AIBU to think a man accused of throwing a child into a crocodile enclosure should not get bail?

[YourKeenOliveNewt]

Aibu to think the man who threw an unknown 3 year old into a crocodile enclosure shouldn't be out on bail?

If anyone could provide any insight into the reasoning behind why was granted bail I would be very interested to hear it.

AIBU: He's a danger to society
AINBU: Innocent until proven guilty

Name Changed for this post.
This case has been the spur that I needed to resign from my job.
I am also a carer with a "charity" that takes people with severe LD or ASD out for days. It's a shit show. I have put "charity" in inverted commas because the directors make a pretty penny out of it.
In theory all the clients are vetted and risk assessed but in reality I feel that there just aren't enough staff to provide adequate care. The staff are poorly trained and lack experience in dealing with the complexities of ASD.
Whilst some of our staff are excellent, the majority just don't do their job properly and prefer to chat to the other staff or scroll social media, rather than properly interacting or supervising.
I witnessed a situation recently where a young client had to be restrained by supermarket security staff when he attacked a carer.
Until we as a country invest in proper care, awful situations like these will continue to arise.

Well it might make some carers wake up and actually pay attentiion?! I'm sure there are excellent carers but sadly we probably all see some wandering about with the person they are 'caring' for, on their phones not remotely interested.

If this person had pushed a dc into traffic that would have e been bad enough but for the carers to knowingly enter a high risk area with crocodiles and he had enough room to grab a child and throw it just beggars belief. I hope the carers phones are examined to see if either of them were on them at the time of the visit.

They can be, but the law (rightly) sets out stringent standards that must be applied before they can be "locked up". (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, aka DOLS).

Until there has been an inquiry that explores the decision making and risk assessment processes relevant to this case, it's unwise to speculate and even more unwise to make changes to the law or guidelines.

Can't say as I blame you.

Grateful to all to people on this thread who have tried to be rational and patient when explaining the law, care standards/norms, and basic humanity to other posters.

Do you get that even in the best case scenario that it does wake some existing carers up, it's also liable to deter some, though?

The lack of understanding and knowledge on here is depressing. I regularly come into contact with people who don’t have the ability to decide what to have for breakfast let alone understand right and wrong but are physically capable of attacking me (and have on a number of occasions) and I guess doing something similar as this man.
With regard to the carers all will on minimum wage or just above, it’s a constantly changing workforce in many areas bank or agency cares will be used, in my extensive experience they have had very little training, a see one, do one, teach one ethos, the vast majority of training would be e-learning, most can’t restrain because the recommendations are 5 people and all should receive proper formal face to face training to restrain, many work 60 + hours a week, a “sleeping night” (which it usually isn’t) is often not counted in their hours, many come in duty at say 4 pm and work for 24 hours with no sleep or a break, their supervisors usually were carers themselves and have only marginally more training. Carers are often responsible for people with exceedingly complex and multiple needs both physical and emotional even those who only need a 1:1. Many have only a sketchy idea of what is actually wrong with the person they are caring for, continuity of care is often impossible. Then unrealistic demands are being placed on then by the persons family or their legal guardian, the carers may be being told to take them out and about to improve quality of life even if the person is not actually interested. It’s not a job I’d want to do for £50 an hour let alone minimum wage.

Many carers are very low paid and as much as it’s a job that requires huge skills, the pay doesn’t reflect this, and often people are taken on simply as no one else is available and they need carers.

i don’t think this excuses the carers, clearly you need to do the job and do it correctly, but I think this case highlights a very significant issue there is.

Yes but we invest in care. You've just said the directors get paid a pretty penny. The problem is the organisations don't invest in their own staff.

@NotSafe

Sounds familiar to what my husband experienced. Unfortunately some people have to be kept kept in secure accomodation to protect the public. As an aside, my husband told me how much it cost to keep this client he looked after, they were eyewatering, upwards of £120k pa. No doubt a large chunk of this was staff wages

That's because you're conflating to different things. I mean its possible but its equally possible that a person is a danger to children because they cant tolerate babies crying and may strike out and that they are also disinhibited and play with themselves to self-sooth (sexually inappropriate behaviour). In that case they shouldn't be around children but would not be classed as sexually dangerous.

Just why on earth take someone <who I'd bet a tenner had displayed challenging behaviour previously> to a place with wild animals and children?

Museums, cafes, shops anywhere else. Just avoid the crocodiles, it isn't rocket science is it. Yes assault could happen anyway just limit the risk factors!

Lucky for me the carers in my case buggered off so quickly I couldn't even say what their ethnicity was so I at least potentially avoided being called racist.

You don't think due process should be followed before people are "detained for their crimes"? Like, for example, some kind of assessment that a crime has been committed, that the accused is culpable and what length of detention is appropriate? If only we had a police force, a crown prosecution service and judges to sort this stuff out.

It's all wrong. The rights of normal law-abiding people should be paramount. No child should be put at risk so that dangerous mentally disabled people can have a day out at the zoo. Sorry but that's just how it is.

This.

The risk assessment was crap. The supervision was crap. This individual shouldn't ever have been able to do what he did if carers were on the ball and doing their job.

This is shocking, how can anyone be this ignorant.

my friends son is in his 2os, he a strapping man in his mid twenties. 6ft 2, fit. He’s fully physically able. Howver he is completely non verbal and understands little to nothing of what he is told. He also comes across as very happy and benign. There is no malice in him at all. Howver due to no impulse control he often does inappropriate things, not sexually inappropriate I will add.

I could easily see a situation where he would see a small child trying to see into an animals enclosure and pick him up in a fast swoop and chuck him in, thinking it was either funny or he was helping the child who wanted to see the animals.

when it’s 2 on 1 carers the needs are high. Mentally disabled and physically disabled are two different things and I’m shocked anyone can get to adult hood and not understand this.

He is cared for in a home, he has 2 carers at all times. He gets days out, he is not in jail due to his disabilities. His carers really enjoy caring for him and the bond his high. I can easily see a situation where they turn for a second and something like this happens, it would have taken seconds.

Agreed. Quite conceivable though that these carers had nothing to do with any risk assessment and did what they were told.

I'd think it vanishingly unlikely, tbh.

Like others have pointed out, they clearly arrested him, then identified that he was incapable of being questioned due to his learning difficulties. He was probably taken back to wherever he was living and he hasn’t a clue what he’s done.

I think what we need to be asking is why this man needed 2 carers? If it is because he’s difficult to handle, or prone to violence, then why was he at a zoo with kids and crocodiles around? How competent were his carers? Are they proper qualified and experienced ones or just cheap bums on seats as no one has the budget for it.

It’s probably another f*ck up by our underfunded, wokefest support services and lessons will (not) be learned. It’s probably another case where the rights of the individual/ minority trump the safety of the public which now seems to be happening on a daily basis.

There is no certainty that the carers could have stopped him, we have no idea how big the 30 year old man was. It's not down to minimum wage carers to prevent attempted murder, they are not trained or paid enough for this. Blaming the carers will backfire, there is no foolproof 100% safeguard to stop someone else's violence. Now he has attempted murder, his best interests and comfort should be irrelevant and the focus should be on public safety and the most cost effective way to provide that.

I can see how a situation like this might arise.

i have an older brother, always cared for by mum who would accept no help from social services. He was her lovely baby boy and she ran her whole life around his needs and wishes. He has quite severe LDs and autism. If he doesn’t like something he can be very angry and aggressive and the extended family were well aware that he could hurt children and animals and indeed other adults. When she died SS had just mum’s impression of who he was ‘a lovely boy who made a lovely cup of tea’ but none of the real stuff. It took a lot of work to bring SS up to speed with the actual situation and he is placed appropriately in a facility who look after him very well.

However, if he had not had the family telling SS the truth around his behaviours, they may well have thought he was a docile man with severe LDs who would be ideal to shuffle around a zoo with carers for a few hours.

The man who carried out the attack might not have shown such extreme behaviours before. We can’t and shouldn’t just lock up every cognitively disabled person on the off chance they might hurt someone. Obviously if they have violent tendencies, precautions should be taken and an educated decision made to keep both the public and them safe. If we are just going to sweepingly lock up whole groups of the population up because they theoretically could carry out a hideous crime, we’d be locking up all men, people with depression, metal health disorders like bipolar and many other groups of people.

Where were his carers when he picked up the child and why were they unable to prevent this as they should have been standing either side of him

Until we as a country invest in proper care, awful situations like these will continue to arise.

And this is the crux of the matter. I agree.