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.
 
Sending him to jail rather than secure hospital also means that he can’t “act normal” and like he’s all better to get out of detention. Jail means jail.
 
Having worked in the care profession for nearly 20 years, I've got things get worse over the years. The good people try to fix everyone, get bogged down when other lazier workers dump their workload on them, get burned out and quit. @Fareal I've heard your story time and time again. It's awful every time. Thank goodness for people like you. It would be so much worse without you.

My area of expertise is people like this little cunt here. (Obviously, before they decide to kill someone but I know people who work with these creatures too)

Problem 1. People do whatever they need to do to move people on while covering their back.
Problem 2. Clients (as they are politely called) not being told no. Aka - Client centred practice/focus.

Yes, you don't get to control the person's life. You are supposed to stop them doing harmful and/or stupid shit. For some reason this has descended into "If the client wants to eat nothing but cake and chips, we must respect their decisions while encouraging them to eat healthy and exercise!" I've ended up in the shit for being all old fart and saying the dreaded "childish behaviour". These people are adults! We must respect them at all costs I am told. While endless hunts for funds for them to piss away.

With clients that are big, fighty, schizy bastards like Jonty with a million diagnosis they use as a shield for shitty behaviour, physical restraint techniques have always made me laugh. For a while the official policy where I was: get a sleeping bag, ask the raging lunatic to get into the bag politely or pull it over them. Just imagine that. The reasoning was it stopped them hurting themselves. I think I still have the procedure notes somewhere.

I'm told the current policy is to get members of the public out the way, lock yourself in the loo of the place you are, let them tire themselves out like an angry toddler and then come out and assess the damage. I'm looking forward to the fall out from that one.

TL: DR It's rotten all the way down from social workers to idiot families. I will take my top hats and puzzle pieces.
 
Last edited:
Oh christ, the stories I can tell about social work and their efforts or “efforts” to be responsible for kids under 16. It took a number of years, but finally I just could not accept a work culture that is so utterly callous towards those it is responsible for.

There was a boy that appeared on my caseload. Eight years old. The police wanted him in secure accommodation (yes, this is the lockup for kids, yes there are kids who desperately need it) because he was such a danger to himself. The cops brought him up with me because social work had been stonewalling them for six months. Social work had never breathed a word to me about this lad, so I wanted to know what the deal was.

This child, this tiny little person, was prostituting himself for food to adult males at a bus station because his parents didn’t feed him. It rips me up inside even now to think about this kid.

Social work had removed him to a group home but refused to provide secure because “other kids need it more”. He walked out of the home almost every night because this was how he lived now, this is what he knew.

There was a stand up fight in a conference room. I won. The child went to secure, because in my words “this kid is going to end up dead in a bin somewhere, and I swear to god, I will resign and I will take a full copy of this child's file and hand it personally to the press and I will tell them, they better put your fucking name and picture on the front page that day, because you are responsible for this child‘s death”

And some time after that, I went off to do something else with my life because you cannot be the only person shoving the rock up the mountain.

I'm told the current policy is to get members of the public out the way, lock yourself in the loo of the place you are, let them tire themselves out like an angry toddler and then come out and assess the damage. I'm looking forward to the fall out from that one.

I can believe both of these stories absolutely. There's a reason grooming gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, and so forth targeted children in care, and that's because they knew care homes weren't allowed or willing to set boundaries or actually, you know, care.

I suspect also a lot of it is the fear of lolsuits. A care worker gets walloped by some feel-no-pain sped? They don't want to risk having to pay out for a workplace accident. Nor do they want to risk some wizened old crusader of a lawyer doing them a disservice in this manner. Nor do they want to end up with some out-of-context clip on YouTube of them actually restraining someone and feeding into the narrative of "reeeee abusive care homes." Even though care home abuse has been entirely against old people, in my understanding.
 
I can believe both of these stories absolutely. There's a reason grooming gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, and so forth targeted children in care, and that's because they knew care homes weren't allowed or willing to set boundaries or actually, you know, care.

I suspect also a lot of it is the fear of lolsuits. A care worker gets walloped by some feel-no-pain sped? They don't want to risk having to pay out for a workplace accident. Nor do they want to risk some wizened old crusader of a lawyer doing them a disservice in this manner. Nor do they want to end up with some out-of-context clip on YouTube of them actually restraining someone and feeding into the narrative of "reeeee abusive care homes." Even though care home abuse has been entirely against old people, in my understanding.

There have been scandals around treatment of residents in adult sped homes in recent years.

I was told in the early nineties that the laughable lack of security of kids in children's homes in one southern county I was familiar with was down to the 'Pindown' scandal that erupted in the 1980s.


So as ever, the response to a problem is to swing the pendulum to the extreme opposite instead of developing a better set of rules and practices that would actually, you know, WORK. They went from kids being restrained by inhumane methods to absolute nothing; they could walk out the door any time of day or night to whomever to do whatever and the social workers couldn't lay a finger on them.

This shit seems to be the instututional way. Something goes wrong, well, hide it, refuse to acknowledge it until thre shit really, really hits the fan and you can't hide it anymore. Then, 'enquiries'. Then if anything changes at all, make sure it goes to the opposite extreme and causes a whole new set of problems that result in as much human catastrophe as before, just different catastrophes.
 
I can believe both of these stories absolutely. There's a reason grooming gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, and so forth targeted children in care, and that's because they knew care homes weren't allowed or willing to set boundaries or actually, you know, care

Oh I can add another 2 towns to that list but that news hasn't come out and no one is willing to admit to what is going on, it would harm community cohesion if they did.

One case I dealt with was an 8 year old lad who stormed out of his group home practically every day, no trying to stop him. When this happened they rang the police to return him, now policy says it's on them to get him back so then they went to reporting him missing, a missing 8 year old is naturally high up the priority list so officers dispatched every time. I once had that file land on me, I rang the group home and did the standard "when was he last seen, what was he wearing" and so on. I then got to the "have you tried looking for him" question, as usual they did "oh yes, we have members of staff out looking for him". So rather than go right to looking for him I went right over to the group home. The kid in question was sat at the bottom of the group home's drive. I did the usual stop and tell him to get in the car which he always complied with us, parked the car out of sight of the home and asked him to wait in the car a second. I walked into the group home and oh look all the staff sat watching TV with a cup of tea. I asked who had been out looking and one said "oh we've been out all evening looking but we've just come back for a brew". I asked does that mean they just drive up the drive, which obviously they said yes. They didn't like it when I told them I had checked their car, the exhaust and bonnet were cold and oh yeah I've just collected him from the bottom of the drive. They put in a complaint that I was rude to them, the sergeant just laughed at the story and reported them to the local authority.
 
At this point, this man needs to be institutionalized and monitored very closely. Dragged into a backalley and shot like the subhuman potato he is
There, I fixed it for you.
Remember kids, this is what socialism does. Gives defects and tards free reign to be shitheads in public without fear of being beat or shot.
 
I can believe both of these stories absolutely. There's a reason grooming gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, and so forth targeted children in care, and that's because they knew care homes weren't allowed or willing to set boundaries or actually, you know, care.

I sped out at times here about how the grooming rings were basically allowed to operate not purely because of “police fears about racism” which is to a great extent a handy post facto justification for their lack of fucks given at the time, I sped out about this because my direct experience is that is doesn’t matter the race, age or anything else of adults who sexually exploit children in care, the police do not give a fuck and 95% of the time neither do the social work.

There is this utterly fucking poisonous dogma that children (if you are under 16 you are a child, no exceptions) are entitled to “sexual and relationship privacy” even when what is happening to them is sooooo fucking far outwith what is age and developmentally appropriate that it is legally rape. Actual, criminal rape. I am like everyone else; I don’t lose any sleep over two teenagers having a consensual fumble but I cannot, cannot accept that anyone who is a child in care can have a “boyfriend” of 25. Because they can’t. It’s against the fucking law, and this nonsense about “maintaining a working relationship“ and ”respecting choices” gives me a nosebleed because you cannot choose to be sexually exploited. And if you are saying you are being sexually exploited, the people who have fucking legal responsibility for your care and well-being have to do everything in theor power to stop that shit happening, whether you fucking like it or not.

Because it’s more important that you are safe than that you get what you want, and it is not safe for you as a twelve year old kid to be getting passed around the local rude boys. It’s fucking damaging. It is not alright.

I get so angry about child sexual exploitation, like the grooming rings, because all of that shit was happening in full view of the kids’ workers and police and other services, and everyone basically shrugged and went “council house sluts, what can you do”. I saw that. I had that said to me about kids I was responsible for, and I fought it like a wildcat every time because some things are just too inherently wrong for us to turn a blind eye to.

And I could not stand the victim blaming. It happened all the time. Adults who were supposed to protect these kids blamed them for the shit they were drowning in, and it made me so fucking angry inside. Of course kids who have spent all of their few years of life flailing around in parental abuse and neglect make bad choices. Of course they do. We are supposed to give them a lifeline out of the shit, not shove them down further and tell them this is their fault. If that’s what you think, fuck off out of social work and police and get a job somewhere where your complete fucking lack of human pity isn't harming actual kids.

I had to get a court order for the seizure of “retained products of conception“ from one wee twelve year old lassie’s abortion, because DNA testing that was the only way I could prove her twenty year old cousin was the father, and the sexual offences specialist prosecutor wasn’t interested because “the social workers say this was a consensual relationship”. I mean, can you understand the despair that made me feel? This scumbag has been molesting her for years at this point, the family is riddled with incest, this poor child is being taken for an abortion, and somehow we are assigning her some kind of agency in her persistent familial sexual abuse? She doesn’t fight back any more, so.... suddenly this isn’t a crime?

This poor wee lassie is in the hospital having her insides scraped out, a baby having a baby, and I sent two police up there to give her doctor a warrant for the “evidence”. I had to do that to keep her safe because no one was prepared to try. I had to do that, and it fucking burns me.

No child deserves to be sexually exploited. I don’t care how much of an arsehole they are, and I worked with them - yes, they can be arseholes. Most of them are also really scared and full of the shittiest feelings and thoughts about themselves. They all deserve to be safe.
 
As a SPED worker in the UK this shit both horrifies and depressed me. How the fuck was this cunt allowed out to do this? They are focusing on the Autism in the article when as people have said it's painfully obvious it's the personality disorder that's the real issue. I remember when this news first broke I shared the article and added a poll for the reasoning behind the whole thing. Never did I expect this level of fucking degeneracy form all sides involved.

Manipulation to get what he wants, no care for the well-being of others and violent behaviours to get his own way? Classic antisocial personally aka sociopathy/psychopathy traits. The autism and OCD are just a bonus. The guy should have been in some kind of psych care, but with the state of the mental health system in this country it doesn't surprise me it was just all left up to local authorities. You can not be sectioned under law into inpatient care unless you are a risk to yourself or others, which this guy obviously is, but with hospital beds few and far between most of the time people are only hospitalised AFTER they do something, not before. This is why you have people slicing themselves up and going to the emergency room, which is labeled as just "attention seeking" when it's more than that- it's usually someone literally begging for help from services that won't do anything unless they start doing things like that. If you present as stable enough to look after yourself, you're lucky to even get access to regular therapy in the UK, let alone some kind of mental health team to constantly monitor you.

It seems like this guy was pawned off on local special needs care services when he needed s lot more than that, and it's depressing tbh. He obviously needed to be in some kind of care facility and not allowed to just have his own place, but because he could present as intellectual and care for himself on a physical level no one would bother with that.

The saying no thing is legit, I've worked with special needs kids with the same instructions, but the way they have decided to deal with it is just lazy and useless. Yes someone may kick off if you don't give them what they want, but that doesn't mean you give in. He's not retarded and he knows now he can get whatever he wants by just kicking off. This whole situation has been created by the absolute abysmal care plan tbh, instead of managing his behaviour and attempting to change anything they just reside themselves to pandering to him to make life easier on themselves.

Now, because of this a child is scarred for life. I hope there is a deep investigation into this shit, but I doubt much will change. It's too late now anyway, nothing can make up for how fucked that kid is gonna be from this, even if through some miracle he physically recovers he's gonna have to live with the trauma of some rando chucking him off a fucking roof in a foreign country :c
 
There, I fixed it for you.
Remember kids, this is what socialism does. Gives defects and tards free reign to be shitheads in public without fear of being beat or shot.

With all due respect, the problem runs far deeper then such a simplistic statement can cover. "Socialism BAD!" is no better then "Orange Man BAD!"

This is an accountability problem that transcends politics and goes right down into societal mores of the last couple of generations.

I truely don't understand how it became so bad after growing up in the 1980s where words didn't have NEAR the power they have been given today. And not by "the left" or blacks in general, for some reason society has been plunging off a cliff of political correctness and ass-covering dissolving into fear of taking damn near any action due to potential 'consequences' rather then that the issue needs to be dealt with for the good of the people involved.

Language is the first victim, as kids we watched incredibly racist caractatures like the Japanese in 'Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" black people like the "hop in pot! hop in pot! Ummm....barbequed cat!" cannibals in that blackface Tom and Jerry cartoon. And ffs we didn't grow up thinking that Japanese people all look like Tojo and say 'ah so!', or that all blacks were one generation away from cannibal cavemen in Africa. But we tell our kids today! "NO DONT WATCH, THATS RACIST!!" Of course it's all on the net and every kid sees it within 30 seconds of being told 'no'.

I'm not sure where the fuck I am even going with this, so back to the core statement: This problem cannot be identified and fixed with Simplistic political posturing. It goes far far deeper then politics.
 
Last edited:
It seems like this guy was pawned off on local special needs care services when he needed s lot more than that, and it's depressing tbh. He obviously needed to be in some kind of care facility and not allowed to just have his own place, but because he could present as intellectual and care for himself on a physical level no one would bother with that.

I remain firmly convinced his father was the primary mover in getting him the flat and carers assigned, due to his comments on social media before the incident. I posted screencaps earlier in this thrread. He seemed of the opinion that all institutions that autists and speds may be put in have major issues with 'deprivation of liberty' and other abuses.

A father concerned with 'deprivation of liberty', knowing his son is a violent, abusive mong is exactly the type that would advocate for his son to be on the kind of care plan he was on. I still want to know what made them loosen the care plan before the attack so he could go off alone. I suspect the father was at least in part behind it.

There's a lot of blame to go around, and in he end it rests with the cunt who decided to try to murder the small boy, but I think his dad was involved with getting his son more freedom than he deserved too.
 
Hard to argue with this. You have to wonder what possible purpose someone like this lad could ever have in the world apart from being a perpetual millstone around the neck of whoever gets charged with dealing with him. He's never going to be remotely functional or able to work, or even be trusted around anyone not able to physically restrain him. He seems to derive no joy from any part of life and gives none in return, only pain, What really is the point?

Exactly this.
Which brings to mind an interesting observation; if a black dude had did this shit, other black people would be looking for the motivation, trying to understand him, and think of any corrective action as oppression.

I'm white as fuck. Im sure many who upvoted my earlier post are too. And we collectively agree this animal should be put down for the greater good. Fuck trying to figure him out. We recognize that he would deserve whatever the fuck he got, and probably more.

A little off topic, but just a thought after reading the thread
 
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.

This is the thing about ASPD - most psychopaths aren't ted bundy or some corporate CEO, they're retards with no impulse control who spend the majority of their lives in prison on various (usually petty) charges

Hollywood has warped the perception of the disorder into something it very rarely is

Can confirm
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.


You don't get a term in a secure hospital; you're classed as not competant and you stay there till a psych is prepared to sign you off as being 'cured' and since there's no cure for psychopathy, its a life sentence

Also you have literally no rights because you're legally classed as being mentally incompetant, so you're unable to make your own decisions so you can't refuse medication, or food, or anything
An insanity ruling is far worse than prison, it makes you a lab rat. If you wanna see how hard it can be to get out of a section order then have a look at this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
 
My friend was a teacher in a school for tard strength mega autists. She used to come home every day with bruises on her body. Eventually she fucked off to be an English teacher in a foreign country where she had a maid and didn't have to teach potatoes.

(And where they tend to chain up the megatards because ain't nobody got the time or money to devote five people to keeping them under control.

People tend to look after their elderly dribbling relatives in less developed countries because that's just part of the deal - your parents raised you in diapers, so you do the same when they get old.

But turbo-potatoes are often a nope. That's why adopting a Pajeet or Chink baby is not the cakewalk that some white ppl think - with extended families and such often willing to raise family member's kids, the ones who get shipped off to Australia or America are disproportionately likely to be baby psychos.)
 
Oh I can add another 2 towns to that list but that news hasn't come out and no one is willing to admit to what is going on, it would harm community cohesion if they did.

One case I dealt with was an 8 year old lad who stormed out of his group home practically every day, no trying to stop him. When this happened they rang the police to return him, now policy says it's on them to get him back so then they went to reporting him missing, a missing 8 year old is naturally high up the priority list so officers dispatched every time. I once had that file land on me, I rang the group home and did the standard "when was he last seen, what was he wearing" and so on. I then got to the "have you tried looking for him" question, as usual they did "oh yes, we have members of staff out looking for him". So rather than go right to looking for him I went right over to the group home. The kid in question was sat at the bottom of the group home's drive. I did the usual stop and tell him to get in the car which he always complied with us, parked the car out of sight of the home and asked him to wait in the car a second. I walked into the group home and oh look all the staff sat watching TV with a cup of tea. I asked who had been out looking and one said "oh we've been out all evening looking but we've just come back for a brew". I asked does that mean they just drive up the drive, which obviously they said yes. They didn't like it when I told them I had checked their car, the exhaust and bonnet were cold and oh yeah I've just collected him from the bottom of the drive. They put in a complaint that I was rude to them, the sergeant just laughed at the story and reported them to the local authority.

Should have nicked them for wasting police time.

And are the other two towns Huddersfield and Luton by any chance?

With all due respect, the problem runs far deeper then such a simplistic statement can cover. "Socialism BAD!" is no better then "Orange Man BAD!"

This is an accountability problem that transcends politics and goes right down into societal mores of the last couple of generations.

I truely don't understand how it became so bad after growing up in the 1980s where words didn't have NEAR the power they have been given today. And not by "the left" or blacks in general, for some reason society has been plunging off a cliff of political correctness and ass-covering dissolving into fear of taking damn near any action due to potential 'consequences' rather then that the issue needs to be dealt with for the good of the people involved.

Language is the first victim, as kids we watched incredibly racist caractatures like the Japanese in 'Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" black people like the "hop in pot! hop in pot! Ummm....barbequed cat!" cannibals in that blackface Tom and Jerry cartoon. And ffs we didn't grow up thinking that Japanese people all look like Tojo and say 'ah so!', or that all blacks were one generation away from cannibal cavemen in Africa. But we tell our kids today! "NO DONT WATCH, THATS RACIST!!" Of course it's all on the net and every kid sees it within 30 seconds of being told 'no'.

I'm not sure where the fuck I am even going with this, so back to the core statement: This problem cannot be identified and fixed with Simplistic political posturing. It goes far far deeper then politics.

It does indeed. It's the fact that since the 1980s the left has been engaged in a long march through the institutions. Knowing that they were a spent force in electoral politics with Margaret Thatcher's trashing of trade unionism and still being re-elected with large majorities, they instead decided to get into the machinery of the state, taking over the hands rather than the brains. They filled up academia to recruit more to their cause to the point at which universities are now ivy-covered North Koreas. They filled up the media to the point at which it's no longer about reporting the news or even having any form of adult discussion about it so much as lecturing the proles. Orange man bad. Blonde man bad. Brexiteers racist. They filled up social work, policing, and law and brought in ideas such as "restorative justice" and "community cohesion," which are all well and good in an academic setting but don't work in real life because there's always going to be people like Jonty here who work the system to get away with things. They filled up the corporate world because arguably big business is more powerful than government and less accountable too.

They have boiled our fucking frogs, and they don't care because they don't have to live with the consequences. They have insurance, and nice homes far away from the people who actually work for a living who they sneer at as gammons and from the crime-riddled inner cities with their multi-directional racial tension, and private education, and similar. They are the Middle who have replaced the High and thrust the Low back into their position of servitude.

I've said it before, we need our own long march through the institutions. Someone interviewing for a job? Check their social media and if they foam about XR, stopping Brexit because of the WuFlu, protesting police brutality, erasing statutes, and similar, find a more qualified candidate. Made to go on diversity awareness training? Go, sit and nod sagely and look ashen-faced at the appropriate moments, then accidentally chuck all the paperwork from same into the shredder once you're back at work. Forced to fill out a confidential diversity questionnaire? Deliberately give stupid answers to fuck up their figures. Someone rings up your office and tries to get one of your employees fired for wrongthink on social media? Laugh in their face.

In short, be the change you want to see.

I sped out at times here about how the grooming rings were basically allowed to operate not purely because of “police fears about racism” which is to a great extent a handy post facto justification for their lack of fucks given at the time, I sped out about this because my direct experience is that is doesn’t matter the race, age or anything else of adults who sexually exploit children in care, the police do not give a fuck and 95% of the time neither do the social work.

There is this utterly fucking poisonous dogma that children (if you are under 16 you are a child, no exceptions) are entitled to “sexual and relationship privacy” even when what is happening to them is sooooo fucking far outwith what is age and developmentally appropriate that it is legally rape. Actual, criminal rape. I am like everyone else; I don’t lose any sleep over two teenagers having a consensual fumble but I cannot, cannot accept that anyone who is a child in care can have a “boyfriend” of 25. Because they can’t. It’s against the fucking law, and this nonsense about “maintaining a working relationship“ and ”respecting choices” gives me a nosebleed because you cannot choose to be sexually exploited. And if you are saying you are being sexually exploited, the people who have fucking legal responsibility for your care and well-being have to do everything in theor power to stop that shit happening, whether you fucking like it or not.

Because it’s more important that you are safe than that you get what you want, and it is not safe for you as a twelve year old kid to be getting passed around the local rude boys. It’s fucking damaging. It is not alright.

I get so angry about child sexual exploitation, like the grooming rings, because all of that shit was happening in full view of the kids’ workers and police and other services, and everyone basically shrugged and went “council house sluts, what can you do”. I saw that. I had that said to me about kids I was responsible for, and I fought it like a wildcat every time because some things are just too inherently wrong for us to turn a blind eye to.

And I could not stand the victim blaming. It happened all the time. Adults who were supposed to protect these kids blamed them for the shit they were drowning in, and it made me so fucking angry inside. Of course kids who have spent all of their few years of life flailing around in parental abuse and neglect make bad choices. Of course they do. We are supposed to give them a lifeline out of the shit, not shove them down further and tell them this is their fault. If that’s what you think, fuck off out of social work and police and get a job somewhere where your complete fucking lack of human pity isn't harming actual kids.

I had to get a court order for the seizure of “retained products of conception“ from one wee twelve year old lassie’s abortion, because DNA testing that was the only way I could prove her twenty year old cousin was the father, and the sexual offences specialist prosecutor wasn’t interested because “the social workers say this was a consensual relationship”. I mean, can you understand the despair that made me feel? This scumbag has been molesting her for years at this point, the family is riddled with incest, this poor child is being taken for an abortion, and somehow we are assigning her some kind of agency in her persistent familial sexual abuse? She doesn’t fight back any more, so.... suddenly this isn’t a crime?

This poor wee lassie is in the hospital having her insides scraped out, a baby having a baby, and I sent two police up there to give her doctor a warrant for the “evidence”. I had to do that to keep her safe because no one was prepared to try. I had to do that, and it fucking burns me.

No child deserves to be sexually exploited. I don’t care how much of an arsehole they are, and I worked with them - yes, they can be arseholes. Most of them are also really scared and full of the shittiest feelings and thoughts about themselves. They all deserve to be safe.

I did a stint working as an in-house lawyer on a locum contract for [area] Police a while back. Everything was an uphill struggle.

I really don't know if I can link the news reports here, as it would probably end up with me powerlevelling, but it was my lot in life to get a disclosure order of a social services file from [area] social services because we needed it for evidentiary purposes. So, I rang up the Council's solicitor and asked whether they were just going to send it over and I was told that they couldn't because data protection. I already had prepared for that and explained how it was within the exception for investigation of a crime - and indeed it was, because this couple's child had basically been neglected to death as well as badly beaten and doctors at [city] hospital had previously reported suspicious injuries and things.

Nope, they can't do that.

Why not, I ask.

Policy. We require you to get a Court order for disclosure under whatever the fuck it is of the Family Procedure Rules.

Suit yourself. So I read up on the Family Procedure Rules and make the application. It's due to be heard in [city] Family Court in a week's time. So I trundle off to it.

Council solicitor is there, and also the solicitors for each of the parents. Apparently they have "concerns" about things. The social services department of [area] Council agrees.

I then basically have to take the Judge through chapter and verse of the law and procedure to convince her to order disclosure of the file. The Council's solicitor doesn't oppose anything, just sits there looking smug. The solicitors for the parents make a song and dance about things but these are dismissed. Disclosure of the file is ordered.

I thought we were all supposed to be on the same side here. That we were all supposed to be trying to safeguard children and suchlike. But apparently, social services missed that this kid was routinely beaten and given vast amounts of opioids for the pain to cover it up by its father and its mother was more interested in social media and going out and having a good time. It was only when someone at [city] hospital raised the alarm that any action was actually taken.

But, no. We have to go through the procedures just because some bint behind a desk with a gold plated public sector pension says as much, wasting many peoples' time with a Court hearing that could have been totally avoided.

The father was later sentenced to life for murder and the mother to prison for child neglect. So at least something good came out of it.
 

Social services did NOT consider Tate pusher 'a risk to the public' before he threw boy, six, from art gallery despite at least eight assaults, including on police and support staff and threatening to kill his family​

This is pretty fucked up. Bottom line is they found no one to blame for the fact that this violent ape was allowed to wander the streets unsupervised:
Jonty Bravery even hit a member of his support staff with a brick, threatened to kill his family and punched and racially abused another care worker in a Burger King just six months before the Tate attack.
Today's report, published by the Local Safeguarding Children Partnership in West London, fails to blame anyone for Bravery being free to attack the poor French boy seeing London from the Tate viewing gallery, where he was grabbed and thrown on to a roof below.
The report states: 'There was no recent evidence that he (Bravery) presented a risk to other children or adults unknown to him.
But the review also found that, while Bravery's case was characterised by 'appropriate efforts by professionals from across agencies to access assessment and treatment for (him)', those efforts 'were stymied due to the lack of services, placements and provisions that were suitable for his needs as an autistic young person with a co-existing conduct disorder diagnosis'.
'It was in this context that he was progressively given more freedoms, which saw him able to visit central London unaccompanied on the day of the incident.'
The review said Bravery was taken to hospital twice in May 2016, once for overdosing on tea tree oil and then for purposely ingesting paint in an art lesson. His medication was increased and he was treated for two weeks on an inpatient psychiatric unit.

But that unit was said to be an 'extremely stressful environment' for someone with autism, as was the psychiatric intensive care unit in northern England where he spent several months - an experience his parents described as 'extremely damaging to his wellbeing'.

Bravery was then sent to a residential school, where he attacked a fellow pupil after losing a game of 10-pin bowling - the review stated the injuries 'could have been life-threatening'.

The local authority approached 'over 60 establishments' to find a suitable alternative for Bravery, but all 'either felt that (Bravery) presented a higher risk than they could safely manage, or had no vacancies', the review found.

He was sent to a specialist children's home where his brief stay was characterised by 'several violent incidents', including one occasion when he assaulted a member of staff with a brick after being told his poor behaviour at a local leisure centre would be documented on his behaviour report.
A few days later, Bravery assaulted a police officer called to his room amid concerns that he was secreting a brick.

The teenager was later sent to live in a flat in west London but had to move to another facility after assaulting a member of care staff by dragging her along the floor by her hair.

A year before the Tate attack, Bravery called police to his flat, saying he was thinking of killing people, during which he assaulted an officer.

The following month he made two claims to support staff that he wanted to go out in the community 'so that he could assault a member of the public and be arrested and put in prison'.

Staff believed he was making these statements to provoke a reaction from the support worker.

The review said: 'It is evident that professionals working with (Bravery) at this time did not think he would act on these statements, which were seen as attention-seeking behaviour.

'This was because all of (Bravery's) actions were viewed as products of his autistic behaviour and there as no consideration of these threats in a context of conduct disorder.'

Five months before the Tate attack, he assaulted a member of staff at Burger King in Brighton after punching his care worker.

The review said: 'Unfortunately (Bravery) also had incidents of premeditated instrumental aggression that were not explained by his autism and therefore were unlikely to be resolved through such therapy.

'The fact that these incidents were rare, though could be dangerous, made it easier for them to drift from view.'
 

Social services did NOT consider Tate pusher 'a risk to the public' before he threw boy, six, from art gallery despite at least eight assaults, including on police and support staff and threatening to kill his family​

This is pretty fucked up. Bottom line is they found no one to blame for the fact that this violent ape was allowed to wander the streets unsupervised:
Lovely little side bit from the article. Fuck you Daily Mail because I know you're emotionally manipulating people with it but well done, it works.

12.16pm: Jonty Bravery, a then-17-year-old autistic boy living in supported accommodation, leaves his home in Ealing, west London, to buy an Oyster card at a shop on Church Road, Northolt.​

12.23pm: He arrives at Northolt Underground station and takes the Tube to London Bridge station.
1.10pm: Bravery arrives at London Bridge station, on the South Bank, and makes his way the short distance to the Shard.
Once there, he asks a member of staff how much it costs to enter but does not have enough money. CCTV footage then shows him walking away before turning back to ask for directions elsewhere.
2.16pm: Bravery arrives at the Tate Modern on foot, speaks to a member of staff and is seen pointing upwards. He then takes the lift to the 10th floor viewing balcony in the visitor attraction's Blavatnik Building.
2.30pm: CCTV shows Bravery looking over the railings close to where a six-year-old French boy is later hurled.
2.32pm: The victim and his parents arrive on the viewing tower where Bravery has been waiting. The boy skips ahead of his parents briefly, allowing Bravery to scoop him up and throw him over the edge.
Bravery then moves away and can be seen smiling, with his arms raised. The victim's parents panic - the father challenges Bravery while the mother attempts to climb over the barriers to her son, 100ft (30m) below, before being stopped by witnesses.
Members of the public detain Bravery, remarking he seems 'calm' and 'lacking emotion'. He later is heard saying: 'It's not my fault, it's social services' fault.'
2.46pm: Bravery is arrested. He asks: 'Is this going to be on the news?'
 
The real question is why did they allow him out - alone. No matter his fantasy or plan it required one stupid thing - let him out. And they obliged.

And the second question is: clearly he deserved a good hiding to teach him a lesson, why did we make giving kids a good clip illegal?
 
Back
Top Bottom