He will learn tomorrow if he has persuaded the Parole Board to free him – but he is not hopeful.
The panel is expected to reject even his secondary plea – for a move to an open prison – and announce he must stay behind the bars of the special secure unit where he is held.
Bronson hopes that if he fails this eighth bid for parole the board members will at least suggest a gradual reduction in the strict security that surrounds him most of the time and allows him only 90 minutes out of his cell each day.
The board has powers only to order release, a move to an open jail, or stay where he is.
Bronson said in his voice message: “They keep f****** drumming it into the public I’m a danger. Who am I a danger to? I’ve never been a danger to the public. I love people, love ’em, I love the world. I’m not a f****** filthy terrorist or a rapist, or a murderer, so who am I dangerous to outside?”
He added: “I want to go home, I’m an artist born again. I hate violence, I despise it and that’s all I’ve done for the last ten years, sit in my cell, a model prisoner, polite, respectful but they still won’t let me out.”
Advertisement
During his parole hearing earlier this month a prison psychologist said although Bronson posed a moderate risk of violence inside jail, it would be a high risk if he was freed.
Another psychologist, Kerry Daynes, who was called by Bronson, said she felt he should probably stay where he is and be given a gradual introduction to open conditions.
Bronson, who has changed his name to Charles Salvador, told the public hearing that he is now a man of peace and had not been violent for many years. He realised any repeat of his old behaviour would probably mean spending the rest of his life in jail.
During the hearing, held at Woodhill Prison near Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire, Bronson handed the three board members examples of his artwork, telling them: “Each piece of art is a piece of me.”
A young rapper named Ice-T-21 is hoping that if Bronson is released they could collaborate in a campaign to help cut youth knife crime.
He said: “I’m hoping to record a song with him, make some poetry, I want him to get on stage with me. He is someone who has been involved in many violent incidents, but has turned his life around. I think it would work because a lot of people would listen to him because of who he is.”
The body of a woman has been recovered from the River Dee close to where two missing sisters disappeared in Aberdeen.
Eliza and Henrietta Huszti, both aged 32, were last spotted on CCTV in the city’s Market Street at Victoria Bridge at about 2.12am on Tuesday 7 January.
The women were seen crossing the bridge and turning right on to a footpath next to the River Dee in the direction of Aberdeen Boat Club.
On Friday, it was confirmed a woman’s body had been recovered from the water east of the club.
Although the body is yet to be formally identified, Police Scotland said the family of Henrietta had been informed.
The force added there were “no apparent suspicious circumstances”, with searches ongoing for Eliza.
The Police Scotland dive and marine unit, along with other specialist officers, are carrying out further searches of the river and the riverbanks between Queen Elizabeth Bridge and Victoria Bridge.
Superintendent David Howieson said: “Our thoughts are with the Huszti family today. We are keeping them fully updated following this recovery and the further search activity which is ongoing.
“Our priority remains finding both of the sisters and search has focused on the River Dee and will do so in the coming days.
“We are carrying out further searches of the river in the area where the body was recovered this morning.
“The river in this area is tidal and conditions are challenging but we will continue to search and make every effort to locate both of the sisters.
“We have sought guidance from a number of experts and this will continue to inform our search activity.”
Investigating officers previously said there had been “no evidence” of the women leaving the immediate area and there had been nothing to suggest “suspicious circumstances or criminality”.
The police revealed that the sisters – who are part of a set of triplets and originally from Hungary – visited the bridge where they were last seen about 12 hours before they disappeared.
They also sent a text message to their landlady on the morning they vanished, indicating they would not be returning to the flat.
In 2015, Jeanne was one of six men convicted of conspiring to supply cocaine, heroin and cannabis, and sentenced to 30 months in prison.
Police said a gang of six men plotted to bring hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of drugs into Gloucestershire from London, Cardiff and Birmingham, the BBC reported at the time.
Jeanne’s stint in prison on drug offences was not his last run-in with the law, and he has also faced convictions including dangerous driving and threatening behaviour, Wales Online reported.
Police did not specify why he has now been recalled to prison.
The judges who oversaw family court proceedings involving Sara Sharif in the years before her death have been named following a Court of Appeal ruling.
Judges Alison Raeside, Peter Nathan and Sally Williams were all involved in proceedings related to the 10-year-old between 2013 and 2019.
Sara was placed in the home of her father, Urfan Sharif, and her stepmother, Beinash Batool, following the last of three sets of proceedings.
Judge Raeside, who remains an active judge, dealt with the majority of the hearings related to Sara.
Judges Nathan and Williams – who have both since retired – were involved to a lesser degree.
Several media organisations appealed against a restriction on naming judges.
The first set of proceedings heard Surrey County Council had a “number of concerns in relation to the care that (Olga Sharif) and Mr Sharif provide Z and U (Sara’s siblings) and are likely to provide to Sara”.
Judge Raeside approved the children being placed under supervision orders, meaning they stayed in their parents’ care.
That decision was supported by the council, the children’s guardian and Sara’s parents.
In November 2014, after child Z was found with an arm injury consistent with an adult bite mark, Sara and her two siblings were taken into police protection.
Olga Sharif, Sara’s mother, later accepted a caution after being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The following day, Judge Raeside extended the same order for a week, with Judge Williams making an interim care order for Sara and one of her siblings as proceedings continued in 2015.
That was Judge Williams’s only involvement in the case.
At the end of the same set of proceedings, a hearing before Judge Raeside was told the local authority was “extremely concerned” that Sara and child U were “likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm in their parents’ care”, as both alleged the other was violent.
Despite those allegations, however, the council still concluded “the risk can be managed” if Sara was returned to her mother’s care, with supervised contact with her father.
That decision was supported by the children’s guardian, while Judge Raeside approved the plan in May 2015.
Sara was moved to the property where she was later murdered in 2019.
She had made accusations of physical abuse by her mother, which were never proven.
In a report for a final hearing in October 2019, a social worker told the court they assessed that “Urfan and Beinash are able to meet Sara and (U’s) needs for safety, stability, emotional warmth and guidance”, adding that Urfan Sharif “appears to have the children’s welfare at heart”.
That move was also supported by the children’s guardian and Sara’s parents and was approved by Judge Raeside.
The press was previously barred from reporting the names of the judges and other professionals involved in the case.
The High Court ruled they had “acted within the parameters that law and social work practice set for them”.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled last week that the media could name the judges in the interests of open justice.
It had heard that the judges wanted to “convey their profound shock, horror and sadness about what happened to Sara Sharif”.
Surrey County Council was involved with the Sharif family for several years before Sara’s death.
Concerns about Sara’s care were raised within a week of her birth in 2013, while her parents were known to social services as early as 2010.
Surrey County Council repeatedly raised “significant concerns” that the child was likely to suffer physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her parents.
While there were the three sets of family court proceedings mentioned above, allegations that Urfan Sharif was physically abusing Sara and her siblings were never tested in court.