Gransnet forums

News & politics

Page 5 of 5 | First | Previous | Next | Last
| Flip | Customise |

Should care workers be banned from using mobile phones following 3 yr old being thrown in crocodile pit by man with severe learning difficulties

(103 Posts)
Add comment | Report
Primrose53 Sun 21-Jun-26 18:16:35

It is reported that the person who threw the child into the crocodile enclosure was in the “care” of two support workers who were sitting down playing on their phones several yards from him. Witnesses say he was being ignored by staff.

I regularly see support workers or care workers in charge of small groups or individuals with learning difficulties ignoring their charges and using their phones.

I have reported this on 3 occasions to a local centre because they are putting these vulnerable people at risk by not doing their job properly. Once a young woman was almost hit by a reversing car and another time a young man ran into the road because he was not being supervised.

I also see adverts for people to do these jobs and no qualifications or experience is necessary. I wonder what training they get.

I understand a work phone is necessary if there is an emergency but I still think their personal phones should never be used while they are working.

Add comment | Report
M0nica Mon 29-Jun-26 07:51:08

MissAdventure

It's simply a mattet of making conversation with the person you're supporting.
Not difficult, no special training, just talk to them!!!

The problem is that mobile phones have now been around so long that a whole cohort of people have grown-up glued to their phones and unable to conduct a conversation.

You get this complaint coming from employers - that young staff do not know how to communicate with each other, let alone customers and clients. I also think that there is a need to review the way we care for severely mentally disabled people.

Currently there is a constant pressure to 'help them live normal lives', shove them out in the community, have them living alone in flats and houses. I know that the main reason for this is financial but it is always wrapped in welfare waffle.

We do not yet know what this man's problems were, but if it was known that he was in the habit of picking up objects and throwing them or otherwise was prone to violent actions, then the uestion must arise as to whether this zoo was a suitable place to take him. It was uite some way from where he lived and a hire car was needed to transport him. Why was this particular venue chosen?

Add comment | Report
MissAdventure Mon 29-Jun-26 08:52:10

If policies and procedures are in place (which they should be) then there will have been a lot of thought put into where it was safe and practical to take someone, bearing in mind their interests and behaviours.
There would be possibly signs that a person was becoming agitated, or was overwhelmed, and the contingency plan put into action.

Hard to notice with one's head stuck in a phone.

Possibly there are multiple failures in procedures, from management, down.

I suppose we'll know more as the facts become known.

Page 5 of 5 | First | Previous | Next | Last
| Flip | Customise |