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

You should really hide the thread then. You can’t just read all of the ‘drama’ and ‘horrific details’ and simultaneously claim you’re any different.

At least other people feel they have a legitimate reasons for posting but if you think it’s all just ghoulish nonsense and nobody should talk about this case, why stay?

Why do you not understand why a gay couple would want to adopt children? Why can you understand a heterosexual couple wanting a family but not a gay one? And by gay do you mean only gay men or do you think gay women should be excluded too?

The judge has to weigh up the evidence offered in mitigation or as a defence and presumably that will be reflected in the sentencing remarks.

I wasn’t at court and haven’t seen the evidence other than what the newspapers choose to print.

But yes, I would have thought it patently obvious that a man left largely on his own with a traumatised baby that is not biologically his would struggle to bond with the baby. I have no idea if the accused had ever displayed any sexual interest in children prior to this; would that not have been apparent from their phone or internet history?

However unpopular opinion, I don’t think gay couples should be able to adopt. I don’t understand why they would want to. And I wonder if this trial will create rule changes?

Better being desensitised and discussing facts than looking at things emotionally though in a legal situation

This smacks of the recent rape case with three teenage boys. A criminologist was talking about how the judge minimised the boys’ use of a knife and said he couldn’t see it on the video and it was only used to cut the girl’s leggings off. Any weapon introduced to the crime is there is cause alarm and fear regardless of how it is used. These judges are hugely desensitised I think.

Oh you're back - passing judgment on people being and contributing on this thread.....while you're being and contributing on the thread.

Everyone else is largely having a discussion about the judge and his comments and some genuinely interesting points have been raised - some by legal professionals explaining why certain things and terms can't be said. We're discussing, the media in the UK and their reporting. It's not a perfect discussion - people are angry, upset, disgusted, confused but they're here to talk about it. It's a powerful discussion, where people have likely left having learnt something about the judicial system and court reporting that they didn't know before.

And you're there slyly posting passive aggessive comments, implying we're all 'odd'. It kinda feels like you want to, I don't know - create drama......

I get hearing something on the news and feeling momentarily saddened but it’s hard to explain exactly why these threads feel off.

I think it’s the impression given by some that they know the facts better than anyone who was actually involved in the situation or the court case

Not at all, for most people that followed the case, this will disturb them.
The same as so many things we see and read about in the news. Lots of those situations do not personally involve me, it doesn’t mean that they don’t sadden me or affect me, and that I don’t think about them.
Do you genuinely not understand this?

I’m not ‘better’, I just think it is odd

And you saying ‘coming to terms with it’ makes it sound like the case was something you were all personally involved with.

Why are you so much better than the other posters on here? Sneering at others offering thoughts and opinions, surely people are allowed to discuss this if it helps them come to terms and process it? As well as helping with future safeguarding.

I didn’t claim it was an horrific case I couldn’t deal with .

This is a comment about all the threads about this situation.and how people are dissecting every part of the case and the reporting, offering their own ‘expertise” etc

it is a medical term for a diagnosed psychiatric disorder, it has no legal guidelines. These men commited horrific crimes against this poor boy, evil rape and torture. But they are not medically paedophiles. I’ve no doubt they took sadistic sexual pleasure in their horrific actions, but like it or not that doesn’t mean they have the label. I don’t believe btw in the it was all a bit tiring excuse either, they are just evil men obsessed with image and status, and poor Preston wasn’t the perfect little insta doll they expected

Yes and they always respond objectively and thoroughly...oh wait!

There is a clip of Varley hitting back against the police suggestion that he had killed the baby, telling them how wrong they were and how much trouble they would be in.

I can imagine that a junior social worker on the case may have been too intimidated to raise suspicions of wrongdoing even when there was enough evidence in front of them.

The judge referred to the likelihood of them escaping scrutiny because of how they presented, their charm etc

Jesus wept, surely this must be basic training for social workers, not to be affected by perceptions of respectability etc….

What makes you think that it's getting worse? It's probably getting better.

The Old School Boy Network was truly riddled with paedophiles, and it's amazing how the Geoffrey Dickens dossier that vanished has been forgotten.

The ruling class of the UK should have been turned over and ruined on the basis of that dossier disappearing, alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier

I’ve just read the news report. I have no words. It’s one of the most horrific things I’ve ever read. How is anyone this evil? How do two such evil people find each other? If I could I would end both their lives.

the amount of opportunities to save this baby and yet no one did. Im mot blaming anyone else as there are only two people responsible but just how did this go unnoticed? How and why? There absolutely must have been suspicion.

i honestly despair. This poor little love ❤️

Newswatch would be the better route than Points of View.

He resigned because they broke the rules. That's how it works. There are ofcom rules, and if they are broken there are repercussions.

Here are the rules.

Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy (ofcom.org.uk)