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.

Better being desensitised and discussing facts than looking at things emotionally though in a legal situation

Well there we go.

I have not followed this case but this is not a surprise. The details on the radio yesterday made it perfectly clear these were men with a sexual interest with children, ( even whilst the report chose to skirt around this, the facts of sexual abuse, penetration and taking indecent images make this clear) yet here we have people on this thread thinking they are clever and objective because they are refusing to see this.

I have noticed this as a growing trend over decades. People who use their intelligence to argue themselves into unbelievable stances, and then thinking the fact they have an opinion which goes against ‘the common herd’ makes them clever. It doesn’t. Being able to draw obvious conclusions from clear evidence does.

That’s not facts, it’s psychopathic levels of detachment that stop one from understanding what is happening in a human interaction. Being able to understand emotional dynamics is vital to understanding crimes like these.

The judge has to weigh up the evidence offered in mitigation or as a defence and presumably that will be reflected in the sentencing remarks.

I wasn’t at court and haven’t seen the evidence other than what the newspapers choose to print.

But yes, I would have thought it patently obvious that a man left largely on his own with a traumatised baby that is not biologically his would struggle to bond with the baby. I have no idea if the accused had ever displayed any sexual interest in children prior to this; would that not have been apparent from their phone or internet history?

However unpopular opinion, I don’t think gay couples should be able to adopt. I don’t understand why they would want to. And I wonder if this trial will create rule changes?

I have been clear this is about safeguarding fails. People fearing being homophobic, or fearing being accused of it, and therefore not applying safeguarding ( or reporting of the news) evenly.

Ironically, your post has evidenced my case.

Why do you not understand why a gay couple would want to adopt children? Why can you understand a heterosexual couple wanting a family but not a gay one? And by gay do you mean only gay men or do you think gay women should be excluded too?

This is helpful regarding the Judge.

You should really hide the thread then. You can’t just read all of the ‘drama’ and ‘horrific details’ and simultaneously claim you’re any different.

At least other people feel they have a legitimate reasons for posting but if you think it’s all just ghoulish nonsense and nobody should talk about this case, why stay?

Ding, ding, ding. I think you’ve just revealed yourself.

They’re not though. People are generally avoiding talking about the details because they are disturbing. People are discussing the judge, the reporting, the legal system, the adoption process.

So you want a judge to bring their own emotions into the court room?

Social workers need experience, and time, to be able to make those judgements though.
We're in a situation where there's a shortage of social workers, we rely hugely on agency staff and the social workers we do have hold very high (unsafe) caseloads.
Social workers burn out and quit after a few years so then there's a lack of experience too.

Unfortunately we then (as a society) make the situation worse by naming and blaming individual workers when things go wrong.

Please elaborate - revealed myself as what exactly?

I didn’t read the articles because it’s potentially upsetting. That’s how most people deal with things that might upset them.

I personally think that judges and also reporters etc should be able to deal with facts without bringing their own emotions into it.

So, you’re berating others for reading articles and commenting on the case, but you haven’t actually read any yourself, you just think everyone should shut up - you ‘can’t put your finger on why’ though.
Maybe just stop reading the thread? It’s ironic you seem to be criticising other posters for thinking ‘they know better’.
Pot, kettle.

I want the judge to understand the emotions of the victim and dynamic of the crime when a girl or women's lower clothes are cut off with a knife by her attacker, yes.

But yes, I would have thought it patently obvious that a man left largely on his own with a traumatised baby that is not biologically his would struggle to bond with the baby.

What a strange thing to say. What inherent biology do you think enables any new father to bond with their baby? And what is it about the presence of a woman that enabled this baby’s foster father to bond with him?

However unpopular opinion, I don’t think gay couples should be able to adopt. I don’t understand why they would want to. And I wonder if this trial will create rule changes?

Jesus wept. You can’t understand why human beings would want to have a family, and therefore you’d ban them from doing so. Gay men, women or both?

You seem quite confused.

If you’re talking about VC rather than VB then you’re incorrect. None of the social workers in that case mentioned race or culture as part of the issue. The lead social worker in that case was a black woman herself and said the main problem was getting her seniors to read the medical reports properly.

I say this as a survivor of a rape when I was young. The judge’s job is to look at the legal facts.

This is not true. The social worker did say this and yes she was a POC herself. I am not sure why you think the race of the social worker is relevant here. She stated that she decided the timid and withdrawn nature of VC around her Aunt was due to cultural issues rather than a safeguarding red flag ( I am paraphrasing in that lasts part of the sentence). I used to work in social work and read the reports in social work news. The key point is a child who is fearful around their care giver should alarm bells regardless of the culture they come from. Children should not be raised by people they are frightened by.

Thanks for clarifying - your original wording seemed to suggest there were concerns that were ignored due to misguided ideas about race (something that is often said, and is incorrect). I can see that’s not what you meant and I agree. The race/culture of the SW may be relevant if the accusation is she was afraid of being seen as racist. Equally it may be relevant if she had a similar cultural background (in this case I don’t know if she did).

I agree that children should not be raised by people they are afraid of, but there are different cultural norms around how children should behave around adults. Culturally competent social work should be able to tell the different and maybe that was LA’s mistake.

Why do you think courts allow victim impact statements?

The judge needs to understand the victim's pain and suffering to inform their sentencing rationale.

It's not all about facts, it's about emotion too.

Victim impact statements have nothing to do with sentencing, it’s a way of making the victim feel heard but the judge will sentence the same way regardless, in accordance with the law.

And thank goodness, otherwise you’d end up with longer sentencing for the crimes committed against people who were able and willing to make these statements. Murdered but have no family to speak up for you? Raped but so traumatised you can’t put it into
words? Oh well, shorter sentence for your killer/rapist.

I'm not suggesting victim impact statements affect the sentencing. But there is a reason they are given before sentencing, so they can be taken into account.

Victim statements also have to be backed by evidence

A crime is no more or less serious because of the feelings of the victim. Whilst it may be taken into account, it doesnt always influence sentencing (and outside the most extreme cases, it shouldn’t)