3 year old injured by crocodiles - man arrested

[DecisionTime123]

So I assume the man deliberately placed the child into the crocodile enclosure. Psychopath? Sounds similar to the man who threw the boy off the Tate?

(And also, not connected but these places are shit for the animals and should be shut down)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx50n2vj74o

(& apologies if thread already started?)

The BBC stance is objectionable. Other news sources have said “allegedly thrown” which covers their backs.

The carers running off… I wonder if this jaunt was even authorised. Maybe the man has private carers and no care plan/risk assessment as such.

The police deal with the detection and prosecution of crimes. Its hard to envisage what their role woukd have been in this scenario unless it was to investigate the care home.
Do you also think they should be called in to investigate primary schools every time 1 child strikes another?

If the level of aggression and violence is as described here, well yes, that’s the advice always given on here isn’t it?

Investigating the care home does indeed sound like a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. Isn't their primary role to keep the residents safe??

From the link it seems as if the man was not in a home - at least not in a council-funded or approved setting.

How does that work then? Let’s say he lived with family but carers were paid to take him out. Who is responsible? If otoh he was in a privately-run facility they must have rules as stringent as the council’s, presumably?

As I understand it, both of this gentleman's 'Carers' were both on their phones and had been for a substantial period of time. They should have been arrested.

The council have initiated a section 42 (I think it is) enquiry which involves believing the man is not being cared for adequately. He was not in council accommodation so there need to be real questions imo about how the public is protected from individuals who are housed in private facilities where number of carers and indeed care assessments may not accord with official requirements.

If a school isn't safeguarding it's pupils then yes, if they come to serious harm. Because it's an act of criminal negligence.

How would you know this?
A s42 enquiry would be related to the adult and would mean that they suspect he being or at risk of abuse or neglect and unable to protect himself from that due to support needs. Nothing to do with protecting the public.
Local authorities generally broker 'private companies' to support people. Like care agencies, supported living, children's homes. Some are incredible, some not so much. But bear in mind its often the lowest bidder and supported lodgings are incredibly expensive. And local authorities underfunded.

My apologies, ive now seen that the s42 enquiry has been reported in the media.
My point though is that companies commissioned by local authorities will be monitored and generally cqc registered and inspected. Im not saying anything about the care given because obviously I dont know. But I doubt that council 'accommodation' would be any better. Due to underfunding, lack of people wanting the jobs etc

All being said this may have been the first incident of its kind for this man. You can't prevent all risk from any person.

@spstchmu I don’t doubt that council accommodation is no better, but Norfolk Council were at pains to point out that the man was not under their care nor were they funding him so either he was at home and his family arranged carers for his days out or he was in a private place which really dropped the ball here.

I read the two carers bundled him into a car after the incident and tried to leave but were stopped by the staff. And the staff were the ones who jumped into the enclosure and rescued the boy. These carers have a lot to answer for imho.

Yes they have a lot to answer @Viviennemary they need charging, atrocious to then run away.

A lot needs to be looked at, what is their background?

It’s shocking, I’d be suing them if I was the parents.

Yes, they must have known they’d done wrong. It could be argued they were removing the man from the situation, but in that case, once he was in the car one of the carers should have gone back to the scene. As it was they were trying to do a runner which leads one to suspect that things were not as they should have been…

Seems like very severe consequences for the little boy and his family but none for the perpetrator or his carers so far. Presumably a whitewash review may take place.

What can they actually do to the guy that did this? He is probably in a secure hospital like Rampton now. xx

The so-called carers and quite possibly whoever selected them, are well able to take responsibility for their actions though.

That poor baby has had SEVEN operations so far, and still has no use of his left hand at all. They’re hoping this latest operation might help with that.

It’s gone quiet, who were the so called carers?

The guy who did it needs locking up that poor baby…it’s truly appalling couldn’t think anything worse.

The poor child. Shame on the poster who said that he would have cool stories to tell when he’s older (post was I think deleted). Can you imagine saying that?!

Agree @MaturingCheeseball couldn’t believe that poster said that ! Trying to minimise the seriousness of this…it feels like it’s being covered up…answers are needed and charges made !

Completely agree, a shameful post indeed. Let’s hope the perpetrator never gets outside again, however I imagine his rights will be front and centre of any review and the poor child’s ordeal will be whitewashed.

Yep.

The carers, especially if it is true that they were on their phones and tried to flee after it happened absolutely need to take responsibility as they knew what they were doing.

But what extent the carers were needed is not known. Having carers does not mean someone is dangerous. In most cases, they have carers to protect them from everyone else or to meet needs like toileting, not the other way around.
That sort of information has not been made public yet.

I know that having carers doesn't automatically mean that someone is dangerous. Clearly something went very, very wrong that day and I do believe someone needs to be held accountable.

If two carers were required to take this man out we can assume his needs went beyond requiring help to go to the toilet? As evidenced by the fact he attempted to kill a child.

I don’t know why so many on this thread are preoccupied with downplaying the fact that this man is extremely dangerous and should not have been allowed to wander around the zoo. Not to mention the disingenuous posters who are pretending that keeping violent, mentally disturbed people in check is akin to banning their autistic child from public places. No-one has suggested the latter.

And before you ask: no I don’t care about his rights as an individual to go out and about. He should be kept in a secure unit and only allowed out in controlled conditions with carers who are physically able to constrain him. I do care about the poor child who has had to endure unimaginable pain and suffering because of this man.