Police Shame Pranksters On YouTube 390
Barence writes "British police are shaming hoax 999 callers and time-wasters on YouTube in an effort to cut down on non-emergency calls. Video clips uploaded include a lady phoning police to ask what year the internet started, the dramatic tale of a man whose wife would only provide salmon sandwiches for lunch, and another worried soul who had lost her glasses and could not see properly to peel potatoes. Anyone else think the chance of YouTube fame is more likely to encourage copycats than educate people about the wrongs of hoax calling?"
Not a bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a bad idea, but as the summary theorised, it's just going to create a bunch of copycats.
What they should do is list how much each person has been charged for these hoax calls to hammer home that it just wont be tolerated.
It makes me sick when people waste the Emergency service's time like this and I genuinely believe they should all be harshly punished for it - people's lives are at stake, there's no excuse.
How about a dead mouse on a porch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except it wasn't a prank. The lady actually believed she could call the cops to get a dead mouse off her porch.
A friend of mine was the dispatcher who took the call, and he kept the recording.
What comes around goes around... (Score:3, Interesting)
TM Copyright Red Forman Inc.
Re:TRUFAX. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea (Score:1, Interesting)
Basically, Britain is fucked. Everything there is collapsing, including common sense.
Good Idea (Score:1, Interesting)
True story, I was in a gift shop a few years ago and a woman became irate that the shop was supposedly selling beanie babies at too high a price. She picked up the phone on the counter and dialed 911. Apparently the 911 operators were extra busy right then dealing with a large number of overpriced beanie baby complaints, and possibly with calls involving theft, rapes, and murders, and did not pick up immediately, so she hung up and stomped out. About 5 minutes later a police officer walks in asking if someone had called 911. When he was told the situation he got a really, really, disgusted look on his face and left.
Re:TRUFAX. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, because that's what the GP said. He said "Youtube will create the concept of prank calling". It's not like he made a valid point about it encouraging idiots to get some 'fame' for themselves, or possibly memeifying the worst calls and making them into regular prank call trolls. Way to miss the point.
Perhaps I did miss the point of that question, thanks for pointing that out. Without being a sarcastic asshat, what I mean is that I still don't think Youtube fame has or will have any appreciable effect on prank phone calls to 999. Prank calling has been around for ages, and there have always been a percentage of prank callers doing it to get "noticed" in some way, trying to be the next Jerky Boys or what have you. The medium has just shifted with the times; the folks who in past generations may have been swapping around bootleg prank call audiocassettes or putting scratchy early 1990s Realaudio clips on the web are now posting to Youtube. But I don't believe the fact that it's Youtube really means more people will be doing this who would have otherwise not done so, nor will the fact that the police put out their own ads asking people not to affect it. Those who are going to prank 999 have already made their choice without being swayed toward it by a well-meaning commercial.
Just for the record, I've always dug phone pranks, but I've never enjoyed ones involving emergency operators. They've got better things to do.
Re:Privacy? (Score:3, Interesting)
I see no reason why these calls should be placed on line. I would expect them to respect my privacy, but instead they post in online without my consent.
911 calls are the 'hue and cry' [wikipedia.org] of the modern age. I don't know the exact rules (I think they vary), but I believe that most consider them to be public records. Sure, names and addresses should be censored (if not already, I of course am exercising my rght not to RTFA), at least for legitimate criminal complaints. The time wasters on the other hand, I believe need to be publicly flogged, and have their phone number listed; Imagine the fun civic minded pranksters could have with these fools. However I'm willing to accept that that's over the top, and allow even the ignorant their anonymity, if they don't prosecute.
Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, I thought we were talking about Britain - you know, the country that helped the US to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq.
At all times, Britain seems to me to have had less support from its people for either the Afghanistan or Iraq wars than America had from its people.
The country with a long and ongoing history of international aggression. Falklands War ring a bell?
(Argentina started that one, I don't think you can blame Britain for defending a territory held for 160 years.)
Re:Not a bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
It makes me sick when people waste the Emergency service's time like this and I genuinely believe they should all be harshly punished for it - people's lives are at stake, there's no excuse.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think the difficulty lies in punishing the offenders without deterring people from reporting genuine emergencies, in the fear that they'll be punished if their problem isn't sufficiently severe.
I wouldn't classify any of the youtube clips as 'correct' emergency calls, but I can sympathise with at least a couple of them. One clip involves a woman whose house has been invaded by wasps, and I can imagine some people finding that sufficiently scary to panic and mistakenly classify it as an emergency. Another is superfically silly - an elderly woman who can't peel potatoes because she can't find her glasses - but, again, if you're old and confused and can't see well enough to eat, it could (in muddled sort of way) be a significant problem. And who do you call do deal with significant problems?
Again, I'm all for punishing people who take the piss, but I don't think it's a trivial line to draw.
Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Possibly due to mobiles dialing 999/112/911 in their pocket. It's required for phone makers to make those numbers dialable, even with keylock on.
Re:Not a bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
fly tipping
I (and probably most non-Brits) was rather puzzled by that phrase. All I could think of was cow tipping. LOL. So I looked it up:
Fly-tipping or dumping is a British term for illegally dumping waste somewhere other than an authorised landfill. [wikipedia.org]
And I came across this hysterical news item of a man threatened with prosecution under the Fly Tipping law:
threatened with prison or a £50,000 fine if he takes windblown sand back to the beach. [dailymail.co.uk]
Oh christ, some government official being just a wee bit anal-retentive with the law there.
And I love this part: Offenders can also have their vehicle - in this case a wheelbarrow - confiscated.
I can just see some five-year-old having their tricycle confiscated for playing with a plastic pail of sand and pouring it on the beach. Damn Fly Tippers.
-
Re:How about a dead mouse on a porch? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd humbly suggest that removing the phone from the house of an elderly, helpless, senile person is probably not a complete solution.
Oh, there are so many ways that I could answer that.
Let's try the cruel evil answer first. Sure let's make 78 (or what ever the current average life expectancy age) be the cut off date for all government services. The short answer is that according to the numbers you ought to be dead by now. It's on cost effective for us to pay much to keep you alive. Withholding government service, just encourages you to pass on sooner so your resources can be used by others.
You can change 78 to anything or use whatever metric you want to select out a minority or elite that you want reduced services for over here and increased services over there for. Actually, I think that the real dividing line is the friends/family test. If you are 78 and don't have any connects with others, then no one will care if you die. If you are 78 and have a huge family and tons of friends/large church/political group/or former teacher, then lots of people will care if you die off so resources will become available to extend your life.
Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Please read up on the case and don't assume you know anything about it other than what McDonalds PR wants you to know. The reason the coffee was kept that hot was because it kept longer in the pot without turning bitter. And the material was removed from the cups, making them thinner and unable to hold their contents safely without the lid on. The woman ordered coffee from the drive through and then proceeded to do what almost everyone in that situation does: she held the coffee between her legs and removed the top to put in the cream and sugar. The cup split in half the moment she took the lid off, spilling 185 degree coffee straight onto her crotch.
Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
From the same page:
Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.
And:
The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed âoebetween 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91â"96 ÂC] for optimal extractionâ and consumed âoeimmediatelyâ. If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be âoemaintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.â
And:
The opinion [in another coffee-burn case] noted that hot coffee (179 ÂF (82 ÂC) in this case) is not âoeunreasonably dangerous.â
So yeah, apparently it *is* supposed to be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns requiring 2 years of treatment and skin grafting, and that's not unreasonable.
The plain truth of the matter is this woman had a very unfortunate accident. The accident could have easily happened with her own cup of coffee brewed at home, but this just happened to be at McDonald's. Why does that entitle her to millions of dollars in awards? (Yes I'm aware they were reduced, but that's what the jury wanted to give her.)
Re:Nothing works (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, we all know everyone prefers to watch some stupid game on tv than actually learn something...
Around here - Portugal - they've decided that the right to life is always more important than any other, including private property. Meaning? I can go rob someones place and he can't shoot me unless I threaten his life... God, my country sucks...
Re:Bloody Brilliant Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said that, in many cases, it is a lot easier to simply roll over, and unfortunately, that seems to be the choice most people make anymore.
Won't work. People have no shame anymore (Score:3, Interesting)
That's simply what it can be sumed up as. People don't give a fuck what you think about them. Yeah, I'm a moron, I'm stupid and I act like it, but I'm rich and famous, so I win. The Homer Simpson principle.
Could you imagine something like American Idol taking off, say, 30 years ago? People would've been scared to make a fool out of themselves. At the very least, the people trying their hand there would have been a lot lower and only people who could credibly or at least intelligibly sing would try. Ok, since people have no shame, at least the auditions there provide some entertainment (yes, one of my guilty pleasures is to enjoy it when people make a complete tool out of themselves).
How about lawsuits where the plaintiff acted quite obviously in such a stupid way that yes, there was no warning label because nobody thought anyone could be so utterly and completely stupid and still manage to live to the age of 18? 30 years ago, people would have accepted the damage for their own stupidity than the shame that they were actually SO stupid. But, like I said, no shame anymore, and there's money in it.
Fuck, offer people 10 bucks to run down naked some street and they do it! Been proven time and again by some TV shows.
Still, I do consider those movies a good thing, because there are still people who have a sense of decency and don't want to bother emergency lines with minor sicknesses, who then prompty die because what they felt as minor turned out to be major. Showing such movies to them would probably tell them that they should call 999 (or 911, or whatever your number may be) when they feel a little chest pain instead of just lying down and hoping it goes away. When there are so many people calling with utter BULLSHIT, it's by far not uncalled for to dial emergency services for a "little", but real, problem. That's what they were invented for.