Levithian

Do you not understand that there is NO line drawn in the sand? Armed forces, police, fire, ambo, doctors, nurses, there is no line drawn that says you may experience terrible things in the course of your duties so you are not afforded all the entitlements and coverage of, say, an employee that works a register at Aldi. That's exactly what happens. It's literally taken years for it to get this far, previously these people suffered in silence, especially after being discharged and left to their own devices. It's still a battle these people are fighting, to encourage those suffering to come forward before doing something drastic. How is this news to you? This means that if you suffer a mental episode or breakdown and can no longer return to your position on the police force, you are entitled to compensation just like if you were shot or stabbed. You have suffered an injury in the course of your duty. Do you not understand that? We are all covered under the same umbrella. Being called a bad name and seeking compensation because your declared medically unfit to return to duty are two VASTLY different things. That's what medical professionals are for, they not only counsel but help gauge the seriousness of their injury in an effort to return them to work. That's not always possible and opens employees up to permanent disability or incapability payments too. Take these 3 people for instance. It's a given that all would have been attending some form of counselling after the accident, even as simply a form of debriefing and not because you were having issues dealing with what you had seen. How do you know what has happened when they attempted to, or did actually return to work? They all have different times when they ended their employment with the company, so it may indicate they were impacted differently or responded differently when or if they went back to work. Take note, you can still be employed but not actually working while you are going through counseling. The telling factor that all people are still suffering is that they are still actively seeking counselling. They are entitled to compensation for what they have been through, including the potential for loss of income or being unable to return to work permanently. As the court proceedings are showing, there is proof that dreamworld have been negligent in their duties to provide a safe workplace which has opened them up to civil action from staff. It is a mandatory requirement of the work health and safety act. They failed virtually every key point of the act and they should be held accountable as far as the law extends. That includes by their employees who feel they have been wronged by the company.

Thats not the issue i have, or what im frustrated with. People take on these roles knowing for well they may experience something so graphic that would make the rest of us crawl up into the foetal position and shutdown completely. So when they cant; when all the counselling, all the support and all the medication that the medical profession can utilise is not enough to repair your mental health so that you'll again, turn up to your shift again, they are entitled to all the support offered to every single employee in the country. High impact or stressful workplaces dont absolve people of being able to claim compensation simply because they took on the job; these workplaces simply create more statistics and injure more people. Its one of the greatest rights fought for in the history of workers entitlements ever. Employee worth was considered less than the components or products they were producing. You have the industrial revolution to thank for being provided with a safe working environment and compensation for injury suffered in the course of your duties. So, when you turn around and say they arent entitled to what is now fundamentally some of the most basic rights of all employees, simply because they choose to turn up to work, then you are doing them a GREAT disservice, essentially discarding them in the process and reducing them to second rate employees. They take on the risk knowing the dangers with the simple notion they think they can offer help to those who are helpless. They dont ask to be held to a higher standard or be celebrated, they just go about their jobs like the rest of us. The thing is, by their actions they arent like the rest of us at all. Given the choice, for the wages they earn in the environments they operate in, the majority of us would see alternate employment. Not being able to deal with the trauma, the suffering or even just the long hours and stress. So when they fall down and need support, why shouldnt they be entitled to everything within the full extent of the law exactly like we are? Its insultive, dismissive and even just plain mean to talk down these people with the sentiment its their job. We should be thanking them for their support and a career spent putting the greater good ahead of their own. Not cutting them down when they need it the most.

Ill write a post as big as i want. If people dont read it, their choice. If people post something i already mentioned, ill call them on it. In saying that, im not directing it specifically at the poster here, i went back to try and add that in to clarify but it said i couldnt edit it. Im talking about plenty of people coming out of the woodwork and commenting about if these people deserve it. Not this one specific post. Its not an overreaction when people are saying things like they are just seeking money, looking for an easy score, etc and using that same sentiment "its part of their job" as the reasoning. Look through the news stories and look at these complete arsehats coming out with vile posts like this. My partner is an rn and has come home from a shift so drained and mentally ruined by what happened at work that day that im amazed she even made it home without killing someone. Completely shut off from the outside world, she just had a quick shower and climbed into bed. Thats what id consider a common occurence. Worse are the few times she has called from work so upset and doesnt want to be alone let alone feel up to driving home. She somehow manages to deal with it, rarely needing a personal day, and makes it in for her next shift, mostly without a hint of what happened the day before. So, is it an overreaction to have the view that people are less entitled, or not entitled at all to seek damages from an employer who completely and utterly let them down, just because they are responders? But if you want to talk about the expectations, positions at a theme park would generally consist of first aid and making safe before ambulance officers can arrive. Is there a thought of death? Yes, in as much as you are the first medical person on scene. But it would be outside the norm when compared to other medical positions dealing with severe trauma daily. It would be so far down the list of occurences they would have rushed to the scene without even thinking they needed to prepare for what they witnessed. Does that place them on the same level of expectation? Because everything these days is graded or compared to what is expected as normal duties as part of their position. Would you say it's normal duties to expect them to go through something so graphic it cannot be made public in a court of law? That wouldnt have been a normal, daily thought that goes through your mind when called upon at the park. Without being too blunt, even the worst call for river rapids would have had drowing as an expectation of the worst, not the horrific trauma the victims experienced. So the scene is made even more confronting because you cant/arent prepared for it, because its not even thought of as a possible incident. Thats very evident in their testimony and is not something even trained, experienced, medical personel may have experienced before. Even without the criminal negligence hanging over the situation, these people would probably have been entitled to compensation for what they have witnessed and experienced, and the impact it has had on their lives, both work and personal. Know what insurance companies do in issues of negligence? They pass the buck and youre left to fight for your rights yourself. Too long? Heres the short(er) version No training given creates psychopaths with a lack of feeling or association for those around them. You can suffer a traumatic episode or breakdown in the course of your duties as a medical professional, in reaction to something you have witnessed or seen while working in this capacity. Your employer is legally required to maintain a safe working environment that does not expose you to additional or uncontrolled risk. Your entitlements at work are the same as everybody else and if you are injured, you are entitled to seek damages either personally or through the workcover system, which ever applies. Its not expected that youll suffer a breakdown or mental illness and not be able to return to your job or any further work because you are a medical professional. This does not absolve you of any compensation you should receive. Some people are utterly heartless and give no thought for the realities of what they are saying. Good luck to all staff still dealing with the tragedy. Seek help and advice or counselling if you need it, ignore the terrible people saying you shouldnt deserve it or youre just money hungry/money seeking. Fight for your dues and entitlements and hopefully begin to move on with your lives.

Its the start of the process and they usually end up in payouts before very messy, very public court cases. Anyway, fuck all that, why do people automatically assume that medical personel have training that protects them from shocking scenes of injury and death? They have support services in place to counsel them through incidents and have some testing to gauge their state of health, but its not like they are brainwashed, mindless robots and many are still left to suffer in silence while ptsd sneaks up on them and ruins their careers (and sometimes their lives). "Dealing with it" is an unnatural coping mechanism developed in response to trauma. Its actually a mental health issue that people are willing to suffer because of the greater good, not becaused they have training to switch it all off. They are literally willing to suffer damage to their health because they feel they can help others in greater need. Everybody needs to remember that. People are completely heartless when they say things like they are paramedics, nurses or doctors, they should be used to it. Its the same as you saying they are heartless, uncaring machines who are completely unaffected by their work. Nobody knows what someone has or hasnt seen, or just how full the bottle is with all the years or horrible incidents building up before a mental break occurs. Likewise, nobody knows exactly how any of us will respond to any emergency situation until it occurs. It could only take one incident to end your career and you do them a GREAT disservice to make suggestions like its expected of them, completely voiding people of the natural grieving process. So let me make this clear. Your employer has a duty of care to you. Forget the customers or guests, it starts with employees and they are often the first overlooked. Their duty of care is to maintain a safe working environment and not place any employee in a situation of risk that impacts on their health and welbeing. That is law. No matter your position, all the way up the chain to the most dangerous jobs you can think of. Risk management has been performed and safety mechanisms are implemented to make the job safe as possible. So when an employer has been shown to have failed in their duty of care, no matter what is expected of you job title, they are entirely responsible for all outcomes and the care of their employees. What they saw permanently impacted these employees so severely they felt they could no longer work for or maintain their position at dreamworld. Hell, some may not ever return to this type of work again, and dreamworld are entirely responsible for placing them in this position and for what they had to experience. People need to remember they are victims of this tragedy too, not just the poor people who lost their lives. That is the difference between an accident and negligence. If it was all a freak accident and the park had delivered on all their responsibilities, these people would have still experienced the same shocking scenes and the outcomes would have likely been the same, but work cover would have kicked in and covered them to the length of their policies. People forget work cover is NOT medical coverage, it is an insurance company who will fight for every dollar they have to give out. Coverage ends, its never for the rest of your life and they dont make a habit out of paying out policies in cases of gross negligence. Someone is going to end up sued and the employees sometimes say the whole court process was so terrible, often invasive and incredibly drawn out they probably wouldnt go through it if they could turn back time. This from the service many people seem to think is there, working in your best interests to cover you against serious injury and look after you for the rest of your life should something happen. Dreamworld failed and all their employees are entitled to everything they can reasonably prove in court. End of story.

Yeah. Never in the history of mankind has something been closed for any issue at all with safety. And in this case, safety could mean not having the staff levels to complete major maintenance works on time so some things are going to have to remain closed until it can be completed as their annuals are up and nobody would dare run anything past its annual inspection anymore.

By diverting foot traffic through openings only wide enough for one person at a time? Back of house issues aside, there is literally nothing in the ricks courtyard that would draw people to it in large enough amounts to need more access. Deliveries for ricks would be delivered to ricks, you know, the back where the staff actually are? So why do you need wide access? You could probably walk through legends dining room right from the back too. Theres a giant pair of gates right near the kids wb arch way that park vehicles like the batmobile and scooby van often enter or exit from, so im not really seeing how anything else improves access?

People have literally been passing out in queue lines and ride buildings, yet theres been no action on summer proofing them. Lucky if you have a working fan or something to hide from direct sunlight, so i cant see an indoor, sealed/air conditioned kids area being high on the list of stuff likely to happen. The kids area should stay for kids. Its targeted at young kids though, so maybe it needs an update to new rides for that same demographic, say, maybe up to 8 years old max. Then maybe add a couple other rides somewhere else in the park for older kids and tweeners who arent ready for coasters and thrill rides? Everyone saying cut and paste from a zamperla catalogue, thats pretty much what was done, just 20 years ago. The area was/is filled with zamperla rides. It always seemed weird to me that you have all these rides named after characters, most of which you never see. If they were looking for more, how about the statues you have in this part of the park make a real appearance too.

Isnt the point of the stations is they dont need to be manned? How do you save money by closing them? Weve had this discussion about soft drinks and health before. If you single them out as a problem you are a hypocrit if you dont also demand fruit juices, milks and iced teas removed from sale too as they frequently exceed the calories of soft drink and often contain vastly more sugar.

The front castle is looking great. Im not really that interested in an escape door.

I love it when things look all fresh and vibrant/full of contrast.

Half truths used as headlines to make everything seem more sinister even though the accident and the findings at the inquest answer those questions and fill in the blanks instead of cherry picking. They had an opportunity to tell a story from the other family. A genuine story without having to beat things up because the tragedy only needs good, honest reporting to drive home the loss. Instead it looks like they resort to usual tabloid journalism.

Aside from any areas that need inspection due to load/fatigue, because they are attached to the reduction gearbox which would probably be inspected and maybe have the bolts replaced. So the arms might need to come off.

Maybe its for doomsday if they dont want to close the whole area. Those arms probably have to come off and they are pretty large to house inside a building at the same time..

It cant be too indepth when you still have 2 more parts of the inquest to follow. Never know what is to come or what recommendations are to be made, so nobody with an ounce of credibility is going to comment in absolutes. It did a good job to highlight just how absolutely crushing it has been for Mathew Low though. Sometimes its kind of easy to put a name to a tragedy and kind of move on. Like, you acknowledge it but its not actually giving the situation enough due until you see the person again. The guy looked completely destroyed. He hasnt dealt with her death at all, it was even more telling when he said the park was respecting his requests to be left alone when answering the question about offers of support. It was sad because it was obvious he was trying to deal with it in his own way by pushing it to one side, but theres so much more to come once the inquest wraps up. If anyone wants to put a face to this tragedy, you can see how it has literally ruined his life. Its still so raw. You want to only offer your condolences again and hope that he has someone he can lean on, rather than trying to go it all alone.

It might not be for scooby, but i dont think there is as much space as thought up the back. There are water tanks and some plant building permanently in that space as it is.The fencing put up for previous fright nights that follows the access road is still there too. That means the whole "hill" behind scooby is fenced off right to the access road behind the show stage. I imagine if you drew a line from the top of this road across show stage, that would form the building site for scooby. No chance of anyone going into a build site without a white card, so you might as well say its a complete exclusion zone to everyone, even staff. The gravel area in front of the sheds was used for queue lines for the mazes last fright nights. The road was permanently fenced on both sides and you walked up from the arkham courtyard to the gravel area, so i imagine itll see similar use this year.

I imagine it happens more frequently than thought, stopping out of position. The report didnt say who dispatched the train with the harnesses up though did it? It could have been maintenance staff that caused the safety breach. I dont think so much control is suddenly surrended when maintenance staff is running the ride/doing their checks. I imagine its more like running ride during the day so all the safety blocks are still working. It probably just gives you the ability to override certain systems so you can function test them and make sure they are working/safe too. Aside from a complete failure of the restraint, im pretty sure they are designed that if they are basically off, they are locked and cant be moved. So they probably register in the down position, but maybe they wont latch or lock the secondary restraint too. So you wouldnt really bypass a switch or sensor, it would be more like turning off the restraint so its not released when it returns to the station, but everything would still be monitoring things i reckon.

Probably nowhere to put shipping containers AND utilise the area for fright nights, especially considering both the construction area and the maze area would be well fenced off, which would make things difficult. So there might not be as much space available as you think.

You can probably bypass the restraint/safety/block checks and launch the train with a key turn. Probably meant for when the train stops out of position in the station, but is still in contact with the collector rail so everything still has power. So you can bypass the usual checks and dispatch it to return it to the correct position, rather than having to drag it.

Because he is not the GM of seaworld, he has replaced bob white as the COO of village theme parks.

Looking at the site plan, the important parts are missing from the photo, because I can't see where it says they are demolishing the entire facade. The colour of the photo is washed out and is missing the key, but the focus seems to be the wording in the notes on the right hand side that says to only demolish areas marked in red colour? The blocked out section that makes up the majority of the cinema facade is running along outside, its just an exclusion zone to dump, package and store possible asbestos contaminated material before its removed from site, it doesn't say it's being demolished. See the difference between it and the boost juice exclusions? The boost juice one is a complete, no access, demolition zone that appears to fall within or has access to from within the cinema building. The facade is still there on the plans. The original entry is down for demolition, 2.7m wide to a height of 4m which sounds simply like improving access. Nothing actually says to remove the facade of the building, only that the highlighted columns are being removed. These, along with piers for the banked seating are marked red. There's nothing about the awning above once the columns have been removed. It could possibly be free standing and/or have replacement columns instore, so removing them doesn't mean its going either, which would normally be on the site plan too. Pretty much the only facade I can see that is specifically being torn down is the one between the box office and the coffee shop. The plans call for 5m length of existing facade at 6m height. It's going to become the site access in and out of the entire construction area for the build, but buildings each side look untouched. It reads like the entry/foyer at street level is remaining, while the cinema building itself is gutted from within to remove the banked seating and the piers supporting it as the building basically just appears to be a big free standing shed with no internal support columns. Im guessing from it's shape, and the external steel supports that are noted, its either block or tilt panel concrete construction, so you could rip pretty much everything out of it without having to touch the roof/ceiling. Be interesting to see the rest of the plan for the site profile, a 5m site access would be big enough to take vehicles through without needing site access from the rear. You could be taking the majority out into big skip bins to be removed from site when the park is closed, so you wouldn't need trucks to come and go during the day. It could explain the exclusion zone outside.

You reach a point with old buildings that just stripping out plasterboard or paneled interior is enough to disturb asbestos containing dust within the wall and roof cavities and turn the place into a hazardous work zone without even touching the sheeting itself.

Or introduce licences so they can make people personally liable if they dont do their job properly. This could honestly end up a disaster full of red tape.

Anyone who thinks everything will be stripped bare and repainted has rocks in their head too. Only critical or highly stressed components are tested like that. Doesnt matter if its welded, cast, pressed or folded, if its not under significant load or its not a critical component, theres no point to give it more than a casual glance. You'd bankrupt the industry if you change that. It would be akin to having your house restumped or your roof trusses replaced as preventative maintenance. The owners wouldnt be able to afford ownership.

"Major inspections every 10 years..." just shows how out of touch the government actually is with reality when they mention "big theme parks" in the same paragraph. How about instead of trying to talk tough, how about they come out with findings of their inspections and maybe throw some support behind anything that might be seen as a high standard already existing? You know, inject some confidence into those that contribute a big part of their multi billion dollar tourist industry in qld.

Coomera is literally one of the fastest growing areas in queensland. The whole foxwell road is exploding and coomera is merging into pimpama and into jacobs well, etc, etc. The new westfield is not the single reason for the intercharge built over the highway to supply foxwell road, the housing estates are too. Both sides of the highway, back down reserve road into upper coomera and down into stapylton and ormeau. Both sides of the road are going gang busters for housing. If the park was turned into housing tomorrow, it wont take years to sell, itll be snapped up inside the first year. 200 acres is NOT that big an area to physically develop. For me, if it went that way, with westfield being so close and highway access being excellent, I could see some high density going in with a bit of a precinct, possibly lake/canal style waterfront with prestige blocks. Kinda a bit like what happened in carrara.