating the privacy act?

[Guest American Woman]

Really?

What about the operator at the main line who put the call to this womans unit before she forwarded it to the Nurse who gave info out.

It sounds as if she's the one who answered the phone.

Jacintha Saldanha answered the phone last week when two Australian disc jockeys called to seek information about the former

Kate Middleton, who was being treated for severe morning sickness.

The DJs impersonated Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles, and Saldanha was tricked into transferring the call to a nurse caring for the duchess, who revealed private details about her condition.

Read more:

http://www.voxxi.com.../#ixzz2EynKXlRd

She was tricked into transferring the phone call to Kate's nurse.

She was asked to put through a call like she is asked a thousand times a day.Kates nurse made the decision to release the info over the phone and she is the wrong one here. Just because someone put a calll through they too are blamed for violating the privacy act?

How do you know she's asked to put a call like this through a thousand times a day? I somehow doubt it. I would assume a call concerning royalty is hardly a routine event, and likely has a higher level of security.

Obviously this woman was singled out as being part of the hoax. Obviously it affected her. You don't know the protocol of the hospital for putting such a call through to someone like Kate's nurse. She fell for the hoax, perhaps telling Kate's nurse that it was Queen Elizabeth. That's what the news accounts indicate. Perhaps she has some accountability for the calls she puts through, especially in a situation such as this. At any rate, she obviously felt humiliated by her part in it. She obviously felt some responsibility. The world knows her at the woman who was duped and put the call through. It's her feelings that matter - and just because she herself didn't violate any privacy laws doesn't mean she wouldn't feel responsible for her part in it. She was part of the hoax, the prank - she was a victim of the prank, and that's the bottom line.

Whether or not it drove her to commit suicide, the prank was the wrong thing to do.

Edited to add:

I just listened to the audio of the radio program for the first time and it seems her part in the prank was quite limited, but frankly, I can't believe how easily they fell for it, but I image that may have added to the humiliation. For anyone else who hasn't heard it yet:

Edited December 14, 2012 by American Woman

[Signals.Cpl]

I don't think it matter what she did so much as what they intended to do which was to cause harm to someone else, the DJs and anyone associated with them should lose their job and the station should be punished one way or another for sanctioning this stupidity. This was not a prank but an attack on a person's privacy that also put the jobs of at least 2 innocent people at risk, wether or not action was taken is irrelevant because the DJs should have realistically been able to predict that great harm would befall anyone who falls for that prank, harm in the sense that their jobs and future employment on top of the embarrassment that is cause all involved...all for a cheap laugh.

[msj]

I don't think it matter what she did so much as what they intended to do which was to cause harm to someone else, the DJs and anyone associated with them should lose their job and the station should be punished one way or another for sanctioning this stupidity. This was not a prank but an attack on a person's privacy that also put the jobs of at least 2 innocent people at risk, wether or not action was taken is irrelevant because the DJs should have realistically been able to predict that great harm would befall anyone who falls for that prank, harm in the sense that their jobs and future employment on top of the embarrassment that is cause all involved...all for a cheap laugh.

As a tax accountant I often get calls (and my staff too) to release various information to spouses, banks, etc.

I know it is my responsibility to only release information that I have consent to release.

Even to spouses.

Especially to spouses.

I train my staff to know this too.

At the end of the day I know it is my business that is on the line should one of my staff, or I, fail.

It is perfectly legal to be a mischief maker.

It is becoming increasingly illegal to release private and confidential about other people.

The two nurses may be victims of a prank gone wrong but much of the outrage should be focused on the nurse who violated her own professional code and the rules of the hospital.

She was not forced to give out the information.

She is in the wrong here.

And the one who committed suicide is at least one step removed from the prank which makes culpability even more suspect.

[Signals.Cpl]

As a tax accountant I often get calls (and my staff too) to release various information to spouses, banks, etc.

I know it is my responsibility to only release information that I have consent to release.

Even to spouses.

Especially to spouses.

I train my staff to know this too.

At the end of the day I know it is my business that is on the line should one of my staff, or I, fail.

It is perfectly legal to be a mischief maker.

It is becoming increasingly illegal to release private and confidential about other people.

The two nurses may be victims of a prank gone wrong but much of the outrage should be focused on the nurse who violated her own professional code and the rules of the hospital.

She was not forced to give out the information.

She is in the wrong here.

And the one who committed suicide is at least one step removed from the prank which makes culpability even more suspect.

This was not a prank, this was an invasion of privacy with the intention of hurting someone, the DJs one would hope would have had the intelligence to foresee that someone gets hurt by this so they should be held responsible and if they did not have the intelligence to foresee that then maybe they should be watered twice a week.

[msj]

This was not a prank, this was an invasion of privacy with the intention of hurting someone, the DJs one would hope would have had the intelligence to foresee that someone gets hurt by this so they should be held responsible and if they did not have the intelligence to foresee that then maybe they should be watered twice a week.

If a husband and wife are going through a divorce, and the wife phones me up to ask for his tax return, I do not blame her for my releasing his tax return to her before asking him if it is okay to release that information.

It is my responsibility to safeguard his information. And yes, that includes spouses.

So, no, it is not an "invasion" of privacy.

It is my responsibility to protect the data. Period.

Edited December 14, 2012 by msj

[Guest Peeves]

Personally I cannot bring myself to believe the prank call of itself led to her suicide. No rational person married with kids would kill themselves over such an issue.

There must be contributing factors at the very least. I suspect a prior intention to do so for reasons we have not been made privy too...yet.

[-TSS-]

The astonishing thing is that so many people in Australia and New Zealand, I don't know about Canada, are so obsessively interested in the British royal family. I know that they share the head of state with Britain but still. I think the British themselves nowadays by and large really don't give a toss about the royals.

[Rue]

Do those people make prank-calls to police stations as well and call it humour? Or to the fire brigade?

The point is they did not and your analogy is therefore defective.

A person calling emergency people and faking an emergency know or ought to know that can lead to serious

damage and harm.

In this present case you assume if someone plays ANY prank call you can classify them as all being the same.

The law does not work that way and neither does situational ethics.

In this case the legal question for criminal negligence in Australia or the UK would be-can it be shown the

callers intended to hurt or injure someone. No it can't. So there is no mens rea or criminal intent. It can not be shown

beyond any reasonable doubt any harm was intended.

Can the family of the nurse now sue this radio station for negligence? Probably In civil law cases for negligence

in Australia and the UK one must show a reasonable person knew or ought to have known that what they did

could cause harm.

In this case its a stretch to say a reasonable person would know or ought to have known that their prank call would

cause someone to kil themselves. However there would be a settlement out of court to avoid a trial. I would think

in a civil trial a Judge might have the discretion to assign culpability to the DJ's and their radio station but maybe

only partially. Its not a slam dunk case.

The radio station however acted ethically in that it has paid the family without being asked over $500,000 and the

DJ's gave honest apologies.

You know in hindsight its easy to play self-righteous moral Judge. Any of us can do it but the fact is many radio stations

engage in these pranks and feel they are harmless. This one was actually precleared with the radio station's law

department so before you hang and pillage those dj's keep that in mind.

No they did not expect their actions to lead to anyone's suicide. For anyone to suggest that is full of it because had this

prank not lead to any deaths none of you would be even remembering this incident.

It was a stupid nonsensical joke. The fact is the nurse who killed herelf was the initial screener and blew it. Her hospital blew it.

Her hospital would be found as equally as negligent as was she just as much as the dj's were, for not exercising reasonable

care and yes that nurse and the hospital had a reasonable standard of care to uphold and they failed.

Don't let the suicide cloud your emotion to the fact that nurse knew or ought to have known she should not be disclosing any confidential

info to anyone on the phone. The fact she did shows serious lack of professionality with her and that hospital

How the hell do you run a hospital and allow such a serious breach. What you do not use a password? What you were not told the protocol

for protecting privacy of all patients not just this Royal one?

I believe the nurse and her hospital were as much negligent as the dj's and radio station.

I also believe a reasonable person would not commit suicide over such a mistake. So the question is why then did she commit

suicide. If she had a pre-existing mental illness or condition and this incident tipped it, then yes the radio station. dj's and hospital

are all on the hook for exasperating it and negligent but not 100% in the law unless a Judge wants to hold this as a strict liability

situation which I doubt they would.

This case is tragic but using the dj's as scapegoats is not the solution or the way to deal with it. Ethically the radio station and its dj's

did the right thing and apologized genuinely and initiated a compensation payment without being asked knowing it exposes them both to

legal liability.

.

The hospital interestingly refuses to acknowledge any liability for its defective training and the family of course will never admit if this poor woman

who killed herself had a pre-exisiting condition-you can be sure their lawyer has told them not to disclose anything like that for fear it will cut into

what they might otherwise get in a law suit.

Tell me if the husband abused this nurse/wife of his, are you willing to blame him as much as the dj's for her death? Is that what we do go

on a witch hunt?

No.

No good comes from seeking scapegoats for a tragedy. Instead of casting moral judgements on these dj's we need to learn from this accident

and that is what it was an accident-a stupid prank, but an accident none the less. It was not forseeable. Unfortunate yes. Forseeable no.

Let' s learn from it. Train your staff properly so that when these calls come in you are prepared.

[TheNewTeddy]

No rational person

Rational people, in general, do not commit suicide.

[Guest]

The astonishing thing is that so many people in Australia and New Zealand, I don't know about Canada, are so obsessively interested in the British royal family. I know that they share the head of state with Britain but still. I think the British themselves nowadays by and large really don't give a toss about the royals.

As a Brit, who speaks to other Brits, I think I can say that much of the esteem in which the Royal Family is held will disappear with the Queen when she goes.

The rest are just rich folks.

[Guest Manny]

Its tragic, but I try not to follow these things to closely. I thought the first article said she had an ongoing issue she was dealing with for some time, it implied mental health or something, and the hospital staff were trying to help her cope with it, when this happened.

Not everyone is a confident, comfortable super human. In fact most people are very fragile.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Manny

[RB]

The DJs exercised poor judgement when they obtained and released personal confidential information even if it was a prank.

Initially, I laugh out aloud when I heard of the prank I had read a two liner somewhere, later I saw the TV news carrying much more personal details - I thought what idiots, and how not so right so many levels. So for this reason, I felt they should be responsible and held accountable in some way.

I also blame the hospital as they should have protocols set-up for some of their visitors, calls that can be redirected for legitimacy. What is a nurse doing answering the phones. There is more to saying that the hospital would not press for disciplinary action, and the royals did not file a complaint - like it is what is not said - they must have had a little chat. In this instance, I somehow felt that employees especially of different cultures needed to be assimilated and culturised into the workplace and it is the employer’s responsibility to help with this successful integration process.

If I had to take a reasonable guess as to why she did it, I would lay a square blame on the culture difference. For some of us, just another day, another prank, like it is very easy to say it was just a prank. For some cultures it is not so easy to overcome such international embarrassment and shame.

Just my thoughts

[Guest Manny]

So they havent released any more info on this? Her cause of death?

[betsy]

What's the difference between this from the UK phone-hacking scandal??? Both are forms of media. Sales/ratings motivated. Both crossed the lines of decency, not to mention invasion of privacy!

People got outraged with the UK newspaper scandal. Charges were laid. Heads rolled - including that of Murdoch's.

Murdoch Resigns From His British Papers’ Boards

http://www.nytimes.c...oards.html?_r=0

Time to crack down on the media that seems to be going out of control! They abuse and hide behind, "the people's right to know." I say, make a good example of this latest one.

Edited December 22, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

So they havent released any more info on this? Her cause of death?

From what I heard, she left three suicide notes. One mentioned about the prank....and also it seems the hospital were not as "supportive" as they'd said. Perhaps she was reprimanded or something for that.

• Devastated Jacintha Saldanha left three suicide notes following prank call
  
• She used one note to 'criticise hospital over her treatment', sources say
  
• Mother-of-two also described her struggle to come to terms with the hoax
  

http://www.dailymail...ital-staff.html

Edited December 22, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

It need not have to result in suicide. Losing a job over a silly prank is devastating for the person (and his family) who'd loose his job. The DJs and the station had behaved with total disregard for the effects their prank could cause to an innocent person. That shows how they think of others.....they don't care.

So, do these jerks deserved to be fired? YES! And the station to be fined to its eyeballs!

Edited December 22, 2012 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

What if the DJs kill themselves now that they've been fired?

[Signals.Cpl]

If a husband and wife are going through a divorce, and the wife phones me up to ask for his tax return, I do not blame her for my releasing his tax return to her before asking him if it is okay to release that information.

And the nurse that released the information probably has already paid for the release of information, my point is that those "DJ's" had the intention of hurting someone career wise, embarrassment etc...

It is my responsibility to safeguard his information. And yes, that includes spouses.

Does it say anywhere that members of the Royal Family had not called prior to this?

So, no, it is not an "invasion" of privacy.

It is my responsibility to protect the data. Period.

It is your responsibility, but they held the responsibility to behave like human beings, not go out of their way to get to private information that they were not entitled to and not intentionally go out to harm another person's life(by this I mean livelihood, career etc...) which they did not do, they knew someone would be fired or disciplined one way or another and they went out of their way to commit the action that could potentially destroy someone's career and personal life.

I feel no pity for them, if they get fired and lose all sorts of career opportunities in the future thats fine with me, they didn't care about another persons wellbeing why should we care about their careers and wellbeing?

[Signals.Cpl]

What if the DJs kill themselves now that they've been fired?

You reap what you sow, they did not care that the couple minute prank that could net them a day or two, or a week of laughs would have a negative impact on the staff members who fell for it, for the rest of their careers, they deserve to be punished and in this case they deserve to get what they were willing to deal out, the death of a career.

[Guest American Woman]

It need not have to result in suicide. Losing a job over a silly prank is devastating for the person (and his family) who'd loose his job. The DJs and the station had behaved with total disregard for the effects their prank could cause to an innocent person. That shows how they think of others.....they don't care.

Actually, in light of the firing of the dj's, the cancelling of the show, and the banning of such prank calls from her on in, I think it shows that they do care.

I agree that the prank was out of line; I don't find humor in setting up other people that way. I also think, after hearing the call, that the nurse was negligent in forwarding the call. The media portrays it as if the djs somehow convinced her that it was the queen calling, but she simply forwarded the call on the announcement that it was the queen. So I think there was 'wrong' on both sides, and I think the nurse should have been reprimanded for her mistake.

So, do these jerks deserved to be fired? YES! And the station to be fined to its eyeballs!

Did they deserve to be fired? I think so. But if the nurse in question had been fired, I'd say there was justification in that, too.

I will say again - I can't imagine any mother of two much loved children leaving them behind simply because of this. People have had to deal with much worse and have survived.

I do feel as if she was a victim of the prank, but I feel as if she has to be held responsible for her actions, too.

From what I've read, the DJ's as well as some senior staff members of the station have had to go into hiding because of death threats. Unbelievable that some who criticize the dj's/station's behavior - when to be fair they had no idea of the outcome (if that is indeed the total reason for her suicide) - would knowingly threaten their lives.

[betsy]

Actually, in light of the firing of the dj's, the cancelling of the show, and the banning of such prank calls from her on in, I think it shows that they do care.

I wouldn't make a definite conclusion based on their recent decision to capitulate to public outrage. They didn't act fast enough...so of course I'm cynical as what changed their minds.

The boss of the radio company at the centre of the royal hoax call today refused to sack the DJs behind the stunt and painted them as victims.

2DayFM presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian were taken off air after it emerged the nurse who took their prank call at Kate Middleton's hospital had died in a suspected suicide.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2FoLgHWI2

They are responsible for whatever flows out of their airwaves.

I agree that the prank was out of line; I don't find humor in setting up other people that way. I also think, after hearing the call, that the nurse was negligent in forwarding the call. The media portrays it as if the djs somehow convinced her that it was the queen calling, but she simply forwarded the call on the announcement that it was the queen. So I think there was 'wrong' on both sides, and I think the nurse should have been reprimanded for her mistake.

I don't know why she forwarded the call pronto. All she did was forward the call....the other nurse divulged the private information. I'm not suggesting in any way that the second nurse should be fired. Were these nurses trained how to differentiate a prank call from a real one?

If someone who sounded like the queen, what is the proper protocol to question her true identity? Of course, if one assumes she's talking to the queen....how would one begin to question the queen? Do nurses get flustered talking to royalty? I don't know....I've never experienced talking to a monarch...especially when it is my monarch.... so I wouldn't know.

Did the hospital gve any proper procedures in the likelihood of such a scenario? The nurse who actually divulged private informations, the voices of the pranksters obviously tricked her too. Shouldn't this second nurse have employed a second line of procedures as to reaffirm and validate the identity of the caller before divulging information? Perhaps a simple password would've sufficed.

So I question what kind of procedures the hospital has in place?

Did they deserve to be fired? I think so. But if the nurse in question had been fired, I'd say there was justification in that, too.

If there was no proper training in handling such incidents that involves high profile celebrities, I don't think the nurse is responsible for anything. It is the hospital who would be responsible for under-trained staff being assigned to dignitaries and high profile figures.

I will say again - I can't imagine any mother of two much loved children leaving them behind simply because of this. People have had to deal with much worse and have survived.

I don't know why she would go as far as ending her life. But we see a lot of that happening these days.....usually, killing others before they do themselves in. It is mindboggling why there's such a rash of suicides.... it's almost a daily occurence.

It could be cultural. Some people take their responsibilities so seriously - value their reputation, that some would indeed commit suicide if it got tarnished, or publicly humiliated. I think the Japanese are known for their hari-kiri.

From what I've read, the DJ's as well as some senior staff members of the station have had to go into hiding because of death threats. Unbelievable that some who criticize the dj's/station's behavior - when to be fair they had no idea of the outcome (if that is indeed the total reason for her suicide) - would knowingly threaten their lives.

I don't agree with death threats or any other kinds of threats. That's become the norm these days too.

I think for two adults, they know the possibility of an outcome for the poor person (in this case, the nurse) who they 'd be duping to divulge private information. We all have to deal with some kind of CONFIDENTIALITY clause in most employment - and being part of the media, I'm sure they know the kind of boundaries they'll be tampering with. They didn't care about the person who'll be stepped on, the poor "sucker" who'll get the blame from her embarassed employers, experience public humiliation, and perhaps gain displeasure from the royalty! They know full well that the "sucker's" reputation and employment will be on the line.

Edited December 22, 2012 by betsy

[guyser]

What's the difference between this from the UK phone-hacking scandal???

Absolutely nothing !

Cuz everyone knows that if you ask for and get permission from the shopkeeper for a free pop and chips its the same as busting the window at night and grabbing some pop and chips.

SOS.