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

Christ.

Right, so by your own explanation it’s actually far more likely that this is not a first incident for him and there’s instead been a severe failure of systems, than that this is a completely out-of-the-blue first-time occurrence.

He has learning disabilities the fault lies with the carers. Anything could have triggered him either a noise the child was making. The carers should have moved him away before it escalated. He might not even understand what he's done. I'm not saying he shouldn't be locked up. Of course if he's a danger to people then he shouldn't be out in the community.

I have no idea.

None of us in the general public will be able to determine if it is or isn’t a first incident. We don’t have the facts. We don’t have his care plan, his diagnosis, his risk assessments.

But yes, it’s pointing extremely likely that there has been systemic failings in this man’s care into the lead up of this tragic event. I wouldn’t be surprised. I never am with Adult Social Care.

It’s not woke to ask where exactly you would like such people ‘locked up’ ?

Given that provision for those with profound learning disabilities and MH problems is so poor, that many people end up in the criminal justice system instead of getting the help they need.

Where are the facilities you speak of ? This incident happened in public. As a disability outreach worker l saw things going on in private that would make your hair curl. Families who literally have to set up safe rooms in their own homes to protect themselves from violent and abusive adult children with various learning disabilities/MH problems and severe Autism. Left to get on with it because there isn’t adequate provision and no-one cares. Until something like this hits the headlines.

It’s now being reported that at least one of the carers was on their phone at the time of the incident.

I would guess he’s been sectioned due to mental health issues as it said he was not fit to be in custody, or physically unwell in hospital for an extended period.

Horrific. But sadly, not surprised.

I am devastated for this little boy and his family.

I know you never asked me but id say he should be sectioned under the mental health act. Whether these things are committed due to MH reasons or not people still have the right expect the authorities to control these matters. Is this better alternative letting him walking around and possibly do it again.

I read he was bailed but bailed to mean was sectioned

My DS was sexual assaulted on public transport coming home from school by a man with learning difficulties. The police were called at the time to intercept. After they initially caught the man as he bolted as he left, however, they called me soon afterwards and told me while the situation was very serious they could do absolutely nothing about it.

This man didn’t even have carers with him, and was fully aware that he’d done wrong as he ran when he left the station and the police were waiting. But they can’t do anything more other than hand details of the incident over to the relevant services and hope they make the right decisions to safeguard from allowing this to happening again.

Bail simply means not in police custody. He can't stay in police custody because the police don't have anywhere suitable for him. He is most likely to be in secure accommodation of some kind, depending on where is most appropriate.
The ignorance of the general public never ceases to astound me.
We don't know the circumstances, I have read both that the carers were on phones and that the parents were on phones. I have no idea if either report is true but I really doubt that both things are.

Could also be learning disabilities needing full time care. Guess we’ll find out in time. There’s an ongoing investigation into the carers who were supervising - it’s reported that one of them was on their phone at the time of the incident.

People with ‘profound’ learning disabilities used to be housed in asylums. Not nice places but staffed with a mix of carers and nurses / doctors. Now often housed in small homes with only care staff. Accessing the community is a great idea but other people’s safety should be paramount. Was the child being thrown off the Tate gallery a man with severe autism and LD too?

Not fit to be questioned can also mean that he has no understanding of what he has done.

This is my experience in disability support. Provision is so poor for those with learning difficulties/MH problems that they often end up in the criminal justice system because they can’t access the help they need. Unfortunately, as in your DS’s case, it often means other people are harmed.

That was my take on it to be honest.

The problem is that there are many people left to their own devices until they commit a crime because there aren’t enough facilities to accommodate them.

This is an incredibly sad case. I’m not trying to diminish what has happened and I feel awful for the families and people involved.

I do think some of you are maybe interpreting why he was out with two carers incorrectly though. Obviously I can’t say for sure as I don’t know this man or the people involved, however the most likely reason he has two carers wasn’t to protect other people but to protect him. I don’t want people to start thinking if they see someone with profound learning disabilities out with two carers it’s because they are a danger to society. In reality if someone with profound learning disabilities is going out for the day, they are likely to need two carers. One of the main reasons is that their mental capacity means it’s not safe to leave them alone when for example a carer needs the toilet/comfort break. I don’t mean it’s not safe to leave them alone because they will do harm to others, I mean it in a way that you wouldn’t leave a 1 or 2 year old sitting on their own outside a public toilet block. The reasons being they could walk off and do harm to themselves or someone could abduct them and harm them. However, unlike if you were taking a 1 or 2 year old out, a carer can’t take a profoundly disabled person into the loo with them, it’s just not appropriate unless they were a close family member, therefore two carers are required on these types of outings. Obviously a carer needing the loo isn’t the only reason, if they are out on a long day trip the carer will be entitled to breaks etc during their working day. In most instances of a profoundly disabled person out with two carers, the reason they have two carers isn’t to protect the public, it’s to protect them, themselves.

Obviously something has gone horrifically wrong here and needs to be thoroughly investigated. We, the general public don’t have enough information to have an informed understanding of what exactly happened and are currently just speculating with very little actual information.

My thoughts remain with the child and their family. However, please don’t just automatically assume that when you see someone with profound learning disabilities out with two carers, that the fact they have two carers means they are a danger to you and your family. In all likelihood it just means they can’t be left alone, even for a couple of minutes, the same way you wouldn’t leave a small child alone in public.

It sounds very similar to the incident with the boy being thrown from the Tate art gallery.
I also don’t think it’s fair to judge the carer for being on their phone, we have no idea what they were doing on it but it could have been work related

It’s a horrific incident and I really hope the boy is OK. But it is possible there was no malice behind it (the intent, not the eventual outcome.) Someone with severe learning disabilities may have lacked any sort of understanding about why it was a dangerous thing to do.

As awful as this was I hope it doesn’t lead to the demonising of people with learning difficulties. It’s hardly an everyday occurrence, after all, many more horrific and violent crimes are committed by those who know exactly what they’re doing and surely that’s where our attention should be?

Ultimately though Negative freedom (free to not have something done to you, to be hurt or harmed), has to come before Positive freedom (freedom to thrive and reach potential etc). And I think sometimes the second is prioritised for one person at the expense of the first, for other people, in this case an innocent child.

We do not yet know the full circumstances of what happened or the circumstances of the person involved. The Police would have fully considered the risks to the public in granting bail. I would avoid idle speculation.

Exactly this

The vast majority of people with multiple carers don't have them because of the risk of them randomly attacking members of the public.