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.
 
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.
This is exactly why I don't blame them at all. Giving birth to a subhuman is something people want to put behind them for very good reasons. Additionally, they didn't make him into a subhuman. They tried to give him the best possible life: he lived at home AND had professional mental healthcare. Dad campaigned for tards and raised funds for the tard wrangling center centre. They only gave up on him at 16, when they realized they couldn't handle the rapey, murderous fuck. He was probably staging "dirty protests" at his home, too.

The timeline:
winter 2017 (16 yrs): placed into care
- shits up accommodations, beats carers, attempts rape -
autumn 2018 (16 yrs): reveals murder plan
- shits up accommodations, beats carers, attempts rape -
August 2019 (17 yrs): commits the crime
December 2019 (18 yrs): pleads guilty

Seriously, this is the kind of situation only "society" can be equipped to handle. If this thing was forced by society on unwilling private caregivers (like parents or next of kin), they'd be ethically in the right to kill it, because it has long since deserved privately administered death. (But we as a society don't kill subhumans, to protect people from being falsely labeled thus.) Parental duty is to raise normal children into normal adults. Tard wrangling is a social burden.
 
If anyone ever wondered about mass shootings in the US the source of the issue is the same as this tard.
Family can't keep them under control for X reason, community is broken for Y reason, religion is ignored as stupid and then the last method of protective control the nuthouse is closed.
When you can't control the nutters nutty shit happening is inevitable.
 
This is exactly why I don't blame them at all. Giving birth to a subhuman is something people want to put behind them for very good reasons. Additionally, they didn't make him into a subhuman. They tried to give him the best possible life: he lived at home AND had professional mental healthcare. Dad campaigned for tards and raised funds for the tard wrangling center centre. They only gave up on him at 16, when they realized they couldn't handle the rapey, murderous fuck.
That’s why I said I’m trying not to judge them. As a parent, I just can’t imagine simply walking away after all that and never even visiting. He had to have been so far gone that they would have raised the alarm that he was completely unsuitable for “independent” living, no? If they did so and the authorities ignored them, this story is going to get even more horrific. How many Jontys are out there in the wild as we sperg?
 
Did a bit of poking around about his dad. Turfed up his Companies House data (he owns two companies, Northpoint Printing and Inventsport) and two snippets of his social justice moments. He seems very concerned with the human rights of people in care institutions. One is from a year ago, so it seems he's was still advocatingfor his monstrous son's rights.

One of his now deleted tweets was mentioned in a news report in December 2019:

piers bravery2.png

And here's a change.org he signed, sperging about human rights in da system, particularly 'deprivation of liberty' issues while in care - odd, given a bit too much liberty was behind his son trying to murder a small child.

piers bravery.png

This is from a year ago, so it seems to be post Jonty's crime and during his custody in a youth detention centre,where apparently the poor dear's mental health 'declined' which is why they stuck him in Broadmoor. Or maybe he was concerned about conditions during Jonty's first stint in a secure unit after being sectioned under the mental health act at 16. Either way, he's way too concerned with the rights of this fucker and those like him considering what his son was and what he eventually pulled.
 
Did a bit of poking around about his dad. Turfed up his Companies House data (he owns two companies, Northpoint Printing and Inventsport) and two snippets of his social justice moments. He seems very concerned with the human rights of people in care institutions. One is from a year ago, so it seems he's was still advocatingfor his monstrous son's rights.

One of his now deleted tweets was mentioned in a news report in December 2019:

Wyświetl załącznik 1134849

And here's a change.org he signed, sperging about human rights in da system, particularly 'deprivation of liberty' issues while in care - odd, given a bit too much liberty was behind his son trying to murder a small child.

Wyświetl załącznik 1134850

This is from a year ago, so it seems to be post Jonty's crime and during his custody in a youth detention centre,where apparently the poor dear's mental health 'declined' which is why they stuck him in Broadmoor. Or maybe he was concerned about conditions during Jonty's first stint in a secure unit after being sectioned under the mental health act at 16. Either way, he's way too concerned with the rights of this fucker and those like him considering what his son was and what he eventually pulled.
So they never visited him or anything but they used him to virtue signal and LARPed as human rights activists? Looks like the sociopathy was hereditary.
 
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.
I also feel like the parents are to blame too, the father especially since I get the feeling he was the one responsible for telling the agency how to care for this child abuser.
 
Personally I think 1950s style is the best way to handle people with mental illness.
 
This is the UK. Literal killers get out on day release all the time.

Not from Broadmoor they don't.

People who've committed things like your basic armed robbery end up in Broadmoor for way longer than they'd have been given in prison if their mental health fucks up. A few people do get out of Broadmoor, but are mostly recidivists and/or revolving door patients and end up straight back there again - due to how sick you have to be to end up in there though, a lot don't get out. Ever.

I will eat my hat if Bravery doesn't get an indefinite sentence in Broadmoor or Ashworth.
 
Not from Broadmoor they don't.

People who've committed things like your basic armed robbery end up in Broadmoor for way longer than they'd have been given in prison if their mental health fucks up. A few people do get out of Broadmoor, but are mostly recidivists and/or revolving door patients and end up straight back there again - due to how sick you have to be to end up in there though, a lot don't get out. Ever.

I will eat my hat if Bravery doesn't get an indefinite sentence in Broadmoor or Ashworth.
I hope you're right. The case of spree killer Barry Williams, AKA Harry Street, who got released from Broadmoor and went on to amass a huge cache of weapons and explosives, does not inspire confidence. The cops didn't even have him in their fucking system after they let him go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Williams_(spree_killer)

Williams, who had schizophrenia,[14] was released from hospital in 1994 once doctors and a mental health tribunal decided that he was no longer a risk to the public.[15] This was on condition that he could be detained again if his behaviour warranted it.[6][13]...In October 2013, allegations arose that he had waged a campaign of harassment against his next-door neighbour.[13] Williams's home was searched by West Midlands Police as part of their investigation, and he was found to be in possession of an improvised bomb, 50 homemade bullets, a revolver and two pistols.[13]...A spokesman for the police said, "There was no trace of Harry Street on any police systems; but it is thanks to the tenacity of a local police officer who, when the harassment escalated, made extensive checks which led her to Street's GP and his true identity."[15]
If not for that one cop, he might well have put that arsenal to use. Having had extensive experience with British bureaucracies, I don't take it for granted that they won't fuck this one up too. The police had zero trace of a fucking spree killer they'd released into the wild out of Broadmoor.
 
If not for that one cop, he might well have put that arsenal to use. Having had extensive experience with British bureaucracies, I don't take it for granted that they won't fuck this one up too. The police had zero trace of a fucking spree killer they'd released into the wild out of Broadmoor.

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.
 
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.
Yeah, that's a case that will haunt me forever. I was a kid when they tortured and murdered Jamie (including extensive sexual torture of the kind I wish I'd never known existed). Not only do the British authorities protect them at all costs, they also prosecute anyone who reveals details of their new identities. A D-list British soap actress found this out the hard way when she tweeted such things a couple years ago. I have zero fucking faith in the UK authorities, for many reasons including this.
 
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.
That shit should be outlawed and anyone partaking in it (even officials) should be arrested and or fired for doing so.

because who's to say it won't happen again?
 
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.

What is also disgusting is how they took those two mini-Ian Brady cunts back to the north-west and Merseyside during their stint at their secure units. The place where pretty much every single human wanted them dead. It's like rubbing the noses of the entire community in it. I believe they even took them to football games in the city. Repulsive.

Did anyone ever find out if they shipped Venables abroad as rumoured after they released him after his last stint inside for CP offences? Canada was supposed to be the destination. It's beyond objectionable that subhuman gets a name change at state's expense at all let alone funded emigration - far as I'm concerned if you commit a murder like he did, you deserve to live with the stigma and hatred the rest of your natural life and if you can't hack it, you can neck yourself. He knew exactly what he was doing when he was ten, and he has continued with the sexual interest in toddlers he displayed during the murder. Honestly they should have shot those two on the spot. You're irretrievably stained and soiled for life doing what they did, there can be no redemption.

Again hundreds of thousands are spent on protecting worthless, useless bastards ... for what? They're of no use to anyone, not worth the expense , there's no return on it and there's no support for it apart from the usual delusional do-gooder types. The person who killed or just disfugured Venables would be a national hero. Are they simply afraid some scumbag human rights lawyer will pop up and sue the state to ribbons if Venables gets hurt by a mob or Denise Bulger one day?
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Yeah, that's a case that will haunt me forever. I was a kid when they tortured and murdered Jamie (including extensive sexual torture of the kind I wish I'd never known existed). Not only do the British authorities protect them at all costs, they also prosecute anyone who reveals details of their new identities. A D-list British soap actress found this out the hard way when she tweeted such things a couple years ago. I have zero fucking faith in the UK authorities, for many reasons including this.
I read the wikipedia page for this and it's pretty sad how much effort the UK gov is going to to protect the privacy of these two sadist baby killers. Somone should dox them on kf and see what the uk gov can do about it. You should have to bear the shame attached to your identity if you do something heinous. I read the teen boys in Japan who tortured Junko Furuta had their new names released by the media. The media wasn't allowed to do it technically but the outlet didn't get in trouble, at least not any that I could find. Can't read the original Japanese sources though.

Despite the shocking brutality of their crime, the identities of the boys were sealed by the court since they were all considered to be juveniles at the time of the crime. Journalists from the Shūkan Bunshun magazine discovered their identities, however, and published them.[8] They stated that, given the severity of the crime, the accused did not deserve to have their right to anonymity upheld. All four boys pled guilty to "committing bodily injury that resulted in death", rather than murder.

 
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.

Ah like those two girls from down under that killed one of their moms. They went to prison but were released and got new identities and I think one is a novelist. Was a movie starring Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet.
 
I cannot imagine what the perks, sunshine or roses of dealing with violent, shit-flinging, compulsively masturbating psychos could possibly be. KF clout?
I can somewhat provide info, an old friend got a job working with a program that teaches tards within their high school, it mostly focuses on life skills, and developing working relationships with local businesses so they can work simple labor jobs when they "graduate". Most of your work time however was spent basically baby sitting these kids, I heard one story about a worker that would regularly fall asleep while this ward worked at a job site.

Now to get in this job you need a 2 year degree, which for anyone who doesn't know is basically high school 2.0. That starting rate (like 6 years ago) is/was $15/hr, and this was in the suburbs so pretty good money. you work a schedule similar to teachers 9-5ish. Now if you go on full time you get all sorts of benefits, it was a government job so I'm sure they were pretty good. Most of the kids were fine to work with, but there would be a few that had problems or would get violent.

So if your lucky and get assigned a good natured high functioning kid its a great job with great pay and benefits, but if you got the violent shit flinging chimp it was hellish and you were underpaid. This was with kids deemed salvageable, and it was hoped that they could integrate into normal life without relying exclusively on welfare, so I have no idea what its like for people who watch over those that are deemed as a lost cause, but judging by the faces on some of those workers that i've seen I can confidently say as an outsider that its not worth it.
 
Ah like those two girls from down under that killed one of their moms. They went to prison but were released and got new identities and I think one is a novelist. Was a movie starring Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet.
Heavenly Creatures.

I don't equate their crime with the Bulger case, though. For one thing, their motive wasn't just random, unmitigated cruelty. Also, one didn't re-offend and then get yet another round of protection, which is the most appalling part of what's happened with Venables. Really, there seems to be an issue all over the place with pedophiles being given multiple chances to re-offend, and it's only getting worse as the troon defence becomes more prevalent.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole