To think the BBC just mispresented baby Preston's killer (and in way that was favourable to the killer) ?

These are the words of the judge I picked up from BBC News website

"You, Varley, were primarily responsible for the daytime care of Preston.
"Unfortunately Preston proved to be restless at night.
"Otherwise he was described as a dream to care for.
"I’m sure that your growing and selfish resentment towards Preston played a part in your treatment of Preston."

Just found it on BBC Sounds. It's a very brief headline, but it's a bit different in tone. They say the his teaching, safeguarding training, desperation to be a dad was all a smokescreen. He very rapidly found that being a parent is a very difficult thing. The judge said a selfish resentment towards the baby fuelled the abuse.

So does seem a bit different from the TV stuff. Less talk of the sexual nature of the abuse. Although they did state it up front as a fact. It was only about 50s; really too short, but did seem a bit lacking. I guess part of it is that they want to report the new part which is the sentence and the judge's comments.

I don't know the full reasons behind why he did what he did, but I can believe that anger and resentment could make you hurt a child, but I thought there was more to it than that. It's the kind of thing it's pretty hard to get inside the head of someone like that.

But in this case they were reporting on the judges comments, not making comments.

We get this kind of non-nuanced debate as a direct result of people consuming most of their "news" on the phones as opinion pieces.

So many people expect to be "told", and judge any output accordingly.

I'm disengaging from this thread because it will just go the way these threads tend to go.

Good luck OP.

Thank you, that makes sense.

The type of reporting that is … reporting on what the ruling judge said after sitting through the whole trial and listening to all the evidence presented?

Truth matters. The bbc didn't make the comments, they reported them. It would have been a massive failure for them not to report on them don't you think

Isn't this type of reporting complicit in contributing to the system that enables abuse by looking the other way or victim blaming (as in the case of grooming gangs) if the narrative does not fit with 'progressive' agendas

No agenda apart from pointing out bullshit.

The bbc have a responsibility to report on things like that judges comments. They are not making the comments themselves.

The difficulty for the judge was that the prosecution didn't present any evidence they were paedophiles or had a pre-existing sexual interest in children before the abuse/murder.

I have no idea if there was any, but the case presented in court was that Varley struggled with parenting and then was cruel and abusive to the baby.

I doubt the judge is able to make inferences about what their motivation was beyond what the prosecution actually presents.

Haven't seen the reports but I'm quite shocked at this. Overwhelming might be used to provide motive in a case of neglect or maybe abandonment. It absolutely does not belong in the language around a paedophile. And yes I think this is because they are gay and already a minority. A straight man would never be described that way. From what I know (thankfully very little) many abusive paedophiles are former victims of sexual assault or domestic violence or emotional abuse. It's never offered as a justification. Usually they are described as 'monsters' or 'evil' with no sympathetic element at all.

I understand what you are saying OP and totally agree. It has been reported that way in a few other news outlets too. Extremely strange and bizarre.

They were reporting what the Judge said.

UK broadcast news has strict rules on impartiality. Likes of YouTube does not. If it's a mix of opinion and news you want it is Youtube channels you need. For factual reporting to strict rules, then BBC etc.

Don't patronise me. I see you and know your agenda.

They were reporting on the judges comments. Not making the comments themselves. Do you see the difference?

No, the OP is using it as an outrageous, if not unexpected example of how the BBC will fall over themselves to say something-anything- to try and excuse the behaviour of certain groups of which homosexuals are one.

You seem to be confused @randomchap or more likely, you agree with the shite BBC news team. I think you will find that not many "random women" will come on here to defend any defending of this murderous pair; apart from the truly captured.

Funny how they had to look after the baby they were abusing. And how difficult that was. Absolutely sickening.

If they had been two straight men, members of Restore Britain or Reform, you wouldn't have heard a word about any "overwhelming" and of that you can be sure.

I mean yeah, that‘s weird and distressing.