Man has jumped into Tiger enclosure

[PrincessHoneysuckle]

At Yorkshire wildlife park.Anyone seen the video? I live local to it and the video of the man wagging his finger at it telling it no like a toddler is shocking.Hes lucky he wasnt killed.

It's not for a start. It's part of the natural landscape. It's not designed and run as a tourist attraction.

There's been many changes to beach & water safety following deaths.

Anyone running a water sports business will tell you the amount of safety regulations that are in place. Things we take for granted eg on road safety, water safety , child safeguarding etc have all come about from learning from tragedies & near misses.

This tragedy will have to lead to voluntary safety changes, recommendations, PFD.

Learning from a tragedy & implementing changes is important

No one would aim directly for the inside of a tigers enclosure for ‘likes’
There are a few possible reasons for his behaviour, all of which point to a loss of control or inability to comprehend.
And all of which are deserving of sympathy for both him and his family especially in light of the lack of actual facts so far

@ExtraHotDoubleShot agree. Thankful we were able to offer care to FIL ourselves but it must be horrendous for families like that of this man. It must be awful having to be reliant on crap carers. It’s not even been mentioned whether there were any carers with him

They will not get insurance or council license if they refuse to implement recommendations from a regulation 28.

Personally, I would probably draw the line at anything that could present obvious risk of imminent death to anyone’s children - including mine.

If we take the tragic lake incident recently, that could have been anyone’s toddler - learning disabled or otherwise, so making them harder to access (and by that I mean a higher fence or gate, not filling in lakes with cement..) isn’t a specific safeguarding requirement for my child - it’s actually for everyone’s.

As it is - I actually err on the side of caution most here recommend. I have a 5ft tall 10 year old. He’s already stronger than me. So I wouldn’t take him to a wildlife park that wasn’t fully secure, or an open body of water that he could drown in quickly, or anywhere with fire… etc etc.

But I’m not talking just a hazard, or low level risk like stones.. I’m talking life or death.

I would prefer if the answer wasn’t “just keep them inside” and was “how can it be made safer and more accessible” when it comes to that level of risk.

Thank you dunnocantthinkofone.

I have way more insite into MH issues than I would like. I have no doubt that this situation was driven by psychosis. The man must have been very very ill. I find it seriously alarming. Thanks for your suspport. x

Agree 100% with this. I think until we are given factual information (if we are) then there is not much more to be discussed.

It could be. Others have suggested a severe form of autism or similar which is equally possible from what those with direct experience have said. Very sad for all concerned, either way

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No?

If the discussion is around making tiger enclosures genuinely impossible (not just difficult) to access, which I believed it was..

What “need” could a member of the public have, to possibly require the freedom of physically accessing a tiger enclosure.

Who loses out by making it impossible?

Money seems to always be people's answer but realistically carers are just not going to be as invested in watching them as a parent would be with a child. I also believe that toddlers are a lot more predictable than this too, even if they wanted to go into the Tiger enclosure they can be reasoned with and understand it's dangerous etc. Is it really beneficial for unpredictable people with learning difficulties to go to places like this or does it just make other people feel better if they do?

Who has been banned? There are many holes here by comments being backlisted.

It shouldn't be. I'm with you.

And btw I'm not the poster being blacklisted, I'm distraught at the whole thing.

The top and bottom of it is that it’s a shame when someone can’t access the zoo anymore, for example, because they might actually really like zoos and animals, but can’t be safe there.

So like everyone else who likes zoos, their parents/carers would actually like to be able to take them somewhere they want to go. But can’t, because of the level of risk.

Hence all of the conversation about managing that risk.

@ForeverTheOptomist
nobody thinks you are the unruly poster!
given the silence since the last round of her posts got deleted, I think the ban may finally have been enacted 🤞
The gaps make it hard to follow uv you didn’t see the original posts though I agree.

Theres no need to be rude about it. I commented based on the information I saw I’m not going to sit and read through 38 pages. If you were that desperate to of let me know the conversation had ‘moved on’ then you can do so without being rude.

When the first reports came out last night there was conflicting information. I thought he was doing it to post a video on Youtube or similar. Obviously that wasn't the case. But nothing much more has been released today. There's quite a long article in the Telegraph from an eye witness who said a woman tried to pull him back. The Telegraph is a fairly reliable source I'd say.

My son is 14 and much bigger than me. We get funding for a PA. The safest way to take him out is if the PA is his adult brother with a parent as well. No one is as invested in his safety as us. He is zero threat to anyone - unless he walks out in front of a car. But its very hard to get funding for a PA and its sometimes exhausting taking him out. I must say that what ever concerns I have him or his safety are consistently dismissed by social services

Thank you. That means a lot. It was indicated that I was 'below average intelligence' in an earlier post. it didn't do an awful lot for my self worth!!

@FlyingApple I suppose although it seems brutal this is why people were just institutionalised years ago.I was in M&S a few weeks ago and there was a young man with very profound learning difficulties with his mother. I saw them walking in and she was holding his arm so gently and guiding him round I thought how nice it was to see but once they were inside he became totally over stimulated and caused a huge problems at the tills to the point I ended up being charged for shopping that wasn’t mine. I had to wait until they left to raise it with the cashier because I didn’t want to upset his poor mum.

But that's my point. Just because someone enjoys something doesn't mean it's appropriate or beneficial for them. If someone can't understand danger or reliably follow instructions, the risks are fundamentally different. Not every risk can be managed away, especially when carers can't guarantee constant supervision. At what point are we prioritising the idea of inclusion over the actual needs and safety of the individual and everyone around them?

It must be very sad. And as your son grows up and becomes physically stronger, I assume it will potentially become harder to keep him and possibly others safe out and about.

obviously money is one factor but logistically making everything ‘safe’ isn’t possible. As we’ve mentioned before fencing off every road, body of water etc etc isn’t on the cards. Is there anything beyond money that would help though?

It’s very sad what happened but you can’t prevent everything like this happening. It’s extremely rare which is why it’s made the headlines.

It absolutely is beneficial for people to find enjoyment in things they like. Whether that’s animals, airplanes, or going to Tesco.

They’re allowed enjoyment and hobbies like everyone else is. Those hobbies aren’t likely to be “stare at own walls.”

It’s not about desperately trying to make disabled people included, it’s about giving them access to things they find enjoyment in. Giving them as full a life as is possible.

The only areas of that I would ask for mitigations in is if there’s a risk to life. If all he’s going to do is shout at an airplane, cool.. nobody on that airplane can hear him and we’ll stand miles away from others. He’s not bothering you counting aisle numbers in Tesco.

But if his hobby involves things that may kill him… yes. I’d prefer to not have to remove access to that. I’d prefer if the risk of death was removed.