The autist who threw a child off a London balcony because he wanted his iPad back - Jonty Bravery’s KF thread was inevitable

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
How son of company director grew up to commit Tate horror


https://mol.im/a/7975865

E4DD923F-55E7-4BE9-90C3-7CC7AEE96DCB.jpeg

Carers in charge of Tate pusher Jonty Bravery were instructed: ‘Never say no to him.’ The volatile teenager had a nasty habit of turning aggressive if he did not get his own way.

Staff assigned to the stocky teen around the clock said they were helpless to confront him if he stole from shops, and were not even allowed to wake him if he overslept.

The details of the way this emotionally disturbed teenager was supervised raise yet more questions about whether the terrible tragedy could have been averted.

At least two carers knew of Bravery’s plan to throw someone off a tall building, which they recorded. The Daily Mail has been handed the chilling recording by one of the carers, whom we are calling Olly.

He said: ‘This was a tragedy waiting to happen. I genuinely thought he was going to do it, because Jonty is the kind of person who, if he says he will do something, he will do it. He doesn’t say something without trying to do it.

‘Jonty was very challenging and complex. He could be nice but was also highly manipulative, and very difficult when not getting his own way. He was constantly trying to get out of the house, get access to females, get on to the internet.

‘If he didn’t get a specific item that he wanted, he had the potential to either steal the item or he would give the staff hell. Basically, we would just go back later and pay for whatever he stole.

‘You can’t say no to Jonty. It was written in his care plan. If you say no, it will trigger him to do the complete opposite of what you told him not to do. It would aggressively work him up, and the situation would get more out of hand.’

Perhaps it is little wonder that 18-year-old Bravery, with his autism and myriad personality disorders, was allegedly described by one care professional as ‘my most complex client’.

He was not always like that. Family photos reflect a happy upbringing, with primary school-aged Jonty smiling happily in costume with a cardboard axe in a school play. Another shows him being hugged by his father.

Bravery was born on October 2, 2001, at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in West London. But his parents had separated by the time Jonty was three. His father Piers Bravery, 53, a Surrey-based company director who runs a printing firm, and mother, an ex-air hostess, both have new families.

Bravery, who struggled through early life attending various special needs schools, was said to have been jealous of their more ‘normal’ lives.

During his childhood, Bravery’s father campaigned passionately for more help for children with autism. He raised funds for a special needs centre that had been ‘incredibly caring and understanding to my son Jonty’. But as his son grew older, and bigger, he became more of a challenge for his family and teachers.

In 2017, Bravery was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, aged 16, and taken from his home. He spent six weeks in a mental health facility – but after that he was allowed to live semi-independently in a residential flat in Northolt, west London. He was the responsibility of Hammersmith and Fulham social services, and assigned up to six full-time carers. They worked in pairs to ensure – in theory, at least – he was never alone, day or night.

Bravery devoted himself to trying to outwit them. Olly told the Mail: ‘You could tell when Jonty was about to do something, because there were always signs when he was plotting – a lot of eye contact, a lot of aggression. Jonty’s aim was not to make your day tricky, but if you got in his way, he would make it tricky.


‘He was always scheming. We worked in pairs, not so much because Jonty was violent, but because he was highly manipulative and could easily manipulate a lone carer.’

The team of carers, who all worked for a private care firm that was contracted by Hammersmith and Fulham Council to look after Bravery, helped him with his domestic routine and taking his medication. If Bravery wanted to go out, there would be a ‘risk assessment’ and they would usually accompany him.

Bravery was articulate and intelligent, but ‘played dumb’ when it suited him. He had researched his own conditions online and deliberately exhibited the worst symptoms. Olly said: ‘He knew how to use autism, in terms of making it work for him.

‘Jonty had about four key aims. He wanted to get out of the house, access to the internet, access to his parents, access to females. I wouldn’t say it was a fascination, but he really liked women, especially when he was out, and you had to be very vigilant of what he might say or do around women. Everything was geared towards his aims and he would try to remove anything which caused a problem with achieving them.

‘His mindset was: you guys are in my way, so how am I going to get you out of my way? Cause you hell.’

Olly added: ‘He wasn’t unpredictable – he knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted you to quit, and then he would start again with your replacement.’

The carers had to ban Bravery from the internet after he used his iPad to try to stalk the family he no longer lived with. He had made it his ‘number one priority’ to get out of care and back to them.

Bravery’s techniques for manipulating his carers ranged from leaving ‘dirty protests’ around the flat, to wreaking havoc. A neighbour of the property in west London recalled how he would throw things out of his window and was often seen running naked around the estate after he had shaken off his carers.

He said: ‘I know he needs to have them with him at all times because he could hurt someone. He’s often managed to get away from them and I have seen him completely without his clothes running around the garden on many occasions.’

Another neighbour said that in the same week as the Tate incident, Bravery had kicked a hole in the door of his flat. ‘I heard him screaming, fighting with a carer. He was in a real rage,’ she said.

The teenager who threw a six-year-old off the top of the Tate Modern had revealed his murderous plan months earlier.

Yet astonishingly Jonty Bravery, who was in council care, was still allowed to visit the gallery alone.

The Mail has obtained a shocking recording of the autistic teenager vowing to ‘push somebody off’ a tall building – almost a year before Bravery hurled the French boy from the London landmark’s 100ft viewing balcony, nearly killing him.

Care workers – one of whom claims he alerted a senior colleague – were so alarmed by what Bravery was saying that they taped him as he calmly explained: ‘I’ve got it in my head, a way to kill somebody... and I know for a fact they’ll die from falling from the hundred feet.’ A Mail investigation into last summer’s horrific incident at Tate Modern reveals:

  • Bravery said he would kill so he could go to prison and get out of council care;
  • At the time of the attack, he was on bail after a previous arrest on suspicion of multiple assaults;
  • Stockily-built Bravery’s carers were instructed to ‘never say no him’;
  • One of them claims: ‘This was a tragedy waiting to happen.’
On August 4 last year, Bravery horrified tourists on the Tate tower’s viewing platform by suddenly lifting up the French boy, on summer holiday with his parents, and throwing him over a chest-high barrier. The boy’s mother gave a ‘primal scream’ as her son plunged 100ft.

The youngster was airlifted to hospital in a critical condition with fractures to his spine, legs and arms and a bleed on the brain. He remains in hospital, severely disabled.

In December, Bravery, 18, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to attempted murder.

Now, ahead of his sentencing hearing, the Mail in conjunction with BBC News has obtained a spine-chilling audio recording of Bravery outlining his plan to throw someone from a tall building.

Recorded by his carers in autumn 2018, Bravery calmly explains the plot taking shape in his disturbed mind, to go on a visit to central London ‘as if we’re having a normal day’ and ‘visit some of the landmarks’. He said: ‘It could be the Shard, it could be anything... as long as it’s a high thing. And we could go up and visit it, and then push one of... push somebody off it.’


He told his carers he was determined to kill someone because ‘I know for a fact, I’m going to go to prison, if I do that’.

Bravery, who was 17 at the time of the attempted murder, claimed being in prison would be better than being in council care.

The teenager, who has autism, an obsessive compulsive disorder, and a personality disorder, was a challenge for his family and had been moved into council care in 2017.


Hammersmith and Fulham council in London had responsibility for him, and it subcontracted the work to an experienced private care provider named Spencer and Arlington. Bravery lived in a flat provided by the council in Northolt, west London, where a team of up to six Spencer and Arlington carers, working in pairs, looked after him day and night.

In autumn 2018, Bravery admitted to one of his carers that he wanted to throw someone from a tall building. Concerned, the carer asked him to repeat it in front of a second carer, and that is when they recorded his confession.

Although neither of them was working with Bravery on August 4, 2019, they claimed he was allowed out that day entirely on his own to visit the Tate Modern, which has a ten-storey-high observation deck with open views over central London.

An independent serious case review has now been set up to find out exactly what went wrong.

Of the carers, who was interviewed by the Mail, says he alerted a more senior colleague to Bravery’s horrendous ‘tall building’ plot. He also claims to have played the shocking recording to someone else involved in Bravery’s care. They both deny this. Spencer and Arlington said in a statement that it had ‘no knowledge and no records’ of the claims being made.

The firm said: ‘We will continue to co-operate openly and with complete transparency with the serious case review and await its conclusions. We are confident the full facts will emerge from this process. We believe we have acted entirely properly in managing and reporting the provision of care for Jonty Bravery. However, with regards to the entirely speculative claim put to us that Jonty may have told carers of his plans, there is absolutely no evidence of this and nor is there any mention of this recorded in any care plan, case report or review from managers or from his carers, psychologists, or health workers reporting to us.’

It added it had nonetheless recognised ‘the gravity’ of the Mail’s claims and had reported them to the care watchdog and the serious case review.

Hammersmith and Fulham council said: ‘Our sympathies go out to the child and his family following what happened at Tate Modern.

‘An independent serious case review is now under way. It will look at what happened and the role played by all the different agencies involved.’

'I've got it in my head… a way to kill somebody': Chilling audio reveals the moment Tate pusher Jonty Bravery told carers he wanted to throw someone to their deaths from a high London landmark

A chilling recording of the autistic teenager who threw a six-year-old boy from the top of the Tate Modern reveals he told carers he wanted to do it almost a year before the tragedy.

Jonty Bravery, 18, shoved the French schoolboy off the museum's viewing gallery as horrified tourists watched on August 4 last year.

The youngster fell 100ft and was airlifted to hospital with a bleed on the brain and breaks to his spine, legs and arms. He is still in hospital, severely disabled.


But a shocking new audio clip reveals he told carers he wanted to push someone off a high landmark in central so he could escape care and go to prison instead.

He tells social workers: 'If I could do it right now, I would. I've got it in my head, a way to, a way to kill somebody.'

Asked why he was prepared to commit murder to get out of council care, he said it was because his iPad had been confiscated.

Recorded by his carers in autumn 2018, Bravery calmly explains the plot taking shape in his mind, to go on a visit to central London 'as if we're having a normal day' and 'visit some of the landmarks'.

He said: 'It could be the Shard, it could be anything... as long as it's a high thing. And we could go up and visit it, and then push one of... push somebody off it.'

Bravery told his carers he was determined to kill someone because 'I know for a fact, I'm going to go to prison, if I do that'.

He added: 'I've got it in my head, I have to, I have to kill somebody to go to prison, to be away from here…I just need to tell you….In the next few months – it has to be, the latest has to be by February, in my head, yeah - but ideally I want to do it before.'

The carer asks him: 'Has there been anything in particular that triggered this off?

The boy replies: 'Moving back here and my iPad going, yeah.'

The carer then asks: 'So if you were to get an iPad, for example, that would basically cancel everything,' to which Bravery replies: 'Yes!'

Bravery pleaded guilty to attempted murder at the Old Bailey in December and is awaiting sentencing.

Hammersmith and Fulham council in London had responsibility for Bravery, and it subcontracted the work to an experienced private care provider named Spencer and Arlington.

Bravery lived in a flat provided by the council in Northolt, west London, where a team of up to six Spencer and Arlington carers, working in pairs, looked after him day and night.

In autumn 2018, Bravery admitted to one of his carers that he wanted to throw someone from a tall building. Concerned, the carer asked him to repeat it in front of a second carer, and that is when they recorded his confession.

Although neither of them was working with Bravery on August 4, 2019, they claimed he was allowed out that day entirely on his own to visit the Tate Modern, which has a ten-storey-high observation deck with open views over central London.

An independent serious case review has now been set up to find out exactly what went wrong.


WARPED PLOT TO GET IPAD BACK

Bravery’s murder plot was partly a warped bid to get his confiscated iPad back.

He shocked carers by warning he would throw someone off a tall building – then suggested he would abandon the plan if they gave him back his gadget.

Bravery is autistic and was in council care. In his mind, the threat to kill someone was seemingly just part of a petty negotiation to get back the iPad, which his carers had been forced to take from him, and to escape the care system.

Carers recorded Bravery talking about the plot. When one of them asked what triggered it, Bravery answered: ‘Moving back here [into his care flat] and my iPad going.’ The carer asks: ‘So if you were to get an iPad, for example, that would basically cancel everything…?’ The teenager shoots back: ‘Yes!’

On December 6, he appeared with a scraggy beard at the Old Bailey via video link to plead guilty to attempted murder.

He is being held at Broadmoor high-security hospital and will be sentenced on February 17 after psychiatric reports.
 
Here’s a shocker: According to this piece, the officer Jonty assaulted was a female. Also:
EB6D0B35-9388-4454-82A5-229DAADE856A.jpeg

“Absolutely no evidence” except an audio recording and multiple carers telling investigators that they shared it with the company.
 
Here’s a shocker: According to this piece, the officer Jonty assaulted was a female. Also:
View attachment 1138278

“Absolutely no evidence” except an audio recording and multiple carers telling investigators that they shared it with the company.

If they simply played it to someone, there is no paper or email trail in existence and the firm will likely get away with it if they just stick to their story that the underlings did not submit the evidence. Always be the tedious person who creates a paper/electronic trail, even if the boss doesn't want you to. Especially if the boss doesn't want you to.
 
I can’t believe how much the system failed that poor kid who is now mentally and physically destroyed to give this giant manbaby a nice life.

Jonty should have never been allowed to do whatever he wanted freely if he was a danger to people around him. His parents also are spoiled little brats who should suffer consequences too but won’t.

The little kid who’s life is ruined forever now has greatly suffered but Jonty’s parents will pay nothing for their immaturity in not handling their responsibilities.
 
Not gonna lie, cases like this fascinate the hell out of me. This was not a civilized person, this was someone who acted on only his monkey base instincts. What makes humans the dominant animal on this planet is the fact we're able to use reason and logic and we've developed things like mercy. But then little bastards like this happen and I just can't look away. Because Lord only knows how many other Jontys are out there. Every day something like this has the chance to happen, and we as a society go out of our way, we through ridiculous lengths to not have that talk that some people are just not functional human beings and are lost causes
 
Always be the tedious person who creates a paper/electronic trail, even if the boss doesn't want you to. Especially if the boss doesn't want you to.
Just to put this in practical terms: If a conversation has happened in any form other than writing, immediately email a recap of the conversation to that person, copying every other person who needs to know it happened (referred to in twat-speak as “key stakeholders”). Include the date, time and location of the conversation. Wrap it up with something like “If you feel I have omitted any pertinent details or erred in summarizing our exchange and agreed next steps, please do notify me so we can resolve any issues.”

This will not just CYA and help hold others accountable should it come to that, but can also help avoid major misunderstandings.

I doubt the minimum wage carers were ever trained in such things, even though they probably had university degrees.
 
If they simply played it to someone, there is no paper or email trail in existence and the firm will likely get away with it if they just stick to their story that the underlings did not submit the evidence. Always be the tedious person who creates a paper/electronic trail, even if the boss doesn't want you to. Especially if the boss doesn't want you to.

They have the actual recording, apparently. I think a claim that some number of employees specifically created this recording but then somehow never did anything with it is much less credible than their claim that they did.
 
They have the actual recording, apparently. I think a claim that some number of employees specifically created this recording but then somehow never did anything with it is much less credible than their claim that they did.
Right. And it’s also very telling that all they can say for themselves is “Well, we let the relevant regulatory bodies know that our client attempted murder after it happened.” They dun goofed and they know it.
 
>only sources are the daily mail, the sun, and reprints of the daily mail and sun articles in other blogs rags
Not sure what you’re on about, but the recording came from a joint investigation of the BBC and the Daily Mail. Are you implying that the official statements made by the carer agency, police and the carers have been fabricated? Use your words.
 
Just came across another example of middle-class parent using the law as a bludgeon to advance her autistic son who is nine, with the 'emotional age of an 18-month old'. You can imagine what that means realistically in terms of his behavior; a large nine year old with the volatility, rage when denied stuff he wants and general emotional spazziness of a toddler. Special schools were available but they weren't good enough for middle-class mummy, so this woman got a law degree to batter the authorities i.e. the taxpayer into paying some super-high fees for a small independent school she liked.

Face it, this kid will never be useful or employable whatever education you give him. I wonder who gets deprived of help now a larger portion of the budget goes on this one massively speddy kid? But MUH KID HAZ RIGHTS so fuck everyone else, I guess.


Hopefully this kid never throws anyone off a tower over an iPad but it really reminded me of Jonty's activist father in many ways.
 
The numbers are in! Taxpayers paid £150,000 per year to keep this shit-flinging would-be murderer on Easy Street. (That’s nearly $195,000 US.) He had his own two-bedroom flat in London that he lived in rent-free, plus two carers who did his domestic chores as well. Yet the usual suspects are blaming his crime on “austerity,” of course. They can eat my entire ass.
 
The numbers are in! Taxpayers paid £150,000 per year to keep this shit-flinging would-be murderer on Easy Street. (That’s nearly $195,000 US.) He had his own two-bedroom flat in London that he lived in rent-free, plus two carers who did his domestic chores as well. Yet the usual suspects are blaming his crime on “austerity,” of course. They can eat my entire ass.

Yeah, £150k sounds about right for that level of 24/7 care and housing in London. Take it that flat was a council property because that is not a market rent. £650 for a two bed in London? People pay not much less than that for a single room in shared house these days. I've heard of cases where a care package cost even more due to pandering to massively disabled women's 'right' to have a fatherless IVF baby they couldn't care for in any way. Like nearly 100k more. Boils my piss thinking about it.

It was obvious from the bare facts of the case that nothing that happened with Bravery was down to a lack of money. It was written in his care plan that he could be more independent and go out alone, a fact which saved the council and care company nothing, as he had to have his carers hanging around, paid, whether he was in the house or out alone.

I saw the Mirror (left wing biased redtop) headline that the lad 'had his care cut' which was a total distortion of the actual facts. All they meant was that he was allowed to wander due to his care plan allowing more freedom. The choice of language is totally misleading - in the UK 'cuts' mean government reducing funding at a systemic level. They also know a lot of people will read he headline and go no further and accept the lad was a sad victim of cost-cutting. But there's always going to be a chorus in any circumstance that will blame the Tories or non-existent cuts for anything and everything that anyone ever decides to do. The activist aphorism of never letting a tragedy go to waste applies.
 
The numbers are in! Taxpayers paid £150,000 per year to keep this shit-flinging would-be murderer on Easy Street. (That’s nearly $195,000 US.) He had his own two-bedroom flat in London that he lived in rent-free, plus two carers who did his domestic chores as well. Yet the usual suspects are blaming his crime on “austerity,” of course. They can eat my entire ass.

Meanwhile I know people in social housing who have to apply for re-housing elsewhere (and hope they get it) because violent neighbours with mental problems outrank them on the priority list.
 
Meanwhile I know people in social housing who have to apply for re-housing elsewhere (and hope they get it) because violent neighbours with mental problems outrank them on the priority list.
People with disabilities outrank people without disabilities in the council housing priority list for the simple reason its thought harder for the disabled to rent private property than normies .
 
People with disabilities outrank people without disabilities in the council housing priority list for the simple reason its thought harder for the disabled to rent private property than normies .

And if the disability is a wheelchair or chronic pain, I get that. I also get why a pregnant girl or girl with a baby gets immediately bumped up the list, even though that results in young girls getting pregnant purely to get the "free flat". But when the "disability" is violent tendencies, drug addiction or a criminal record (this last also hinders private renting) the result is hard-working people who somehow manage to keep it together being squeezed out by those who are a detriment to everyone around them. Does that seem fair? Or even productive?
 
And if the disability is a wheelchair or chronic pain, I get that. I also get why a pregnant girl or girl with a baby gets immediately bumped up the list, even though that results in young girls getting pregnant purely to get the "free flat". But when the "disability" is violent tendencies, drug addiction or a criminal record (this last also hinders private renting) the result is hard-working people who somehow manage to keep it together being squeezed out by those who are a detriment to everyone around them. Does that seem fair? Or even productive?

There are disabilities where society has the obligation to take care of you to some extent. But there are other "disabilities" where it is your obligation to society to get your shit together or get locked up for good. This tard should have been in a fucking cage for life. If you can't stop acting like a zoo ape you should be locked up like one.
 
Back
Top Bottom