Teenager attacked by teen in custody of HSE

monica22

only way I can explain residential they weren't bringing him from one location to another they are allowed stop along the way

ROCKMAN

monica22 wrote: »

The purpose of residential care is to provide a safe, nurturing environment for individual children and young people who cannot live at home or in an alternative family environment. It aims to meet in a planned way the physical, educational, emotional, spiritual, health and social needs of each child. This may include

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful return home,

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful transition to an agreed placement of choice,

working with a young person’s Social Worker and other professionals to prepare a young person for a successful transition to independent / supported living.

All professionals who work with children in residential centres strive to ensure:

that the welfare and best interests of resident young people are of paramount consideration in all aspects of the care provided
that the young people in care are provided with an opportunity to feel safe, secure and protected from harm in an environment where they can be sure their primary needs will be met.
that the young people in care feel encouraged and supported when partaking in new and positive experiences.
That the young people in care are provided opportunities to develop new competencies and to enjoy their achievements while also experiencing approval, recognition and praise for the efforts they have made.
that the practice reflects the importance of understanding both the past and present life experience of the young people in our care and takes due consideration of their age and corresponding stage of development.
that the young people in care feel valued even when their thoughts, feelings and behaviour are difficult for them to manage or for us to accept.
that the relationships developed convey attentiveness, compassion and respect for the young people in our care, their families, communities and cultures
that the programmes developed for the young people in care are always delivered with the same attentiveness, compassion and respect that embodies the relationships formed with them.

Your post is about residential care , But this was a transport case where for the protection of the young person and the protection of the HSE staff ,the young person must be accompanied and supervisied by at least 2 members of staff at all times throughout the trip .

Leftist

deuceswild wrote: »

Well im pretty certain that if the kid was with his parents at the time he carried out this attack for 5 minutes without them stepping in then you would have a different story!

I know when i was in school and a fight broke out the teachers intervined and broke it up, i wonder if teachers stepped aside and called the guards instead what would happen?

Rules and regulations aside, if you have a child in your care and something like this happens then you have failed in your care.

Were these care workers female?

Do you expect the females to physically subdue this 18 yr old man?

would you expect a female in your family to do this?

Danbo!

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

Cavehill Red, you make the point that we don't know who you are or what you do, but it is quite clear from your posts you are not familiar with the social work profession. This is clear from you repeatedly using the argument that the social workers were 'escorting' the child in question from A to B like a prisoner.

Not a prisoner, may have had no previous aggression issues (although this is unlikely considering the seriousness of the assault, this is conjecture) was simply being given a lift, not 'transferred' or 'escorted'.

The job of the social worker involves being the child's guardian, so the situation could be comparable to parents bringing a child from a to b and stopping at a shop. Nothing bizarre here, you're talking about it as if it was prison guards opening the back of a transport can and giving prisoners some r&r time.

As for the actions of the 11 bystanders and the 2 social workers, or inaction as it was, we cannot really comment unless we were there.

But I just needed to correct your repeated argument that they were assigned to travel from a to b an should not have stopped at a shop.

I made the point earlier in the thread that many misunderstand the role of the HSE in regards to children in care. In care can refer to a lot of situations. Children being placed with foster families, in homes, in care facilities for want of a better expression. Social workers monitor progress and help with services and requirements suited to each particular child. They do not keep them under 24 hour supervision or tag and track them everywhere.

fenris

The simple fact is that a person under the supervision of the HSE was allowed to beat a third party to a pulp while the HSE staff looked on.

The weasel words used to defend those staff give a real insight into the teflon shoulder mentality that will allow this to happen again and again. To me that is nearly as bad as the actions of the teen if not worse.

The "poor me, I have to work 12 hour shifts with teenagers" - big deal that is your job that you applied for and get paid to do, get on with it or get out.

The "haha you got the "policy & procedures" bit the wrong way around so everything else is invalid and we don't have to face up to responsibility for the appalling injuries sustained due to our comrade negligence. - this is the mindless bureaucracy mentality in a nutshell.

We don't need to hear about how hard you think your job is or how you are misunderstood, what we would like to know is how you are going to prevent this happening in the future and how the persons that not only allowed but facilitated the assault are going to be dealt with.

Cavehill Red

Leftist wrote: »

I'm missing the information from that article that proves this.

Where is it?

Furthermore where is the rules that indicate social carers must have patients under strict observation at all times?

We see from this article that this attack was not random, therefore there is less reason to assume the patient could attack someone at the location.

Infact it is a situation directly linked to a previous occurance. So were the care workers advised of gang membership or a threat to a witnesses life?

If not they have no reason for negligence.

You keep deliberately claiming that there had to be prior knowledge or suspicion of an attack to demonstrate negligence. This is not the case. Their assigned task was to take him to the home and they failed to do so. They were supposed to keep him under supervision and again failed to do so. On these two counts, their core tasks, they were negligent.

Duggy747

Leftist wrote: »

I'm missing the information from that article that proves this.

Where is it?

It's the very first paragraph on that article I had in bold:

Irish Independant wrote:

The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault.

monica22

you want my honest opinion sometimes the children are better off left at home. however if the reason their in care is for sexual ,physical, neglect etc then its the best option but foster care should be sought first! im been killed on this thing

monica22

what is the question

G.muny

I feel awful for the poor 16 yr old but I can understand people not stepping in. They were probaly afraid. I know if I were there unless someone else came with me I wouldn't have but thats because I am a girl who weighs all of 8 stone but even the men there.

You are witnessing what appears to be someone who is capable of murder do just that and you are suspected to intervene? Yeh if a group of two or more of them if the men went chances are they could have stopped him but that means there has to be one of them that initates this plan and puts themself forward and its everybodies basic instinct to protect themselves and their wellbeing above all else. Yes there are the few that in moments like that just act and are far more herioc than the rest of us, but that takes a certain type of person and most of us just don't have it in is. Its not due to be unconcerned its just self preservation.

monica22

it s about residential care they werent just giving him a lift he lived in the home

monica22

trying to do my best here to show that social care workers not all the problem thanks though

Cavehill Red

monica22 wrote: »

it s about residential care they werent just giving him a lift he lived in the home

Exactly! They weren't just giving him a lift to wherever he wanted to go; they were escorting him under their supervision to a specific location, and failed miserably to do so, with horrifying consequences.

Welruc

Leftist wrote: »

Were these care workers female?

Do you expect the females to physically subdue this 18 yr old man?

would you expect a female in your family to do this?

They should not have taken this lad into their care if they could not cars for him!!

I have a wife and sisters and i would be disappointed if they were in this situation and by the sounds of it done absolutely nothing to help the victim.

monica22

you know what I don't need to defend myself to the likes of you! My job is a hard job and if you knew the work i did well obviously u wouldnt say i in it for the money! unless u walk in my shoes dont judge! and if u had of read my comments i joking with people not been bitchy

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

only way I can explain residential they weren't bringing him from one location to another they are allowed stop along the way

Regardless if they were allowed to stop along the way they have responsibility for minors in their care.

If when they stopped he had gone to the bathroom and hung himself that would undoubtedly be considered a failing on their behalf, why is this an exception?

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

If when they stopped he had gone to the bathroom and hung himself that would undoubtedly be considered a failing on their behalf, why is this an exception?

Wasn't aware of this.

is this true? can the social carers be disciplined for negligence in this event?

Cavehill Red

monica22 wrote: »

you want my honest opinion sometimes the children are better off left at home. however if the reason their in care is for sexual ,physical, neglect etc then its the best option but foster care should be sought first! im been killed on this thing

Monica, no one disputes that the job is a difficult one, nor that the service is under staffed and under pressure. But this 'circle the wagons' kind of defending the indefensible is standard HSE shoulder-shrugging when they get things badly wrong. We've seen it with the blood scandals, with the A+E crisis, with cases of medical malpractice.
Now, you can argue, and I'd be sympathetic, that two young female employees should not have been assigned the task in the first place. But having been given the task, they fcuked up royally. No doubt they feel terrible now, but that's no help to the lad whose brain has been damaged.
There needs to be an investigation and heads must roll over this. If those responsible for failing in their task can demonstrate that they were insufficiently prepared or briefed in their task, then it is their boss who ought to be sacked.

monica22

MagicMarker wrote: »

Monica can you please answer my question?

Seachmall wrote: »

Monica is quoting from a private charity's documents called "Faith in Families", which is not relevant to this case nor does it deal with the HSE's responsibilities.

its general hse responsibilities for a child in care its also called national standards for children in residential I copied and pasted to save myself writing! U really uncovered something there ha

monica22

Leftist wrote: »

Wasn't aware of this.

is this true? can the social carers be disciplined for negligence in this event?

no

Leftist

deuceswild wrote: »

They should not have taken this lad into their care if they could not cars for him!!

I have a wife and sisters and i would be disappointed if they were in this situation and by the sounds of it done absolutely nothing to help the victim.

A) then it is the managment's fault. Not the care workers. I am merely disgusting by the morons suggesting these care workers should lose their jobs.

You would wish for your sister and wife to attempt to phsyically subdue a 18yr old who is showing severe and brutal aggression?

Really?

Because who is to say they did not explore other options aside from physically intervening?

monica22

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Monica, no one disputes that the job is a difficult one, nor that the service is under staffed and under pressure. But this 'circle the wagons' kind of defending the indefensible is standard HSE shoulder-shrugging when they get things badly wrong. We've seen it with the blood scandals, with the A+E crisis, with cases of medical malpractice.
Now, you can argue, and I'd be sympathetic, that two young female employees should not have been assigned the task in the first place. But having been given the task, they fcuked up royally. No doubt they feel terrible now, but that's no help to the lad whose brain has been damaged.
There needs to be an investigation and heads must roll over this. If those responsible for failing in their task can demonstrate that they were insufficiently prepared or briefed in their task, then it is their boss who ought to be sacked.

Im not saying anything only getting ate by everyone

MrThrifty

Duggy747 wrote: »

I think there's the sufficent evidence that this fella had a violent background.

Monica, should've saved youself time of copying and pasting and just linked the HSE site instead.

Duggy747 wrote: »

I think there's the sufficent evidence that this fella had a violent background.

Monica, should've saved youself time of copying and pasting and just linked the HSE site instead.

:eek: Are you joking? Have I misread the report or are you ignorantly assuming that someone has a violent background because of their association with someone else who has one and was jailed?! I.e. Guilty by association?...

deuceswild wrote: »

Well im pretty certain that if the kid was with his parents at the time he carried out this attack for 5 minutes without them stepping in then you would have a different story!

I know when i was in school and a fight broke out the teachers intervined and broke it up, i wonder if teachers stepped aside and called the guards instead what would happen?

As for care workers not intervening, they were 2 girls in their early 20's... And the accused in question I would imagine was not someone to be reckoned with, judging from the violent nature of the attack. By the way, it is NOT a responsibility of their job to put their lives in danger. That's like saying that a fireman must enter a burning building to try to rescue everyone inside no matter what the dangers involved and risk to their own safety and that of their crew. Nonsense...

You have to remember here that the parents have most likely already failed this child or not been able to cope and that is the reason he was in care in the first place. So don't assume that the parents would have actually intervened in the incident in question.

MagicMarker

Monica, if you had a 5 year old in your care who started to hit another child, would you restrain the child or would you leave him be and call the gardai?

If you restrain him, would you be charged with assault?

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

its general hse responsibilities for a child in care its also called national standards for children in residential I copied and pasted to save myself writing! U really uncovered something there ha

monica22 wrote: »

no

You can't tell me that they'd be responsible in that instance and then tell Leftist they wouldn't.

And as a general rule, if you must quote something only quote the relevant parts, format it appropriately, expand on how or why they apply and cite your source. If you don't do that nobody will read it, and your posts are difficult enough to understand as is.

Duggy747

MrThrifty wrote: »

:eek: Are you joking? Have I misread the report or are you ignorantly assuming that someone has a violent background because of their association with someone else who has one and was jailed?! I.e. Guilty by association?...

Jesus Christ, 3rd bloody time I have to post this goddamn paragraph to get it through your skulls:

Irish Independant wrote:

The Irish Independent has learned that Adam Fitzgibbon (18) had been handed over to the HSE's care by his parents on the same day he left another teenager fighting for his life following a sustained and brutal assault.

He assualted another teen which, presumably, resulted in him being left in the HSE's care in the first place.

Can't you people read at all before shooting off your mouths.

monica22

MagicMarker wrote: »

Monica, if you had a 5 year old in your care who started to hit another child, would you restrain the child or would you leave him be and call the gardai?

If you restrain him, would you be charged with assault?

I'd do the small child restraint if it in the house staff cannot do RESTRAINTS in a public area! the situation only go to restraint if it couldn't be done by conquering and dividing the two kids

G.muny

I generally wouldn't blame the two social workers, I would blame the HSE for not providing the care the teen needed. As a women I myself knowing with another women or not I would still be absolutly terrified of trying to grapple with a crazed violent 18 year old. What are they suppose to do? Turn around and say "No we can't handle him" and then what they lose their job? I am assuming if this 18 yr old (who by the way is an adult, I see people refering to him as a child) was handed in by his parents chances are they may have had a fair idea he may have been prone to violence, then why did they only have two females escorting them? Yet people are blaming them who we know nothing about. Chances are just two normal women who work as social workers...not guards but should be expected to put themselves in harms way.

monica22

Seachmall wrote: »

You can't tell me that they'd be responsible in that instance and then tell Leftist they wouldn't.

And as a general rule, if you must quote something only quote the relevant parts, format it appropriately, expand on how or why they apply and cite your source. If you don't do that nobody will read it, and your posts are difficult enough to understand as is.

i was asked two different questions and im only figuring out how to use this why r u so hostile

Leftist

Duggy747 wrote: »

He assualted another teen which, presumably, resulted in him being left in the HSE's care in the first place.

Can't you people read at all before shooting off your mouths.

If he's not under arrest then legally the care workers are not permitted to restrain him.

Although if indeed the care workers were aware of this then they should have been expected to be concerned, but it is not within their power to restrain the youth. Not legally and arguably, not physically.

TequilaMockingBird

If the care workers had no responsibility to this boy, then why were they there? Couldn't he have traveled alone?

If it was not their remit to make sure he got from A to B, then why were they with him at all?

monica22

G.muny wrote: »

I generally wouldn't blame the two social workers, I would blame the HSE for not providing the care the teen needed. As a women I myself knowing with another women or not I would still be absolutly terrified of trying to grapple with a crazed violent 18 year old. What are they suppose to do? Turn around and say "No we can't handle him" and then what they lose their job? I am assuming if this 18 yr old (who by the way is an adult, I see people refering to him as a child) was handed in by his parents chances are they may have had a fair idea he may have been prone to violence, then why did they only have two females escorting them? Yet people are blaming them who we know nothing about. Chances are just two normal women who work as social workers...not guards but should be expected to put themselves in harms way.

he was 17 at time of the incident

Welruc

Leftist wrote: »

A) then it is the managment's fault. Not the care workers. I am merely disgusting by the morons suggesting these care workers should lose their jobs.

You would wish for your sister and wife to attempt to phsyically subdue a 18yr old who is showing severe and brutal aggression?

Really?

Because who is to say they did not explore other options aside from physically intervening?

Yes it is managments fault but its also their fault

and in answer to b: YES, there was 2 of them, if they were afraid as im sure they were and probably were (I would be in that situation) then they could have tried to get some of these witnesses to help. It sounds like they done nothing to stop the attack, we dont even know if they called the guards.

MagicMarker

monica22 wrote: »

I'd do the small child restraint if it in the house staff cannot do RESTRAINTS in a public area! the situation only go to restraint if it couldn't be done by conquering and dividing the two kids

So contrary to what you've said previously, you actually can put your hand on a child without being charged for assault?

Secondly, WTF is the difference whether you're indoors or outdoors? Are you telling me if the two kids were in public then you wouldn't restrain the child? Would you seriously just stand there and wait for the gardai when you could just step in and break it up in about 3 seconds?

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

why r u so hostile

I don't appreciate your sarcasm.

U really uncovered something there ha

Leftist wrote:

If he's not under arrest then legally the care workers are not permitted to restrain him.

Anybody can restrain someone if they have reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed.

I learnt this the hard way leaving a club once (case of mistaken identity).

MrThrifty

deuceswild wrote: »

Yes it is managments fault but its also their fault

and in answer to b: YES, there was 2 of them, if they were afraid as im sure they were and probably were (I would be in that situation) then they could have tried to get some of these witnesses to help. It sounds like they done nothing to stop the attack, we dont even know if they called the guards.

Exactly... So why is everyone speculating about what actually happened. Only those at the court know the full details I presume.

Also, apologies to Duggy for not seeing that bit of the report earlier...

STAR2011

I don't understand how 11 people could just stand by and observe a 16year old been beaten to within an inch of his life! Now I don't know how I would react if I found myself in this situtation but I believe I would have done something to help! My heart goes out to this child and his family who will be living with the consequences of those 4 mins for the rest of their lives!

Leftist

deuceswild wrote: »

Yes it is managments fault but its also their fault

and in answer to b: YES, there was 2 of them, if they were afraid as im sure they were and probably were (I would be in that situation) then they could have tried to get some of these witnesses to help. It sounds like they done nothing to stop the attack, we dont even know if they called the guards.

Can yo or anyone else back this claim up?

If you would expect a female member of your family to physically subdue a 17yr old man beating another male then I would suggest you are negligable.

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

If the care workers had no responsibility to this boy, then why were they there? Couldn't he have traveled alone?

If it was not their remit to make sure he got from A to B, then why were they with him at all?

he was in care of the social workers. They assumed guardianship and were transporting them to own of their residents.

monica22

MagicMarker wrote: »

So contrary to what you've said previously, you actually can put your hand on a child without being charged for assault?

Secondly, WTF is the difference whether you're indoors or outdoors? Are you telling me if the two kids were in public then you wouldn't restrain the child? Would you seriously just stand there and wait for the gardai when you could just step in and break it up in about 3 seconds?

That's a 5 year old child you asked me about and not a 17 year old! the guidelines of TCI is you cant restrain in public also you cant restrain a teenager who bigger than you or under the influence of drugs or alcohol! our hands r tied alot hence my argument

Leftist

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't appreciate your sarcasm.



Anybody can restrain someone if they have reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed.

I learnt this the hard way leaving a club once (case of mistaken identity).

I was suggesting restraining as a precaution prior to event, not a reaction post event.

G.muny

monica22 wrote: »

he was 17 at time of the incident

I still wouldn't refer to a 17 year old as a "child"......lets be honest 17 years olds are not children. He would have been just a few years younger than the two female social workers considering they were in their early 20s.

Welruc

MrThrifty wrote: »

:eek: Are you joking? Have I misread the report or are you ignorantly assuming that someone has a violent background because of their association with someone else who has one and was jailed?! I.e. Guilty by association?...



As for care workers not intervening, they were 2 girls in their early 20's... And the accused in question I would imagine was not someone to be reckoned with, judging from the violent nature of the attack. By the way, it is NOT a responsibility of their job to put their lives in danger. That's like saying that a fireman must enter a burning building to try to rescue everyone inside no matter what the dangers involved and risk to their own safety and that of their crew. Nonsense...

You have to remember here that the parents have most likely already failed this child or not been able to cope and that is the reason he was in care in the first place. So don't assume that the parents would have actually intervened in the incident in question.

By that argument then there is no point in calling the guards as they wouldnt be able to stop this assault as their lives might have been put in danger!!!

monica22

G.muny wrote: »

I still wouldn't refer to a 17 year old as a "child"......lets be honest 17 years olds are not children. He would have been just a few years younger than the two female social workers considering they were in their early 20s.

I no his not a child but that what he is in the eyes of the state! He deserved the prison sentence he got if not more and the family of the young lad I feel for and the young chap himself! just saying the care workers not robots unless people in the situation they dont know how they d react not something ud see happening every day

fenris

Leftist wrote: »

A) then it is the managment's fault. Not the care workers. I am merely disgusting by the morons suggesting these care workers should lose their jobs.

How exactly is it the managements fault?
-was the "management" in the car?
-did the "management" stop the car and let him out?
-did the "management" stand idly by while a person was being kicked and stamped into a pulp?

If you take on a job the you take on the job, there is time to say "no I can't handle this" "or I don't think that this is right", then it is up to the manager to figure out a better way.

Leftist wrote: »

You would wish for your sister and wife to attempt to phsyically subdue a 18yr old who is showing severe and brutal aggression?

My sister or wife would not put themselves in that situation to start with. They would say no.

Leftist wrote: »

Because who is to say they did not explore other options aside from physically intervening?

They could explore the moon for all it matters, they created a situation that resulted in permanent damage to a child. This shows a lack of judgement that questions their suitability and ability to ever be left in charge of vulnerable persons.

Closing the door after the horse has bolted is all that is left to do, but you cannot do that by denying that the door is open.

monica22

fenris wrote: »

How exactly is it the managements fault?
-was the "management" in the car?
-did the "management" stop the car and let him out?
-did the "management" stand idly by while a person was being kicked and stamped into a pulp?

If you take on a job the you take on the job, there is time to say "no I can't handle this" "or I don't think that this is right", then it is up to the manager to figure out a better way.



My sister or wife would not put themselves in that situation to start with. They would say no.

so your saying the young lad who gave the beaten was a vulnerable person! management only work 9 to 5 and guarantee the staff hadn't the opportunity to say they couldn't handle it till the next morning


They could explore the moon for all it matters, they created a situation that resulted in permanent damage to a child. This shows a lack of judgement that questions their suitability and ability to ever be left in charge of vulnerable persons.

Closing the door after the horse has bolted is all that is left to do, but you cannot do that by denying that the door is open.

so your saying the young lad who gave the beaten was a vulnerable person! management only work 9 to 5 and guarantee the staff hadn't the opportunity to say they couldn't handle it till the next morning

Brendog

Absolutely ridiculous. Usually I'd take into consideration, "Oh they're in care they must've been through some hard times as a child"

Seriously? 4 minutes kicking someone is bad enough but seeing them motionless would be terrifying enough.

The standard of scum in this country is falling. Used to be they would stop once you're hurt. Now it seems attempted murder is the minimum..

G.muny

monica22 wrote: »

I no his not a child but that what he is in the eyes of the state! He deserved the prison sentence he got if not more and the family of the young lad I feel for and the young chap himself! just saying the care workers not robots unless people in the situation they dont know how they d react not something ud see happening every day

Yeah I agree, thats what I was saying as well. I personally have an adult brother who acts violently and is unstable (should have gotten help long ago but thats another story) In his late teens I know when he was unstable like that as a young women myself I was beyond petrified of him to a point I would be literally shaking and physically sick afterwards with fear at the thought of ever having to confront him and would fear for any man not to even think about any women who would have to deal with him in a temper. When he was angry like that it wouldn't matter about his own well being or those around him. He would do as much damage as he could to who ever he could if they got in his way.

Being in the situation of knowing what confronting someone like that is like I don't blame ANYONE, especially not a women or two women for being afraid to get involved.

Seachmall

monica22 wrote: »

so your saying the young lad who gave the beaten was a vulnerable person!

Do the HSE not only take in "vulnerable" persons?

Presumably they don't take in violent offenders to lighten the prison load, I'm sure he has "Borderline personality disorder" or some other disorder that qualified him for HSE care.

monica22

G.muny wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

I no his not a child but that what he is in the eyes of the state! He deserved the prison sentence he got if not more and the family of the young lad I feel for and the young chap himself! just saying the care workers not robots unless people in the situation they dont know how they d react not something ud see happening every day

Yeah I agree, thats what I was saying as well. I personally have an adult brother who acts violently and is unstable (should have gotten help long ago but thats another story) In his late teens I know when he was unstable like that as a young women myself I was beyond petrified of him to a point I would be literally shaking and physically sick afterwards with fear at the thought of ever having to confront him and would fear for any man not to even think about any women who would have to deal with him in a temper. When he was angry like that it wouldn't matter about his own well being or those around him. He would do as much damage as he could to who ever he could if they got in his way.

Being in the situation of knowing what confronting someone like that is like I don't blame ANYONE, especially not a women or two women for being afraid to get involved.

Sorry about ur brother that's terrible! yeah I'm not a robot having my nose broke twice in work isn't worth it And it wasn't the job I signed up for but on other days I lik it have remain positive

monica22

Seachmall wrote: »

monica22 wrote: »

so your saying the young lad who gave the beaten was a vulnerable person!

Do the HSE not only take in "vulnerable" persons?

Presumably they don't take in violent offenders to lighten the prison load, I'm sure he has "Borderline personality disorder" or some other disorder that qualified him for HSE care.[/Quote


There you are assuming! Alot of kids who come into care don't have disorders that allows them to come into care don't work lik that