Jump to content

Recommended Posts

MP:

"Even if the intent is not to bully but just to "have a bit of fun", if the impact is that somebody feels bullied, its is bullying. "


No. If you feel bullied but there was no bullying intent, that's not bullying. That's perhaps being over-sensitive.

Same for feeling someone is being rude, boasting etc.

Let's not go down the route of if you feel it, it MUST be the case.


Otherwise you're never going to take the piss out of anyone again, be snide, or sarcastic.

We're not Germans goddamnit !

Agree!


KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MP:

> "Even if the intent is not to bully but just to

> "have a bit of fun", if the impact is that

> somebody feels bullied, its is bullying. "

>

> No. If you feel bullied but there was no bullying

> intent, that's not bullying. That's perhaps being

> over-sensitive.

> Same for feeling someone is being rude, boasting

> etc.

> Let's not go down the route of if you feel it, it

> MUST be the case.

>

> Otherwise you're never going to take the piss out

> of anyone again, be snide, or sarcastic.

> We're not Germans goddamnit !

So she hung herself. This may or may not be directly or indirectly linked to the Radio Prank. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the prank while there is the slightest possibility I had contributed to this terrible outcome. Its so sad I don't even want to associate on here with anyone who says "hey its no-ones fault" and other childish failures to see the effects people can have on others. So I too feel this is the end of the conversation.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Maybe the answer is that with any sort of hoax

> > call or hidden camera show, you will need to

> get

> > the consent of the "victim" before broadcasting

> > it.

>

> xxxxxxx

>

> Very good point.


I thought this did happen with hidden camera show pranks, seem to remember on Trigger Happy that some faces got fuzzed out, whereas others didn't, so presumed that the fuzzed out ones either hadn't been told they had been filmed, or they didn't agree to their faces being shown???...

Were they able to release either of the nurses' names? What would be the equivalent of a fuzzed out face on the radio?


red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jeremy Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Maybe the answer is that with any sort of

> hoax

> > > call or hidden camera show, you will need to

> > get

> > > the consent of the "victim" before

> broadcasting

> > > it.

> >

> > xxxxxxx

> >

> > Very good point.

>

> I thought this did happen with hidden camera show

> pranks, seem to remember on Trigger Happy that

> some faces got fuzzed out, whereas others didn't,

> so presumed that the fuzzed out ones either hadn't

> been told they had been filmed, or they didn't

> agree to their faces being shown???...

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Were they able to release either of the nurses'

> names? What would be the equivalent of a fuzzed

> out face on the radio?


I don't think there could be a radio equivalent if it was live or even slightly delayed, as it all relies on the voice, nothing visual. If it was pre-recorded, then maybe it could be edited/pulled. A lot of radio prank calls back in the day were set-up in conjunction with someone knowing the 'victim', e.g. a relative, same with some TV e.g. Game For A Laugh, so they would've been fairly certain beforehand that the 'victim' would've taken the prank in good spirit...

Yes, I suppose the sound of one?s voice is very identifying, even without a name being released etc. Somehow, I feel that I could recognize all my relatives if I saw them on TV with just their faces blurred. I can't explain, how or why but for my husband I am 100% positive that would be the case.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Even if the intent is not to bully but just to "have a bit of fun", if the impact is that

> somebody feels bullied, its is bullying.

>

> That the media have been able to behave in this way for so long doesnt make it right.


Actually, there is probably a greater chance that this woman did not commit suicide directly as a result of the prank call (since she actually played such a small part in it) but because of subsequent hounding by the UK media.


But, again, until the result of the inquest is made known it is all speculation.

I don't understand why she blamed herself - Kate Middleton is a human like the rest of us- when my other half was in ICU after a traffic collision I gave my mobile number to a nurse and after that I was plagued with calls from companies offering their legal services- not all hospital staff have scruples.

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought this did happen with hidden camera show

> pranks, seem to remember on Trigger Happy that

> some faces got fuzzed out, whereas others didn't,

> so presumed that the fuzzed out ones either hadn't

> been told they had been filmed, or they didn't

> agree to their faces being shown???...


That's because certain TV shows have all persons appearing sign clearance (effectively permission to use the material and a waiver to any copyright) forms before broadcast. It protects them from being sued.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Callout for help from any local experts here. Looking to find out more about the history of the property on the corner of Whateley Road and Ulverscroft road (with the green glazed bricks). Now a residential property, i'm told it was a bottle shop in days gone (the house was built around 1900) by and i'd like to learn more about the history of the business that was once here - name, photos, anything at all really! Seems to be very little from open source research so i'm hoping anyone with history in the area can provide any insight!  Starting here before i contact Southwark Archives or similar orgs to get any information and pictures (any advice here also would be welcome). Thank you
    • Portable ramps are available for businesses to use in this sort of situation, aren't they? I don't know whether one would be suitable for use here, or whether they have the space to store one. Lots of people have  permanent or temporary disabilities which mean they have to use crutches or a wheelchair.
    • I can’t remember where I read that figure but this article in the Grauniad from 2023 discusses Ocado results from 2022. The average shopping cart fell to £118 from £129 the previous year. But Ocado lost £500m that year on approximately 20 million orders (circa 400k orders per week). So, averaging out to £25 lost per order. Ocado pauses building new warehouses as annual losses balloon to £500m | Ocado | The Guardian  Obviously, the £500m loss includes various factors. But Ocado has existed for 25 years and only made a small profit in a couple of those years. The rest have been huge losses. Yet it continues to raise funds and speculation sends the share price up and down. In that respect,  it’s like the UK version of Tesla. Meanwhile, the main growth in the supermarket sector has been for Aldi and Lidl, who do not deliver.
    • download-file.mp4  Is this the sort of thing you are after?   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...