The Royal Baby

[bobo the clown]

More to this than meets the eye. All very sad though.

... or a dedictaed person, massively proud of her job who fckd up & couldn't cope with the shame, embarrassment and fear for her career.

Bloody funny weaze though, almost as funny as a very unfunny thing on an unfunny day.

Hope the Ozzies are proud.

No disagreement that it was crushingly unfunny. It seems radio presenters over here are almost exclusively boorish, unfunny c*cks. Lord only knows what it is like in Australia!

That said, I don't think it is their 'fault'. Performing this sort of prank probably makes you a wanker, but you'd not for one second imagine it would drive somebody to suicide.

No. But you could, for one second, imagine that the poor b'stard that fell for it (& ought not to have) could be sacked and all that would entail. But why should they care, they got a laugh out of it.

[Prufrock]

Bruce and I agreed some time back that targeting innocent people trying to do their job wasn't that funny. It invades their privacy and focuses huge amounts of unwanted attention on them. Some people have thinner skins than others and we cannot always guess the consequences. I imagine there might be some civil liability for what those Ozzies did.

What, on earth, for?

It's obviously very sad, but you can't expect people to see that coming from what was, although a bit base and cheap, a joke. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't more to this than we've heard. However embarrassing, emotionally stable people don't commit suicide after being made to look stupid (albeit on a slightly bigger stage than most are used to).

It seemed odd in the first place that somebody in her position could be duped by what was so, so obviously a hoax. More to this than meets the eye. All very sad though.

They fraudulently presented themselves to a (clearly) naive young girl trying to do a high stress job. Then they hold her up for ridicule in front of most of the English-speaking world. Obviously they had no intention to have her commit suicide, but we are responsible for our actions even if they have an unintended result. When pranks go horribly wrong, the perpetrators generally have some responsibility. Still I'll wait for an opinion from Crayons on this.

Not sure on your use of 'fraudulently'. They had no intention to make a gain or deprive or damage anybody. They lied, but that isn't a crime. It might well be some weird archaic crime to pretend to be the queen though. I must admit I thought you meant liability for her death rather than the call itself though.

As for perpetrators of pranks bearing responsibility for when they go wrong, the only examples I can think of involve 'physical' pranks that go wrong, leading to charges for gross negligence manslaughter. This requires an act which is 'dangerous'. Phone calls are not.

There may be some tort I can't think of, but I'd be very surprised if, were it to exist, it didn't include some sort of 'reasonable foreseeability' test.

As I've said, I think they are wankers, but I don't think this is their 'fault', although I do hope they're feeling guilty.

[thebish]

I suspect it is far to early to be attributing "blame".

[boltonboris]

The worlds media who held her up for ridicule and talked her up into being an international laughing stock didn't help

[Prufrock]

More to this than meets the eye. All very sad though.

... or a dedictaed person, massively proud of her job who fckd up & couldn't cope with the shame, embarrassment and fear for her career.

Bloody funny weaze though, almost as funny as a very unfunny thing on an unfunny day.

Hope the Ozzies are proud.

No disagreement that it was crushingly unfunny. It seems radio presenters over here are almost exclusively boorish, unfunny c*cks. Lord only knows what it is like in Australia!

That said, I don't think it is their 'fault'. Performing this sort of prank probably makes you a wanker, but you'd not for one second imagine it would drive somebody to suicide.

No. But you could, for one second, imagine that the poor b'stard that fell for it (& ought not to have) could be sacked and all that would entail. But why should they care, they got a laugh out of it.

I agree.

That said, I must admit my initial reaction to hearing the story was 'what absolute wankers they are, but also, what on earth is she doing giving out that sort of information'. Clearly you do not get to the position she held without being competent, so what was going on? At first I thought she'd just had one of those moments, but given today's genuinely sad news, something about this strikes me as 'off'. I have no idea at all what, and it would be distasteful to speculate. It just doesn't add up to me.

[thebish]

The worlds media who held her up for ridicule and talked her up into being an international laughing stock didn't help

we may very well guess that - but suicide is rarely as simple as that...

[Montreal Wanderer]

More to this than meets the eye. All very sad though.

... or a dedictaed person, massively proud of her job who fckd up & couldn't cope with the shame, embarrassment and fear for her career.

Bloody funny weaze though, almost as funny as a very unfunny thing on an unfunny day.

Hope the Ozzies are proud.

No disagreement that it was crushingly unfunny. It seems radio presenters over here are almost exclusively boorish, unfunny c*cks. Lord only knows what it is like in Australia!

That said, I don't think it is their 'fault'. Performing this sort of prank probably makes you a wanker, but you'd not for one second imagine it would drive somebody to suicide.

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm. In similar cases where people have been verbally harassed/bullied and committed suicide the bulliers have been found responsible. There is always a risk when you make people a laughing stock even on a smallish scale, and what they did to this girl was on a gigantic scale. Since the Ozzies were acting in the course of their employment, their employers are probably responsible for what happened. The Ozzies have a Civil Liability Act (2002) where courts consider the following:

In determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court is to consider the following (amongst other relevant things):
– (a) the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken,
– (b) the likely seriousness of the harm,
– (c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm,
– (d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.

I don't think the social utility of lampooning the girl outweighed the harm done to her.

[bobo the clown]

I suspect it is far to early to be attributing "blame".

Perhaps someone should ring their show next week & have a bit of a jape about it all.

They had very quickly moved to cash in on all this, with a little luck that will all peter-out.

[thebish]

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm.

Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

[bobo the clown]

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm.

Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

Fair point. It may well have helped her a great deal.

[thebish]

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm.

Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

Fair point. It may well have helped her a great deal.

I don't know either way...

I DO know that suicide is usually (though not always) much more complex than this - it is not often triggered by a single incident.

All I am saying is that we really don't know enough to be apportioning blame.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Not sure on your use of 'fraudulently'. They had no intention to make a gain or deprive or damage anybody. They lied, but that isn't a crime. It might well be some weird archaic crime to pretend to be the queen though. I must admit I thought you meant liability for her death rather than the call itself though.

As for perpetrators of pranks bearing responsibility for when they go wrong, the only examples I can think of involve 'physical' pranks that go wrong, leading to charges for gross negligence manslaughter. This requires an act which is 'dangerous'. Phone calls are not.

There may be some tort I can't think of, but I'd be very surprised if, were it to exist, it didn't include some sort of 'reasonable foreseeability' test.

As I've said, I think they are wankers, but I don't think this is their 'fault', although I do hope they're feeling guilty.

I said fraudulent because for purposes of profit they presented themselves as someone they were not. I say profit because they did in the course of their work to get ratings, a larger audience, publicity, whatever. Furthermore, they publicized a telephone call without telling the individual it was recorded, which is an invasion of privacy unless they can show it was in the public good to do so (Fat chance, I'd say). I am not suggesting there was lethal intent. I'm not suggesting they should be criminally prosecuted. I was suggesting there might be some civil liability for what they did. I did not say there would be as I am not an expert in that jurisdiction.

[CrazyHorse]

I'm surprised a conspiracy theory hasn't surfaced already. Has Al-Fayed not popped up and blamed Prince Philip yet?

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm.

Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

I think it is fairly obvious that being held up as a laughing stock on a massive scale involves harm to one's reputation and self-esteem. It would certainly have involved a supervisory reprimand if not loss of job, which strikes me as harmful. I don't understand why you don't think being held up as a laughing stock or idiot on a massive scale is not harmful.

[bobo the clown]

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm.

Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

Fair point. It may well have helped her a great deal.

I don't know either way...

I DO know that suicide is usually (though not always) much more complex than this - it is not often triggered by a single incident.

All I am saying is that we really don't know enough to be apportioning blame.

Bish, really, I know you'd argue black's white just for the fun of it, but every now & again try not doing.

[Prufrock]

More to this than meets the eye. All very sad though.

... or a dedictaed person, massively proud of her job who fckd up & couldn't cope with the shame, embarrassment and fear for her career.

Bloody funny weaze though, almost as funny as a very unfunny thing on an unfunny day.

Hope the Ozzies are proud.

No disagreement that it was crushingly unfunny. It seems radio presenters over here are almost exclusively boorish, unfunny c*cks. Lord only knows what it is like in Australia!

That said, I don't think it is their 'fault'. Performing this sort of prank probably makes you a wanker, but you'd not for one second imagine it would drive somebody to suicide.

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm. In similar cases where people have been verbally harassed/bullied and committed suicide the bulliers have been found responsible. There is always a risk when you make people a laughing stock even on a smallish scale, and what they did to this girl was on a gigantic scale. Since the Ozzies were acting in the course of their employment, their employers are probably responsible for what happened. The Ozzies have a Civil Liability Act (2002) where courts consider the following:

In determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court is to consider the following (amongst other relevant things):
– (a) the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken,
– (b) the likely seriousness of the harm,
– (c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm,
– (d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.

I don't think the social utility of lampooning the girl outweighed the harm done to her.

My knowledge of Australian law could be written on a very small thing, but they sound very similar to the factors used in deciding whether a breach of a legal duty has occurred in negligence.

It's a balancing act and I'm almost certain a court in this country would conclude that a reasonable person would not have taken precautions against a risk of harm as no reasonable person would foresee what has happened. There'd also be gigantic problems with causation. And with any duty that might be needed to be shown. I'd be astonished if in either UK or Australian jurisdiction there were any way you could pin civil liability for her death on them. Astonished.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm.

Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

Fair point. It may well have helped her a great deal.

I don't know either way...

I DO know that suicide is usually (though not always) much more complex than this - it is not often triggered by a single incident.

All I am saying is that we really don't know enough to be apportioning blame.

I'm not apportioning blame, bish, I merely wondered whether the perpetrators of this hoax have some sort of civil liability for what they did and how it all came out. I'll leave it to the court to decide the answers to those kind of questions.

[Montreal Wanderer]

More to this than meets the eye. All very sad though.

... or a dedictaed person, massively proud of her job who fckd up & couldn't cope with the shame, embarrassment and fear for her career.

Bloody funny weaze though, almost as funny as a very unfunny thing on an unfunny day.

Hope the Ozzies are proud.

No disagreement that it was crushingly unfunny. It seems radio presenters over here are almost exclusively boorish, unfunny c*cks. Lord only knows what it is like in Australia!

That said, I don't think it is their 'fault'. Performing this sort of prank probably makes you a wanker, but you'd not for one second imagine it would drive somebody to suicide.

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm. In similar cases where people have been verbally harassed/bullied and committed suicide the bulliers have been found responsible. There is always a risk when you make people a laughing stock even on a smallish scale, and what they did to this girl was on a gigantic scale. Since the Ozzies were acting in the course of their employment, their employers are probably responsible for what happened. The Ozzies have a Civil Liability Act (2002) where courts consider the following:

In determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the court is to consider the following (amongst other relevant things):
– (a) the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken,
– (b) the likely seriousness of the harm,
– (c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm,
– (d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.

I don't think the social utility of lampooning the girl outweighed the harm done to her.

My knowledge of Australian law could be written on a very small thing, but they sound very similar to the factors used in deciding whether a breach of a legal duty has occurred in negligence.

It's a balancing act and I'm almost certain a court in this country would conclude that a reasonable person would not have taken precautions against a risk of harm as no reasonable person would foresee what has happened. There'd also be gigantic problems with causation. And with any duty that might be needed to be shown. I'd be astonished if in either UK or Australian jurisdiction there were any way you could pin civil liability for her death on them. Astonished.

You may well be correct. I only wonders if there might be some form of civil liability - I never said there would or should be. I know less than you, I'm sure, about Australian law and the case would have to be tried in Australia.

[thebish]

I'm afraid I disagree. What they did caused her harm.

Do you KNOW this - or are you guessing?

Fair point. It may well have helped her a great deal.

I don't know either way...

I DO know that suicide is usually (though not always) much more complex than this - it is not often triggered by a single incident.

All I am saying is that we really don't know enough to be apportioning blame.

I'm not apportioning blame, bish, I merely wondered whether the perpetrators of this hoax have some sort of civil liability for what they did and how it all came out. I'll leave it to the court to decide the answers to those kind of questions.

"what they did caused her harm" sounds very much like blame to me....

[Prufrock]

Not sure on your use of 'fraudulently'. They had no intention to make a gain or deprive or damage anybody. They lied, but that isn't a crime. It might well be some weird archaic crime to pretend to be the queen though. I must admit I thought you meant liability for her death rather than the call itself though.

As for perpetrators of pranks bearing responsibility for when they go wrong, the only examples I can think of involve 'physical' pranks that go wrong, leading to charges for gross negligence manslaughter. This requires an act which is 'dangerous'. Phone calls are not.

There may be some tort I can't think of, but I'd be very surprised if, were it to exist, it didn't include some sort of 'reasonable foreseeability' test.

As I've said, I think they are wankers, but I don't think this is their 'fault', although I do hope they're feeling guilty.

I said fraudulent because for purposes of profit they presented themselves as someone they were not. I say profit because they did in the course of their work to get ratings, a larger audience, publicity, whatever. Furthermore, they publicized a telephone call without telling the individual it was recorded, which is an invasion of privacy unless they can show it was in the public good to do so (Fat chance, I'd say). I am not suggesting there was lethal intent. I'm not suggesting they should be criminally prosecuted. I was suggesting there might be some civil liability for what they did. I did not say there would be as I am not an expert in that jurisdiction.

'Gain' and 'loss' are very narrowly defined, in UK law anyway. You'd be struggling to get 'audience numbers' accepted.

Furthermore, there is no 'right to privacy' in UK law. The nearest thing to it (when wanting to sue individuals) is a weird legal twist where you in effect use the HRA to force a court to interpret an existing tort to protect your privacy. There may be some mileage in a 'breach of confidence' claim made this way, I must admit to knowing very little about that tort, but it would be with regards to the call and its broadcast rather than her death.

There could be feasibly be something similar in Australian law which may well have specific privacy laws, again relating to the call though.