UK Royal Prank Call - Tragic Ending

Calliegirl said:
That radio station is known for doing questionable, cruel and tasteless stunts. They really need to lose their license for good.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...n-behind-the-tragic-kate-middleton-prank.html
Click to expand...

They were shocked and dumbfounded when the girl said she was raped and they were very apologetic after it happened. For that to come out was obviously not their intention. Was that type of bit a good idea on the station's part? No. Was it deliberately cruel? No. I primarily blame the mother for that incident.

I can't understand why so many people are intent on getting radio DJs/stations fired that they don't even listen to. I mean these are two (foolish but not intentionally cruel) incidents out of years of programming. And it's very easy to change the dial away from bad radio.

If the issue is with prank calls, then the blame lies with Australian law. In the US you cannot put people (live or recorded) on the air without them giving permission and/or knowing that they are on the air according to the FCC. I agree with the US law on this.
 
cornsail said:
In the US you cannot put people (live or recorded) on the air without them giving permission and/or knowing that they are on the air according to the FCC. I agree with the US law on this.
Click to expand...


Interesting. A local station here has a popular morning show with a regular prank-call segment. The host calls someone (usually a man) and poses as a florist, offering the person a free dozen roses. The person just has to say who to deliver them to. Meanwhile, a caller (usually the man's girlfriend or wife) is listening in to hear who (he) wants to send the flowers to. Some of them ask for the flowers to be sent to another woman, and a fight ensues on the radio.
I've never heard them ask the person's permission beforehand, and a few of the people called say they don't want their argument played on the radio. All listeners hear this request, as it's played on the radio.
 
cornsail said:
They were shocked and dumbfounded when the girl said she was raped and they were very apologetic after it happened. For that to come out was obviously not their intention.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Some people are really good at faking concern.

They and their listeners remind me of a child who holds a magnifying glass over an ant on a sunny day. They "feed" off the subjects embarrassment, humiliation, pain, etc. Like someone said above, their intention doesn't come from a good place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone, sequoia and KLS52
I'm not sure why people are saying that the pranks these DJs have pulled aren't intentionally cruel. You can't possibly know that.

Personally, I find pranks like this mean-spirited and in poor taste.

Ultimately, the only person to blame for the woman's suicide is the woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
mlp said:
Agreed, except for the part about Kate's security team vetting calls, unless you mean any calls about/for Kate. The security detail vetting calls generally would be an infringement of other patients' privacy.
Click to expand...
I meant if someone called and asked about Kate, that call should have been passed to her security team to deal with.
 
Lord Snot said:
I meant if someone called and asked about Kate, that call should have been passed to her security team to deal with.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that makes sense.

At this point, has it been made public whether such a procedure was to be followed and the nurse simply didn't follow it, or whether no procedures had been instituted? I haven't seen an article that addresses that, but I've only read one or two articles about the event.

For those who absolve the dj's and the station - these people are all adults, not eight year olds, and should have some awareness that, at the very least, they are endangering people's jobs, livelihoods and careers by pulling this kind of *prank*. Actions have consequences, and IMO it's time these jerks learn that through personal experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone and KLS52
cornsail said:
They were shocked and dumbfounded when the girl said she was raped and they were very apologetic after it happened. For that to come out was obviously not their intention. Was that type of bit a good idea on the station's part? No. Was it deliberately cruel? No. I primarily blame the mother for that incident.

I can't understand why so many people are intent on getting radio DJs/stations fired that they don't even listen to. I mean these are two (foolish but not intentionally cruel) incidents out of years of programming. And it's very easy to change the dial away from bad radio.

If the issue is with prank calls, then the blame lies with Australian law. In the US you cannot put people (live or recorded) on the air without them giving permission and/or knowing that they are on the air according to the FCC. I agree with the US law on this.
Click to expand...

I agree, that mother should not have put her daughter in that position, but I do think the station did it with the intent of humiliating the girl in some way. Why else would you have a 14 year old girl on to be questioned about her sex life by her mother?

I did listen to a morning show that had some crazy things on it, but they never set out to humiliate or be cruel to anyone, and NEVER did anything to children. I consider 14 to still be a child. The station should never have even entertained the idea of questioning a child about their sexual activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone and kazyeeqen
Calliegirl said:
I agree, that mother should not have put her daughter in that position, but I do think the station did it with the intent of humiliating the girl in some way. Why else would you have a 14 year old girl on to be questioned about her sex life by her mother?

I did listen to a morning show that had some crazy things on it, but they never set out to humiliate or be cruel to anyone, and NEVER did anything to children. I consider 14 to still be a child. The station should never have even entertained the idea of questioning a child about their sexual activity.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It would have been terrible even without the rape.

I'm having difficulty believing anyone is trying to excuse this.
 
RabbitLuvr said:
Interesting. A local station here has a popular morning show with a regular prank-call segment. The host calls someone (usually a man) and poses as a florist, offering the person a free dozen roses. The person just has to say who to deliver them to. Meanwhile, a caller (usually the man's girlfriend or wife) is listening in to hear who (he) wants to send the flowers to. Some of them ask for the flowers to be sent to another woman, and a fight ensues on the radio.
I've never heard them ask the person's permission beforehand, and a few of the people called say they don't want their argument played on the radio. All listeners hear this request, as it's played on the radio.
Click to expand...
That is known as "war of the roses", a very popular radio bit used all over the country. They get away with it, because it's fake (i.e. it's just acting).
 
beancounter said:
I don't know about that. Some people are really good at faking concern.

They and their listeners remind me of a child who holds a magnifying glass over an ant on a sunny day. They "feed" off the subjects embarrassment, humiliation, pain, etc. Like someone said above, their intention doesn't come from a good place.
Click to expand...

You seem to know an awfully lot about them. Were you a regular listener of their show? Do you know whether they came up with the bit themselves or if it was a programming director?

Calliegirl said:
I agree, that mother should not have put her daughter in that position, but I do think the station did it with the intent of humiliating the girl in some way. Why else would you have a 14 year old girl on to be questioned about her sex life by her mother?

I did listen to a morning show that had some crazy things on it, but they never set out to humiliate or be cruel to anyone, and NEVER did anything to children. I consider 14 to still be a child. The station should never have even entertained the idea of questioning a child about their sexual activity.
Click to expand...

I agree, they should not have had a minor on, particularly because consent is hard to establish. I just don't think they had any expectation or intention of something like a rape being brought up. Even if they were totally selfish they would not want this, because they knew they would come off looking bad and get in trouble for it.
 
cornsail said:
That is known as "war of the roses", a very popular radio bit used all over the country. They get away with it, because it's fake (i.e. it's just acting).
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I don't listen to radio all over the country. (It's been a few years since I've listened to any radio at all.)
*shrug*
 
cornsail said:
I agree, they should not have had a minor on, particularly because consent is hard to establish. I just don't think they had any expectation or intention of something like a rape being brought up. Even if they were totally selfish they would not want this, because they knew they would come off looking bad and get in trouble for it.
Click to expand...

All issues of rape aside, I'd be interested to hear an explanation from you as to how hooking a 14 year old up to a lie detector and asking her questions about her sex life on air could possibly be anything other than damaging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus, thefadedone, RabbitLuvr and 1 other person
mlp said:
All issues of rape aside, I'd be interested to hear an explanation from you as to how hooking a 14 year old up to a lie detector and asking her questions about her sex life on air could possibly be anything other than damaging.
Click to expand...
Maury Povitch does that kind of stuff, having 12-year olds on tv, asking how many boys they've had sex with, etc. Disgusting.
 
mlp said:
All issues of rape aside, I'd be interested to hear an explanation from you as to how hooking a 14 year old up to a lie detector and asking her questions about her sex life on air could possibly be anything other than damaging.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you would expect me to give that explanation when I said I agreed it was a bad thing to do.
 
Top Bottom