To wonder how I approach my neighbour about her nude son

Whether it’s required at this stage, or may be in future, will be for the authorities to decide. As a previous poster said, we know this is one incident against OP’s dd, but we don’t actually know if he’s done this before, and/or has been reported before. If it is a first incident and he goes on to do it again, then reporting it at least means there will be a record of his history.

But if you want to continue with your fantasy of locking learning disabled people up, that's up to you. It won't be your decision.

Erm, I think I clearly stated that it’s for professionals to decide, not for mumsnet posters.

if you think wanting it to be reported in order to safeguard OP’s DD, the boy himself and others he may target is a ‘fantasy of locking learning disabled people up’, then go for it 🤷🏻‍♀️ learning disabled or not, I don’t think those that demonstrate threatening behaviour that poses a risk to others should go without supervision or detainment if deemed necessary.

But if you want to continue with your fantasy of locking learning disabled people up, that's up to you. It won't be your decision.

"Whether prevention is best achieved through prison, secure hospital, or effective supervision (which this boy did not have) should surely be decided on a case-by-case basis, by those qualified to do so."

No one will be doing a deep analysis based on this one incident. The police will pass it on for social care to deal with.

@onirgellep
"Okay then a single episode of possible 'indecent exposure' as described by the OP wouldn't put this young person any where near the ballpark for those sort of assessments."

We don't know if it was a single episode or not. He could have done it before to other people. The op wouldn't necessarily be aware of that.

And for that reason I would have no hesitation in letting the relevant authorities know about this incident.

I've noticed this too and where are the fathers in all this?

Hormones, sex drive, and puberty come disabled or not. Ignoring and downplaying it doesn't make it disappear.

Okay then a single episode of possible 'indecent exposure' as described by the OP wouldn't put this young person any where near the ballpark for those sort of assessments

but when out fully into context - he has been outside only in underwear before, so this is an escalation - and that is very important.

plus he ran towards a child, who was standing still. Another escalation.

these facts must be considered during any risk assessment, which would cover risks to the boy and to others. The fact his behaviour escalating is paramount to any competent assessment.

That may be the case, but that isn’t an argument against reporting it and having it handled appropriately.

His behaviour meant that he did pose a threat to the DD as well as to himself. If he continues to be allowed to act in that way it could result in him assaulting someone, or being assaulted himself. Early intervention is in everyone’s interests.

Okay then a single episode of possible 'indecent exposure' as described by the OP wouldn't put this young person any where near the ballpark for those sort of assessments

or they hold the controversial belief that people who commit crimes against those around them, knowingly or not, should not remain at liberty to do so.

Whether prevention is best achieved through prison, secure hospital, or effective supervision (which this boy did not have) should surely be decided on a case-by-case basis, by those qualified to do so.

That part was in response to this:

“just that it's not a crime if that wasn't the other person's intention.”

which would apply to all crime, not ‘merely’ indecent exposure. Lack of competency does not mean that people are left to do what they like, no matter the risks they pose to others.

As far as the boy in this case goes, no one here knows what his intent was, his competency, the risk he poses, or the best way forward. Hence advising it be referred to the relevant authorities who can assess all of the above.

There are some people who are desperate for people with a severe learning disability to be placed in a secure unit or otherwise locked up when supervision would sort the problem out.

You appear to have absolutely no idea what sort of offences would result in a young person being placed in a secure hospital

A single episode of 'indecent exposure' wouldn't be even remotely sufficient cause

Again, the best people to assess intent, competency, and the way forward are going to be the relevant authorities, not posters on mumsnet.

Not being able to understand exactly what it is he is doing does not mean that he can be left to do what he likes no matter the risk to himself or those around him. If he is found to lack competency, yet he poses a risk, he can indeed be placed in a secure hospital.

Quite apart from the inflammatory language, it's incorrect anyway - according to the OP the young man stands in the front [?garden] of his own home

I think this is just something you'll have to suck up and accept, part of being in a society tolerant of disabled people ("tolerant" doesn't feel like the right word but I'm not sure what is) is that we have to accept a person with a disability might not have the same comprehension of generally-accepted behaviour as someone without that disability.

OP do not listen to this horrific advice. Your little girl's safety comes first. Never accept her being terrorised by a naked man.

@LakieLady
Here's a link to the relevant legislation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66

We don't know if the boy exposed himself intentionally or not. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
Either way, for everyone downplaying what he did, the legislation shows that indecent exposure is a sexual offence and is rightfully taken seriously.

It does. Indecent exposure is not sexual assault.

See the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3

Indecent exposure is a sexual offence but not an assault. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66

However, I doubt this would be indecent exposure, as for it to be indecent exposure you would have to prove that he intended to cause alarm or distress.

I don't think what the neighbours son has done would be a criminal offence under the law as it stands.

"His mother obviously didn't know he was out prowling the neighbourhood so he's not getting the care and protection that he needs to protect other people from him."

I don't think talking about him as though he is an animal helps matters.

Fucks sake there's some minimising apologists on here! This was an almost adult (in body and strength) naked male running towards a vulnerable female child. What if he'd caught her, attacked her, what then? He's got no concept of what he's capable of!

I'd have called the police. His mother obviously didn't know he was out prowling the neighbourhood so he's not getting the care and protection that he needs to protect other people from him.

Have you got a link for that, @Ijustdontcare ?

My understanding (which may well be out of date) was that a sexual assault had to involve touching, including touching with an object.

"It sounds like the mother is neglectful and couldn't be arsed,"

It is more likely she is overwhelmed, doesn't know how to manage the behaviour and has no support.
People have this belief that families with severely disabled young people get lots of support when they frequently get nothing.
Also saying someone should be in residential care doesn't work because that doesn't exist. I know parents with very challenging severely disabled young people who have been waiting several years for residential provision.
The 16-18 age group is particularly problematic for this because providers of children's provision don't want them and they are too young for adult services.

I can understand why you'd be concerned but ultimately nobody is breaking the law here. It's not illegal in itself to be naked in public, it's only an offence if the behaviour is done with the intention to cause distress or to harass someone. If the person involved has a disability or condition which makes them unable to understand societal norms like not being nude in public or running towards people, it would be hard to prove that their intention was to cause distress.

That doesn't mean that a bystander didn't feel distressed of course - just that it's not a crime if that wasn't the other person's intention.

I think this is just something you'll have to suck up and accept, part of being in a society tolerant of disabled people ("tolerant" doesn't feel like the right word but I'm not sure what is) is that we have to accept a person with a disability might not have the same comprehension of generally-accepted behaviour as someone without that disability.

Sorry missed that. very polarised Thread

"Also, am I the only one who noticed? “He normally stands outside in boxers but today he was naked”

I noticed that and because of it I think ringing social services is appropriate because that shouldn't be accepted by his carers as an ok thing for him to do.