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

    • A friend has asked me to recommend Juliene for regular cleaning as she has some slots available. Her phone number is 07751426567
    • I'd put short odds on that but who would be his likely successor?
    • Hi, I went to the council's planning portal to look at the application, and I encourage others to look at it. It looks like a pleasant building, with thoughtful landscaping. as Pugwash said, the big oak would be retained, only two smaller trees are supposed to be cut, one of which is already dead according to the Tree Survey. It sounds like 38 people in great need of it will gain supported housing thanks to this development, a very positive change. Of course a solution has to be found for the 3 who will need to find other accommodation during the works, but that doesn't seem enough of a reason to oppose the development. The current building is 4 stories, so I would be surprised if one extra storey was considered objectionable, especially considering the big oak stands between the building and the neighbours' back gardens and the fact that the neighbours it's backing onto are all 5 stories houses themselves or only have blank walls facing the building. In the context where affordable housing is sorely missing, a 100% supported housing development is great news. Personally I've never seen a less objectionable planning request
    • I also wonder if all this, recently events and so many u turns is going to also be the end of Kier Starmer.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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