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.

It really is

It seems multiple things were happening at he same time. This couple were clearly paedophiles and got the baby for the purposes of abusing him sexually.

That doesn’t mean that they intended to also abuse him physically/murder him (aside from the obvious physical harm the sexual abuse would have caused as a by product of that abuse). Usually people doing this would want to stay undetected, so they could carry on doing as long as they can get away with.

I think what the Judge’s comments related to were that the situation was exacerbated by them also struggling with the basics and taking the stress out physically on the baby.

Both things could be happening at the same time, almost independent of each other…however I do think in a case such as this, that it’s likely that the sexual abuse and injuries caused by that, made the baby more difficult generally to manage as he would be afraid of his ‘parents’ and be in physical pain, which probably means the two things did link together.

What has shocked me more about this case, isn’t what the ‘parents’ did, as there will always be deprived people in society…but now many professionals failed to identify the problems and act, social workers and medical professionals and then also teachers/school staff who one of them was asking to source prescription drugs from and also confiding feeling of wanting to harm the baby, who although it wasn’t a child at the school, would have had a lot of safeguarding training and so should have been reporting it.

The only person who obviously seemed to notice a problem was the foster mother who asked for some continued contact and raised concerns, but even her concerns were more just a feeling something wasn’t right…she saw it without having seen all the medical records and other information…so why didn’t anyone else?

I think in these cases one partner drives this and the other goes along. Doesn’t make them less culpable but I think the motivation is different.

Ah, it is the “Kinder Kuche Kirche” ones proclaiming all children need a mother’s love and that’s why men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt that I side-eye (yes ideally of course children would stay with their warm, caring and capable biological mother, but if they are in care it is way past that point)

If a person can’t handle the detail and then discusses it endlessly, that suggests to me that they’re trying to process it. It’s not always possible to do that in real life, often feels to raw or maybe don’t know others who want to discuss it.

For others there is a vested interest through their work etc and it can be useful to understand/learn.

I’m more confused by someone who comes to post that they find it weird that people are discussing something. If you’ve no interest, why are you here?

Yet here you both are - 9 pages in. You always had the option to scroll past a thread about the 'horrific case that you can't deal with'....but you chose to stop, read, observe what people were saying, sharing and linking and then comment multiple times....

I think j you’ve misread the article.

Quote :"I surprised anyone is prepared to post what you have posted."

Note that I said broadcast news.

Here are the ofcom rules:

5.1: News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
5.2: Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected on air quickly (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, corrected quickly). Corrections should be appropriately scheduled (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, appropriately signaled to viewers).

Note 5.2. When you see an apology made for something that has been broadcast, it is because of this rule. So when you say they were caught out, and this applies to any UK broadcast news, what actually happens is an error is spotted and they need to acknowledge and correct the article. This is for broadcast news.

The rules are here:

Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy (ofcom.org.uk)

He resigned because they broke the rules. That's how it works. There are ofcom rules, and if they are broken there are repercussions.

Here are the rules.

Section five: Due impartiality and due accuracy (ofcom.org.uk)

Newswatch would be the better route than Points of View.

I’ve just read the news report. I have no words. It’s one of the most horrific things I’ve ever read. How is anyone this evil? How do two such evil people find each other? If I could I would end both their lives.

the amount of opportunities to save this baby and yet no one did. Im mot blaming anyone else as there are only two people responsible but just how did this go unnoticed? How and why? There absolutely must have been suspicion.

i honestly despair. This poor little love ❤️

What makes you think that it's getting worse? It's probably getting better.

The Old School Boy Network was truly riddled with paedophiles, and it's amazing how the Geoffrey Dickens dossier that vanished has been forgotten.

The ruling class of the UK should have been turned over and ruined on the basis of that dossier disappearing, alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier

The judge referred to the likelihood of them escaping scrutiny because of how they presented, their charm etc

Jesus wept, surely this must be basic training for social workers, not to be affected by perceptions of respectability etc….

There is a clip of Varley hitting back against the police suggestion that he had killed the baby, telling them how wrong they were and how much trouble they would be in.

I can imagine that a junior social worker on the case may have been too intimidated to raise suspicions of wrongdoing even when there was enough evidence in front of them.

Yes and they always respond objectively and thoroughly...oh wait!

it is a medical term for a diagnosed psychiatric disorder, it has no legal guidelines. These men commited horrific crimes against this poor boy, evil rape and torture. But they are not medically paedophiles. I’ve no doubt they took sadistic sexual pleasure in their horrific actions, but like it or not that doesn’t mean they have the label. I don’t believe btw in the it was all a bit tiring excuse either, they are just evil men obsessed with image and status, and poor Preston wasn’t the perfect little insta doll they expected

I didn’t claim it was an horrific case I couldn’t deal with .

This is a comment about all the threads about this situation.and how people are dissecting every part of the case and the reporting, offering their own ‘expertise” etc

Why are you so much better than the other posters on here? Sneering at others offering thoughts and opinions, surely people are allowed to discuss this if it helps them come to terms and process it? As well as helping with future safeguarding.

I’m not ‘better’, I just think it is odd

And you saying ‘coming to terms with it’ makes it sound like the case was something you were all personally involved with.

Not at all, for most people that followed the case, this will disturb them.
The same as so many things we see and read about in the news. Lots of those situations do not personally involve me, it doesn’t mean that they don’t sadden me or affect me, and that I don’t think about them.
Do you genuinely not understand this?

Of course VB’s death was caused by multiple factors. One of those was the SW not acting as she admitted herself that she ignore things that would otherwise have caused her concern because she felt she had to put them down to ‘cultural issues’. So yes, my point is SW are not neutral, they are heavily politically influenced and in cases like the ones I quoted that has caused them to prioritize politically influenced thinking over basic safeguarding.

I get hearing something on the news and feeling momentarily saddened but it’s hard to explain exactly why these threads feel off.

I think it’s the impression given by some that they know the facts better than anyone who was actually involved in the situation or the court case

Oh you're back - passing judgment on people being and contributing on this thread.....while you're being and contributing on the thread.

Everyone else is largely having a discussion about the judge and his comments and some genuinely interesting points have been raised - some by legal professionals explaining why certain things and terms can't be said. We're discussing, the media in the UK and their reporting. It's not a perfect discussion - people are angry, upset, disgusted, confused but they're here to talk about it. It's a powerful discussion, where people have likely left having learnt something about the judicial system and court reporting that they didn't know before.

And you're there slyly posting passive aggessive comments, implying we're all 'odd'. It kinda feels like you want to, I don't know - create drama......

This smacks of the recent rape case with three teenage boys. A criminologist was talking about how the judge minimised the boys’ use of a knife and said he couldn’t see it on the video and it was only used to cut the girl’s leggings off. Any weapon introduced to the crime is there is cause alarm and fear regardless of how it is used. These judges are hugely desensitised I think.

The fact that took indecent images of the baby rather blows this hypothesis out of the water.

That shows it was sexual.