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

[lyarlyarpantsonfire]

Really odd reporting on Baby Preston's killer just now on the one o'clock news. Despite the baby being sexually abused and indecent images of him taken and shared, the BBC presented him as a Dad who had found parenting really overwhelming and hard and had come to resent his baby.

Stressed out parents who can't cope with babies don't sexually abuse them because they are stressed. Or take indecent images of them because they are stressed.

The killer was a paedophile. That is why he abused that baby.

As his interest in having a child was to abuse it, not to care for it, it may also have been that he had no the tolerance for hard work of looking after a young child and that did overwhelm him which resulted in him physically assaulting the child.

It was such a bizarre narrative to present him as a man who had desperately wanted children but found parenting too hard and could not cope.

Instead of a paedophile.

I thought that they were just reporting the judge's comments. He seemed to think that the fact that the couple struggled with parenting contributed to the abuse.

I think that's bollocks and that they were just evil paedophiles.

I heard that and thought the same. The BBC were quoting the judge though weren’t they? I personally thought the whole reason he was a teacher was to get the chance to abuse kids.

YABU for criticising the Beeb for simply reporting
what was said.

Oh was that the Judge's comments? Then he is an idiot too. I found those comments really disturbing. I suspect there is an unwillingness to name the motivation being paedophilia because he is gay. Safeguarding relies on not looking at ' identity' but looking at the evidence. No sacred castes.

YABU for coming on here and telling us all about it, rather than the BBC.

Did you know the BBC have "Points of View" , a whole feedback show to help bring to light where the organisation has fallen short or needs to air feedback from viewers?

Here's the details @lyarlyarpantsonfire :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/59gYTrS7mLvzn2r6D7m1PTc/contact-points-of-view

Finally, as a previous poster said, reported speech from a judge isn't a summary judgement by a newsreader.

The BBC aren't a content creator making reels for online as a statement of solidarity, or opinion. The content will reflect speech that was reported in the public domain by judge or others, and that's why you heard what you did.

YABU.

Are you using this horrific case to attack the bbc?

I just watched it. The only comment I saw from the judge was what the sentencing was. And the general reporting was that the men had carried out appalling abuse. The only small 'excusing' was them reporting the partner saying they'd struggled thinking of what Preston had been through. But the overall tone was, rightly, condemnation. What did you hear?

I have seen elsewhere that one or both had struggled with the demands of a baby. I can believe that as it's perfectly normal for new parents. But that's a totally separate thing from the abuse they meted out.

That's not quite true is it? The BBC often have commentators offering opinions. One that questioned these rather odd comments by the Judge could have been found.

Refusing to name a paedophile as a paedophile and instead presenting him as an overwhelmed man who had desperately wanted to be a Father but couldn't cope is clear and utter bollocks. And it should be challenged.

BTW you see, to have failed to understand that this is a chat forum. People come here to chat. About whatever they want.

I mean yeah, that‘s weird and distressing.

If they had been two straight men, members of Restore Britain or Reform, you wouldn't have heard a word about any "overwhelming" and of that you can be sure.

Funny how they had to look after the baby they were abusing. And how difficult that was. Absolutely sickening.

I didn't watch it, I heard it on the radio so it seems you heard different reporting.

What I heard was a man whose motivation was clearly sexual interest in children, not having that named and crap about him being desperate to be a Dad ( sure he was but to gain to sexual access to a child) who had then been overwhelmed by parenting.

No, the OP is using it as an outrageous, if not unexpected example of how the BBC will fall over themselves to say something-anything- to try and excuse the behaviour of certain groups of which homosexuals are one.

You seem to be confused @randomchap or more likely, you agree with the shite BBC news team. I think you will find that not many "random women" will come on here to defend any defending of this murderous pair; apart from the truly captured.

They were reporting on the judges comments. Not making the comments themselves. Do you see the difference?

Don't patronise me. I see you and know your agenda.

They were reporting what the Judge said.

UK broadcast news has strict rules on impartiality. Likes of YouTube does not. If it's a mix of opinion and news you want it is Youtube channels you need. For factual reporting to strict rules, then BBC etc.

I really don't think it matters who made the comments. They were bloody outrageous. And patently wrong.

What's of interest is that (a) anyone in our institutions could make them ( B) our other institutions don't challenge them and (c) when they are raised on a chat forum there are individuals who do not condemn the comments but solely focus on quibbling on who precisely originated these comments. Not really the point, pretending a paedophile who acquired a child via state intervention was just an overwhelmed dad is the point.

I understand what you are saying OP and totally agree. It has been reported that way in a few other news outlets too. Extremely strange and bizarre.

Haven't seen the reports but I'm quite shocked at this. Overwhelming might be used to provide motive in a case of neglect or maybe abandonment. It absolutely does not belong in the language around a paedophile. And yes I think this is because they are gay and already a minority. A straight man would never be described that way. From what I know (thankfully very little) many abusive paedophiles are former victims of sexual assault or domestic violence or emotional abuse. It's never offered as a justification. Usually they are described as 'monsters' or 'evil' with no sympathetic element at all.

The difficulty for the judge was that the prosecution didn't present any evidence they were paedophiles or had a pre-existing sexual interest in children before the abuse/murder.

I have no idea if there was any, but the case presented in court was that Varley struggled with parenting and then was cruel and abusive to the baby.

I doubt the judge is able to make inferences about what their motivation was beyond what the prosecution actually presents.

No agenda apart from pointing out bullshit.

The bbc have a responsibility to report on things like that judges comments. They are not making the comments themselves.

Isn't this type of reporting complicit in contributing to the system that enables abuse by looking the other way or victim blaming (as in the case of grooming gangs) if the narrative does not fit with 'progressive' agendas

Truth matters. The bbc didn't make the comments, they reported them. It would have been a massive failure for them not to report on them don't you think

Having sexually abused a child is evidence of paedophilia. They were found guilty of sexually abusing a baby. That is the evidence which they were found guilty of.