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.
 
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 .

If you alleged 'disability' makes you a violent or anti-social nuisance incapable of not ruining everyone's standard of living and probably the property he/she is given too, why the fuck should anyone care what's harder for them? How many people's lives and own mental health should get thrown under the bus for one useless individual who provides only negative value to society, the neighbourhood or humanity? Seriously, the high and noble attitude is fine until you have to live with such digusting people then in reality, 100% of people want them either dead or gone. I've never met an advocate for them who ever had to live near them either. They all tend to be people who make money from the practice in some way, people who live in areas sans any social housing or low-end rentals with problem tenants, or the typeof parents who advocate at long distance for their cunt progeny.

The thing with council estates is that it's usually a very small proportion of 'problem families' or individuals causing the vast majority of the problems. There is a very, very large estate near me that was known for crime and many problems. Council decided to crack down eventually and evicted a grand total of five problem families who had had endless warnings. Crime went down by a huge percentage overnight. Where did the families go? Hopefully into the sea, but frankly it's your own problem if you end up homeless in this scenario or are forced to rent from scary slumlords. Social housing should not be a right but a privilege that if you abuse it, you lose it.

The priority list ideal for social housing is what turns it into a perpetual sink for total losers. Anyone able to keep a marriage and/or job together is well out the picture. Anyone who is unemployable, demented, a professional addict or drunk, a 'troubled' single parent, the kind of single mother or pair of layabouts who breeds for benefits and the kind of houses they could never afford otherwise, or is the kind of person who nobody else wants in their properties because they're simply destructive and crazy ends up there. Social housing should simply be for lower income working people in the main, but it's a nightmare because it's become the place where the lowest of the low and the biggest losers in every category win all the prizes.
 
The thing with council estates is that it's usually a very small proportion of 'problem families' or individuals causing the vast majority of the problems. There is a very, very large estate near me that was known for crime and many problems. Council decided to crack down eventually and evicted a grand total of five problem families who had had endless warnings. Crime went down by a huge percentage overnight. Where did the families go? Hopefully into the sea, but frankly it's your own problem if you end up homeless in this scenario or are forced to rent from scary slumlords. Social housing should not be a right but a privilege that if you abuse it, you lose it.

Yep. Ever wondered why councils and housing associations have "hard to let" properties? Because of these people. And they can't get rid of them because all of a sudden loads of people like me circa 2010-14 come out the woodwork and start crowing about how they're vulnerable and how to keep these ne'er-do-wells and their feral crotch goblins in their flats. In my experience, the families who were responsible for anti-social behaviour had lists of allegations as long as your arm. Often corroborated by multiple neighbours as well. Generally, the parents fell into two categories. The trying but defeated single parents who were well meaning and tried to keep their kids under control but were loath to set boundaries and tried to be friends with their kids, to no avail, and the rough as a badger's arse types who shrieked and howled and ululated in her fishwife voice about how everyone was picking on their precious little angels, all seven of them (the latter of these had a complete inability to keep their knees together, invariably), even when said precious little angels / inbred womb wombles (delete as appropriate) were wagging school, spitting at passers by, drinking trampy cider and smoking endless weed, shoplifting, breaking into the house of some pensioner and cooking bacon sandwiches from his fridge, sticking shit through his letterbox and painting "PEADOE" (sic) on his door when he objected, and so forth. But their horrific parents saw no wrong in them and arguably encouraged them.

(Note: all the above really happened. Including the bacon sandwich incident.)

Oh yes. Something else. The boys were always stick thin (probably from smoking like chimneys and doing loads of drugs and running from the Po Po / irate homeowners whose TV they'd just burglarised) while the girls were always absolute she-belugas. This pattern persisted into adulthood as well.
 
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.
Doctors and schools need to start being brutally honest about kids who are literal tards in addition to having autism. An autism diagnosis has become a excuse for protracted denial, that kid is not going to be rain man. If a somebody stopped developing mentally in babyhood, whether or not they're technically autistic or just regular retarded is just splitting hairs.
 
I think it's disingenuous to call this guy an autist; he's not retarded, he knows what he's doing, he's a straight up psychopath. I mean when I think of autist I think of people who are a bit socially off or have trouble communicating verbally at all; not doing shit like throwing kids out of windows!
 
If I was on the wall about eugenics before, I am now fairly sure we need it because of people like Jonty Bravery.

Jonty Bravery, who does not seem to have autism when it comes to hurting the defenseless, needs to die in the same way he destroyed his victim's life. And make no mistake, death is probably a mercy for the French kid. He's going to be tetraplegic AND have cerebral palsy at the very least, because of this unsupervised faggot.

But, back to what I was saying: Jonty Bravery needs to be placed in a twenty feet tall balcony, with spikes waiting for him in the bottom floor. The spikes need to be sharp enough to be pierce flesh but frail enough to break so as to not instantly kill him. They also need to be covered with pig shit, so that he is allowed to rot inside as he is slowly taken to a state of painful sepsis and finally die.

Nobody on Earth can rest until the Jonty Braverys are removed from it.
 
I think it's disingenuous to call this guy an autist; he's not exceptional, he knows what he's doing, he's a straight up psychopath. I mean when I think of autist I think of people who are a bit socially off or have trouble communicating verbally at all; not doing shit like throwing kids out of windows!
Autism doesn't make someone evil the way sociopathy does. It's possible that Hannibal here has a few extra screws loose. Perhaps he's a low functioning sociopath misdiagnosed as an autist?

Unfortunately we're probably not going to be hearing much from his prison psychiatrist and armchair psychology is really gay.
 
Don't forget Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who murdered the small child Jamie Bulger. They not only released those two sick fucks, but gave them new names. Then when Venables was arrested AGAIN for child porn, they fucking released him AGAIN with ANOTHER new name.
Would this ever happen in America?
 
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.

That's a whole bunch of words to say "dude fucked in the head commits crime."
 
Yep. Ever wondered why councils and housing associations have "hard to let" properties? Because of these people. And they can't get rid of them because all of a sudden loads of people like me circa 2010-14 come out the woodwork and start crowing about how they're vulnerable and how to keep these ne'er-do-wells and their feral crotch goblins in their flats. In my experience, the families who were responsible for anti-social behaviour had lists of allegations as long as your arm. Often corroborated by multiple neighbours as well. Generally, the parents fell into two categories. The trying but defeated single parents who were well meaning and tried to keep their kids under control but were loath to set boundaries and tried to be friends with their kids, to no avail, and the rough as a badger's arse types who shrieked and howled and ululated in her fishwife voice about how everyone was picking on their precious little angels, all seven of them (the latter of these had a complete inability to keep their knees together, invariably), even when said precious little angels / inbred womb wombles (delete as appropriate) were wagging school, spitting at passers by, drinking trampy cider and smoking endless weed, shoplifting, breaking into the house of some pensioner and cooking bacon sandwiches from his fridge, sticking shit through his letterbox and painting "PEADOE" (sic) on his door when he objected, and so forth. But their horrific parents saw no wrong in them and arguably encouraged them.

(Note: all the above really happened. Including the bacon sandwich incident.)

Oh yes. Something else. The boys were always stick thin (probably from smoking like chimneys and doing loads of drugs and running from the Po Po / irate homeowners whose TV they'd just burglarised) while the girls were always absolute she-belugas. This pattern persisted into adulthood as well.

Some of the larger councils in the North, Manchester and Liverpool in particular got pretty adept at segregating the problem families, in a way that they'd only make each others lives miserable. For whatever reason, people like that tend to mainly steal and assault people within a short walking distance of their home.

The councils will deny it, and there's nothing in writing but they started using various bits of legislation to fuck around tenants that were acting up. A current favorite is the new Domestic Abuse legislation, which mandates that as soon as there's a report of domestic abuse the Police are legally bound to separate the Male partner.

So say Stacey and Dwayne are having a drunken row one night, someone anonymously makes a report of domestic violence. Dwayne is dragged away, and told he can't return to the house (he also discovers that unusually for the UK Police they are serious about enforcing this) it doesn't matter that Stacey doesn't want him to leave, because the unstated intent of the council is that they want Stacey to abandon the house, to stay with Dwayne. It's really clever. Once Stacey is gone from the council house she's off the housing list, she can get emergency housing but that's it.

Another way is the right to buy although the chavs are starting to wise up to this. Tenants are entitled to buy their council house, there are a load of dodgey finance firms that help. As soon as they do, another dodgey firm offers them cash, and off they fuck with quite a bit of money but no home. They also can't ever get back on the housing list.

Also another aspect of problem families is that once they drive away the 'decent' neighbors, it makes the estate look more attractive to Asians, who'll move in en masse, and have their own way of dealing with disputes.

Regarding Jonty this could only really have happened in London, 6 caseworkers working full time on someone that was obviously just a Psychopath, is just par for the course for London councils. London councils will tell young people whose families have lived in London for generations, that they have no right to accommodation, while spending their money on shitbags like him.
 
Last edited:
Another way is the right to buy although the chavs are starting to wise up to this. Tenants are entitled to buy their council house, their are a load of dodgey finance firms that help. As soon as they do, another dodgey firm offers them cash, and off they fuck with quite a bit of money but no home. They also can't ever get back on the housing list.

I know this is topic drift into welfare in general but I think that ship has sailed. So the above reminded me of something else. I don't know how the right to buy works today but I had a friend who was in a council flat. I worked quite hard back then to pay the rent on mine which admittedly was a little nicer but not much. Anyway, she was just living in it until she reached the minimum required duration for her right to buy at which point she came up with the money from somewhere (I think parents helped her out, but it might just have been the added ability to save through lower rent) and bought it. She then promptly moved out and rented it to make money whilst she found a new place. She earned less than I did but was able to leap-frog me in the housing market due to this.

I'm not really that pissed by it. She was a nice person and she did work. Still felt a little unfair watching her become a home owner whilst I was still struggling to save on top of my rent, though.
 
Yep. Ever wondered why councils and housing associations have "hard to let" properties? Because of these people. And they can't get rid of them because all of a sudden loads of people like me circa 2010-14 come out the woodwork and start crowing about how they're vulnerable and how to keep these ne'er-do-wells and their feral crotch goblins in their flats. In my experience, the families who were responsible for anti-social behaviour had lists of allegations as long as your arm. Often corroborated by multiple neighbours as well. Generally, the parents fell into two categories. The trying but defeated single parents who were well meaning and tried to keep their kids under control but were loath to set boundaries and tried to be friends with their kids, to no avail, and the rough as a badger's arse types who shrieked and howled and ululated in her fishwife voice about how everyone was picking on their precious little angels, all seven of them (the latter of these had a complete inability to keep their knees together, invariably), even when said precious little angels / inbred womb wombles (delete as appropriate) were wagging school, spitting at passers by, drinking trampy cider and smoking endless weed, shoplifting, breaking into the house of some pensioner and cooking bacon sandwiches from his fridge, sticking shit through his letterbox and painting "PEADOE" (sic) on his door when he objected, and so forth. But their horrific parents saw no wrong in them and arguably encouraged them.

(Note: all the above really happened. Including the bacon sandwich incident.)

Oh yes. Something else. The boys were always stick thin (probably from smoking like chimneys and doing loads of drugs and running from the Po Po / irate homeowners whose TV they'd just burglarised) while the girls were always absolute she-belugas. This pattern persisted into adulthood as well.
I'll try to avoid power-levelling but this post is mostly correct in how council housing handles "troubled families". I've seen the council reluctant to move problematic tenants away even when theyt knew that were threatening families with vulnerable adults as family members and only started the process when threatened with legal measures (turns out autism has it uses once in a blue moon)
 
And note that a lot of (most?) new housing developments can only get approved by the council if they include a certain amount of “social housing” (read: welfare housing that’s even worse than Section 8 in the US). I distinctly remember a certain high-rise block of flats in Hampstead where the chavs were forever fucking up everyone’s plumbing by trying to flush soiled nappies down the loo. At least Jonty had the decency to fingerpaint the walls with his shit.
 
Sounds a hell of a lot like it would have been better if he'd died
The act committed by this individual against our son is unspeakable.

Words cannot express the horror and the fear that his actions have brought upon us and our son. How can one explain to a child that someone deliberately tried to kill him?

How can he now ever trust mankind? How can he not see in every stranger a potential 'villain' who could cause him immense pain and suffering? Months of pain, fear and physiotherapy, hours and days spent without talking, without moving and without eating, away from his home, away from his friends and away from his family...

Questions about his future and his health remain unanswered, as well as these questions: 'Will I be able to walk again?', 'When are we going home?', 'Will I go back to school, see my friends again?'

What has our life become since the attempted murder of our six-year-old son? After going through the fear of losing him, and being unable to comprehend this gratuitous and senseless act, we are now faced with numerous psychological and material problems.

Our life is in ruins. Since the day of the attack, we have not left our son's side, following him to all the various hospitals where he has been treated. We spend our days in hospital with our son. Either one of us, or his grandmother, spends the night with him in his room on a camp bed or even a chair.

He is still in a wheelchair today, wears splints on his left arm and both of his legs, and spends his days in a corset moulded to his waist, sat in his wheelchair. He is in permanent restraint…

The nights are always extremely difficult, his sleep is very agitated, he is in pain, he wakes up many times and he cries. We have been so scared of losing him that now it is physically impossible for us to be apart from him more than a few hours, and only when we know a family member is with him…

He said to a psychiatric nurse who asked him about it that he would like to 'slap' the man who did this to him. We are extremely worried about the future. From what the doctors said, he has many years of physiotherapy ahead of him, and we have no prospects or plans for the future other than being by his side.

Our son is alive. He is fighting. And that's all that matters to us. What happened on the roof of the Tate Modern that day is unforgivable.
Source https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...00ft-Tate-Modern-balcony-jailed-15-years.html
 
15 years. Sounds a lot, right?

But he's officially a sped. So that doesn't mean he ends up in a proper pound-you-in-the-arse high security nick like Whitemoor or Shotts or Frankland, but probably Broadmoor or some other secure unit where he will continue to be treated with kid gloves by staff because his well off parents are just itching to use him as a way to file lolsuits against the prisons service and coin it in given their previous conduct while in supported accommodation.

Also, normally you spend 1/2 of the sentence on licence because bong prisons are massively overcrowded.

And then there's time off for good behaviour and this chappie is clearly manipulative enough to work the system for that.

And then there's time already served, about a year and a bit.

So... yeah, he'll be out by 2028, you mark my words.

Frankly they should have given life with only the possibility of parole after 20+ years inside. A couple decades in the Monster Mansion failing to preserve his anal virginity would change his attitude sufficiently.
 
Sounds a hell of a lot like it would have been better if he'd died
The act committed by this individual against our son is unspeakable.

Words cannot express the horror and the fear that his actions have brought upon us and our son. How can one explain to a child that someone deliberately tried to kill him?

How can he now ever trust mankind? How can he not see in every stranger a potential 'villain' who could cause him immense pain and suffering? Months of pain, fear and physiotherapy, hours and days spent without talking, without moving and without eating, away from his home, away from his friends and away from his family...

Questions about his future and his health remain unanswered, as well as these questions: 'Will I be able to walk again?', 'When are we going home?', 'Will I go back to school, see my friends again?'

What has our life become since the attempted murder of our six-year-old son? After going through the fear of losing him, and being unable to comprehend this gratuitous and senseless act, we are now faced with numerous psychological and material problems.

Our life is in ruins. Since the day of the attack, we have not left our son's side, following him to all the various hospitals where he has been treated. We spend our days in hospital with our son. Either one of us, or his grandmother, spends the night with him in his room on a camp bed or even a chair.

He is still in a wheelchair today, wears splints on his left arm and both of his legs, and spends his days in a corset moulded to his waist, sat in his wheelchair. He is in permanent restraint…

The nights are always extremely difficult, his sleep is very agitated, he is in pain, he wakes up many times and he cries. We have been so scared of losing him that now it is physically impossible for us to be apart from him more than a few hours, and only when we know a family member is with him…

He said to a psychiatric nurse who asked him about it that he would like to 'slap' the man who did this to him. We are extremely worried about the future. From what the doctors said, he has many years of physiotherapy ahead of him, and we have no prospects or plans for the future other than being by his side.

Our son is alive. He is fighting. And that's all that matters to us. What happened on the roof of the Tate Modern that day is unforgivable.
Source https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...00ft-Tate-Modern-balcony-jailed-15-years.html

"15 years"
Which won't be the full 15 for subjecting an innocent child to a fate that sounds worse than death.

What a world...
 
Back
Top Bottom