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?)

I don't think it's prejudice to say this man needed better supervision, better risk assessment and possibly not being allowed out in public had he ever showed tendency towards harming children.

That's not saying everyone with SEN is locked up forever.

There's a balance. In this example, society got it wrong.

I'm not suggesting that we do. What I'm saying is that if an individual is known to pose such a threat that 2 carers are not enough to keep the public safe then it is entirely reasonable to restrict their liberty.

That’s a stupid comment.
People with carers could have them with them, for all sorts of reasons, and it won’t be their decision that the person they are with is free to go out and about, that is decided by others, such as parents, carers and social services.

If he’s trying to kill children, of course he shouldn’t be out!

True. But if someone has said they had a strong inclination to throw someone off a building, but it was ignored then that is just plain wrong. That poor french boy is still suffering because the signs were ignored and the guy threw him off the tate!

Just read this article. How sad. I hadn’t realised how badly injured the lad was, and the culprit was only 17 years old! He sounds evil.

What's the betting of the following.

There will have been previous incidents and warning signs - it will not have been out of the blue. And when there's a report it will be "well with the benefit of hindsight the trip was a bad idea".

And the carers will have been aware of this and the manager will have signed off the trip and the managers boss will have said something about budgets.

You don't just get a random out of the blue scenario like this. You have to wonder where the carers were at the time and how they were unable to prevent him doing this. Think about it, grabbing a child, lifting them and getting the child over a barrier that high? The carers were not in arms length and probably were not fully paying attention.

The carers should be locked up as much as the bloke even if low paid - I don't see how it can't be negligence. And their managers should also get the same response.

I have said in another comment that I hope he makes a full recovery.
Why are you trying to police how little virtue signalling I doing?

He wont be now.
But up to now, he was.

Similar to the Tate perpetrator who was also accompanied by two carers. He was a very violent man and really, these guys shouldn’t be going on ‘Baby’s Big Day Out.’ It was obvious he was dangerous and difficult for his carers to manage. He was a ticking time bomb. I immediately thought of this case when I heard about the poor little boy today.

We really don’t need crocodile enclosures, especially ones so terribly designed, for the masses. Just putting that out there.

It's a funny old world when people are more bothered about the liberty of someone who did an evil act and nearly killed a three year old. Not much mention of the poor child. No matter what, he needs to be locked up away from people. Throw away the bloody key.

Well, Jonty Bravery, the Tate Modern attacker, was 'living in a bespoke placement with two-to-one care' at the time. He stood trial for attempted murder and is now serving a life sentence. So we'll see.

It’s just strange how many comments you’ve made about how sad you are that this attempted murder might have to be locked up now due to his own actions, how he has never hurt anyone before, very strange to assume this given this is information you don’t have.
Its just very weird the lengths you are going to in order to defend someone who has done a horrific thing, largely using entirely made up information.

It’s very strange

It’s too much that innocent people / children bear the brunt.

No, so that they don't throw children to crocodiles. How can you defend this? Obviously this man shouldn't have been out and about with children around because he has seriously harmed one and could have killed them!

Quite. We aren't talking about disabled people generally. It's violent people who pose a public safety issue and are not adequately able to be supervised to a level that is sufficient.

Unfortunately this covers a small but significant group who we should take seriously to avoid harm to the wider population.

This isn't being against someone with a disability. It's recognising there isn't an ability to mange this lack of control for good reason.

I did mention them.

Do you want me to mention them every time? Why?

It is virtue signalling. Typical on here.
How many posters are now never going to take their small child to a zoo ever again because of this rare incident? I bet a few.

He could have been harmless up to now.
There is a first time for everything... even things like this.
Not every bad thing can be predicted.

RedToothBrush
I 100% agree.
Anyone who made the decision to take a violent man (with an history you can bet) out for the day, among children, our most vulnerable people, needs to be locked up. It’s reckless. Guys like this one are walking risks and are getting nothing out of their Grand Day Out.

Listening to BBC 1 news just now: apparently the boy 'ended up' in the crocodile enclosure. No mention of how he might possibly have 'ended up' in it even though they say a man has been arrested on a charge of attempted murder.

@Tinywhitebutterfly tell me you’ve never had to do a risk assessment in the UK without telling me you’ve never had to do a rise assessment in the UK…!

Seriously, this country is notorious for it’s over the top approach to health and safety. I think that’s exactly one of the sort of questions that should be asked when making decisions about barriers etc. You have to think about not just intended use but unintended use etc.

Mind you legally I don’t know how much that applies to very unlikely scenarios where someone was (possibly?) deliberately trying to do harm to someone else as opposed to it being an accident, ie a deliberate act to overcome the safety measures put in place no matter how unlikely. I feel like I remember at London Zoo they have a bridge you can see the lions from but it might have netting over the top or something I can’t recall.

I do feel for the owners in this as well as OBVIOUSLY the poor kid and his family. I hadn’t realised the owner’s wife had jumped in to rescue him and was wondering how they’d got him out.

Sorry I actually meant to say the barriers don’t look inadequate but obviously forgot the ‘in’

if we end up designing a world based on these types of crimes we may as well just stay home. This is an unpredictable event sadly.

I'm sure there will be lessons to be learnt and given prior cases it won’t surprise me if there have been failings.

He was unaccompanied when he carried out the attack on that poor child in the Tate.

The report says: "There was no recent evidence that he presented a risk to other children or adults unknown to him.
"It was in this context that he was progressively given more freedoms, which saw him able to visit central London unaccompanied on the day of the incident."

I didn’t say parents, I said loved ones. You’re also obviously not the only person who has been in that awful position.

The speculation by @XenoBitch is horrible notwithstanding that they are apparently just “examples” . No doubt we will find out what happened in due course but I really don’t understand the mentality of someone who thinks it’s ok to publicly post that maybe it’s the fault of the parents or due to the child’s behaviour on the actual day it happened.