13 year old boy pushed into a river and drowned. No prosecution. AIBU to think this was not a ‘prank’,

[RopeyRuby]

Just seen this and remember the story.

The culprit knew he couldn’t swim and was old enough to understand the consequences IMO. One of the reasons for not prosecuting was it harming his ‘life chances’! What about poor Christopher who lost his? No trial so no closure for his mother.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60104439.amp

AIBU to think this is not right or just?

Horrific to think of the fear Christopher went through.

@OniferousWasp

Do you know what OP? If not heard the story but as soon as I read your OP, I knew the victim would be from some sort of BAME background and the perpetrator, white. People will come along and justify it in all sorts of ways but it is what it is.

His poor mother.

Yep I just knew it too. And if it was reversed I can't help but feel there would have been much more media coverage and potential prosecution. There would be unconscious biases (and of course potential for explicitly conscious bias) present in the numerous decision makers involved in the Police, CPS, courts etc

There was a similar case with Shukri Abdi. If it was a white British girl who drowned in the presence of Islamic kids where there had been reports of bullying at school, I think the outcome would have been very different.

@SlidingInto2022sDMs

I can completely understand why Christopher's mother wants a prosecution. But if it was the other way round and Christopher was the pusher I'm not sure she would be so adamant about it.

Why would she be "adamant about it" if Christopher was the pusher? That would make him the culprit so what would be the need? She's "adamant about it" because he's the victim. She wants a fair case and justice because he didn't go in willingly, is that a bad thing? Is she being 'too aggressive' going about wanting justice for her son, who's the victim in this case?

If Christopher had pushed his friend, who had died, would Christopher's mother be supporting Christopher's prosecution or would she be making the same arguments others are here I.e. he is very young, it was a mistake etc.

I'm just saying that it's obvious and understandable (and not at all aggressive???) that she wants a prosecution and many mothers (of any race) would feel the same if their sons were the victim. However in the same vein many mothers whose sons were the perpetrator would be on the opposite side of the argument.

If it was the other way around and Christopher was prosecuted his mother would probably be making the same argument that the decision to do so was influenced by his race (again understandable and she may not be wrong, its a hypothetical situation).

I was making the point that this is why legal decisions are not made by the family (of either party) because they are not objective. And why the feelings of the family of the victim or their desire for justice do not form any part of the cps decision whether to prosecute (for any case). If you disagree you can't say this one case should be prosecuted despite not meeting the criteria and therefore being the only case ever to be brought to court outside of legal guidance, you need to campaign to change the law so that a family's need for justice or whatever wording you want does form a part of the CPS decision making process.

@FacebookPhotos

Thanks for posting that… I doubt many people will read it sadly. ( as an aside I see the family had Michael Mansfield QC…heavyweight representation)

It's the correct decision. This isn't a racist thing. It's a kids being fucking stupid thing.

Are some of you that desperate to prosecute this child in the same way you would as someone who stabbed and killed someone?

We aren't on about stop and search or whatever. In the exact same circumstances, i.e. a group of friends of various ethnic backgrounds doing something that went tragically wrong, would the justice system really be treating a black child differently? Really?

Look at the circumstances, not the colours.

Hopping that is sadly still true. Ds is a swimmer. National level. Very few bame swimmers. But glad to see a few. Especially as he's a para swimmer so already a minority group.
He swims for a city club. So not a predominantly white town which is more where we live.
I was thrilled recently when watching him training to see swimming lessons where it was all black people. About 20 of them. I've no idea if it's an initiative (unlikely coincidence!). All adults. It just feels like this opportunity should have been available to them 10/20 years ago. I really hope things change in the sport of swimming. Other sports are a lot less "white".

Can people stop using the term "BAME" it's highly offensive now, you may as well use the n-word. The PC term to collectively describe non-white people is POCs or person(s) of colour.

If you disagree you can't say this one case should be prosecuted despite not meeting the criteria

It definitely met the criteria, atleast the evidential part - it was mentioned at least twice in the review. It's interesting how the review is read (or not) with different perspectives.

The decision was an emotional one which may or may not be based on the bolded part of what a pp wrote...

A kid dies, the blacker the killer, the sweeter the news
And if he's white you give him a chance, he's ill and confused
If he's black he's probably armed, you see him and shoot”

Because of this part of the review:

Ms MacDaid concluded that there was sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of Q being convicted of the offence of unlawful act manslaughter, but that a prosecution would not be in the public interest.

Public interest and consideration mainly being:

He was presenting challenging behaviour at school as a result of his peer group saying he had killed someone and had said to his social worker that he would kill himself if sent to prison, a threat treated as very real. A charge would have a devastating effect on Q's family, and the safeguarding and other implications for Q and his family were said to be huge, with services picking up the negative impact for years

So the only reason to not prosecute is because conviction was likely, based on the evidence, but doing so doesn't change what has happened and it would affect the boy and his family, including his history, age and maturity.

Although I too wouldn't want to convict a teenager for accidentally killing someone, especially if 'he looks innocent, confused, afraid and threatens to kill himself', I agree with this challenge:

The claimant was granted permission to advance five grounds which I summarise as follows:

(1) the decision failed to give proper weight to the fact that the offence involved the death of a child;

(2) the decision gave undue weight to the impact of a prosecution on the future of Q;

(3) the decision failed to consider and give effect to the aggravating factors that Q told lies and failed to show remorse;

(4) the decision wrongly took account of the effect of a prosecution on witnesses, alternatively failed to have proper regard to the mitigation of that effect by the use of special measures;

(5) the decision suffered from fundamental or material factual error.

I read the counter to the challenge and it still boils down to the same thing. It was an emotional decision which couldn't really be factually justified. It's understandable given the circumstances but letting him go without any consequence whatsover is the wrong decision. There wasn't "horseplay" involved. Christopher wasn't 'messing around' with him. He was just mean and his actions took a life. He should be able to do something about it simply for that fact. Just something. I don't know what but I don't think he should be locked up.

However, the mum should be allowed to feel how she wants about it without having to think of what the "poor boy" who killed her son must be going through. People minimising the culprit's actions, diverting sympathy to him instead and blaming her and her dead son for the accident! Utterly vile!

[quote Soontobe60]@Ohdearthatwasntgreatwasit
but largely because it is very unusual for white boys of this age to be unable to swim, but very common in BAME communities

Do you have the stats to back up this comment?[/quote]

Anecdotally, it is true. More commonly, it's just not a priority for (black) people who are poor to get swimming lessons. Sometimes First gen parents living over here don't see the value of such things either. My mum cannot swim.

Tbh, not everything is racism, it's definitely a 'thing' in black communities (in the west and motherland), if you know what I mean.

@MorningStarling

Can people stop using the term "BAME" it's highly offensive now, you may as well use the n-word. The PC term to collectively describe non-white people is POCs or person(s) of colour.

I thought "PoC" was considered offensive for the same reason "BAME" is (i.e. grouping all non-white people together as homogeneous)?

If you disagree you can't say this one case should be prosecuted despite not meeting the criteria

It definitely met the criteria, atleast the evidential part - it was mentioned at least twice in the review. It's interesting how the review is read (or not) with different perspectives.

thevassal Sorry, this was the only part of my post directly addressed to you. The rest was just me posting about the review. I added your reply to it.

Can people stop using the term "BAME" it's highly offensive now, you may as well use the n-word. The PC term to collectively describe non-white people is POCs or person(s) of colour.

There is no PC term for collectively describing all non-white people that isn't offensive. Critics of the term POC argue that it invokes tones of the Jim Crow era and the term coloured, while others say it once again establishes "white" as the default race. I don't think it's really possible to collectively refer to every single non-white ethnicity with a catch all term without causing some offense, in the same way as many white minority ethnic groups don't like being lumped into the "white" category either.

@SlidingInto2022sDMs

I don't believe the report - all hearsay unless there's video evidence of what exactly happened. In other words, all they have is what the group said happened.

On a different note: Pushing someone into the river is malicious behaviour, bullying and dangerous especially when you know the person couldn't swim well or couldn't swim at all (splitting hairs unnecessary), no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

Not long ago, an 8 year old Black boy got in the way of Palace guards and was nearly trampled. It was said his brother probably pushed him. Cue posters raining personal attacks on both the 8 year old, the brother and the mum because they should all have known better.

Now a Black boy has been pushed into the river when 'his friends' knew he couldn't swim, resulting in the boys death. Cue posters "Oh but..."

Surprise surprise! Double standards strikes again.🙄

Poor family! Not knowing what really happened to their boy or getting true justice must hurt so much.

(Please don't @ me with any stupid 'explanations' or 'rebuttals'. Unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary, then I wrote what I wrote).

@SlidingInto2022sDMs Fair enough, you evidently were present at the time and directly witnessed the event.

Tragically but also extremely stupid

@daimbarsatemydogsbone

The boy was not trampled but the guard and his race has nothing to do with it. I have a black child, so no, no bad intentions here. Even his family joked about it- his aunty posted on Twitter first, yet you know best?

There is however a problem with bullying and I am worried about my child being targeted for her race as she approaches school age.

Fair enough, you evidently were present at the time and directly witnessed the event.

Where you and did you?

What I wrote is what was in the reports.

@MorningStarling

Can people stop using the term "BAME" it's highly offensive now, you may as well use the n-word. The PC term to collectively describe non-white people is POCs or person(s) of colour.

Poc is a terrible term . It sounds like a more polite way of saying coloured

I've read many non whites peaple say they hate the term

The boy was not trampled but the guard and his race has nothing to do with it. I have a black child, so no, no bad intentions here. Even his family joked about it- his aunty posted on Twitter first, yet you know best?

I believe this was meant for me because I mentioned the boy and the guard.

What does your post have to do with my point regarding the despicable things posters wrote on that thread and the double standards evident on MN and society at large? Where did I say he got trampled? Did you miss 'nearly' in your haste to reply with your "I have a black child" disclaimer?

There is however a problem with bullying and I am worried about my child being targeted for her race as she approaches school age.

As you said, not everything is racism so I'm sure you'll bear that in mind. She should be fine in that regard.

I don't know what but I don't think he should be locked up.

Do you think there'd be anything in the public interest in convicting a white boy of the death of a black boy and then not giving him much sanction? I'm guessing that if that was the case we'd be having largely the same conversation but about the undue leniency of his sentence, given that the potential racial elements in the decision making have not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction

@SlidingInto2022sDMs

Fair enough, you evidently were present at the time and directly witnessed the event.

Where you and did you?

What I wrote is what was in the reports.

and yet you say I don't believe the report

@MorningStarling

Can people stop using the term "BAME" it's highly offensive now, you may as well use the n-word. The PC term to collectively describe non-white people is POCs or person(s) of colour.

I appreciate that people are offended by different terms but I understood that BAME (from friends who are non white) is their preferred term. Some have even said they prefer Black Never have I been asked to use POC

and yet you say I don't believe the report

What is your argument? I can write what's in the articles and still not believe that it happened as the group said. Am I stating it as fact? No.

As I said, there's no concrete evidence (video, audio). All anyone has is what the group said happened. Do you object to that fact?

From the review, it turned out to be worse. It turned out that the group lied to everyone, then some of them admitted he was pushed after re-interview. It turned out the culprit maintained his lie. Even with that, there was still enough evidence to make conviction likely. His lie was obvious but brushed aside as fear of the outcome.

So I was right not to believe what the group said happened because people lie. Do you expect them to say yes we pushed him because we hate him even if that was the case? His mum is well within her right to question their recollection of events.

@OneTC

I don't know what but I don't think he should be locked up.

Do you think there'd be anything in the public interest in convicting a white boy of the death of a black boy and then not giving him much sanction? I'm guessing that if that was the case we'd be having largely the same conversation but about the undue leniency of his sentence, given that the potential racial elements in the decision making have not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction

True - and there's no denying leniency in many cases involving White men when compared to Black men.

However, while there's no satisfaction in this case no matter the outcome, that would still be a more appropriate decision. Given the same considerations listed, it would be more understandable (speaking for myself) than full sanction or nothing at all. Letting him be absolved of any responsibilities or consequence is the worst of two evils.

@SlidingInto2022sDMs

The boy was not trampled but the guard and his race has nothing to do with it. I have a black child, so no, no bad intentions here. Even his family joked about it- his aunty posted on Twitter first, yet you know best?

I believe this was meant for me because I mentioned the boy and the guard.

What does your post have to do with my point regarding the despicable things posters wrote on that thread and the double standards evident on MN and society at large? Where did I say he got trampled? Did you miss 'nearly' in your haste to reply with your "I have a black child" disclaimer?

There is however a problem with bullying and I am worried about my child being targeted for her race as she approaches school age.

As you said, not everything is racism so I'm sure you'll bear that in mind. She should be fine in that regard.

So what was the reason for bringing up the child's race? The anecdote at all? Also, I saw that thread and nobody attacked the child. He did a silly thing. His family laughed about it, get over yourself and stop being offended on others behalf.

Bullying of black children is an actual problem, but I'm questioning your motives now that you've implied that's not a valid concern.

Pazuzu

It's a kids being fucking stupid thing.
Look at the circumstances, not the colours.

Is it really “kids being stupid” though?
Let’s look at the circumstances AND the colours.

White boy knows that black boy can’t swim.
White kid decides to push black boy into the river nonetheless.

So is it? Is it really, you think?

As pp said he was mean and his actions took a life

He got off lightly because he’s white and because he has threatened suicide.