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

And also, who gives a fuck if he found it difficult??? Its bullshit being given as a justification or excuse. No its bullshit because people who find parenting difficult dont go on to sexually abuse a baby. Who know who does that pedophiles. Not struggling people. Ffs this whole story makes me so fucking angry. I cant believe the injuries that boy had and nothing was looked into. Other people played a part (social workers, medical staff) and should equally be given sentences or sacked.

What a daft comment. The particular point referred to by OP and being discussed on this thread was a report of the sentencing remarks. That doesn’t mean that’s all the BBC are reporting on the case and it just looks silly to suggest it is.

Yes, you can read about the defence he put forward to argue that he did not warrant a full life sentence (no parole) because he did not intend to murder and that's why it is not the 'severest' crime. Luckily, the judge disagreed.

You can also read about the fact that there is evidence of 13 of the most serious categories of sexual offences, i.e., making and distributing child sex abuse images, but that it is not deemed in the public interest to sentence for those separately, given he has a whole life tariff.

Of course he's a paedophile, I absolutely can't believe anyone is surprised by this news and of course this should be front and centre of any reporting, nothing to do with his MH suffering with tiny baby, sleepless nights.

From that, it's also pretty easy to conclude, and will eventually come out, that they planned to adopt for this reason.

They didn’t report fully though did they? They selected a couple of bits that they found relevant and reported those.

I listened to it and it was very strange.

Perhaps the BBC led with that particular comment because they knew it was shocking (as evidenced by this thread) and didn't want it to get lost in the whole horrible story? As in was that comment by the judge a shocking thing to say?

Really? His defence barrister argued that he was sexually motivated? I thought he denied all charged, including having a sexual interest in children throughout the trial.

Did you hear it? I listened to WATO and I was shocked at that comment too. I mean, it was the judge’s comment - but they went with that tiny extract, something which in the full context of the report may not have come across as it did when “cherry picked” by the BBC (and I would normally be a supporter of public broadcasting and the BBC in particular, so I don’t agree that the OP is being unreasonable to find it offensive.

I always wonder, how do two awful parents like these men find each other? Was one horrible and turned the other one bad? Or did they meet via something equally disgusting and go from there?

I've also just read that the barrister for Vardey argued that his client was primarily sexually motivated- and so did not intend to kill. So, if his own barrister is arguing his intention was sexual and not to murder I'm pretty sure we could call him a paedophile on the national news and get away with it.

@Corvidsarethebest but the judge has to be technical

No, I do not. I was responding to someone else's comment.

That's not the case that was presented in court though.

Do you really expect the judge to say 'yeah well I reckon it's pretty obvious this was their motivation...'?

Pretty obvious the child was adopted to abuse.

Men don't suddenly become predators overnight or by accident.

So if the BBC just report what the judge says, then why are we having to pay the license fee? Why have a reporter outside the court? They can just say 'the judge said this' and the newsreader can read it. Of course they offer their interpretation of the mood of the court, emphasise particular things over other things- this is a selection process, they don't just mechanically read out everything the judge said.

To be fair, he was given a life sentence.

Yeah, this. Nobody but them knows what motivated them to adopt a child. Saying 'they categorically definitely did so solely for the purposes of abusing it' is just opinion or speculation.

Presumably they didn't admit this to be the case in the trial and it couldn't be proved. All that could be proved is that the child was abused.

Let's not get technical with the term paedophiles, as that's a loosely used term, but definitely covers, in common parlance, people who are sexually oriented around pre-pubescent children. The NSPCC report that someone linked to saying don't call all child sex abusers 'paedophiles' is pointing out that often it is older children that are abused and that other children are also abusers- it doesn't say don't call people who abuse babies paedophiles!

The OP is stating, and I agree, that the fact that these men were child sex abusers and sex offenders of the literally worst kind ever. Like beyond imagination, so bad that I feel the jury will be traumatised for life.

That should have been front and centre of the reporting; if you can't name it, you can't watch out for it.

I also bet my bottom dollar that once they do a proper inquiry to these people with 'spotless' records, they won't be so spotless, the chances of someone suddenly being so violent, so sexually depraved and so oriented to abuse a tiny child to death is incredibly low, as are the chances of them being together and complicit.

There will have been signs, they will just have been missed. I'd put money on it.

The reporting today is all about the sentencing and the judge’s comments, so a factual account of what was said in court. The BBC News website followed it live, did you expect them to put different comments than the words the judge actually used

Would you prefer the newsreader to sob uncontrollably and vow to ensure they will burn in hell?

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.

This!!!!!!!!

This is what I think, but you said it better than I did

We will never know if these two scumbags went through the adoption process for an infant to abuse them sexually and physically. There was no previous signs or complaints before this . Or did they genuinely think they could have a family unit but were overwhelmed by it all . But that doesn't explain the sexual assaults .

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 .

What happens in someone's mind that this is a behaviour. They had an adult relationship. One had a job with kids . A fully functioning normal couple . So you can see why some people would fear being homophobic or discriminatory . Or they couldn't believe the level of abuse . Both physopaths were able to pass as a genuine couple with good intentions.

Evil walks amongst us .💔. Sorry Preston RIP

I'm not sure what you mean by 'we'? The prosecution?

They have to report the news objectively with the information they have.

Just because some people are upset about the situation, that doesn’t mean the tv news has to lose its objectivity.