colhint Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Isn't that disputed (at least whether there were attempts at contact)? What was the timeline? They didn't transmit it live, did they? 5.30am would be what 4.30pm in Sydney? When was it broadcast? Were they an evening show/breakfast show or what? Were they the same DJs? I have read the same regarding the consent, they tried 5 times but could not. Thats no justification though without consent. i want to borrow your car, I'll ring you at home 5 times , but if you dont answer, I'll just presume its OK. (obv a joke) point 2 It wasn't live. So if it was recorded and played later, why phone up at 5 am. Why not at midday, or was it just that it had to be these DJ'S. if so couldn't they have got up at 5am to make the call to be around 5 am uk time. To me this still stinks of it being inconvenient to them. No It wasn't the same DJ',s I wasn't blaming them, but it may have come across like that, sorry. But its still the same station, it seems anything goes with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Thats no justification though without consent. I wasn't trying to give any justification. Your comment appeared to imply that there wasn't any attempt at asking for consent - I just thought that was under question and that you had missed that. point 2 It wasn't live. So if it was recorded and played later, why phone up at 5 am. Why not at midday, or was it just that it had to be these DJ'S. if so couldn't they have got up at 5am to make the call to be around 5 am uk time. To me this still stinks of it being inconvenient to them. Why 'stinks'? Perhaps the timing was because they thought that it was a time of day when their 'prank' was more likely to succeed (in getting through)? If it wasn't played live then the timing of the call had nothing to do with being 'prime time', did it? Edit: But its still the same station, it seems anything goes with them. I'd be much, much more concerned with the other incidents as it would seem that they were intentionally cruel and so I'd agree with you on this. Would also echo Peter's comments about the hospital. Edited December 13, 2012 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 13, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 13, 2012 ...what if she had just lost her job? It would not have made the press. Would that have been OK. If it hadn't made the press, she wouldn't have lost her job. If she had lost her job she'd have had them by the short and curlies because she did nothing wrong, broke no hospital procedures and divulged zero information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 So, reports this evening say she left three notes, one of which criticised staff at the hospital. If the hospital account of her not being subject to disciplinary proceedings is true, the next questions will be about how she was treated by managers and other staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts