AVFCforever1991 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Ignorance is too small a word father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyShears Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Working for the health services and knowing how the top brass operate I have a fairly solid idea of what would have happened to her. Agreed. I would imagine she will have been suspended on the spot. Where I work, if you are suspended you are not allowed to communicate with any work colleagues, the hospital spin machine then goes into action. Full on blame culture. She will have believed that she will never work as a Nurse again, she may have believed she will go to prison, she may have believed she will be killed for passing on sensitive information about a Royal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Apparently the Oz regulatory code requires broadcasters to have the permission of subjects who have been recorded before broadcasting such a recording, unless it was already clear that they were being recorded - ie no broadcasting secretly recorded conversations. But the head of the network says "We are satisfied that the procedures we have in place have been met". Which suggests their procedures don't require compliance with regulatory requirements. Sounds like an open goal for a regulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 she may have believed she will be killed for passing on sensitive information about a Royal. Which sensitive information was that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyShears Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Which sensitive information was that? Didn't they pass on information about her condition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 8, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 8, 2012 I always knew a thread about the royal pregnancy would end up in a conspiracy theory but I just figured it wouldn't be until the baby arrived looking like James Hewitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Didn't they pass on information about her condition? No. She merely pass the phone call on to someone else, who then passed on information about her condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyShears Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 No. She merely pass the phone call on to someone else, who then passed on information about her condition. That's why I said they. I don't know this, but I am assuming she was in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted December 8, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 8, 2012 I think this is really the only thing that matters. The facts we know are that there was no receptionist working at those hours, that a duty nurse answered the phone, and passed the call onto another nurse, who then revealed confidential information to an unverified caller. I think a major part of the problem is if you're not usually the one answering phones, and the Queen phones up, do you want to be the one that goes "Excuse me Ma'am, but can I just verify that you are the Queen". I think that without a doubt the bulk of responsibility falls to management. How did they not have someone manning the phones when they had Kate bloody Middleton staying there. Everyone knows what the press is like in this country, and not to have something in place to prevent exactly what happened from happening is beyond stupid. That said, anyone who's ever heard of Captain Janks knows that the news media don't bother to verify calls for live interviews.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nskwNvXyKkU In this case, Janks calls a Denver TV station claiming to be the police chief in Aurora, a suburb of Denver and leaves a Philadelphia number as the callback number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 That said, anyone who's ever heard of Captain Janks knows that the news media don't bother to verify calls for live interviews.. https://www.youtube....h?v=nskwNvXyKkU In this case, Janks calls a Denver TV station claiming to be the police chief in Aurora, a suburb of Denver and leaves a Philadelphia number as the callback number. It can be amusing when the media get caught out like that, especially as verifying information is supposed to be such a core part of what they do. In the hospital case, we've heard a lot in the last day about the complaints to the radio station, the counselling for the DJs, GB police making contact with Oz police, but nothing at all about the hospital, how it handles communications about patients, how it discharges its duty of care to patients regarding confidentiality, how it trains staff on this and so on. From the hospital's point of view, you wouldn't reasonably expect a couple of **** DJs to be making prank calls like this. Much more likely would be the press making enquiries about famous patients, pretending to be relatives or whatever. Because that's what they do, and have done for years. It would be astonishing if the hospital hasn't previously had journos ringing for information, pretending to be someone else. You really would expect this hospital, more than most, to anticipate this and have clear safeguards in place to deal with it. We don't seem to have heard anything about this. Yes, it was a silly trick, aiming to humiliate people for no reason other than the momentary amusement of listeners. But that's only one part of the picture. It's starting to feel a bit more like pointing the finger at a daft trick than a rounded assessment of what went wrong and whether it was preventable by the hospital. And that's before you get into anything about whether the staff member was in fact as fully supported as the hospital says. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Was it 'aiming to humiliate'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Was it 'aiming to humiliate'? Maybe not. Perhaps they didn't give any thought to whether people fooled into thinking the queen was calling might be made to feel foolish by their mistake being broadcast and laughed at. It's probably a casual disregard for the people involved rather than deliberately wanting to hurt them as individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 If anything it shows England now need to up the stakes in prank phone calls, the best we can do is get a reformed smack head to shout abuse at a pensioner on an answering machine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 This comment was made on the Mail Online, but has apparently been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 On the Oz media company, Southern Cross Austereo, apparently the broadcast was prerecorded and ok'd by their management and lawyers. So they were quite content with it, and it's not a case of the DJs acting independently and ill-advisedly. They were reflecting company policy. Something here on other little japes they've pulled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 9, 2012 I am reminded of the 1968 incident where an RAF pilot flew his Hawker Hunter under Tower Bridge. If it had gone wrong and he had killed a load of people, he would have been forever vilified as an irresponsible bastard, there would have been endless enquiries and finger pointing over who was to blame, etc., etc. But he got away with it, and went down in history as a daredevil legend, dining out on the story to this day. My point? It's a thin line between a good stunt and a tragedy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Maybe not. Perhaps they didn't give any thought to whether people fooled into thinking the queen was calling might be made to feel foolish by their mistake being broadcast and laughed at. I would have thought that they'd have taken it as read that anyone who may have been fooled by their 'performance' would feel foolish and I'd say it would be likely that a lot of us would have been fooled in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted December 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 9, 2012 On the Oz media company, Southern Cross Austereo, apparently the broadcast was prerecorded and ok'd by their management and lawyers. So they were quite content with it, and it's not a case of the DJs acting independently and ill-advisedly. They were reflecting company policy. Something here on other little japes they've pulled. From what I've understood about radio prank calls, they're pretty much always prerecorded (and normally have a fair amount of editing out of dead bits... it wouldn't surprise me at all if a fair amount of refusals and subsequent bullying was edited out (I haven't heard the clip in question). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I am reminded of the 1968 incident where an RAF pilot flew his Hawker Hunter under Tower Bridge. If it had gone wrong and he had killed a load of people, he would have been forever vilified as an irresponsible bastard, there would have been endless enquiries and finger pointing over who was to blame, etc., etc. But he got away with it, and went down in history as a daredevil legend, dining out on the story to this day. My point? It's a thin line between a good stunt and a tragedy. Didn’t know about that. Mind you protesting against Wilson he should have been rewarded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts