Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bennybear

Australian Larrikin culture gone wrong - Jacintha Saldanha

Recommended Posts

It actually bothers me that Annonymous have chimed into this little fiasco with a threat to Austereo if they do not fire the 2 DJ's.

 

Like all other vigilante groups, they are starting to go off the rails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually bothers me that Annonymous have chimed into this little fiasco with a threat to Austereo if they do not fire the 2 DJ's.

 

i would be quite happy if they took austereo down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me personally i believe the radio presenters done this fully expecting not to get through.

 

with the royals themselves first laughing it off i can only assume that it was ridicule from co workers

and probably the english media themselves that pushed her over the edge.

 

( please bear in mind i have not read this entire thread )

 

I honestly believe that there would be a LOT of people who are condeming the radio hosts, would have only done so AFTER the suicide of the nurse.

they are taking the moral high road.....now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A drunk driver does not intend to kill others, but when they do they must accept 100% of that responsibility. This is no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A drunk driver does not intend to kill others, but when they do they must accept 100% of that responsibility. This is no different.

Yes it is you f**kwit.

Drunk driving is breaking a law

Making a prank call is not breaking the law

 

Edit:

To add to that. By your theory if you are a telemarketer ringing and doing your job and a person you call commits suicide after your call....: does that make the telemarketer liable?

Edited by Lucas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A drunk driver does not intend to kill others, but when they do they must accept 100% of that responsibility. This is no different.

 

What an absolutely retarded comparison.

 

A prank phone call is not even close to the risk of operating heavy machinery while drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion that is all they could be held accountable for.

 

just say a kid goes to school with a new haircut.

everyone gives him shit about it and he kills himself.

 

is it the hairdresses fault or the people who riduclled him?

 

(i know its not an accurate comparision, but just something to think about )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A drunk driver does not intend to kill others, but when they do they must accept 100% of that responsibility. This is no different.

 

Get off my internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A drunk driver does not intend to kill others, but when they do they must accept 100% of that responsibility. This is no different.

I totally and 100% agree with you.

We should all lobby the laws to be changed, so that any radio presenter that does this again is up for a murder charge.

I think you're onto something here bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does impersonating another to gain classified information count as fraud?

Maybe in terms of written communications (forging signatures, stealing bank details) but when initiating a prank call i don't believe it would be classed as fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does impersonating another to gain classified information count as fraud?

Maybe in terms of written communications (forging signatures, stealing bank details) but when initiating a prank call i don't believe it would be classed as fraud.

 

Actually, Section 81 and 82 of the Crimes Act 1958 could possibly apply to this situation,

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s81.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s82.html

 

and section 83A regarding falsifying documents if someone wants to push information as documents.

 

The only thing saving Austereo from legal battles now is not being able to link up the fraudulent phone call to a financial gain of any description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does impersonating another to gain classified information count as fraud?

Maybe in terms of written communications (forging signatures, stealing bank details) but when initiating a prank call i don't believe it would be classed as fraud.

 

Actually, Section 81 and 82 of the Crimes Act 1958 could possibly apply to this situation,

 

http://www.austlii.e...195882/s81.html

http://www.austlii.e...195882/s82.html

 

and section 83A regarding falsifying documents if someone wants to push information as documents.

 

The only thing saving Austereo from legal battles now is not being able to link up the fraudulent phone call to a financial gain of any description.

 

throw into the mix that in a round about way a death has be caused by the actions of the "fraudulent caller" and he could be in some serious trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does impersonating another to gain classified information count as fraud?

Maybe in terms of written communications (forging signatures, stealing bank details) but when initiating a prank call i don't believe it would be classed as fraud.

 

Actually, Section 81 and 82 of the Crimes Act 1958 could possibly apply to this situation,

 

http://www.austlii.e...195882/s81.html

http://www.austlii.e...195882/s82.html

 

and section 83A regarding falsifying documents if someone wants to push information as documents.

 

The only thing saving Austereo from legal battles now is not being able to link up the fraudulent phone call to a financial gain of any description.

 

'Financial gain' would be based on the intention of the call being an attempt to extract money from the recipient. Making that call in view of others with the intent of entertaining an audience is a little different.

 

You could bend this and many other situations to fit the robot nature of a law document, but no judge worth their salt would convict a genuine prank caller (one who did not extract money from the person on the other end) of fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraud charges are irrelevant; the parent company share price dived today as advertisers are pulling their campaigns. I'd wager that some asses are being kicked behind closed doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does impersonating another to gain classified information count as fraud?

Maybe in terms of written communications (forging signatures, stealing bank details) but when initiating a prank call i don't believe it would be classed as fraud.

 

Actually, Section 81 and 82 of the Crimes Act 1958 could possibly apply to this situation,

 

http://www.austlii.e...195882/s81.html

http://www.austlii.e...195882/s82.html

 

and section 83A regarding falsifying documents if someone wants to push information as documents.

 

The only thing saving Austereo from legal battles now is not being able to link up the fraudulent phone call to a financial gain of any description.

 

throw into the mix that in a round about way a death has be caused by the actions of the "fraudulent caller" and he could be in some serious trouble.

 

It wasn't an Australian Citizen who died therefore not under our jurisdiction, however it might be under commonwealth jurisdiction since she was British, who knows.

 

 

Fraud charges are irrelevant; the parent company share price dived today as advertisers are pulling their campaigns. I'd wager that some asses are being kicked behind closed doors.

 

That's not a result of the fraud, that's a result of being caught committing fraud :P

 

If they had of pulled it off it would have boosted their ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know enough about the internal workings of radio stations, But i would imagine the radio presenters have a boss who would have ok'd the call

(or producer )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know enough about the internal workings of radio stations, But i would imagine the radio presenters have a boss who would have ok'd the call

(or producer )

apparently management signed off on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know enough about the internal workings of radio stations, But i would imagine the radio presenters have a boss who would have ok'd the call

(or producer )

newpaper said all that shit gets signed off by their lawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A drunk driver does not intend to kill others, but when they do they must accept 100% of that responsibility. This is no different.

 

Actually it is. And your comparison is wrong for this example.

 

A better comparison for this fiasco would be:

"The barman is serving alcohol to a patron, who then goes out, drives down the road, crashes into a car and kills another person. Is the barman at fault?"

 

It's what i would call common sense, but hey, seems like everyone loves a good 'ol lynchin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better comparison for this fiasco would be:

"The barman is serving alcohol to a patron, who then goes out, drives down the road, crashes into a car and kills another person. Is the barman at fault?"

responsible serving of alcohol, so maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better comparison for this fiasco would be:

"The barman is serving alcohol to a patron, who then goes out, drives down the road, crashes into a car and kills another person. Is the barman at fault?"

responsible serving of alcohol, so maybe

 

yeah...negative on that one, it's been to the courts before(ridiculous i know) ;)

 

again this falls back on that all saying 'you take responsibility for you own actions'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responsibility really doesn't matter unless we're out for vengence.

 

What we should concentrate on, is WHY this occurred, and HOW can we stop it in the future.

 

Should there be a change in radio culture? Or should there be greater support for people afflicted with depression? Is this really the fault of a shitty radio station? Or is it a failure of society to fully accept and openly discuss mental illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god the ignorance on this place would be astounding if I was unaware that I was a member of NS.

 

Common sense should tell anyone that the idea for the call would be ok'd by the stations legal team, if you reckon you can just impersonate the Royal Family willy nilly then you really have it coming to you.

 

Those calling people who commit suicide weak, gutless etc, if you have never been in that state of mind yourself and then come out the other side then keep your mouth shut. It's opinions like yours that drive half the people to the act. I am quite sure that if you were confronted with someone about to kill themselves would you yell at them for being weak and gutless like you so proudly boast on here? I think not...

 

Granted, some people choose some pretty shitty places to commit suicide but this alone does not make their illness any less debilitating.

 

People are calling for the heads of the presenters because they are the ones in the spot light and the vox populi (some kids might have to google that one) doesn't know any better. But that is why said station has a legal team, it doesn't matter what people think because the presenters jobs are legally protected, but with a person pushed to suicide by a prank call and the media blowout that followed if they were to be taken off air it would no doubt be to it being counter-productive to have them continue as hosts.

 

The joke was intended to be harmless, unlike some other bright sparks who made fun of kids with cancer a few years ago.

 

I think everyone is over reacting to this joke, sure it ended badly but at least it wasn't an obviously f**ked up idea from the word go.

Edited by mitch_32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god the ignorance on this place would be astounding if I was unaware that I was a member of NS.

 

Those calling people who commit suicide weak, gutless etc, if you have never been in that state of mind yourself and then come out the other side then keep your mouth shut. It's opinions like yours that drive half the people to the act. I am quite sure that if you were confronted with someone about to kill themselves would you yell at them for being weak and gutless like you so proudly boast on here? I think not...

 

I guessing you have then but most people have thought about it at one time or another. my dad tried to kill him self recently because my mum died he was in a bad way but he made the decision with a lot of people trying to help him including me and he would not listen. after he failed he felt embarrassed of course how ever he said him self that it was the easy way out not to deal ie gutless he also said he was weak also selfish. so don't calling people ignorant most aren't and most know someone that has tried or has committed suicide so will have their opinion mine is that they are selfish because they don't think of the family and friends that they leave behind yes the problem that they didn't try to hard enough to solve is no longer their concern ie the easy way out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It actually bothers me that Annonymous have chimed into this little fiasco with a threat to Austereo if they do not fire the 2 DJ's.

 

i would be quite happy if they took austereo down

 

Amen brother!

 

Someone needs to be held accountable it may as well be the DJs and the radio station behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sign in to follow this  

×