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

I believe the first theory is the right one . This behaviour doesn't come from stress , etc. These were acts of pediophila , getting sexual pleasure from heinous actions with children. The fact that he was a vulnerable baby is even more depraved

I think the same, he didn't become a pedo out of nowhere, and bollocks to "stress" we all have it we don't abuse babies because we're stressed. As for that evil POS, it was probably always there lurking in the depths of his mind, and then comes along an innocent baby presenting the the perfect opportunity.....fucking grim

I understand what you are saying but the judge will have had a duty to consider all the evidence presented. The wording of the judge referring to the evidence that the Defendant (can't bring myself to type his name) struggled with parenthood shows that that was considered but not found to be a mitigating factor in the sentencing given the overwhelming evidence of protracted sexual and physical abuse.

Explaining that all evidence was considered is pretty important as it makes it much less likely that Defendant can appeal against the sentence on the basis that the judge did NOT appear to fully and objectively consider all the evidence. In doing so the judge was (in my opinion, I'm a solicitor) sending a very strong message that the whole life sentence must remain intact.

I don't know if that helps ...

Didn’t the defence bring the sexually motivated bit not murder before sentencing, to try and reduce the sentence?

Not sure they could have used that in the main trial as Varley denied all charges so they couldn’t admit he carried out sexual acts.

Courts and journalists have to focus on evidence. In terms of motive for the abuse, there wasn't any evidence uncovered that paedophilia existed before the abuse. There was early evidence of resentment from Varley and it's plausible to suggest that the resentment was the motivation for the abuse, especially as we know that men rape for power and control. You imply that giving a reason for the abuse creates a more favourable impression of the killer. Again it depends on how you look at it. For some, being a paedophile and being motivated by paedophilia is much worse than being motivated by resentment. But some might argue that it's a condition that they cannot help. This doesn't excuse their abuse but it does suggest some mitigation. Arguably killing a baby because you are motivated by resentment towards them could be seen as worse. Certainly Varley's defence used the defence that he was motivated by a sexual motivation rather than seeking to kill (die to resentment) as a mitigation. Does reporting the evidence of resentment place Varley in a more favourable light? I don't think it necessarily does. As many posters have pointed out, many parents experience stress or resentment but don't kill their kids. Arguably that makes what he did worse in terms of his actions. To resent such a beautiful baby boy and treat him in that way as a result. It's horrifying.

I assume the case talked about their resentment to baby Preston and how their abuse escalated as their resentment escalated and the abuse wasn’t all sexually motivated. Obviously, not all parents who experience sleepless nights will abuse their child, but this could have started their abuse and then it grew into their hideous behaviour.

In the same way most men in a relationship breakdown move on, a minority kill their ex girlfriend. It’s possible one of those men wouldn’t kill their partner if the woman never left them but the woman leaving them triggered their violent response.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/why-language-matters/paedophile-problematic-caution

Exactly so. Whole life orders are very, very rare and even more so for single murders. I think the fact that the judge wanted this repellent pervert to be stuck in prison for ever shows us just how he feels. Is anybody denying this scumbag is a paedophile? Not that I've seen. But it is also true that he had no previous convictions so prior to this case there was no reason to suppose he was a paedophile, unless you are the sort of person who assumes all gay men are that way inclined which would be very bigoted indeed.

Very very few people only experience sexual attraction in this way, and most 'paedophiles' as the term is commonly used might also have wives, partners, also abuse young people, the whole age range. As I said up thread, Saville is a classic example of an equal opportunity sex offender- but you wouldn't say he wasn't a paedophile, would you?

You don't have to meet some diagnostic definition of paedophilia by a psychiatrist to be called one in the press or by the public, and to stop labelling these people as such is crazy! You also don't have to be a diagnosed paedophile, technically, to be found guilty of child sex offences and go on the sex offenders register.

The DSM definition isn't actually how the law uses it or public opinion or the press.

The BBC's account did mention them being overwhelmed as new parents- I think that the fact they were paedophiles or child sex abusers is more relevant to mention, that's the opinion of the OP and saying 'this is such a horrible crime we can't repeat the details' makes it even more important to name exactly what they were.

Exactly, search on here and you'l find dozens and dozens of post from parents of non sleeping young children, I bet none of them went on to sexually abuse them, it shouldn't have been mentioned by the judge imo, it has fuck all to to with it....

So a man who’s married but who rapes a prepubescent child is not a paedophile??
That seems hard to believe. Plenty of paedophiles seem to marry to get access to children (their own or from the woman’s previous relationship) - by your definition what are they then?

Okay, so in your initial quote post you said
"They just selected a couple of bits they found relevant".

Which implies they left out something significant.

But you don't actually know whether they did or not.

So for all we know, the judge might have found it plausible.

The BBC have limited time, of course they can't report everything & have to select the parts they find most pertinent. That's what journalism is, so unless you're going to read all the original reports yourself & suggest that everyone else does the same that is a pointless comment.

Why are people so quick to conclude bias when something the BBC says contradicts their own personal feelings, as if they are beacons of objectivity.

And in all this hoo ha about the reporting and the motives of the killer what is lost is is the life of that little boy, his grieving parents and foster parents and whether this could have been prevented - not by a knee jerk response or jumping to conclusions but by careful consideration of what happened.

Saying that, anyone who sexually abuses children is a paedophile full stop. So they are definitely now paedophiles.

I guess the question is whether they always were, or just sadists beforehand.

Because it’s potential reductive and may well be wrong..it’s knee jerk and not well informed.

“A paedophile is an adult or older adolescent who experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children (typically those under the age of 13). In psychiatry, pedophilia is classified as a paraphilia or paraphilic disorder”

Primary and exclusive..so his marriage was celibate? Or he / they are something different?? Delighted in hurting someone under their control…that’s different

I followed the trial and that’s why I care.
Why are you so desperate for them not to have that label?

They are murderers - why would you want to avoid calling them that?

Yes I know one was convicted of allowing the baby’s death, but knowingly leaving a child with someone you know is torturing them is tantamount for me.

I think understandably people want to know why this happened.

It doesn't seem that they had a pre existing sexual interest in children. That could be the case of course, but there's no evidence for it.

The alternative is that rage, cruelty and sadism led them to abuse this boy both physically and sexually. I hadn't even considered that that could be a possibility before. If we understand that this can happen it could possibly help prevent it ever happening again.

Saying 'they categorically definitely did so solely for the purposes of abusing it' is just opinion or speculation.

Perhaps.

But, in light of what we know, it is hard to imagine that they didn't adopt solely for the purposes of abusing.

I don’t agree with this. The BBC article published today says:

Passing sentence, Mr Justice Turner said Preston had faced "unremitting abuse" and neglect before being killed by Varley during a sex attack.
Turning to Varley, he said: "It was you who did this. You murdered him.
"A whole life order is a sentence of last resort for cases of the most extreme gravity.
"This is a case of the most extreme gravity. You must stay in prison for the rest of your life. You will never be eligible for parole."

The article then goes on to detail the extent of the abuse, in horrifying detail. Same with the previous bbc article, both are very hard reads.

The judge passed a whole life order meaning he can never be released from prison. Posters saying that the judge was lenient, and the press are overlooking things, because they were gay just don’t tally with what I’m seeing.

All of these things sound sensible but do you know I’d they were in place in this case? Some of them seem to have been, so this might be a petition asking for the status quo.

This is important …really think …you don’t know if he is sexually attracted to a baby OR excited by power and torture and sadism and that baby was his opportunity..the 2 things are different.

I take it you aren’t a forensic psychologist / have examined the perpetrators so you really can’t say? Why do you need him / them to have that label?

This is my point (and the OP’s too, I think: the BBC selected what they wanted to quote from the judge’s remarks, and that link above gives a very strange impression of the judge’s comments - to the extent that I suspect it’s an editorial choice, not a true reflection of the judge’s opinion.

People may wish to sign this petition.

Petition · Introduce 'Preston's Law': Mandatory Safeguarding for Every Adopted Child - United Kingdom · Change.org

From all of this it shows we desperately need to change the system. If i ever went to hospital with my little girl, altho stressful, I would bloody hope it would be investigated if something didn't look right.

I think maybe the only way is to investigate every parent who brings a child into hospital. Basically assume bad intent until proven otherwise. However this eventually might deter abusers from seeking medical help.

You rape a baby, you are a paedophile. Trying to rebrand them as murderers is….abhorrent.

And if that were true why did he become a secondary school teacher and not a nursery worker with access to babies and small children. Paedophiles generally have a type and dont’t abuse everyone under the age of sixteen. E.g Michael Jackson was in to prepubescent boys and cast them aside when they got too old. Your post makes no sense.