My one / only thought on the #Insiders topic of choice today before I hit the weeding ( #insidersinstead)... the decision to use security guards for hotel Q was not a dud decision. These people were given employment when they might otherwise have been on jobseeker/keeper. (1/...)

Utilising security guards to secure the Q hotels should have been a safe option, if they had done the job they were paid to do, & that’s an assumption that we make everyday...the bus driver won’t drive into a ditch, the supermarket won’t put toxic food on the shelves, etc (2/...)

The security guards did not do the job. If the individuals concerned can be identified, they should be charged accordingly. The breaches which occurred don’t fit the ‘reasonably foreseeable’ test, and if they did, the same could have been ‘foreseen’ in other workforces... (3/...)

Breaches of this type have cropped up across the country. Hotel Q was never going to be perfect, but thanks to the Premiers, it’s a thing. Way better than the PM’s proposal that everyone self isolating at home would be just fine... https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🤷‍♀️" title="Achselzuckende Frau" aria-label="Emoji: Achselzuckende Frau"> (4/...)

So the constant bang on about ‘WHO MADE THAT DECISION!?’ seems so irrelevant... It wasn’t a bad call in and of itself. And let’s hypothesize that it was someone really quite respected who made that choice (the Emergency Management Commisioner, as a plucked example)... (5/...)

Would the attack press then all be like ‘Oh, righto then, well that didn’t work out well, so don’t do it again, ok?’, and move on, #RubyPrincess style? I’m thinking, yep... which makes the targeted, and obvious head-hunting game going on right now, pretty telling... (6/...)

And that kind of ‘Don’t want you to learn from this... and do better for all our sakes... just want you gone... cause that serves our personal agenda’ thinking, is what will lead our country down the US path. Ugh. We can do much better, Australia. Have a good Sunday. (7/7)