Jamberoo investigates harassment of female staff at Islamic men-only day

[Jamberoo Fan]

From The Illawarra Mercury:

Quote

Exclusive

Main picture shows the Jamberoo water park's Octo Racer and Stinger rides. Insets: the Brothers Day Out flyer on Facebook, the park entrance closed on Tuesday.

 

By Ben Langford

 

Updated February 7 2024 - 5:47pm, first published 4:14pm

 

Both the Jamberoo Action Park and Islamic group Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah (ASWJ) are investigating harassment of female staff, including vile slurs being used, at the men-only Brothers Day Out held at the water park on Monday.

 

The ASWJ, a national Sunni Muslim group which has representation in Wollongong, had booked out the entire park for its "strictly brothers only" event, which was attended by an estimated 800 men and boys.

 

On the day, the Mercury has been told female staff went home distressed at the treatment they received, after being told "you shouldn't be here" and being subjected to intimidation and degrading treatment. This included being called "bitch" and "slut" by a group of the park visitors, the Mercury has been told.

 

Park management said it had a report of "derogatory and degrading treatment" of one staff member and would investigate further if any more complaints came to light.

 

A source with knowledge of the situation said he knew more than one staff member was subjected to this.

 

"Whether there were complaints made or not I don't know, but there were multiple girls affected on the day," he said.

 

"Young blokes were affected too, because they were sticking up for the girls."

 

Staff had been directed to employee counselling services if they needed them.

 

The ASWJ said it was investigating, and was committed to addressing the matter.

 

"While incidents involving a small minority can occur in large gatherings, we want to assure you that we have strict agreements with park officials to promptly address any misconduct and enforce park rules," a spokesman said.

 

The Mercury received complaints about discrimination against female staff who had been directed to wear long sleeves and tights under their shorts - after an initial request that there be no women working there at all on the day.

 

Park management said all staff, male and female, wore tights and long sleeves for this booking, the fourth by this group.

 

"As the day drew to a close it [was] reported to us of an instance whereby a team member was spoken to in a derogatory and demeaning manner," a Jamberoo Action Park spokesman said.

 

"In all cases, we take the safety and wellbeing of our team extremely seriously, and are concerned that such behaviour has been displayed.

 

"We have contacted team members today to make sure we are fully aware of instances and concerns that arose yesterday, and have offered the support of Jamberoo Action Park and our Employee Assistance Program providers in the meantime.

 

"As a result of any forthcoming information and investigation, we will work together with the group organiser to ensure future access is prohibited."

 

Jamberoo staff members had to cover up for the day, wearing long-sleeve shirts and long tights under their shorts, with temperatures above 29 degrees amid 75 per cent humidity.

 

The Mercury understands ASWJ had asked for no female staff to be working on the day, but park management declined and instead directed staff to cover up in order to cater for religious sensitives.

 

The ASWJ invitation to members advised that "this is a Mens and Boys only event" and that "Awrah needs to be covered so bring appropriate swimming attire". (Awrah refers to intimate parts of the body, over which different Muslim groups have varying definitions).

 

Police said no complaints had been made to them.

 

The source with knowledge of the situation said the request for no women "should have been a red flag" from the start. But a Jamberoo Action Park spokesman said it adopted the dress code to be "inclusive".

 

It was the group's fourth annual booking.

 

"Jamberoo Action Park is an inclusive operation and we do our best to accommodate for group individual groups needs were appropriate," a park spokesman said.

 

"It has been the case while this booking has been in place, that all attractions team members, male and female, have worn long sleeve attire."

 

The Mercury sought comment from the ASWJ in Wollongong and head office in Melbourne.

 

"ASWJ acknowledges your concerns and takes them seriously," a spokesman said.

 

"We are currently investigating the complaints made against our patrons at Jamberoo Recreation Park.

 

"Over the past four years, we have successfully collaborated with park management to ensure a positive experience for all attendees.

 

"While incidents involving a small minority can occur in large gatherings, we want to assure you that we have strict agreements with park officials to promptly address any misconduct and enforce park rules."

 

The ASWJ has had its share of controversies, particularly in relation to radical preacher Sheikh Feiz Muhammad, whose video lectures include one titled "Don't Let the Filthy Western Culture Influence You".

 

In 2005 he made international headlines after giving a speech in Bankstown where he said women who were raped had themselves to blame for exposing their skin.

 

"A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world ..." the Sun-Herald reported at the time.

 

"Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature."

 

He compared a woman dressed in such a way to a sheep, asking "Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No . . . It would be devoured. It's the same situation here. You're putting this precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves. What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity."

 

Sheikh Feiz Muhammad spoke at the ASWJ annual conference in late January.

 

ASWJ said the dress code for staff was part of its productive "collaboration" with Jamberoo.

 

"Additionally, in our initial discussions with Jamberoo management, efforts were made to accommodate our guidelines for dress, reflecting the collaborative nature of our partnership," the AWSJ spokesman said.

 

"We are committed to addressing this matter thoroughly and maintaining a respectful and enjoyable environment."

 

There were also a number of visitors kicked out of the park for misbehaving on the rides.

 

"On this day, there were concerns raised about some guests inability to follow safety directions and procedures of the rides and attractions," the Jamberoo spokesman said.

 

"This resulted in a handful of guests being asked to leave the facility, which is standard practice if this is identified on any operational day. This was addressed with the group organisers which were extremely receptive and apologetic, and made efforts to communicate with their members about expectations for the remainder of the day."

 

The Mercury has been in contact with multiple people who were aware of the incidents on the day but were reluctant to speak publicly.

 

One source said there were several parents of staff members at the water park on Tuesday seeking explanation.

 

The park was closed; it reopens on Thursday.

 

[Tricoart]

Maybe, just maybe, a men-only event isn’t a great idea? Seems pretty obvious to me that that’d lead to a big increase in workplace harassment. Free counselling is step one, but the workers affected should at least get a hefty settlement from Jamberoo &/or ASWJ, and know that the event will by no means be held again, as well as stricter rules against similar behaviour in general (banned from the park should be the minimum).

11 hours ago, Jamberoo Fan said:

"Would you put this sheep that you adore in the middle of hungry wolves? No . . . It would be devoured. It's the same situation here. You're putting this precious girl in front of lustful, satanic eyes of hungry wolves. What is the consequence? Catastrophic devastation, sexual harassment, perversion, promiscuity."

Oh, especially so when the organisation running it openly spouts [word I hesitate to say here] rhetoric like this. That isn’t even a ‘warning sign’, that’s a bright red warning barrier made of solid concrete.

Edited February 7 by Tricoart

[TomiJ]

These actions are disgusting, however money talks and the group will probably be back next year. Hopefully without the behaviour. 

[Brad2912]

I love that this country is multicultural - but you don’t get to dictate what others do and wear to suit your ideology - regardless of what it is. Assimilate or leave.

 

park management clearly choosing $$ over welfare of staff 

[TBoy]

The group have the right to have a boys/men only event, but Jamberoo did have the right to staff women that day, and the people in that group shouldn't be harassing them, just because you believe in Islam doesn't grant you that right to degrade women. This is Australia: we allow women to work; if you don't like women in the workforce then too bad. 

[Baconjack]

I’m genuinely surprised management even allowed this to happen in the first place - having only blokes at a theme park is an invitation for female staff to get harassed.

[rappa]

Yeah what moronic sales staff member ever thought booking this event was REMOTELY a good idea. 
Just wow

[TBoy]

25 minutes ago, rappa said:

Yeah what moronic sales staff member ever thought booking this event was REMOTELY a good idea. 
Just wow

One word: money

[wikiverse]

I might be seeing this differently to others, but...

It is perfectly acceptable (and psychologically necessary in many cases) for single-sex events and single-sex venues to exist, but the staffing in those venues and events should be in alignment.  Usually when community or religious groups are hosting single-sex events it's so that people can connect and relax and talk about gender specific things (like mental health or relationship issues) without having to moderate what they say lest it offend, or attract judgement from, the opposite sex.  Sometimes it's just about forming the connections and the bonds so that those important conversations can happen later.

This doesn't mean people have an excuse to harass others, but this is not just isolated to men or Muslims.  I've seen the inverse of this multiple times in my life where male staff are harassed at women-only events.  In most cases sexually harassed, including physically.  I've seen women (often unattractive) groping the genitals of young male staff who are just trying to do their job - sometimes alcohol was involved, but not always. 

I've also seen men get abused by women from Vulcana Women's Circus because Powerhouse (before Vulcana moved) allowed a production company to rent the space for a day to film some scenes for a documentary - on a day when no circus activities were actually scheduled. Vulcana did not own the space, they were just renting it like anyone else to provide a womens-only circus. The women were verbally aggressive to the men, but also intentionally made a lot of noise while they were filming to ruin their takes (which ironically led to them being there longer).

The nature of exclusive events gives people a sense of entitlement and they often behave in ways that reflect this.  They are attending a single-sex event or venue and have fairly reasonable expectations around it being single-sex.  I don't think having a men's-only event is an issue, nor do I think it would be a problem for the women in the same community to book the park for a women's-only event.  But I do think that venue has a responsibility to align their customer facing staff to the nature of the event they've agreed to host - not just for the benefit of staff, but also for the customers whose expectations are for it to be single sex. 

For example, I wouldn't expect to see male staff at an female only gym, and I would expect some women to behave disrespectfully or even aggressively toward a male staff member.  It doesn't make their behaviour ok, but the gym gave the customer expectations of being a single-sex venue and then didn't meet those expectations.  People are going to get frustrated or, at the very least, be disappointed.

To generalise this and remove the single-sex/religious component to this story, If a venue were hosting an award ceremony for people with disabilities and then installed a stage that was only accessible via stairs, you would expect people to become angry at the staff/venue for not considering the nature of the event and needs or expectations of the attendees.

There is room in society for men and women to have their own spaces, even temporarily at events like these.  I may be alone in this opinion, but I don't believe the solution is to say 'don't host events like this', I think the solution is for venues to be a little more thoughtful about the events they host - if they're providing staff they're not just a venue, they're also a service provider and need to provide a service that meets the expectation of the customer. The event organisers also need to be more explicit about the nature of the event and what staff would be appropriate on that day to align with the expectations they have raised in the people they've invited.

Edited February 9 by wikiverse

[Brad2912]

The park told the event organisers that having only male staff would not be logistically possible. 
 

At that junction the event organiser needed to make a decision - move the event to a location that could meet their single sex requirement OR push ahead with the event and instruct their members/attendees of the situation and remind them of their obligation as citizens/residents/visitors to this great country that sexism, abuse and misogyny isn’t acceptable and won’t be tolerated. 
 

the event organisers failed in their duty, and the park will fail in their duty of care to employees if they allow the group to book in again. 

[rappa]

This is hardly the same as having a stage the people attending an event can't access...

It's pretty simple really:

Women have women only events to get away from having to deal with men behaving poorly.

Men have men only events to get away with behaving poorly.

[REGIE]

Management should have thought it through better.  It's just disappointing that people have to be stupid. Especially when in large crowds of the same gender.  But it's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before...  what did the park think would happen? If they didn't have enough male staff they should've called it off. 

Edited February 9 by REGIE

[STRAWS]

15 hours ago, REGIE said:

Management should have thought it through better.  It's just disappointing that people have to be stupid. Especially when in large crowds of the same gender.  But it's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before...  what did the park think would happen? If they didn't have enough male staff they should've called it off. 

I agree. 

Also, even if an assault didn't happen wouldn't the park get bad pr from the men only event. Sure they would have charged a lot for it to happen but in the long run is it worth it.

My point being people will cancel you or your business over the tiniest things nowadays even some ridiculous stupid things.  

Edited February 10 by STRAWS

[Naazon]

On 10/02/2024 at 12:09 PM, STRAWS said:

I agree. 

Also, even if an assault didn't happen wouldn't the park get bad pr from the men only event. Sure they would have charged a lot for it to happen but in the long run is it worth it.

My point being people will cancel you or your business over the tiniest things nowadays even some ridiculous stupid things.  

Better cancel all those male only schools...

[STRAWS]

1 hour ago, Naazon said:

Better cancel all those male only schools...

I wont be surprised if that happens one day lol.

[TomiJ]

7 hours ago, Naazon said:

Better cancel all those male only schools...

NSW is already pushing for same sex schools to become coed:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-25/nsw-government-change-single-sex-schools-co-education-/103145874?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web

[Brad2912]

1 hour ago, TomiJ said:

NSW is already pushing for same sex schools to become coed:

Not specifically true. They are pushing to ensure that within public school catchment boundaries that there is at least one co-ed option available to parents, as currently there is a number of catchments where the only option is single-sex schools. I think thats a good thing. 

There will always be single-sex private schools, and a bunch of single-sex public schools too - its all about having choice for parents for what environment they think will best suit their child

[djmcbell]

You can argue that there is a need for male-only and female-only events and venues. I'm not keen on the idea, but that's the world we live in. Ideally it should all be equal, everyone can go anywhere they like etc. I act no different around women than I do men.

And yes, perhaps there shouldn't be female workers at a male-only event. That should have been the park's responsibility to organise.

However, none of that excuses the behaviour of anyone who abused or harassed anyone at this - or any - event. So people are a different gender - get over it.

[Jamberoo Fan]

From The Sydney Morning Herald (edited down to include new news only):

Quote

Jessica McSweeney and Clare Sibthorpe
February 8, 2024 — 4.12pm

In a statement, a Jamberoo spokesperson said the group was “generally well-behaved and it was a small group of boys who were disrespectful”.

“This can happen with other groups where we experience respectful behaviour from most of the group and a few bad apples behave inappropriately.”

The spokesperson said staff were encouraged to discuss their experiences and feelings with management – including those regarding disrespectful language – and these conversations were held in strict confidence and followed up in the most appropriate way.

Asked about the clothing requirements of staff, they added that when private events are held on days the park is closed to the public, as it is on Monday to Thursday at this time of year, “bookings may have their own operational requirements, from ticketing to catering of certain kinds”.

All staff were asked to wear tights and long sleeves under their usual uniforms. INSTAGRAM

“All staff members wishing to be rostered for these days are briefed well in advance and are familiar with operational requirements,” they said.

“For the private booking this Monday, all ride and attraction operators confirmed for roster were required to wear sun-safe clothing, regardless of sex, as has been the case in previous bookings. This clothing was helpfully provided by the booking manager.”

Asked if any action was taken against the boys behaving inappropriately, the spokesperson said Jamberoo Action Park “will exclude from future visits any guests deemed to exhibit behaviour outside park policy, such as anti-social or inappropriate language or other behaviours”.

“Further discussions with the group co-ordinators will be ongoing. We have a four-year relationship which we value and, like all relationships, we will work with them to continue to improve,” the spokesperson said.

About 800 people attended the park for the event. INSTAGRAM

“All guests were subject to the same safety and conduct guidelines as on a regular operational day, which may include removal from park or other correctional actions where required.”

Jamberoo management said it is continuing discussions with ASWJ. INSTAGRAM

 

Edited February 13 by Jamberoo Fan

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

its an annual event in it's fourth year and by all accounts this was the first with problems. A single reported case of harassment, with several other alleged to be unreported. 

Everyone saying the park just doing it for money, but they're damned if they do or don't. If they'd refused the booking, the illawarra mercury would have run a story about how Jamberoo discriminates against muslims. Unwinnable in the media...

But let's pare it back a bit -

• It was a non-opening day. Private hire.
• Staff were, according to the article, able to choose whether to work that day or not.
• The organisers requested male only staff, but this could not be accommodated logistically.
• The organisers requested modest attire for staff, and provided garments that would achieve the purpose.
• The staff wore these garments voluntarily - as has been the practice in previous years.
• A handful of people out of the approximately 800 attendees caused trouble.
• The organisers and the park are working together to resolve these issues
• The park has a responsibility to provide a safe workplace, and will be liable under their workers compensation for any physical or mental injuries suffered in the course of employment.

The decision to host this event is up to the park, but as noted, 3 incident free events have run previously, so this could not have been foreseen. 

I've no doubt they will review carefully before agreeing to host another event for this group.

 

Take the religion out of it - I've seen non muslim teens and young adults behave poorly towards women in public, and especially where there is a client \ employee relationship putting the woman at a disadvantage. It is not restricted to one culture or religion. (And let's be fair - i've seen young women behave poorly in the same dynamic reversed).

Had this been a private hire for a group of private catholic school boys, i've no doubt of the possibility that some bad apples would have behaved similarly - however people would be less up in arms because "boys will be boys".

The religion has very little to do with the behaviour. By all accounts, approximately 795 of the attendees did not harass or degrade the female employees - but that doesn't make good news.

[Tricoart]

5 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Had this been a private hire for a group of private catholic school boys, i've no doubt of the possibility that some bad apples would have behaved similarly - however people would be less up in arms because "boys will be boys".

While I agree there’d likely be less people mad at it in general (Australians being Australians), religion isn’t the issue. It’s solely the way those members behave/d, and the values that the organisation either currently promote, or have promoted in the past. Whether or not there were events held without reported issues in the past, and whether or not ‘appropriate attire’ was supplied, there should still be at least compensation to workers affected & further action taken, both by the park & the organisation. Excuses do nothing but excuse the behaviour.

Edited February 14 by Tricoart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

2 hours ago, Tricoart said:

there should still be at least compensation to workers affected

I've already quite pointedly stated (but I will expand to be clear) that Jamberoo is liable as the employer to provide a safe workplace, and would be on the hook for any mental or physical illness suffered, be that temporary or permanent. Workers Compensation is designed to ensure the worker is not worse off - that they suffer no loss of income or capacity as a result of the injury - but it is not a payday and a way to cash in on an unfortunate situation to make bank.

Your "At least" has been covered, as required by law.

On 08/02/2024 at 5:16 AM, Tricoart said:

the workers affected should at least get a hefty settlement from Jamberoo &/or ASWJ

Just quoting this to be clear that your words implied a hefty settlement, which is why I made clear this is not an excuse to 'make bank'. The women involved were subjected to poor verbal behaviour, that I would wager wouldn't be too dissimilar to that experienced by bar staff on a busy friday night. There is nothing to excuse that behaviour, especially in a family fun park, but let's not overinflate the quantum of what occurred beyond reasonable proportions.

On 08/02/2024 at 5:16 AM, Tricoart said:

the event will by no means be held again, as well as stricter rules against similar behaviour in general (banned from the park should be the minimum).

So you're suggesting that because a group of people with something in common attended an event, and because by all accounts approximately half of a percent of the attendees exhibited some minor but nevertheless unacceptable poor behaviour on a single day, the entire group should not even be given the chance to attempt to run the event again, despite several years of successful operation, thereby ruining the opportunity for the 99.5% of people who did the right thing to enjoy this obviously very successful event in the future?

By that logic, I don't think thoosies will ever be allowed in any park worldwide ever again... /s

2 hours ago, Tricoart said:

Excuses do nothing but excuse the behaviour.

I don't believe anyone was making excuses for the behaviour. Just contextualising it and trying to call out exaggerated and over the top reactions.

2 hours ago, Tricoart said:

It’s solely the way those members behave/d, and the values that the organisation either currently promote, or have promoted in the past.

Ooooh boy, don't go there. Drawing a circle around "have promoted in the past" is going to open up a giant can of worms. Catholics weren't always preaching peace. Many religions across the world started wars on the basis of religion or because their 'god' told them it was a good idea. But society has changed, and many religions have changed with it - no doubt though, they all still have their extremists and fundamentalists - every group does.

You've taken umbrage to the article mentioning the words of Sheikh Feiz Muhammad, spoken almost 20 years ago. You are essentially tarring the entire organisation with this brush on the basis of what the article quoted.

But did you look beyond the article and discover that he was not a member of the organisation referred to in the article at the time of those statements or at the time of the other controversial stories about the man?

Although the article mentions the Sheikh also spoke to the group in January this year, no mention of his words from more recently than 2005 could be quoted? Why is that?

His Wiki Entry - Feiz Mohammad - Wikipedia - shows that he generated a lot of negative media leading up to around 2007 and fled the country for a number of years. In March 2011, the most senior Islamic leader in Australia denounced him and insisted he be banned from preaching to young muslims. 

In April 2013, The Australian Attorney General spoke of Feiz Muhammad, stating he had "condemned the use of violence" and "changed his attitude" and that he was "supporting a community program to prevent the radicalisation of Australian Youth". 

The guy was investigated by the AFP, among others. The fact that he has involvement in the islamic community (and you can bet both the islamic community and authorities are watching closely) means some confidence can be placed in his reformation. I doubt his speaking in January would be comparable to his words of two decades prior - we've all matured a lot since then... well... most of us.

[Tricoart]

17 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Catholics weren't always preaching peace. Many religions across the world started wars on the basis of religion or because their 'god' told them it was a good idea.

Yep, but this isn’t the time nor place to make this a debate on religion.

Anyway, If the guy is ‘reformed’, then so be it, but the case remains that they’re choosing to associate with someone who has voiced opinions such as those in the past, and will therefore (justly) be questioned if similar sentiments reoccur under their own organisation. And, if it truly is the case that it was only a few select individuals within the organisation who had those sentiments, then the event ‘at least’ shouldn’t be held with those individuals, or any individuals justifying them, in attendance. My comment about how the event shouldn’t be held again was made well before their statement claiming it was a small percentage of the group that behaved inappropriately.

17 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Just quoting this to be clear that your words implied a hefty settlement, which is why I made clear this is not an excuse to 'make bank'.

Meaning monetary & covering costs for healthcare as a result of the events. It’s ’at least’ because law states it’s meant to be a given, meaning it definitely should happen ’at least’.

Edited February 14 by Tricoart

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

14 hours ago, Tricoart said:

Yep, but this isn’t the time nor place to make this a debate on religion.

It's intrinsically linked. You can't separate one from the other, and your veiled references to "organisations that share these values" is, IMO trying to dance around the topic without actually saying the words. It isn't a religious debate but it's denigrating a group of people for the actions of a few while making specific references to the organisation that they all had in common. There is no need to refer to the organisation - the individuals concerned behaved poorly and should be held accountable.

14 hours ago, Tricoart said:

If the guy is ‘reformed’, then so be it, but the case remains that they’re choosing to associate with someone who has voiced opinions such as those in the past

You can't say "so be it" in one breath and then immediately go on to say anyone who gives the guy an opportunity to prove his reformation should be immolated for their mere association.

 

14 hours ago, Tricoart said:

if it truly is the case that it was only a few select individuals within the organisation who had those sentiments, then the event ‘at least’ shouldn’t be held with those individuals, or any individuals justifying them, in attendance.

No, you're not backpedalling away from this one. Trying to insert "with those individuals" was not your intent - you wanted the entire organisation punished for the actions of the few. You very clearly said:

On 08/02/2024 at 5:16 AM, Tricoart said:

the event will by no means be held again

On 08/02/2024 at 5:16 AM, Tricoart said:

Maybe, just maybe, a men-only event isn’t a great idea? Seems pretty obvious to me that that’d lead to a big increase in workplace harassment.

On 08/02/2024 at 5:16 AM, Tricoart said:

Oh, especially so when the organisation running it openly spouts [word I hesitate to say here] rhetoric like this.

 And don't forget this gem

18 hours ago, Tricoart said:

It’s solely the way those members behave/d, and the values that the organisation either currently promote, or have promoted in the past.

Now let's address this next backpedal:

14 hours ago, Tricoart said:

My comment about how the event shouldn’t be held again was made well before their statement claiming it was a small percentage of the group that behaved inappropriately.

On 07/02/2024 at 6:12 PM, Jamberoo Fan said:

Park management said it had a report of "derogatory and degrading treatment" of one staff member and would investigate further if any more complaints came to light.

Your comment was certainly not made well before their statement as the initiating post of this entire thread made it clear that the park management had one complaint from a staff member. That is the only confirmation we have. I have allowed, in my replies, for the possibility that there were others who as yet had not come forward based on the following (which was also included in the initial post:

On 07/02/2024 at 6:12 PM, Jamberoo Fan said:

A source with knowledge of the situation said he knew more than one staff member was subjected to this.

 

"Whether there were complaints made or not I don't know, but there were multiple girls affected on the day," he said.

And finally

14 hours ago, Tricoart said:

Meaning monetary & covering costs for healthcare as a result of the events. It’s ’at least’ because law states it’s meant to be a given, meaning it definitely should happen ’at least’.

Your original reply suggested that they should get a payout. a monetary penalty. Hefty means large and heavy. Not "at least" and not "adequate", though i'll make allowances for the fact you seem to struggle with words and meanings.

On 08/02/2024 at 5:16 AM, Tricoart said:

the workers affected should at least get a hefty settlement from Jamberoo &/or ASWJ

It is against the rules to alter someone's quote, but if I might paraphrase - it might have been preferable to state the workers affected should be compensated for their emotional injuries and distress. Which as you've now been educated, is a requirement by the employer under Australian law. So they will get that, because it is a workplace right - and is therefore nothing you need to advocate for in an internet forum. 

 

Like - did you even read the article - the points where it said:

On 07/02/2024 at 6:12 PM, Jamberoo Fan said:

Staff had been directed to employee counselling services if they needed them.

 

...

 

"We have contacted team members today to make sure we are fully aware of instances and concerns that arose yesterday, and have offered the support of Jamberoo Action Park and our Employee Assistance Program providers in the meantime.

 

...

 

"As a result of any forthcoming information and investigation, we will work together with the group organiser to ensure future access is prohibited."

Like - pretty much all the things you're screaming for (now) - were already in the original article.

[Tricoart]

3 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

It's intrinsically linked. You can't separate one from the other, and your veiled references to "organisations that share these values" is, IMO trying to dance around the topic without actually saying the words. It isn't a religious debate but it's denigrating a group of people for the actions of a few while making specific references to the organisation that they all had in common. There is no need to refer to the organisation - the individuals concerned behaved poorly and should be held accountable.

You can't say "so be it" in one breath and then immediately go on to say anyone who gives the guy an opportunity to prove his reformation should be immolated for their mere association.

 

No, you're not backpedalling away from this one. Trying to insert "with those individuals" was not your intent - you wanted the entire organisation punished for the actions of the few. You very clearly said:

 And don't forget this gem

Now let's address this next backpedal:

Your comment was certainly not made well before their statement as the initiating post of this entire thread made it clear that the park management had one complaint from a staff member. That is the only confirmation we have. I have allowed, in my replies, for the possibility that there were others who as yet had not come forward based on the following (which was also included in the initial post:

And finally

Your original reply suggested that they should get a payout. a monetary penalty. Hefty means large and heavy. Not "at least" and not "adequate", though i'll make allowances for the fact you seem to struggle with words and meanings.

It is against the rules to alter someone's quote, but if I might paraphrase - it might have been preferable to state the workers affected should be compensated for their emotional injuries and distress. Which as you've now been educated, is a requirement by the employer under Australian law. So they will get that, because it is a workplace right - and is therefore nothing you need to advocate for in an internet forum. 

 

Like - did you even read the article - the points where it said:

Like - pretty much all the things you're screaming for (now) - were already in the original article.