Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
16 Sep 26
16:29
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Apr 25
T's & P's.
Show More
An insecure toff who was unable to do the sentence of the crime he committed. A coward. Sadly missed? I doubt it.
Not even charged.
There's a video of the pusher and I think he is their third suspect.
There's a video of the pusher and I think he is their third suspect.
I never knew Hounslow was in Chiswick. I went to a college there when I was living in Turnham Green in Chiswick.
He was convicted in 2013 of knocking a woman off her bike with his Harley Davidson at Hyde Park Corner and leaving the scene. Sounds familiar.
imbecile123
Don’t be surprised to receive correspondence from a solicitor in the near future.
Don’t be surprised to receive correspondence from a solicitor in the near future.
Great Great Great Grandson of Queen Victoria=2nd cousin to Charles. PR in overdrive
uptheirons -- "Why top yourself if innocent though?"
Reputation innit.
Even if he is not the Putney Pusher, it is all over the interwebs that he is, which can't be good for sleep or his prospects at the bank or with his social circle.
Guilt or innocence is almost a technicality these days.
Reputation innit.
Even if he is not the Putney Pusher, it is all over the interwebs that he is, which can't be good for sleep or his prospects at the bank or with his social circle.
Guilt or innocence is almost a technicality these days.
Unfortunately true,Ramruma but it is the Prosecution's ressponsibity to try to prove guilt
Reddit has what purports to be a letter from the family on the subject of his innocence. It is quite long but here is the key section:-
Then Nick’s lawyers did the basic investigative work that should have been done by the Met Police before he was subjected to any of this. They pointed out that the published images of the man involved in the assault bore no resemblance to Nick: the victim had described the attacker as having brown eyes; Nick had distinctive blue eyes. Nick had a visibly wasted and disfigured calf dating back to his time serving with the Army, while the man shown in the footage did not. And Nick had a prominent forearm tattoo which was not visible on the man in the images. Nick made it clear he was keen to take part in an identification parade, but the police never organised one. He also provided email evidence sent from his office in the West End, demonstrating that he was not even on Putney Bridge when the assault happened. A previous suspect, also wrongly arrested, was cleared within days of providing an alibi, Nick was left on bail and remained under suspicion.
This was not evidence that emerged months later; it was provided to the police within days of Nick’s arrest. The Met Police had that evidence before them and gave every indication that the investigation would end with no further action. But it did not end. A DNA sample was recovered at the time of the assault; Nick provided his DNA for comparison three months ago but, to this day, the police have still not finalised the DNA analysis or provided any explanation for the delay, even though they know Nick is innocent from all the other evidence.
https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/1wj030c/a_statement_from_the_immediate_family_of_nicholas/
If this is true or even mostly true then the police have seriously ballsed things up.
Then Nick’s lawyers did the basic investigative work that should have been done by the Met Police before he was subjected to any of this. They pointed out that the published images of the man involved in the assault bore no resemblance to Nick: the victim had described the attacker as having brown eyes; Nick had distinctive blue eyes. Nick had a visibly wasted and disfigured calf dating back to his time serving with the Army, while the man shown in the footage did not. And Nick had a prominent forearm tattoo which was not visible on the man in the images. Nick made it clear he was keen to take part in an identification parade, but the police never organised one. He also provided email evidence sent from his office in the West End, demonstrating that he was not even on Putney Bridge when the assault happened. A previous suspect, also wrongly arrested, was cleared within days of providing an alibi, Nick was left on bail and remained under suspicion.
This was not evidence that emerged months later; it was provided to the police within days of Nick’s arrest. The Met Police had that evidence before them and gave every indication that the investigation would end with no further action. But it did not end. A DNA sample was recovered at the time of the assault; Nick provided his DNA for comparison three months ago but, to this day, the police have still not finalised the DNA analysis or provided any explanation for the delay, even though they know Nick is innocent from all the other evidence.
https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/1wj030c/a_statement_from_the_immediate_family_of_nicholas/
If this is true or even mostly true then the police have seriously ballsed things up.
As usual so much information is unknown but one way or another this guy's became a person of interest.
Strange that the family want to blame the police when if someone is at fault it would be the person that named him.
Then Nick’s lawyers did the basic investigative work that should have been done by the Met Police before he was subjected to any of this.
Yes they got the information by interviewing him which is exactly what the police did.
A previous suspect, also wrongly arrested, was cleared within days of providing an alibi, Nick was left on bail and remained under suspicion.
Nick was also charged with possession which clouds the picture because he would still have been on bail even if no longer under suspicion for the push.
He seems to have a lot more evidence of his innocence that the average white guy of similar built and age would.
And in a strange way I find that rather convenient probably because I watched to much Columbo when I was young.
Those emails are the key.
Strange that the family want to blame the police when if someone is at fault it would be the person that named him.
Then Nick’s lawyers did the basic investigative work that should have been done by the Met Police before he was subjected to any of this.
Yes they got the information by interviewing him which is exactly what the police did.
A previous suspect, also wrongly arrested, was cleared within days of providing an alibi, Nick was left on bail and remained under suspicion.
Nick was also charged with possession which clouds the picture because he would still have been on bail even if no longer under suspicion for the push.
He seems to have a lot more evidence of his innocence that the average white guy of similar built and age would.
And in a strange way I find that rather convenient probably because I watched to much Columbo when I was young.
Those emails are the key.
Trouble is this is often standard procedure these days. Even if the police are not sure he's the Putney Pusher, they've got him on drugs charges so remand him on bail and let him stew for months while they get on with other things. The push happened in 2017 so another year's delay is neither here nor there.
Nick: the victim had described the attacker as having brown eyes; Nick had distinctive blue eyes. Nick had a visibly wasted and disfigured calf dating back to his time serving with the Army, while the man shown in the footage did not. And Nick had a prominent forearm tattoo which was not visible on the man in the images. Nick made it clear he was keen to take part in an identification parade, but the police never organised one. He also provided email evidence sent from his office in the West End, demonstrating that he was not even on Putney Bridge when the assault happened.
why was he arrested then?
why was he arrested then?
This man doesn't fit that profile in any way, Ramruna, he had the lot. He used coke,
but there would be few people in his circle who don't like a toot tbh.
but there would be few people in his circle who don't like a toot tbh.
Yes, sorry, saddo, I was wandering even further off-topic there.
"the victim had described the attacker as having brown eyes" How would she know what colour his eyes were ?
99.9999999999999% % of uk public didnt no who he was,he,s outed himself and appeared on mainstream social media becaue he killed himself not for getting arrested
I would need a close look for a few seconds to tell the colour of someone's eyes. That opportunity wasn't there. Maybe that's why she got it wrong.
I think you are right Howard, never had a witness mention eye colour, even those not under duress as she was, getting even hair colour was dodgy at best. The police probably discounted that as it would have no chance in evidence anyway, however from everything in the public domain they seem to have messed up.
if it were tobymugs she would have sed looked like Albert Steptoe
Says the man with the inside contact at B & Q or is it MFI?
its 2026 plod have enough resources /tech to prove if the man arrested was the same man in the cctv on the day, the fact his sisters/defenders are concentrating on emails, false testimony for whover dobbed him in,his withered leg meant he couldnt jog etc, instead of aying weve took expert advice to prove it wasnt him in the photo, theres plenty of photo,s, experts etc online proving he was the man in the photo
could be wrong,once or even twice but i,m quite happy backing the putney pusher/letby guilty double
Mind your own business……probably more than you,if not i could top it up to match…
The black professor and now this guy.....can they not just throw fone in bin......don't leave house for a while ,even get there name changed.....while seeking psychiatric help
It was you that asked me to put up or shut up,Two Bobber.
You are a Grade A Bullshatter,Aceform and you are a Million on that claim
You are a Grade A Bullshatter,Aceform and you are a Million on that claim
“We provided evidence very quickly to show that this did not look like our brother.
must admit he looks like him to me...chance of the woman noticing his eye colour is 1000
must admit he looks like him to me...chance of the woman noticing his eye colour is 1000
I've known people 50 years and I couldn't tell you what colour eyes they have, might just be me though 
ive known me ma 88 yrs and have nee eye deer.
Sep 18, 2026 -- 6:25PM, Hugo-Hackenbush wrote:
ive known me ma 88 yrs and have nee eye deer.
She has a short ungulate ?
(this is a complex joke ... you need to think ! )
If not guilty why top yourself?
Really as simple as that
Really as simple as that
What if he was silenced to cover something up and it made to look like suicide ?
Has the woman said if she believes it was him or not ??
What if I had a ten foot todger
The burden of proof is always with the prosecution except on the conspiracy loons Forum.
The burden of proof is always with the prosecution except on the conspiracy loons Forum.
... Guessing she wasnt expecting the push so maybe didnt bother taking a good look at him.
What did the takeaway coffee pictures show ?? They all mostly have cctv. ??
What did the takeaway coffee pictures show ?? They all mostly have cctv. ??
Remember the so-called suicide of the MI5 operative-body-in-the-bag case ?
There are loons that believe Elvis is alive and living on the Moon
Agree, Rico. But, instead of saying so, they spend time and money on a pantomime about it being self inflicted.
(Didn't his wife insist on getting him excluded from Betfair ?)
Sep 18, 2026 -- 10:57PM, saddo wrote:
Are you on speed?
I don't take drugs ...just a can of San Miguel
Shocking from the police if he genuinely had a withered leg and couldn't run.
Would this not have emerged at the Trial,swifty?
Surely if the police have DNA, and he gave his DNA, it wouldnt take 2 minutes to prove one way or the other. ??
.... OK, just got it,
The family of Nicholas Brandram, the "Putney Pusher" suspect who recently died, stated a pending DNA test will clear his name. They revealed he offered to pay for a private DNA test to expedite the process, but police delayed providing the results.
The family of Nicholas Brandram, the "Putney Pusher" suspect who recently died, stated a pending DNA test will clear his name. They revealed he offered to pay for a private DNA test to expedite the process, but police delayed providing the results.
Police could be facing this :
Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, the following conditions must be proven:
Duty of care: The organisation owed a relevant duty of care to the deceased person.
Gross breach: The organisation's activities fell far below what could reasonably be expected.
Senior management failure: A substantial element of the breach occurred in how senior management managed or organized the organisation's activities.
Causation: The management failure caused or significantly contributed to the death.
Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, the following conditions must be proven:
Duty of care: The organisation owed a relevant duty of care to the deceased person.
Gross breach: The organisation's activities fell far below what could reasonably be expected.
Senior management failure: A substantial element of the breach occurred in how senior management managed or organized the organisation's activities.
Causation: The management failure caused or significantly contributed to the death.
Penalties and SanctionsFines: Courts can issue unlimited fines, with guidelines suggesting major fines often scaling up based on the seriousness of the offence and the organisation's turnover (fines frequently reach millions of pounds for larger entities).
Remedial Orders: Courts can order the organisation to fix specific safety or management failings within a set timeframe.
Publicity Orders: Organisations can be legally forced to publicize details of their conviction and fine.Scope and Liability
Organisations only: The offence applies to corporations, partnerships, trade unions, police forces, and certain Crown bodies.No individual liability: Individuals (such as directors or employees) cannot be prosecuted or convicted for the specific offence of corporate manslaughter, nor can they be charged with aiding or abetting it.
(However, individuals may still face charges under general health and safety legislation or gross negligence manslaughter where applicable).
Remedial Orders: Courts can order the organisation to fix specific safety or management failings within a set timeframe.
Publicity Orders: Organisations can be legally forced to publicize details of their conviction and fine.Scope and Liability
Organisations only: The offence applies to corporations, partnerships, trade unions, police forces, and certain Crown bodies.No individual liability: Individuals (such as directors or employees) cannot be prosecuted or convicted for the specific offence of corporate manslaughter, nor can they be charged with aiding or abetting it.
(However, individuals may still face charges under general health and safety legislation or gross negligence manslaughter where applicable).
Sep 18, 2026 -- 11:25PM, uptheirons wrote:
Loon alert
Self-awareness....you may be on the road to recovery...let's keep our fingers crossed 
saddo 18 Sep 26 22:48
Agree, Rico. But, instead of saying so, they spend time and money on a pantomime about it being self inflicted.
The british establishment have protected the Mcscams through 7 different prime ministers since Maddie went awol and squandered £14,000,000 on their cover up..tis a mysterious planet we inhabit.
Agree, Rico. But, instead of saying so, they spend time and money on a pantomime about it being self inflicted.
The british establishment have protected the Mcscams through 7 different prime ministers since Maddie went awol and squandered £14,000,000 on their cover up..tis a mysterious planet we inhabit.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539