Can anyone help me understand what this means?

[itsgettingweird]

I’ve been reading that the man responsible for throwing the child into the crocodile enclosure has been placed on conditional bail as they aren’t considered fit enough for questioning.

What are the conditions likely to be? Are they monitored? Is it released to a secure hospital?

Otherwise it seems strange to me someone too unwell to be questioned but unwell enough to throw a 3yo to a crocodile is deemed well enough to be allowed to roam the streets again?

I think we all know what it means: that the perp is one of the holy members of a sacred caste.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation?page=3&reply=85080591

Well he hasn’t been charged yet, so we don’t know that he did throw a child, or why or circumstances. Technically he’s not yet guilty of a crime.

Conditional bail means bailed with conditions. We don’t get to know what those are. They can include restrictions to movement, tagging, curfew, areas they aren’t allowed to go etc.

I don’t know BUT I would imagine they will probably be being held under the MH act. Private medical information can’t be publicised until after a conviction I don’t think.

He's learning disabled out on a planned outing with carers. The child's parents were on a video call. Apparently.

Or course the right wing have leaped on it stirring up shit.

That’s what I was hoping was likely the truth.

I agree with the poster who said he don’t charged yet or convicted so we don’t technically know he did it.

Bit for me that wouldn’t be a reason to allow someone witnesses throwing a child at crocodiles out to roam free.

He’s clearly not well and a danger.

Oh I’m sure they’ll be people with plenty to say.

my question was solely on what conditional bail means.

whatever the man’s disabilities or mental health conditions or whatever the parents were doing at the time this man is a danger and so releasing him because he’s not fit enough for questioning opened up question for me about what that means in practice because of him clearly being a danger.

I think the above poster is right that we won’t know (and nor should we) any private medical info and therefore what his conditions are or of indeed he’s been detained under a medical rather than criminal basis.

Hopefully he will be in a secure mental facility for life at least.

Honestly, what on earth? We do know that he did because by all accounts there appears to be several eye witnesses that have all stated he did pick the child up and throw him in. The proof for this not least being the child in the crocodile enclosure.
We might not know why, but that’s not necessarily relevant or important.

Why are some people so obsessed with suggesting this didn’t happen or that there’s anything to justify this action?

A grown man threw a 3 year old little toddler into a crocodile enclosure, I mean let that sink in, that should be insane to anyone, and yet people are trying to twist themselves in knots to brush it away.

It's a bit like the guy who threw a child off a balcony in a museum.

It’s means there’s no point banging him up in a cell, but that there are conditions to his freedom, given he is learning disabled needing to be looked after I’d be fairly certain that condition will include 24 hour supervision in a residential setting.

Not sure what the ‘sacred caste’ comment was all about.

That is absolutely 100% not what that pp was saying. At all.

Interesting that your post is about others/ the right wing “stirring up shit” while posting a damming and unconfirmed rumour about the parents as though they are in anyway responsible for a man lifting up their child and throwing him into a crocodile enclosure.

Me neither!

I don’t believe this would have been a light decision. I didn’t know about Jim being learning disabled and gives more context.

Hence why MN is (mostly!) a useful place. Good kind honest people who will answer a question.

Im someone who likes to think decisions have been made for good reason - I just didn’t know what that decision entailed.

Bit good to know it likely means 24 hour supervision like o hoped it did!

That is quite literally exactly what the comment I was replying to said.
Why should we feign ignorance? Why say we don’t know what happened, when we do in fact know what happened?
There are multiple eye witness accounts that this man threw the child in. The people trying to suggest there’s doubt around this fact are very strange.

I meant legally speaking. He hasn’t been charged with a crime. Which means he is bailed (conditionally or unconditionally) under investigation.

This, posters on other threads who are doing the “once we find out what actually happened” are a bloody disgrace in their sanctimonious postulation

awful just awful.

it’s not the first time something awful has happened though. there was a child in with some kind of gorillas.

it feels like there needs to be eight foot glass walls round these dangerous wild animals.

Yes I knew what the poster meant.

It was part of the reason for mu
concern because legally he’s not been charged let alone convicted but morally and literally we know he’s guilty.

I was concerned what that meant with regards him clearly being a danger - and so what conditional bail actually entailed.

Sacred caste?? Care to clarify?

By the sounds of it he won't be able to be charged - but i hope questions will be asked about who approved the outing and if his (rumoured) 2 carers were doing their job properly.

This is what I thought too.

Conditional bail will likely have a curfew, stipulations on locations he can attend and if the suspect requires to be with carers (I believe he has been deemed as mentally unwell / disabled) it will also include not interfering with witnesses. Either directly or indirectly.

From what I have read it is likely he wont be prosecuted as such due to lack of mental capability. Crimes are closed with codes.

For anyone interested have a look at 'Home Office crime closure codes'

I suspect an investigation will be taking place into the level of supervision / care was being provided on the day to both the child and the suspect.

There is shit flying around saying he's an immigrant from Sudan. I think that falls under stirring up shit

The child that fell into a gorilla enclosure, fell through an ineffective fence. Not similar at all.

And the person that threw a child off a balcony was not learning disabled, in fact he planned it, and he was 18. Although it looks like he was a child in care, he had mental capacity as far as the reporting seems concerned.