Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

General News Discussion


Guest Atlanteanlost

Recommended Posts

Theres no doubt that there should have been better security processes in place. If the purpose of the call had been of an investigative nature eg to test security procedures, then I would have no problem but would have expected the personal medical information to not be broadcasted and the nurse/hospital to be given a right to reply before it was aired.

To broadcast a persons medical records is not appropriate whether it be the Dutchess of Cornwall or Gordon Brown. It is nobody business and poor security doesnt make it fair game. Im trying to think of when someones medical records would be fair game and Im struggling. It maybe could be argued if the PM or someone high up in national security had dementia. I heard somone else on the same subject sugggesting a celebrity who had not disclosed a HIV diagnosis but was known to be having regular unprotected sex, however I would consider this as information that should be exposed to the police before the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

Neil is

that's because:-

1. they failed in their duty to keep medical info confidential.

2. they failed in their duty to have proper procedures in place to stop a caller gaining confidential medical info.

3. the failed their staff by not supporting them after the hospital's failings had impacted on the staff.

There's not only just the one 'wrong' here. If an employee is sexually harassed the company is not responsible for that harassment, but the employer is responsible for how they deal with that harassment - and if they get that wrong, they have done wrong.

When it comes to a hospital failing in its primary duties as a hospital, then that's a much bigger 'wrong' than that employer might make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Well no... Not really... Its a massive assumption...

Really, it's not. If they were giving all the support that was needed then she would not have topped herself.

It might be the case that they might have given all the support that they possibly could have done and she'd have still topped herself, but it's hugely unlikely I reckon that they went as far as it's possible to go.

I must of missed that one... Where was that ?

it was reported in the day or two after the phone call.

I've paid very little attention to everything about the case, but that admission of theirs failed to pass me by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's because:-

1. they failed in their duty to keep medical info confidential.

2. they failed in their duty to have proper procedures in place to stop a caller gaining confidential medical info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

we have no idea about that

we know for certain that they didn't support their staff enough, else we wouldn't still be talking about it now.

the facts that we know are that 2 people prank called a nurse in the middle of the night. Whether that nurse was already depressed, possibly suicidal, we don't know...

the fact that we also know is that a prank call like that is not enough to make a rational person top themselves. And so the prank call is not to blame here. It is merely one factor amongst whatever others there might be.

If I was to carry out a non-harmful in-itself action something like that prank call and someone topped themselves off the back of it, I wouldn't lose much sleep about it. There's only so much a person can take responsibility for; they can't be held responsible for an unwarranted action which might come off the back of something they've done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

They could have given the best support imaginable, and she might still have done it.

in which case the problem would not have been the prank call.

we don't know if she was a rational person

We do. We know that she wasn't.

it wouldn't cross your mind that maybe it would have been better not to make the call?

hindsight is something a person can only have after the event. Perfection is something that no person has.

If you're the only person to ever exist who has not done something foolish - or even not foolish - and from which you've considered every possible consequence, I bow down before you oh mighty god.

But on the basis you're not, perhaps you should apply a bit of the thought you're saying these DJs should have - and then you won't be being more ridiculous than they were in making the call. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hindsight is something a person can only have after the event. Perfection is something that no person has.

Edited by tonyblair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

but you said, even with hindsight, you wouldn't care much, which I think is odd. I've seen parctical jokes backfire, and I think they're not worth the effort usually. I know of the concept that any humour has to have a victim, but it is quite obvious tosh.

it's not the sort of thing I'd choose to do nowadays. Then again I made plenty of prank calls as a kid, and ones with far more obvious wrong consequences too.

But it's the sort of inane humour or 'entertainment' that millions love - otherwise this country wouldn't have so many shite radio presenters who want to think that they're funny, that huge numbers tune into.

If you employ Chris Moyes, it'd be a bit stupid to expect him to not be Chris Moyes, wouldn't it? And when millions tune in to hear Moyes be Moyes, who is giving the encouragement?

I make plenty of mistakes, many of which make me cringe with embarrasement... the answer is to maybe think about doing something differently next time.

and I'm sure those DJs will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Oh I know. Not sure that the press need to report it though. We know they will, while hacking her phone. Just facts I don't need to know about the case really, not relevant.

the press WILL report it - that's a given. Their job is to report things which the public have an interest in; I doubt you're thinking that the press have called this one wrongly.

Unfortunately, that gets to mean that you're unlikely to find anyone reporting the story with an absence of the particular facts which you don't like. Your only optioon is to avoid it altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the press WILL report it - that's a given. Their job is to report things which the public have an interest in; I doubt you're thinking that the press have called this one wrongly.

Unfortunately, that gets to mean that you're unlikely to find anyone reporting the story with an absence of the particular facts which you don't like. Your only optioon is to avoid it altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all starting to get silly. A woman separated from her family, with a high probability of being depressed, is unwittingly a minor player in a shit joke. Next there are memorial services in Westminster Cathedral and I am half expecting there be an application for her to be beatified. I understand that the Royal Navy is making preparations to blockade Australian until the presenters are handed over so we can hang them from the Tower.

FFS people need to get a grip.

Edit: Just to add my penneth worth. While there is loads of finger pointing at DJs' and the hospital in all this, I just wonder where her husband was. If this was my wife and she was thrust in the public eye I would tell her to take leave and come home. Surely I am not alone in thinking that ?

Edited by Rufus Gwertigan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Just to add my penneth worth. While there is loads of finger pointing at DJs' and the hospital in all this, I just wonder where her husband was. If this was my wife and she was thrust in the public eye I would tell her to take leave and come home. Surely I am not alone in thinking that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the metro was reporting this morning that her suicide note was laying the blame at the hospital. But how they have got hold of that information is a mystery to me, and this is the metro reporting this, so they probably made it up, although its certainly plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Well the metro was reporting this morning that her suicide note was laying the blame at the hospital.

the hospital have claimed to be supporting the staff in volved.

But I'd be exceedingly surprised if there wasn't at the minimum a "how stupid were you, putting that call thru" convo with her at some point after it happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...