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

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.
 
The instructions he could go out on his own at that point would have been written into his 'care plan', and whoever wrote it is responsible, although I'm guessing because no written record exists of the threats he made being reported by the carers (you can listen to the recording they made on the Daily mail sire), they'll wiggle out of that one legally.

But the actual carers are not to blame, in the sense they don't write the care plan, and must only act in ways they are instructed to do via the care plan. I've known a few folks work in social care and it's a fucking minefield that utterly antfucks about on what you can and cannot do for a client. You can get in trouble for wiping up a spillage if the care instructions only say to give client a bath and give him breakfast, that sort of thing. Basically if the overall care plan said he could now go off independently (and do not underestimate the holy grail of these services is 'independence'), he could go off alone, and it was out of the hands of the carers and they would be fired. I don't think people undertand what a low-status, low paid job social care is and how little autonomy carers have in the system they work in It's why there's such a high turnover and it's often the place people who have no other options work.
Going to say it right now: the care taking system is a fucking joke. And whoever came up with the care plan should shoulder as much blame as Tardi. People like him should be supervised at all times to prevent such incidents if you ask me. As from my experience, it's always the big beefy tards that are the most dangerous.
 
The carers would have had no rights to limit the monster's movements. If they said no to him, he simply did what he wanted to.

They would have been held legally responsible if they had tried to physically restrain him - leading to them being fired and / or sued and the agency employing them sued, too. As agency workers, they would have no meaningful input into his care plan - all that they could have done was to record his actions and raise any concerns with the agency. It sounds like there was a high turnover rate for wrangling this individual, making it even more difficult to control him.

There may have been an element of allowing him independent activities, although it was in no one's best interests for this to happen.

I'll bet that the monster's care plan was complex and the responsibility for it spread out in a number of departments, too, making it even more difficult to figure out how / where this event could have been prevented.

tl;dr: an individual's rights will always come before society's rights
 
Going to say it right now: the care taking system is a fucking joke. And whoever came up with the care plan should shoulder as much blame as Tardi. People like him should be supervised at all times to prevent such incidents if you ask me. As from my experience, it's always the big beefy tards that are the most dangerous.

Problem is also not only is no system failsafe, systems are designed for average cases, not the horrible crazy outliers like this subhuman monster. In most cases systemic failures don't result in attempted murder of a random child and that's why shit like this doesn't get taken seriously until it's way too late. We see this again and again in all areas of care including child protection and various areas of police work.

This is not to apologise for it at all - it's clear apart for the hideous brat himself, there are others here who absolutely did not do their jobs. But those people are up the chain, not the actual carers who went to the lengths of recording evidence of what this arsehole wanted to do because they knew him well enough to know if he was talking about it, he would eventually do it. The recording is disturbing, clearly he agreed to it, and he rambles on for a while about his plans, then snaps 'Happy now?' at the end in the most sneery, spoilt brat manner. He really comes off as a middle class, entitled little psycho. Imagine having to work with that for full shifts, and then trying to warn your superiors, who ignore it. No wonder most don't last long in that job.
 
The carers would have had no rights to limit the monster's movements. If they said no to him, he simply did what he wanted to.

They would have been held legally responsible if they had tried to physically restrain him - leading to them being fired and / or sued and the agency employing them sued, too. As agency workers, they would have no meaningful input into his care plan - all that they could have done was to record his actions and raise any concerns with the agency. It sounds like there was a high turnover rate for wrangling this individual, making it even more difficult to control him.

There may have been an element of allowing him independent activities, although it was in no one's best interests for this to happen.
Any application of physical restraint by an official body (or someone acting on their behalf) on someone that could be considered vulnerable is a nightmare in the UK. The police have legal protections, and their own complaints body to protect them, but everyone else is a fair target for firms of solicitors that specialise in such cases, and have a network that tips them off to profitable cases.

I'm willing to bet Bravery was well aware of his 'rights', it's a common theme in the UK with young shitbags, threatening legal action as casually as they threaten violence.

Ironically the legal liability that falls on providers has led to a situation, where they struggle to find decent companies to bid on contracts. The ones that do are primarily concerned with covering themselves.


I'll bet that the monster's care plan was complex and the responsibility for it spread out in a number of departments, too, making it even more difficult to figure out how / where this event could have been prevented.

tl;dr: an individual's rights will always come before society's rights

I suspect that care plan will be a work of art. There will be email chains and records of reports to the police council and other bodies, any criticism of the provider will be met with the response of that they made 'name names' in the council/police etc aware of the issue on such a date.
 
Called it: The usual suspects in the UK are blaming this on government “austerity” rather than the fact that this shitstain never should have been allowed out of a secure psychiatric lockup and given his own free fucking flat in London: https://mol.im/a/7977453

What exactly are their families supposed to do?... The parents basically had viable two choices left to them by the authorities - continue to endure a life time of misery until one or both of them just can't take it anymore and hangs themself or their child; hand him on to the authorities who are supposed to deal with him.
I do have sympathy for his parents. I’d never want this to happen to me, that’s for sure. But there’s a difference between making him a ward of the state out of desperation while continuing to be a presence in his life and just dumping him completely and with finality. My read of the situation is they did the latter. There’s clearly much we don’t and will never know about the situation, but as a parent I can’t quite shrug my shoulders over a mother and father ditching their kid and never again being a presence in their lives.

That said, even a mother would struggle to love this face.
0A574669-F25F-465B-BB46-285791CC899B.jpeg
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
To be fair, this lad was probably non-salvageable, destined for prison anyway and maybe would have gone on to murder a sibling or one or both parents or the whole lot of them at some point if he lived with them. Such cases are way more common than throwing kids off towers. I'd be interested to learn how much if any violence he'd inflicted on the family when younger, or if he'd mostly been in some residential special school where he could beat on the other kids and teachers, and where he didn't see them often, and resented it.
To be honest, that was my first thought as well. We really don't know what his parents were like, but the article describes him very much as someone you wouldn't want around children, especially, say, younger step-siblings he could bully, torture and possibly worse. With his emotional volatility and capacity for violence, I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't welcome in either home because he was a danger to his relatives.

The real question is how the fuck someone who was designated two people with him at all times was somehow granted a solo trip outside. Somewhere a colossal fuckup was made, and I'd be pretty certain it lies not with the care workers but with the company that employs them. Everyone who came in contact with him knew he was a violent threat, so it can only have been a decision made by a bureaucracy that had no dealings with him.
 
I'm willing to bet Bravery was well aware of his 'rights', it's a common theme in the UK with young shitbags, threatening legal action as casually as they threaten violence.

Oh god, doubtless. It's a common theme with gobby kids way younger than him, and also adults who should know better, quoting 'human rights' they don't actually have; an autist like Bravery would probably have it all printed out and accurately memorized to chant at you and a solicitor on speedial, the better to bludgeon and threaten people with. It says in the article he looked up symptoms of autism to imitate when it would suit him. A spiteful manipulative shitbag is hard to deal with; a manipulative spiteful shitbag who has some cold intelligence and zeroconscience behind his manipulations is impossible to deal with within the realms of the civilized. Probably the only thing that would quell this guy was what he would never, ever be awarded by any school or caresystem he was in - a sound beating. I doubt his parents ever tried it either lest he called Childline or cried to the authorities.

I suspect that care plan will be a work of art. There will be email chains and records of reports to the police council and other bodies, any criticism of the provider will be met with the response of that they made 'name names' in the council/police etc aware of the issue on such a date.

I wonder how much if any we'll get to hear about it. I've read through a few reports on local authority inquiries into systemic failures that make quite interesting reading.
 
But the actual carers are not to blame, in the sense they don't write the care plan, and must only act in ways they are instructed to do via the care plan. I've known a few folks work in social care and it's a fucking minefield that utterly antfucks about on what you can and cannot do for a client. You can get in trouble for wiping up a spillage if the care instructions only say to give client a bath and give him breakfast, that sort of thing. Basically if the overall care plan said he could now go off independently (and do not underestimate the holy grail of these services is 'independence'), he could go off alone, and it was out of the hands of the carers and they would be fired. I don't think people undertand what a low-status, low paid job social care is and how little autonomy carers have in the system they work in It's why there's such a high turnover and it's often the place people who have no other options work.

I have relatives working in care for mentally challenged people and while the job can have it's perks. The people actually caring for the individuals have limited autonomy on who they get and the care plan. You can at least say or make clear if you are uncomfortable dealing with someone, but that's not often an out. Management with minimal experience of the house you manage will sometimes parachute in a new person who reads like a terror but they think will fit in fine with the other sometimes-crabby-but-mostly-managable patients, and they won't remove the one that hits and bites till they have a long record of it, or families of the other residents complain. If the carer gets attacked, well you are trained to deal with and de-escalate that sort of thing and will be told it's the "not all sunshine and roses" part of the job.

On flip side, also have a relation who has mental health issues who has gone massively downhill in the past few years. But they can't keep them long-term in a hospital - they can do a hold for only so long as it takes to get them on "better" meds and then ejected back home.
 
I have relatives working in care for mentally challenged people and while the job can have it's perks...If the carer gets attacked, well you are trained to deal with and de-escalate that sort of thing and will be told it's the "not all sunshine and roses" part of the job.
I cannot imagine what the perks, sunshine or roses of dealing with violent, shit-flinging, compulsively masturbating psychos could possibly be. KF clout?
 
I cannot imagine what the perks, sunshine or roses of dealing with violent, shit-flinging, compulsively masturbating psychos could possibly be. KF clout?

Pfft asking the wrong person, I never went into it nor would ever intend to.

Not all of them are violent loons - a lot of the ones in the system are generally big kids who can hardly verbalize and usually need help with standard living skills like washing, eating ect. But otherwise are happy enough left to their own devices. They might have crabby moments, but it's relatively easily handled.

When I say perks, I normally mean carer and resident groups normally get a budget to go out and get a meal at the local cafe on the expenses or downtime between washing arses to watch tv with a cuppa and a biccy.
 
So apparently the French boy is making a recovery, moving and speaking.
 
Guys, don't worry about sentencing.
He will probably be held indefinitely in Broadmoor, I don't see any point in the future where this man is considered safe to be released into the public nor into a Cat A prison.

We should worry if he were being tried as sane - he is not, and is literally in Broadmoor right now.
Broadmoor houses a wide spectrum and a lot of people don't get out.

From people in prison for minor assaults etc who've become too mentally ill whilst in prison to be able to carry out their sentence in a Cat A, to people who've murdered their entire family then burned their house down. Some are just recidivists who happen to have schizophrenia, and also commit shoplifting and a bit of assault.

Some people who have done the most disgusting things, have been tried as sane, but have stopped eating or malingered to get into Broadmoor because a UK locked psych ward for the criminally insane is way more facilitating and comfortable than a Cat A prison, and that says a lot considering how Cat A prisons are run and the things on offer to the prisoners and the way they can play the system.

Bravery will never get out.
 
Some people who have done the most disgusting things, have been tried as sane, but have stopped eating or malingered to get into Broadmoor because a UK locked psych ward for the criminally insane is way more facilitating and comfortable than a Cat A prison, and that says a lot considering how Cat A prisons are run and the things on offer to the prisoners and the way they can play the system.

It's not all sunshine and roses though. Remember Jimmy Saville had his own personal set of keys to the place from 1968 until 2009 and was allowed to run amuck, molesting the female inhabitants while getting altogether too chummy with some of the more disgusting male ones with whom he doubtless shared 'interests'. They even gave him his own fucking room there.

Bravery will never get out.

I really fucking hope so.
 
To be fair, this lad was probably non-salvageable, destined for prison anyway and maybe would have gone on to murder a sibling or one or both parents or the whole lot of them at some point if he lived with them. Such cases are way more common than throwing kids off towers. I'd be interested to learn how much if any violence he'd inflicted on the family when younger, or if he'd mostly been in some residential special school where he could beat on the other kids and teachers, and where he didn't see them often, and resented it.

If he'd had any idea that his actions had consequences, he might not have done it. We'll never know, because this incompetent company, which knew he planned on murdering someone by throwing them off a tall building and then just dumped him into a tall building full of kids, prevented him from ever experiencing any by blocking anyone ever saying "no" to him, ever, and covering up for his previous constant petty crimes like shoplifting.

They should never be in charge of tards again and whoever made that decision should go to prison for criminal negligence.

I don't know if Cuckland has the equivalent of the Tarasoff decision and others here, where caregivers like this who know of the specific danger presented by their patients and just jerk off and do nothing are legally liable for the results.
 
Somewhere a colossal fuckup was made, and I'd be pretty certain it lies not with the care workers but with the company that employs them

An employment agency that specializes in providing carers is no more responsible for devising a service user care plan than an agency that provides low-level IT support is responsible for creating a client company's IT strategy.
 
Guys, don't worry about sentencing...Bravery will never get out.
This is the UK. Literal killers get out on day release all the time.

Who exactly signed off on a care plan that allowed for this mong with an assault and theft record, who required two full-time carers in his home at all times, to go out into the world alone?
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole