Fuming over accident

Fishcake_Random

Yes she is human. But she was also directly involved in the situation that happened and I do feel strongly it she was the person who could have made all the difference.
If she had done her job correctly the accident might not have happened. If she couldn't have stopped it then she still could have dealt with the situation correctly after the incident.

Money-Saving-King

Fishcake_Random wrote: »

If she had done her job correctly the accident might not have happened.

What you're saying she can click her fingers and make water evaporate just like that?

You're way over reacting and putting too much on a person who you don't know what training she exactly has had or hoe new she was, it may well have been her first day.

All I can see from your post is finger pointing but with no proper evidence just gut feeling and guesswork.

hollydays

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

What you're saying she can click her fingers and make water evaporate just like that?

You're way over reacting and putting too much on a person who you don't know what training she exactly has had or hoe new she was, it may well have been her first day.

All I can see from your post is finger pointing but with no proper evidence just gut feeling and guesswork.

The evidence will come from the ops next actions. Clearly she won't have evidence until she's had discussions with others.

hollydays

.. Based on the evidence that the receptionist ignored a bleeding young child and continued to speak to another customer..

Money-Saving-King

hollydays wrote: »

.. Based on the evidence that the receptionist ignored a bleeding young child and continued to speak to another customer..

I'm not taking side but from what I've read then quoted obviously there have been exaggerations.

Fishcake_Random

I would assume that the receptionist does not have magical powers.
I would assume she had recieved basic health and safety training.
I would assume she'd be aware of needing to contact a first aider when someone is injuted.
I would assume she would not be working where she was that day with management being confident in her training.

hollydays

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

I'm not taking side but from what I've read then quoted obviously there have been exaggerations.

Please list your evidence

Money-Saving-King

hollydays wrote: »

Please list your evidence

The op has stated there is 1000 ways the receptionist could have dealt with it better (an obvious exaggeration). The op just seems to be demonizing the receptionist on a public forum which I do not think is fair.

hollydays

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

The op has stated there is 1000 ways the receptionist could have dealt with it better (an obvious exaggeration). The op just seems to be demonizing the receptionist on a public forum which I do not think is fair.

1. The "obvious exaggeration" is a simple turn of phrase in response to you. It bore no part in her original account of the events.

2.To call this " demonising" is not evidence but exaggeration on your behalf.

3. As the op has named neither the receptionist or the leisure centre how so?

Money-Saving-King

hollydays wrote: »

1. The "obvious exaggeration" is a simple turn of phrase in response to you. It bore no part in her original account of the events.

2.To call this " demonising" is not evidence but exaggeration on your behalf.

3. As the op has named neither the receptionist or the leisure centre how so?

1) It's an exaggeration nether the less.
2) That is how it appears to me
3) I can imagine it's in Havant, near Portsmouth which obviously narrows down the list of possibilities.