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

I read an article on The Guardian about this and feel sick. If you haven't read about it don't.

So you think the BBC should add their opinion to court news reporting?

This case is so extreme it really does make me think that monsters walk among us. There is a bit more of the reporting on twitter and it is absolutely sickening. I don’t understand if it was just hate or overwhelm why they didn’t give the poor thing back. They could have done that and walked away. What they did to that baby goes against any sort of social norms or human behaviour. I really can’t believe this is the only child they’ve harmed.

I can see this.

How about waiting for the Judge to publish their sentencing remarks?

The BBC did not say provide that view. They are reporting what was stated.

Was the reporting on the BBC news or a BBC opinion piece?

I dont think he adopted the child to abuse it its lot more complicated than that..the point is they werent coping and social services at that point should have removed him but they didnt

I wonder if they may change their reporting later, as some details not able to be broadcast early in the day and some details might not be able to be reported to the general public at all

the BBC presented him as a Dad who had found parenting really overwhelming and hard and had come to resent his baby.

Do you mean BBC reporter Danny Savage who was at the court for the sentencing? He says in his report that the details are so terrible and the scale of the abuse so bad that the public will never see them written up and talked about om broadcast journalism.

He also reported that Jamie’s ‘previous good character led to his behaviour being overlooked by professionals.

So I can’t see where the reporter has presented him as an overwhelmed dad.

I agree entirely.
The 'trenches' of parenting are hard. It is possible to imagine how an exhausted frustrated parent might be momentarily too rough with a baby. NOT condone it/ behave that way themselves but perhaps see 'how it could happen': perhaps?.
What these two paedophiles did to Preston is simply unimaginable.
The judge has access to information the public do not. But mentioning 'finding parenting difficult' & linking that to the abuse Preston suffered is rather odd.

I am glad that the chief paedophile got given a whole life term & the other one 25 years but nothing can bring Preston back or spare him his awful suffering.

I think it is being told in this way (by the judge and reporting outlets) with an eye on missed opportunities for family and authorities to be curious and potentially intervene (rather than justifying sick behaviour). There will be a huge review (probably a number of reviews) after this.

👏 well said! I agree wholeheartedly. Lessons will be learned… or will they?😢

I think the reality is that the depravity of what they did is so disturbing that they can’t print it.

Oh you're right, the wonderful BBC.

The same BBC that seems to have historically employed a LOT of sex offenders and predatory men.

Paedophilia was because he is a paedophile.

It's a paraphilia, not an orientation.

Or women.

I saw on another thread it summerized a a biases of belief towards them even with the three hopsital visits.

Though someone then posted a list of issue with the hopsital itself. I suspect being middle class, teacher and a safeguarding lead and having gone thorigh adoption vettting also heavily influnced that.

I find it odd that resentment was considered a trigger by the judge for the abuse TBH and do find some of the reporting odd to say the least.

To make sense of the judges remarks - remember men rape all the time and it doesn't mean they have a sexual interest in their victims. Straight men will rape other men just for power and control. They'll rape 90yr old pensioners. Men will rape a cat - without a long standing sexual interest in cats, or evidence of a catalogue of cat porn on their hard-drives.

This is how I interpreted the judge's understanding of the case - Jamie Varley became so enraged with the 'stress of parenting' and hated the child so much because of it - that he killed him through sexual violence (because he's a f-cking monster more than he is a pedophile or anything else)

Sexual violence is a form of violence but it doesn't always equate to a sexual interest in the victim.

It's a hard concept to grasp but it does exist. I can see what the judge was trying to say.

So, you've basically decided where the focus "should be" in advance of the review?

Are you actually interested in the facts/evidence?

Victoria Climbie's death was attributed to multiple failures and was not simply a "would have acted if they were white" issue. What even is the implication here? That they were worried about being seen as racist?

Not sure why you're posting in AIBU tbh because you seem much more interested in pushing your own opinion that listening to others' views.

Did the BBC choose to report that quotation from the judge, even though the judge said a lot more in his summing up that could have been quoted instead? If so, then the BBC are at fault here.
Or did the BBC go with that quotation because that was the main comment from the judge? In which case the judge is at fault.

No one except him can possibly know whether he always intended to abuse a baby and the whole adoption was a ruse to achieve that aim all along, or whether he was someone with paedophilic attraction who never intended to abuse his baby (because one does not inevitably follow the other, some do have attraction they do not act upon) but came to resent the child and this tipped him into abuse which then escalated.

The judge shouldn't be speculating which it is either.

Thank you.

To add to this, the Judge would not have referred to them as paedophiles if that was not something on which evidence was presented in court, which it was not. Per the NSPCC link it is not just a case of “ipso facto” from CSA. Expecting anything else misunderstands what sentencing remarks are.

The crime was heinous. The judge sentenced them accordingly. The BBC reported his remarks accurately. Energy is far better placed finding out how it could be prevented and doing everything possible to prevent something like this happening again.

And you failed to understand that what was reported was the judge’s comments, and the reason that matters is that the perpetrators presented themselves that way to evade detection.