Duchess of Cambridge's nurse has reportedly been found dead

The general public reaction in both the UK and Australia has been laughable. These two poor DJs not only have to live with having done something that has caused some unstable woman to end her life but they also have to deal with every bored keyboard warrior with nothing better to do than harass the latest 'flash in the pan' internet target. The radio station needs to be backing their staff to the hilt on this one. It was a joke, plain and simple that triggered something entirely unforeseeable.
 
mranderson said:
If you are doing 50mph in a 30mph area then you intend to cause harm. These prankers knew what they were doing and what the consequences could be so they don't have an excuse. They deceived working staff intentionally by pretending to be somebody else in a position of authority (pretending to be a member of the Royal family).
Click to expand...

No you don't, you know the potential consequences and know that you will be more to blame for these, but that still doesn't excuse the person who jumps directly out in front of your car.

The DJs did something risky, yes, and they would have known that they could have caused offence. As already said though, that's a risk that most comedians and frankly most people on TV and in the media know about and take.
 
Kamwah said:
Not anyones fault.

The radio station was in the wrong but they are not at fault.
Click to expand...

They are partially at fault.

Too many people in this thread think that fault and blame are binary options whereby you are either totally responsible for the event or you had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

You can be partially to blame and you can take some of the responsibility for it.
 
estebanrey said:
Try that excuse in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you can show that, had you been driving at 30mph you would still have hit and killed the person, it would stand up...the 50mph would not have contributed to the death, so you'd be done for speeding and for manslaughter (ie the unintentional death of another person, which is the point I'm trying to get across).

The DJs, as you have said above, can take some responsibility - they were going 50 in a 30 with this prank. However, that does not mean that the nurse's reaction (analagous to jumping in front of the car) was a reasonable or likely reaction.
 
Last edited:
It would be poetic if the Aussie police had a sense of humour and "prank" arrested the djs for manslaughter and treason live on air.
 
Redz said:
It would be poetic if the Aussie police had a sense of humour and "prank" arrested the djs for manslaughter and treason live on air.
Click to expand...

No, that would be equally as stupid as suggesting that someone could be blamed for either treason or manslaughter over a prank call... or for that matter killing yourself because you were embarrassed. Genius...
 
manic111 said:
Actually, if you can show that, had you been driving at 30mph you would still have hit and killed the person, .
Click to expand...

except you cannot prove that, all you could possibly try to prove is that you would still have hit them.

If you still would have hit them then the 50mph would still be very relevant as it will have significantly increased the severity of injuries and reduced the likely hood of survival from quite likely to almost nothing.
 
Not read all the thread, and while I don't condone the prank call, I can imagine how this poor woman must have felt once special branch and MI5/6 had had words with her.

But I expect that those converstions will have a 100-year D-notice slapped on them.
 
ElvisFan said:
Not read all the thread, and while I don't condone the prank call, I can imagine how this poor woman must have felt once special branch and MI5/6 had had words with her.

But I expect that those converstions will have a 100-year D-notice slapped on them.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the whole thing either, but what I gather is that the nurse who killed herself didn't disclose any information, she just transferred her to the ward where Kate was staying, and another nurse did it.
 
estebanrey said:
They are partially at fault.

Too many people in this thread think that fault and blame are binary options whereby you are either totally responsible for the event or you had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

You can be partially to blame and you can take some of the responsibility for it.
Click to expand...

I somewhat disagree.

If someone was that delicate then it would've happened in the end for whatever reason.

But yea, I guess rethinking it they are at fault to some extent.
 
for people who still don't understand why the presenters should probably lose their jobs over his:

The storm over 2Day FM's prank is growing; major firms have pulled advertising while presenters Mel Greig and Michael Christian have been taken off air.

Speaking at a news conference in Melbourne, Rhys Holleran, CEO of 2Day FM's parent company Southern Cross Austereo said the "shocked and devastated" DJs had been offered help dealing with the tragedy.

He said: "This is a tragic event that could not have been reasonably foreseen and we're deeply saddened by it.

"I spoke to both presenters early this morning and it's fair to say they're completely shattered.

"These people aren't machines, they're human beings. We're all affected by this."

Supermarket giant Coles and telecoms firm Telstra both announced they are withdrawing their business from the station at the earliest opportunity, while Australian media are reporting that media company Optus is also reviewing its position.

The station later announced that it would pull all advertising from its airwaves with immediate effect.
Click to expand...

The fact they couldn't have predicted this tragic result isn't necessarily relevant - the fact that their actions (and those of the production team) are going to cause the company some significant financial loss are whats relevant. If the public backlash against the pair carries on and their continued presence means the company can't sell advertising around that show then they'll have to go.
 
Tefal said:
except you cannot prove that, all you could possibly try to prove is that you would still have hit them.

If you still would have hit them then the 50mph would still be very relevant as it will have significantly increased the severity of injuries and reduced the likely hood of survival from quite likely to almost nothing.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant anyway - the point is who the blame lies with. According to your reasoning, people would have to drive everywhere at something like 2mph to be exempt from blame, as any faster could result in injury to anyone who jumped in front of your car, therefore making your actions malicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom