Great House Farm Wiki — Research Mirror

GHF-E114 — Branwen Buckler: September 2026 family testimony on the 1988 removal

page · Updated 2026-10-12T00:44:02 · Original source

EVIDENCE PENDING

As of 10 October 2026, no inline evidence image or source-file link was identified in this page content; this does not establish that a custodian holds no record.

Wiki catalogue reference: GHF-E114 · Custodian / source URL: Buckler family evidence repository

Evidence preview

Preview not embedded. As at 10-10-2026, no inline image or document preview was identified in the evidence section of this page. Use the custodian/source link below to inspect the item.

Catalogue UID: GHF-E114 · Custodian/source copy: bucklerfamily.estate. Preview and provenance status as at 10-10-2026.

Description

Family testimony as reported to this Wiki

GHF-E114 — Branwen Buckler: September 2026 family testimony on the 1988 removal

Catalogue number: GHF-E114

Evidence type: Family testimony / recollection recorded in a closed family discussion, September 2026.

The family reports that Branwen Buckler gave a first-hand recollection in a closed family discussion in September 2026 concerning what happened to her during the 1988 removal operation. The family says this account differs materially from the ITV report’s presentation of why she was at the house.

  • Branwen says she went to Great House Farm to get medicine from the house, rather than to serve the writ as the ITV report presents it.
  • She recalls that the men detaining her appeared to be soldiers.
  • She says she was dragged by her arms from behind, kicked while struggling, and thrown over the gated entrance to her own home.
  • She landed in a puddle.
  • She says she was pregnant at the time.
  • She says her shoulder was dislocated, consistent with her being shown in a sling in the ITV footage.

Transcription

Open transcription

No verbatim transcription is included in this entry as at 10-10-2026. Where the source contains legible text, transcribe it faithfully and mark illegible or uncertain words rather than silently reconstructing them.

Interpretation and wider context

Related evidence

Interpretation and evidential limits

This is family evidence, not an independently verified account. It should be preserved because it is a first-hand recollection that can be compared against the contemporary ITV footage, press reports, court/enforcement records, medical records and any contemporaneous police or bailiff documentation that can be obtained.

The apparent discrepancy between “went to get medicine” and the ITV description of “trying to serve” an injunction is a specific factual question for corroboration. The family should not assume the ITV account is false without examining the underlying circumstances and any contemporaneous record.

Truth status: Family evidence / contention. The detailed account remains to be corroborated by contemporary primary records.

Interpretive assessment date: 10-10-2026.

Browse mirror index