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?

We have to accept threats all the time eg when you drive a car you accept that there is a small possibility that you could be killed in an accident but feel that risk is acceptable and outweighed by the benefit. There are loads of similar examples.

How great is the risk of someone with nefarious intent smashing your car off the road as violently as possible?

Very low but not impossible. Also where are you getting nefarious intent from?

On such an outing a three year old needs constant supervision, not space! The parents have to take some responsibility, although the main fault lies with the carers, surely. Every morning I see parents take their children to school, deeply engrossed in their phones, never looking up. The child is often way behind them, they would not see them walk into the road, fall over, get knocked over by a bike etc. Then when it happens, everyone else is at fault. I feel like screaming “get off your phones and watch your child- you can catch up on meaningless garbage once they’re safely in school!”

Everyone knows you have to watch 3 year olds like a hawk. Especially in public places. Those metal fences around the crocodile enclosure look easily climbable. I'm sure any parent of an active pre-schooler would agree.

Well if you’re using the zoo incident.. do you mean you are think it was with good intent the man threw the child?

I wouldn't speculate because I don't have the information.

The threads about this incident are so difficult to read due to the amount of assumptions being made, people twisting the facts that we are aware of and other people being ignorant.

Not everyone with a DOLS will be in a secure setting. I've worked with adolescents in this situation and if they, for example, decided to leave, staff would follow and police would be called

Probably not much less than the risk of someone throwing your child into a crocodile enclosure?

And there’s no evidence of “nefarious intent” here, nor was anything done “as violently as possible”.

They are care homes. If they accept someone on a DOLs, there will be some restrictions according to what the order sets out. Not all DOLs restrictions involve locked doors or 24/7 supervision, it depends whats in the order.

The difference is important.

I didn't say they did! I only said that my GUESS, given he was released on bail even though he obviously poses a risk to the public, and given that he was out for the day with 2 carers, is that he lives in a secure care home, as this would explain why the judge felt safe to give him bail.

There is no suggestion the parents weren’t watching their child, nor that they weren’t standing next to their child, nor that they were on their phone.

As the parent of 2 preschools I can tell you if someone was intent on picking them up and throwing them it would take place in less than a second and unless I was physically carrying my children in my arms there would be no way to know someone is going to do that or stop them.

You're really not listening. There is no such thing as a secure care home for adults. The care homes work with DOLs. The difference is important. This is what I am correcting.

I already explained upthread why he would have been given bail back to his placement. If the current care arrangements didnt already include a DOLs it would be part of the work completed to work out if he should be bailed. No one would want this person in custody, he wouldnt be able to be cared for very likely.

Not everyone out with 2 carers is subject to DOLs and even if they are, it may not require the carers to monitor him every minute (as that would be impossible to some degree)

No one has their eyes on their children every single second, its not possible

Theres a lot of people being completely unrealistic on here about what carers could or couldnt stop, or what parents should or shouldnt look at

Its not a criticism to say that the parents may well have had their gaze diverted, something like this takes seconds. The carers may well have either not been required to have supreme close monitoring or their gaze was also diverted. It happens. people are human.

I can tell you if someone was intent on picking them up and throwing them

Can I just point out that although initial reports did use the word 'thrown' most were later updated and it was then reported that an incident resulted in the child being in the enclosure.

To me it sounds more likely that the adult with the learning disability lunged or pushed a child in order to get to something they wanted taking everyone, including his carers, by surprise.

Having said that I'm in no way blaming the child's family and even if they did have a phone out it would be quite normal as don't we all take photos of children at the zoo.

I would assume that the fencing was quite high, and it would take some time and effort to pick up the boy and push him over.

Or those concerned could have been scrolling on their phone….

Well no, the man couldn’t have lunged or pushed the child so that the child somehow teleported 1.4meters in the air and over the barrier. This wasn’t a waist high barrier.
Thrown/ held over and dropped - it’s all the same thing really, what physically couldn’t happen is pushing the child and him just “ending up” in the crocodile enclosure. Thats physically impossible due to what we know and can see about the scene.

The boy may have been half up the fence trying to see the crocodiles or he may have been lifted up and held by a family member. Both normal things we all do with young children

See my other post. Was he being held by his mother or another adult?

You’re being ridiculous, why add all these details that clearly haven’t been reported because they didn’t happen?

The man was arrested for attempted murder, he wasn’t able to be interviewed sure but there was clearly enough information available to the police that this wasn’t someone walking past and bumping by accident.

Because other posters are adding details and imaginary scenarios that haven't been reported

Question for all those making excuses or providing explanations for the man while find strange ways to blame others including the child and the family, did you do the same for the man who throw a child off the Tate museum?

Why would that be a reason to create more baseless rumours?