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

He got a whole life sentence, not sure the judge could have gone any harder 🤔

I don't think anyone knows what the motive for adopting was. Only they will know that. As they won't admit guilt they are hardly going to say.
All we know is what they did once Preston was placed with them.
Awful vile people, how do people sink so low. RIP Preston failed by everyone apart from your foster parents.

@honeyhoneyI had the misfortune to read some of the details about the baby's injuries and evidence. It was not physical abuse caused by stress. It was sustained and completely sexual over several weeks. They are paedophiles.

ITV are also reporting below, similar to BBC. Why only target the BBC?

Varley took a year off work as head of year and as a design and technology teacher at a local high school, South Shore Academy, to look after the child, but struggled as a new parent with a baby who frequently woke during the night and with his partner working long hours, the court heard.

Maybe it will help those in authority to realise that it doesn’t matter if you’re a safeguarding lead at a school and a head of year, you can still be a paedophile / sadist / abuser / murderer.

With a bit of luck.

Why not-they often do and if that doesn't work, they make up remarks-remarks that they then have to apologise for.

Yes, this is an important point. If you look at whole life sentences they can only be given in exceptional circumstances and the whole legality of not having a defined term for applying for parol (however long that might be) was challenged in the European Court of Human Rights along with the powers of the Home Secretary in the process of reviewing life sentences.
Exceptional circumstances have to consider everything that might have affected the facts of the case.
It's likely the judge was making it very clear they had considered absolutely everything before imposing the whole life. It didn't stop the most punitive penalty available in law being applied, so had no material impact on the sentence, thankfully. And it was never said it was a reason or an excuse, which if course it isn't. It was just stated that they were finding parenting overwhelming. It didn't mitigate the sentence.

Since whole life orders were introduced in the 80s, only about 100 have been given. I think there are under 75 left now. Tells you all you need to know!

I suspect the whole life of that order might not be very long once he’s inside.

I just meant in general. I'm not looking for conflict. This is a very upsetting case.

Lol yeah, a whole life order is “going easy”

What do you think awaits the murderer in prison in all likelihood? And the judge probably does not want any accusation of further incitement in that regard. He gave the harshest sentence in the book “whole life order”.

Yeah you're not wrong but saying it like it's categorical proven fact in the trial isn't the case. And the defense clearly tried to distance themselves from that narrative. And evidently succeed to an extent.

But no members of general public are sitting here thinking 'oh, he was a loving, caring person who honourably wanted a child for normal decent reasons and things just too much..'

The BBC has been found time and time again to manipulate editorial content to fit their Agenda.
I surprised anyone is prepared to post what you have posted.
Editing content to make it look like the President of the USA incitted a insurrection against democracy because they 'think' he did. How can a news reporting organisation have any credibility after that. They have a view on Trump and deliberately created false reporting to support their narrative. So if they feel justified in doing it in that situation there is no doubt what so ever they will do it in other situations.

The issue with the BBC is they are an echo chamber where they recruit and promote from a narrow liberal elite talent pool, which has created a culture where they believe their so called progressive agenda is the only morally correct agenda. They don't even think it's wrong to report like this. They justify it as protecting society from prejudice or discrimination or 'far right' extremism.

I don’t understand your post ..did you read the link someone kindly posted from the NSPCC saying that bandying about the word paedophile is unhelpful.

Paedophile is different from abuse that has sexual elements. The NSPCC article is above

Murder was proven and convicted so how is that relevant?

That is the very attitude that was behind this series of disasters leading to outright tragedy. The professionals who placed the baby for adoption, social workers, police, and probably the hospital consultant who dismissed the two nurses' concerns about injuries, and returned the poor baby to this horror. To read that the judge may also be infected by this cowardly madness is awful.

But if they were using him for sex, they weren’t trying to harm him.
(I’m not disagreeing with the verdict, I’m just wondering why that PP needs to be so picky about the definition of paedophilia, but not the definition of murder.)

No, you don’t have to intend for somebody to die to be convicted of murder. You have to either intend to kill them, or really seriously harm them, and that harm caused their death. Hence sometimes cases are charged as s18 GBH then the victim dies and it changes to murder. Attempted murder is very hard to prove and charged less often.

They were quoting the judge. For some reason judges often go easy when sentencing paedophiles.

Did they intend for him to die? Is that not the definition of a murderer or is it ok for definitions of murder to be less rigorous than that of paedophile?

I hope there is an investigation to find their previous victims

Eh? Are you ok?

…and I’m saying you can’t assume what they were and what motivated their acts

It’s not my definition and I’m simply saying we don’t know enough to apply the label ..which so many are desperate to do. What we do know is that they are murderers