The interview with Australian DJs raises other questions too


9:10 am - December 11th 2012

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

by Giselle Green

The emotionally-charged interview with the two Australian DJs behind the hoax call to Kate Middleton’s hospital raises important questions.

A tearful Mel Greig and Michael Christian kept emphasising that they were not out to fool anyone or humiliate anyone other than themselves. The joke, they said, was one hundred per cent on them; they were only after a 20 second piece of silliness to put on air.

Listening back to their totally amateurish spoof, replete with dreadful accents and barking corgis, you do have to believe them. But this misses the point. The problem arose because they hadn’t thought through what might happen if their prank call actually crossed a line and became a real call, with a real nurse about a real patient expecting a real baby.

Was it not highly irresponsible to conduct such a call and fail to consider the implications?

I happened to meet a hospital consultant over the weekend who has worked with and knew Jacintha. He was deeply distressed by what had happened. I expressed surprise that an incident for which she remained anonymous, wasn’t blamed or rebuked and which even Prince Charles later joked about, could possibly have led to her suicide.

He explained to me how seriously Jacintha took her nursing duties, how crucial patient confidentiality is to nurses like her, and how devastating it would have been for her to be humiliated not just in front of the world but more importantly in front of her professional colleagues. I found it humbling to realise how some people literally take the principles underpinning their jobs deadly seriously. Sadly no one else in this sorry affair did.

As well as underestimating the grave repercussions of broadcasting the prank call, staff at the Australian radio station totally failed to do their job properly in another respect – to get permission to run the interview.

They claim they tried to contact the hospital five times, presumably to get clearance. But repeatedly trying to ask for permission doesn’t mean you have been granted permission. Even Borat gets interviewees to sign waivers.

I would also question whether King Edward VI Hospital hospital did its job appropriately, given that the ultimate royal guest was occupying one of its beds. Were staff not forewarned to be on their guard for a media onslaught?

And there are questions too for Buckingham Palace: should Royal Protection officers give more than physical protection? Just as in Las Vegas, when they failed to protect Harry’s honour, shouldn’t in this case they have done more to protect Kate’s privacy, whether advising staff or even taking on duties themselves, such as screening phone calls?

We cannot turn back the clock but I hope all parties involved in this dreadful affair will own up to failing to do their jobs with the deadly seriousness with which Jacintha sadly did hers.


Giselle Green ran Siobhan Benita’s media campaign in the London Mayoral election

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Quite so.

The timing of the call was appalling: the patient was ill and pregnant, and all sorts of things could have been going wrong.

After birth, and after the all-clear, might be different.

2. domestic extremist

Interesting philosophical issues are raised by this episode: should we judge actions by their consequences – tragic in this case, but not foreseeable as such – or by the perpetrators’ intentions, to play out thoughtless prank? And is it reasonable to hold people strictly responsible for entirely unintended consequences?

Isn’t it largely matter of luck whether our less considered actions have malign consequences or not? In which case, how often have we perhaps escaped the kind of censure currently directed at this Australian pair by sheer good fortune, and should that not give us pause before joining the chorus of condemnation?

3. Chaise Guevara

I’m with @2 on this.

The DJs could not have reasonably been expected to consider the risk of this silly prank phone call leading to suicide. People saying otherwise are exhibiting heavy hindsight bias. If I’m wrong, show me all the newspapers headlines reading “DJs Prank Hotel – Will Victim Kill Herself?” from the day the original story broke.

Aside from Jacintha and Kate, I’d say that the DJs are the least responsible parties here. The hospital should have had a better system; Buck House should have sent its own staff; and most of all the media shouldn’t have blown this into a huge faux scandal and hounded the victim.

I’m with @3, everyone’s getting blamed except the media, but they’re the ones who made a mountain out of a molehill and created the conditions that made falling victim to the prank seem so terrible. Nicholas Witchell is nauseating at the moment, castigating the DJs after spending so long telling the world how terrible it was that the prank call happened. Perhaps if the prank had been ignored, or simply noted and quickly forgotten as it merited; rather than endless news reports about it and speculation over who it might have been that answered the call; then this terrible event might not have happened.

And there are questions too for Buckingham Palace: should Royal Protection officers give more than physical protection? Just as in Las Vegas, when they failed to protect Harry’s honour, shouldn’t in this case they have done more to protect Kate’s privacy, whether advising staff or even taking on duties themselves, such as screening phone calls?

Leaving aside this idiotic ‘prank’ for a moment nobody has a duty to protect Harry’s ‘honour’. If he choses to get his cock out while playing billards that’s his own affair.

As to the idiots in this case their motivation seems to have been racist since the ‘joke’ was about their ‘hilarious’ English accents.

Fuck ‘em.

6. Chaise Guevara

@ 5 Shatterface

To be honest, I think laughing at accents or, say, silly-sounding foreign names is either in the “not racist” camp or the “maybe racist but who cares” camp.

I don’t think anyone’s harmed by the title of ‘Allo ‘Allo!.

Don’t blame the DJs[1], blame the radio managers.

The DJs expected to be told to piss off and have the phone slammed down on them. This was a realistic expectation and always the likeliest outcome.

But the managers made the call to broadcast the call after they knew it had got through and without obtaining the hospital’s permission. They knew the stakes had been raised, and went ahead anyway because they thought they had some kind of scoop. That was the massively irresponsible decision that precipitated all that followed.

[1] Well, blame them a little bit, but not the extent of the international witch-hunt they’re facing. Prank calls are all very good and jolly, but a hospital doesn’t strike me as a suitable target at the best of times.

“when they failed to protect Harry’s honour”

The above statement implies a rather archaic notion of ‘honour’ held by the writer about the aristocracy….anyway I believe Harry gave your notion of ‘honour’ away freely just like many over-privileged, public school kids on a jolly.

2/domestic extremist: And is it reasonable to hold people strictly responsible for entirely unintended consequences?

Yes. Recklessness is a well-established concept both in law and non-legal assessments of responsibility.

3/Chaise: The DJs could not have reasonably been expected to consider the risk of this silly prank phone call leading to suicide.

It’s not like we don’t have stories regularly in the news about people being driven to suicide by bullying, or by press attention.

A quick search for “prevalence of suicidal ideation in general population” gives conflicting results, but around 5% at any one time seems a rough ball-park figure. Bullying, stress, etc. are risk factors. (There is some evidence that so is working in a medical profession)

That seems like the sort of risk which it is highly reckless not to consider.

10. Chaise Guevara

@ 9 cim

Firstly, thinking about suicide =/= likely to commit suicide if made upset.

Secondly, I really do think this is hindsight bias. If not, can you point to newspaper discussions about the risks of this lady killing herself when the original story broke? Or even serious discussions of it in online forums? This is an honest question. Not only are we, as a species, very inclined towards hindsight bias, we’re also bad at deliberately debiasing ourselves from it.

Check this out, or at least the data in the third paragraph: http://lesswrong.com/lw/il/hindsight_bias/

To predict that this would be the exact consequence in this particular case I agree requires a hefty amount of hindsight bias (or a lot more personal knowledge of those involved, perhaps, but I wouldn’t be expecting those people to be talking about it online)

To predict more generally that their “hilarious pranks” might have unexpected and dangerous consequences, and so should be given a lot more thought, would have required them to remember why their own station was already on license probation.

Any station whose general output includes bullying people on-air for a cheap laugh should be reasonably held responsible for any consequences commonly associated with bullying even if those consequences are not predictable in advance in any individual case.

12. Chaise Guevara

@ 11 cim

I agree that pranks like this are irresponsible and that as you do more of them the chances of a notably bad thing happening approaches 1, and I feel that morally you’re kinda culpable for a percentage share of the total amount of bad things resulting from pranks pulled based on the number of pranks you pull divided by the total number of pranks worldwide (so to speak).

What I don’t believe is that we should address this by punishing (either by law or as a society) those unlucky few who happened to set off an unpredictable bad thing, while laughing along with the other pranks. For exactly the same reason that I don’t think you should be jailed for dropping a crisp packet if by bizarre fluke the wind eventually blows it into a car window, blinding the driver and causing a fatal crash.

However, here we enter the outcomes vs intention debate, and my general experience on that is that everyone (self included) has their position hardwired into them and isn’t budging.

@12

Drunk drivers don’t mean to or think they ever might kill someone but when they do they are guilty.

The Two DJ’s played a large part in this Woman’s death and helped leave 2 kids without there mother.

I feel nothing but contempt for them.

The also broke UK Law, charge the pair of them.

Might I suggest that this is one of those tragic freak incidents that doesn’t really mean a great deal? I don’t think there are lessons to be learned or people to be blamed.

15. Waterloo Sunset

I can see no redeeming satirical element to this particular prank, but let’s take a step back. Are we actually saying that pranks, particularly ones that involve misleading people, have no place at all in the media.

Does that include people like Chris Morris or Mark Thomas?

My instinct is that hospitals specifically should be exempt from this kind of pranking, but some of the commentary on this seems to be drawing far more general conclusions.

Regarding hindsight bias, I think it’s important to remember that while there’s a long history of prank TV and radio, there’s also been certain sensible precautions.

As the OP points out, broadcasters will normally ask the unsuspecting victims afterwards to sign release forms. Just in case the joke isn’t appreciated, with nasty unintended consequences that could result in a massive scandal and/or a lawsuit.

In all fairness to the DJs, it sounds like they were inexperienced and may not have known that, but the radio station managers should have. And if they couldn’t get a response from the hospital, that means they don’t have consent to use the material.

I was turning off the radio every time it made this prank the lead item, before the nurse’s suicide, as I thought it was cringe-making, and wondered at the Beeb giving it so much coverage (ditto Kate Middleton’s exposed breasts). Most pranks are stupid and cruel, including ones done at stag parties. However as Chaise G says, it’s intentions vs outcome. The DJs were thoughtless arses, but not the kind of malevolent nihilist who puts bits of broken glass into jars of peanut butter in the supermarket (pre the plastic seal they put round jars these days).

So an irresponsible brat thinks it’s a hoot to trip over some other kid in the playground. The kid falls over and lands in a way that damages his spine, enough to put him in a wheelchair. The irresponsible brat was stupid and culpable to trip someone over – but couldn’t have reasonably guessed he would do someone permanent damage.

18. douglasclark

I have always been uncomfortable with these sort of ‘hoax’ calls. Perhaps it is just me, but it strikes me as an arrogant piece of journalistic conceit that there is any sort of ‘justification’ for it.

Shoot me down.

12/Chaise: As Matthew says, I reckon drunk driving is the better analogy – it’s sufficiently irresponsible that there are sanctions even if nothing actually went wrong that time, plus extra sanctions if it did.

However, here we enter the outcomes vs intention debate

Well, it’s not difficult to set up situations where an exclusive focus on either one gives an unpleasant ethical outcome.

my general experience on that is that everyone (self included) has their position hardwired into them

Maybe. I’ve certainly become a lot more outcomes-based over the last decade or so, though. I think Waterloo Sunset’s question is part of the area where intent does matter, in that I think there’s a difference between exposing the hypocrisy/cluelessness/etc of the powerful (which may also be funny, depending on how it’s presented, or it might just be straight-faced journalism – I mean “Telegraph: 150 MPs would sign EDM to ban fictional drug” is the same, but presented without the humour), and attacking ordinary people.

Blimey, a lot of carrots wedged firmly up arses today.

Ringing up someone, adopting a ridiculous accent, and pretending to be the Queen is not effing bullying; anyone who believes that it is should not be allowed out in public.

The fact that the prank succeeded, when anyone in their right mind would have been certain that it would fail (cim: ‘recklessness’ requires that a reasonable person should have forseen the consequences, which would absolutely not have been the case here), demonstrates two things:

1) Saldanha was not competent to handle the job that she was charged with (probable through lack of training; nurses aren’t receptionists, after all);

2) the hospital’s procedures for maintaining patient privacy were grossly incompetent and everyone involved in drafting and enforcing them should be disciplined.

As several people have already noted, 2Day’s culpability is in airing the call without permission after it reached its utterly implausible conclusion, which is entirely down to station management and not the unfortunate DJs.

(also, exposing the incompetence of the hospital’s patient protection *is* very firmly in the public interest, even if it does inevitably mean that individual staff will lose out. That wasn’t why the call was made, but is a clear reason to make it public. However, the appropriate way to do that would be to document what happened, rather than just run the call for lolz.)

22. Robin Levett

@john b #20:

As several people have already noted, 2Day’s culpability is in airing the call without permission after it reached its utterly implausible conclusion, which is entirely down to station management and not the unfortunate DJs.

“Unfortunate”? They made the call accidentally did they? Or did someone make the call for them, leaving them with empty air to fill, and the only way they could think of doing so was asking for personal information about a hospital patient?

They intended, if they were taken seriously, to get exactly the interview they got. Their intention was to get a recording demonstrating that the nurse who took the call was gullible as to believe that HMQ would actually make a call to ask after her granddaughter-in law’s health, and to broadcast that recording. HMQ wasn’t intended to be the butt of the “joke”; the hospital wasn’t intended to be the the butt of the joke; the powerless individual they spoke to was, and was always intended to be, the butt of the joke. We can be damn sure that if they got through to someone who had told them their fortune, exposing them as the shallow thoughtless idiots they appear to be, that the interview would not have been aired.

Was this bullying? Of course it was, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Speaking truth to power isn’t bullying; but making fun of the powerless quite definitely is.

Does it require hindsight bias to make that judgement – with respect, that is equally ludicrous.

This is the radio station, by the way, that broadcast an interview with a 14-year-old on a lie detector who, upon stating that she’d been raped at 12, was asked whetehr that was her only sexual experience. But blame is not zero-sum; the fact that the radio station employs bullies doesn’t excuse their employees from being bullies.

23. Chaise Guevara

@ 19 cim (and Matthew)

“As Matthew says, I reckon drunk driving is the better analogy – it’s sufficiently irresponsible that there are sanctions even if nothing actually went wrong that time, plus extra sanctions if it did.”

I’m not sure I approve of the “extra sanctions if it did” part. I think people should be judged on the intent behind their actions, not the partly randomised outcome. So with drunk-driving I guess that means I think the penalty should be higher, to reflect the risk imposed on others, but that it shouldn’t be boosted if you happened to get a bad outcome.

“Well, it’s not difficult to set up situations where an exclusive focus on either one gives an unpleasant ethical outcome.”

Can you give me one for the intent side?

“Maybe. I’ve certainly become a lot more outcomes-based over the last decade or so, though.”

I’ve done the opposite, so I spoke too broadly there. But I think this comes from thinking these issues through rather than just going on instinct (on both our parts, not saying mine is the thoughtful response and yours isn’t). But once people are solidly in one camp or another I don’t recall ever seeing them shift.

“I think there’s a difference between exposing the hypocrisy/cluelessness/etc of the powerful [...] and attacking ordinary people.”

Absolutely, though it’s hard to litigate for.

24. Chaise Guevara

@ 22 Robin

“Was this bullying? Of course it was, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Speaking truth to power isn’t bullying; but making fun of the powerless quite definitely is.

Does it require hindsight bias to make that judgement – with respect, that is equally ludicrous.”

Not sure if you’re speaking to me, but I introduced the term to the thread so I’ll field it. I’m not saying you need hindsight bias to call this bullying (which is subjective in any case). I’m saying you need hindsight bias to say that this woman’s death was reasonably foreseeable to the DJs at the time.

23/Chaise: Can you give me one for the intent side?

Given that virtually no-one believes themselves to be doing evil? A dictator who has thousands put to death because they believe that the survival of their nation and its remaining millions depends on it … well, if they’re actually right about that, that’s one thing. If they’re wrong (as so far they all have been) then letting them off genocide on the grounds that their intent was to save millions of lives seems wrong to me.

Or for the reverse situation:
“A person, intending to file a false invoice, breaks in to the computer systems of their workplace. While doing so, looking for a genuine invoice to copy, they discover that their company is importing chemical weapon agents. Horrified, they blow the whistle and the police come in to shut down the operation.”
Consequence: thousands of lives saved
Intent: accounting fraud

So, do they get jail time?

On an purely intent-based system, surely they should. They broke into corporate systems intending to commit fraud. Had security caught them five seconds before they discovered that invoice, they wouldn’t have had the good luck to have positive consequences to excuse it.

I’m not sure I approve of the “extra sanctions if it did” part.

Responsibility purely by average rather than actual consequences is an interesting idea, but gives odd results. (A drives drunk and kills B. C, already in jail for drunk driving, gets 50 more days added to their sentence as the average consequences are recalculated…)

Robin, with respect, you have absolutely no clue about what was going on. Their intent was to get a recording of someone telling them to piss off because they weren’t the Queen, which they would have broadcast, because that’s how the prank call genre of radio works. If someone had “told them their fortune”, that’s *exactly* the kind of call they were both expecting and aiming for.

Had they been investigative journalists, their intent would have been to be put through to Kate. They would have called up using a talented impersonator, rather than a ridiculous pantomime; and you’re right to suggest that if that had been the case then, had they failed, they wouldn’t have bothered publishing anything. But they aren’t, it wasn’t, and they didn’t.

(the case you cite regarding two other DJs at the same station confirms my point about station management being spineless incompetents, but says absolutely nothing about the intent of this pair).

27. Robin Levett

@john b #26:

With very great respect, you have clearly never listened to the right kind of prank calls.

So you thought that the call they wanted to get was:

“This is the Queen”

“No it’s not”

[click]

I can see them rolling in the aisles at that one. And it would fill up all of two seconds of airtime as well, so it’s win-win.

The radio station had no idea how to keep its DJs under control; but that doesn’t excuse the DJs from being out of control.

28. Chaise Guevara

@ 25 cim

“Given that virtually no-one believes themselves to be doing evil? A dictator who has thousands put to death because they believe that the survival of their nation and its remaining millions depends on it”

No, hang on, this isn’t about letting people redefine laws based on their own beliefs. Regardless of the dictator’s motivations, he would have intentionally murdered all those people, and murder is illegal. That’s completely different to setting out to commit a minor crime and, as a result of doing so, accidentally doing something that, if done deliberately, would be a major crime.

“So, do they get jail time?

On an purely intent-based system, surely they should. They broke into corporate systems intending to commit fraud. Had security caught them five seconds before they discovered that invoice, they wouldn’t have had the good luck to have positive consequences to excuse it.”

You’re ignoring one intent. They intended to commit fraud. THEN they intended to whistle-blow. Separate acts. If they only got caught because of the latter, I personally feel that should cancel out the former. If they got caught and later whistle-blew I suppose it could be used as evidence of good character in court.

“Responsibility purely by average rather than actual consequences is an interesting idea, but gives odd results. (A drives drunk and kills B. C, already in jail for drunk driving, gets 50 more days added to their sentence as the average consequences are recalculated…)”

I’m not saying we should use precise, constantly updated averages, any more than I’m saying your system should somehow find some way of quantifying the concept of a “fair sentence”. It would be stupid to try to apply that level of precision to a set of fairly arbitrary numbers. GIGO. I’m just saying that sentencing should reflect what you chose to do, not what happened to happen.

Chaise/28: No, hang on, this isn’t about letting people redefine laws based on their own beliefs. Regardless of the dictator’s motivations, he would have intentionally murdered all those people, and murder is illegal

Murder is illegal. Intentionally killing people is not in itself illegal. In law – and in a lot of personal moral codes – it is legitimate to kill people if doing so will save a greater number of lives (otherwise, we’d arrest a lot of soldiers!). That’s what the dictator believes they are doing.

They’re wrong – but that seems to me a matter of consequences, not intent.

I’m just saying that sentencing should reflect what you chose to do, not what happened to happen.

Serious question: without employing telepathic judges, how? Yes, in a case such as this it’s implausible that there was any intent to kill. I mean in a scenario where there is less distinction between “actual harmless intent” and “a plausible cover story for a harmful intent”

Or are you saying that if you carry out action X, that can be taken as intent to cause all consequences above a certain threshold of likelihood of that action (whether they actually happen or not)? So that, for instance, acting to drive a car while drunk is taken to be (in part, and obviously not to the same degree as murder) intent to kill, and treated accordingly. (If so, I’d have described that as a more consequentialist approach than not)

30. Robin Levett

Correcting my #27:

The radio station had no idea how to keep its DJs under control

should read:

The radio station had no intention of trying to keep its DJs under control

31. Chaise Guevara

@ cim

“Murder is illegal. Intentionally killing people is not in itself illegal. In law – and in a lot of personal moral codes – it is legitimate to kill people if doing so will save a greater number of lives”

Is it? So if you kill one person because their organs will keep 10 people alive (with net benefit on quality-of-life-adjusted years etc), you wouldn’t go to jail?

“That’s what the dictator believes they are doing.

They’re wrong – but that seems to me a matter of consequences, not intent.”

Actually, that probably means we should let them off, morally speaking.

“Serious question: without employing telepathic judges, how?”

A lot of the time you wouldn’t be able to, but that’s not an argument against improving the system where possible. We can’t always prove guilty people are guilty, but that doesn’t mean we should give up on criminal justice.

“Or are you saying that if you carry out action X, that can be taken as intent to cause all consequences above a certain threshold of likelihood of that action (whether they actually happen or not)? So that, for instance, acting to drive a car while drunk is taken to be (in part, and obviously not to the same degree as murder) intent to kill, and treated accordingly. (If so, I’d have described that as a more consequentialist approach than not)”

No. I’m saying we should take it for what it is – choosing to carry out an action that puts others at a certain level of risk.

Chaise/32: Is it? So if you kill one person because their organs will keep 10 people alive (with net benefit on quality-of-life-adjusted years etc), you wouldn’t go to jail?
Well, okay, obviously “can be” rather than “is” … e.g one person is threatening to kill ten people, and the only reliable way to stop them is to use sufficient force that their death is extremely likely.

Actually, that probably means we should let them off, morally speaking.
Really? Okay, you’re way further over to the intent side of the spectrum than I thought. Fair enough.

33. Chaise Guevara

@ 32 cim

“Well, okay, obviously “can be” rather than “is” … e.g one person is threatening to kill ten people, and the only reliable way to stop them is to use sufficient force that their death is extremely likely.”

Exactly. There are legally permitted scenarios where this sort of thing is codified as ok, because it’s come up a lot. That seems insufficient.

The only time in my life I knowingly drove drunk was when I had good reason to believe a friend of mine might die if I didn’t. We didn’t have any other acceptable options: the ambulance guys said they wouldn’t break down the door, we had a key, and her condition was possibly about to kill her. I didn’t want to do it, but what else was I meant to do? If I’d been caught, I probably would have gotten a mitigated sentence, because rules apparently beat reality. Fuck that.

“Really? Okay, you’re way further over to the intent side of the spectrum than I thought. Fair enough.”

I won’t lie. That scenario of yours gave me pause for a very long time. Like hours. I didn’t like my response, at all. But I find it very hard to punish someone for trying to help people. I can see the social reason for having the rule, but it’s blatantly unjust to the individual.

Of course, a working system would take account of mental illness, as our system sorta does, and fix the problem by taking a third option.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    The interview with Australian DJs raises other questions too http://t.co/ylKHLJmV

  2. Martin Mulchrone

    The interview with Australian DJs raises other questions too http://t.co/ylKHLJmV

  3. Peter Ruddick

    Great post – q. I want answered is – what number did they call? MT @libcon Interview with Aus DJs raises other q.s http://t.co/pqPKxYzj

  4. Ken Rice

    The interview with Australian DJs raises other questions too | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/TBjTcUuC via @libcon

  5. Jason Brickley

    The interview with Australian DJs raises other questions too http://t.co/8CH7ImGE

  6. Giselle Green

    @politicshomeuk "Even Borat gets interviewees to sign waivers". Why Jacintha was let down by all. My blog @libcon: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw"

  7. Giselle Green

    "Even Borat gets interviewees to sign waivers". Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. My blog @libcon: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw

  8. Giselle Green

    @sunny_hundal Even Borat gets interviewee waivers. Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. Blog by @GiselleG7: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw"

  9. Sunny Hundal

    @sunny_hundal Even Borat gets interviewee waivers. Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. Blog by @GiselleG7: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw"

  10. tigercat1

    @sunny_hundal Even Borat gets interviewee waivers. Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. Blog by @GiselleG7: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw"

  11. Liberal Conspiracy

    "Even Borat gets interviewees to sign waivers". Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. My blog @libcon: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw

  12. Jane Pleb McCourt

    "Even Borat gets interviewees to sign waivers". Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. My blog @libcon: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw

  13. Sharon_Root

    "Even Borat gets interviewees to sign waivers". Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. My blog @libcon: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw

  14. czol

    "Even Borat gets interviewees to sign waivers". Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. My blog @libcon: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw

  15. Charlie Waters

    "Even Borat gets interviewees to sign waivers". Why Jacintha was let down by all involved. My blog @libcon: http://t.co/gJJk9ICw





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.