Huge amounts of TV, radio and the press is off-limits to me. I can’t stand to be in its presence and am physically revolted by it. This can even extend to BBC programming,particularly promos and ‘zany’ stuff for kids one might catch a few seconds of channel zapping.
I don’t mind people having fun and accept I’m odd I have trouble with the banality of what many regard as entertainment, good taste, sense of humour and so on. I’m generally tolerant and don’t want to force my views and preferences on others – though I’m sick of the miserable quality of entertainment, news and factual presentations of our dumbed-down media and suspect we could change it for the better.
What I’d have no problems with would be sticking the two clown Aussie radio-ratbags who killed the nurse clapped in irons. The may have had no intent to kill – but they are definitely part of a much wider problem and should do jail time. HMIC figures show that 17% of recorded incidents to do with public safety and welfare (which make up 40% of all police incidents) were hoax calls or abandoned calls to emergency services. These two Aussie cunts can be seen as encouraging this wider problem. A public flogging is in order to discourage the others.
Allcoppedout's Blog 
Nonsense, whilst an exceptionally incident sad the Australian radio station staff cannot be held responsible for the presumed suicide of the nurse. .As I understand it there was no disciplinary in the pipeline, all involved took it on the chin, one can only assume that there were other problems in the poor womans life that contributed.
This is one tack on he matter Roland. Hoaxers nearly always claim they meant no harm and were involved in frivolous fun. Had these jolly japers hoaxed you or I we might have sent them some frivolously witty dog turd in response. If we were prosecuted for that, would we think the prosecution focus on us fair? If you smack someone with an eggshell brain on the noggin in ‘fun’ you are culpable for the likely extensive damage you didn’t mean to inflict. Why should we regard a psychological condition differently unless we are prejudiced? I don’t really approve of public floggings – but liberalism isn’t as easy as you suppose.
How on earth do you suppose me to believe liberalism to be easy ? One problem with taking the unintended, and frankly unforeseeable, results of something as intrinsically harmless as this is that we could all end up carrying the can for actions for which we should not. The word “reasonable” litters our legislation for a reason – and I am thinking particularly of where it meets the word “firmness”. If I were to call an employee useless at their job and they were later to commit suicide am I responsible ? If you were to push in front of me in a queue, reprehensible behaviour, and I were to do so as this pushed me over the edge of a psychological precipice – are you responsible ?
I rather thought it was you taking liberalism so easily. On component in it is duty of care. I see no difference between these Aussie dorks and the joy-rider running over a kid in principle – it’s a matter of degree. They aren’t worthy of consideration in a situation that has left kids without a mother.
Sorry allcoppedout but your attitude to this incident is typical of the so called liberalised society we live in. No one could have foreseen this nurse would commit suicide. It is not even certain it was the hoax that drove her over the edge.
We are rapidly moving towards a society where all interaction will have to be preceded by questionnaires or even signed contracts. We cannot protect every person from their demons or issues.