Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[jassi]

I proved the other day that at least one of the Tapas staff knew the parents of 4 families with kids (and there could have been others that we don't know about) had left kids in the apartments while the parents were dining.   

What Ocean Club couldn't guarantee was that the door at the secondary reception would remain open at all times just in case any of the children ventured out to find their parents.

Is there any sensible reason why they should? 

Had there been previous incidents of young children wandering and trying to gain entrance ?

[Robittybob1]

Is there any sensible reason why they should? 

Had there been previous incidents of young children wandering and trying to gain entrance ?

OC would be setting a trap for the parents.  If the door was open 95% of the time (they might think it will be always open), but if it got closed at the moment it was required to be open a child is then locked out on the street with no way of getting into the Tapas area.

"Had there been previous incidents of young children wandering and trying to gain entrance?"  Who knows?  They aren't going to publish that sort of information willingly.
There is a first time for everything.  I think it is a risk that should have been foreseen.

[jassi]

OC would be setting a trap for the parents.  If the door was open 95% of the time (they might think it will be always open), but if it got closed at the moment it was required to be open a child is then locked out on the street with no way of getting into the Tapas area.

"Had there been previous incidents of young children wandering and trying to gain entrance?"  Who knows?  They aren't going to publish that sort of information willingly.
There is a first time for everything.  I think it is a risk that should have been foreseen.

I totally disagree.

[Robittybob1]

I totally disagree.

You can disagree if you like.  Maybe the OC assumed that the parents would always deadlock the doors and hence never have wandering kids.

[jassi]

You can disagree if you like.  Maybe the OC assumed that the parents would always deadlock the doors and hence never have wandering kids.

A perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach -IMO.

[Miss Taken Identity]

You can disagree if you like.  Maybe the OC assumed that the parents would always deadlock the doors and hence never have wandering kids.

Where in any contract would a company assume responsibility for childcare from parents who didn't use the official childcare facilities?  Some times you should re read what you type.

The parents a 100% responsible for their childcare arrangements.

It was descided back in the UK they would be leaving the children unattended every night and the checking would be 'listening' at a door . they missed children crying onat least one occasion as MBM was quoted as telling her parents there was crying  while they were not there and Mrs Fenn Also claim s crying when parents were not there.

So their checking was tried and tested and found to be lacking- THAT  IMO-was the elephant in the room - let us stop leaving the children alone something could go wrong... ahh yes let us do something about that- leave a door unlocked to let the children come to us. saves us having to ge to them?????? seems to be the solution to that bloody inconvenience.

[Robittybob1]

Where in any contract would a company assume responsibility for childcare from parents who didn't use the official childcare facilities?  Some times you should re read what you type.

The parents a 100% responsible for their childcare arrangements.

It was descided back in the UK they would be leaving the children unattended every night and the checking would be 'listening' at a door . they missed children crying onat least one occasion as MBM was quoted as telling her parents there was crying  while they were not there and Mrs Fenn Also claim s crying when parents were not there.

So their checking was tried and tested and found to be lacking- THAT  IMO-was the elephant in the room - let us stop leaving the children alone something could go wrong... ahh yes let us do something about that- leave a door unlocked to let the children come to us. saves us having to go to them?????? seems to be the solution to that bloody inconvenience.

I fully understand that but once Kate decides to tell Madeleine where she could find her parents, that only makes sense if Kate thought the door at the secondary reception would remain open while they were dining.

[jassi]

I fully understand that but once Kate decides to tell Madeleine where she could find her parents, that only makes sense if Kate thought the door at the secondary reception would remain open while they were dining.

So how would that be the fault of the company?

[ShiningInLuz]

I fully understand that but once Kate decides to tell Madeleine where she could find her parents, that only makes sense if Kate thought the door at the secondary reception would remain open while they were dining.

As the restaurant was open to members of the public, how were they supposed to get in?

[jassi]

If various members of the group were going backwards and forwards to check on children, how did they get in and out of the reception door?

Maybe it wasn't locked at all.

[Robittybob1]

So how would that be the fault of the company?

You have admitted that OC made the assumption the parents leaving children unattended would deadlock the kids in the rooms.  If that is their assumption did they make that a rule?

[Robittybob1]

As the restaurant was open to members of the public, how were they supposed to get in?

So what are you saying exactly?  Do the management have the right to say, "no more members of the public tonight".   I think there could be times when the management might say we have had enough business today.

[ShiningInLuz]

You have admitted that OC made the assumption the parents leaving children unattended would deadlock the kids in the rooms.  If that is their assumption did they make that a rule?

Where did they make this alleged assumption?

[Robittybob1]

If various members of the group were going backwards and forwards to check on children, how did they get in and out of the reception door?

Maybe it wasn't locked at all.

That is right, was it left open was it left closed but unlocked, was it locked at times?  If it was closed and unlocked would a 3-4 year old be able to turn the handle, or open it however it was to be opened. 

Where did they make this alleged assumption?

It was Jassi's opinion that was their assumption.  My wording could have been more clearer, sorry.

Rob: "Maybe the OC assumed that the parents would always deadlock the doors and hence never have wandering kids."

Jassi: "A perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach -IMO."

[jassi]

That is right, was it left open was it left closed but unlocked, was it locked at times?  If it was closed and unlocked would a 3-4 year old be able to turn the handle, or open it however it was to be opened. 
It was Jassi's opinion that was their assumption.  My wording could have been more clearer, sorry.

Correction. I don't recall making any claim about doors being deadocked.

My opinion was that the company would assume that parents were looking after their children properly.