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?

Has that been verified anywhere? There will still be a range of people with special needs to need carers but do have an understanding of their behaviour.

I’m not sure why you would assume they have no understanding of what or why he did it without anything or anyone close to the man backing that up.

Sky News reported that he didn’t have capacity to be interviewed.

Exactly this

He may have LD, that doesnt mean he lacks capacity
He may have carers, that doesnt mean he was subject to legal restrictions prior to the crime
He may have been subject to legal restrictions prior to the crime that doesnt mean he lacks capacity in all areas of his life

This would all need to be assessed as to whethe rhe is charged and then if he is charged whether he is able to stand trial in his own right or is represented by the OS or simply detained subject to other acts.

This , are we just meant to say “thems the breaks, this can happen, oh well”

No one is blaming the child, he is the innocent victim.

Thats a bit ambiguous as it may be he didnt have capacity at that time (ie was too agitated or distressed) or that he 'lacks capacity' and cannot represent himself

Not sure which and media likes to bandy terms around they have misunderstood

People have been, possibly on the other thread.
There was a few ‘what did the child do to provoke such a reaction? Was he annoying or noisy?’

No one on here has said anything like that.

No

My OH does things like this, when trying to make a point about something completely irrelevant, he takes the almost lone voice/s of a very very tiny/unhinged minority who voice something completely off key and say 'PEOPLE ARE SAYING ......'

No, people are not saying....., no one but a few agitators or bored people or whatever they are, are saying this thing

No one is blaming a small child for this.

And the parents have been blamed too…”what were they doing?!”

Whats the alternative?

If ( and we dont know if this is going to happen) the perpetrator is ill/cannot be charged/lacks capacity and therefore NFA

What then, whats the solution?

He'll certainly be subject to various restrictions in any case, but may not be sent to jail or even hospital if its not deemed to have a treatable MH disorder.

Mind you Bravery was sent to psychiatric hospital with PD and ASD so its possible.

Again, no one normal is blaming the parents. One or two comments dont equate to 'the parents are being blamed'

@Eliezathe most dangerous “wild animals “ in these scenarios are human beings locking up other species for their own amusement and allowing mentally unstable (allegedly) human beings to be around them!

It's not the animals that are dangerous in the situation . They are well away in their own space and you can walk around above them and look down into their habitat. It would be an incredible shame if they had to plexiglass everything. Humans are awful.

But they aren't the victims. The child is the victim.

This is 100% the carers fault.

The solution is once an act like this or Bravery has happened, then that’s it, confinement none of the bleeding “oh theirs rights are paramount “

You do realise that the perpetrators of these things get confined dont you?

(I mean once its deemed they were responsible, diminished or not).

The person could be learning disabled, nonverbal and lacking the capacity to understand the gravity of his actions or understand the charges. I would assume that if this is the case, he's probably been taken to a secure facility.

How on earth are you getting that from this comment?

What has happened (from the information released to date) is that a person with learning difficulties threw the child into the disclosure. The learning difficulties are so severe that the police thought he couldn't be interviewed. The poster is saying if his learning difficulties are bad enough for him to throw a child to crocodiles, surely they can't have just released him into the community, even if he can't be interviewed. No one is suggesting he didn't throw the child into the enclosure.

He hasn't even got the capacity to be interviewed so obviously he's not going to be able to stand trial

Its not a given. I have already explained why.

The dangerous animals being humans!

I agree. They should have been close enough to the young man that they could have intervened in a heartbeat.

I also have an idea of why he did it - I think he was acting out something he saw on tv or the internet. He either did it because he thought what he watched was funny so he wanted to try it himself, or it was he wanted to see the child eaten by the crocodile.

Yes, it’s Jonty Bravery all over again - Absolutely not safe to be amongst other people but allowed to anyway because, I dunno, human rights or budget cuts 🤷🏽‍♀️