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.

Truth does matters. Such as the truth that these men were paedophiles not overwhelmed dads.

I don't know what BBC you listen to but I have been listening to radio 4 news for 35 years, and I hear plenty of opinion and comments on it.

The type of reporting that is … reporting on what the ruling judge said after sitting through the whole trial and listening to all the evidence presented?

Thank you, that makes sense.

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.

I'm disengaging from this thread because it will just go the way these threads tend to go.

Good luck OP.

But in this case they were reporting on the judges comments, not making comments.

Just found it on BBC Sounds. It's a very brief headline, but it's a bit different in tone. They say the his teaching, safeguarding training, desperation to be a dad was all a smokescreen. He very rapidly found that being a parent is a very difficult thing. The judge said a selfish resentment towards the baby fuelled the abuse.

So does seem a bit different from the TV stuff. Less talk of the sexual nature of the abuse. Although they did state it up front as a fact. It was only about 50s; really too short, but did seem a bit lacking. I guess part of it is that they want to report the new part which is the sentence and the judge's comments.

I don't know the full reasons behind why he did what he did, but I can believe that anger and resentment could make you hurt a child, but I thought there was more to it than that. It's the kind of thing it's pretty hard to get inside the head of someone like that.

Yes that is the concern. I used to work in social work and I remember reading a case in the professional magazine of a male gay couple who were found to be abusing boys in their care. The social worker admitted there were things that would have caused her concern if they had been a straight couple but which she did not act on as she did not want to be accusatory to a male gay couple.

In safeguarding the evidence has to be the evidence regardless of identity.

Everything points to these men being paedophiles who used the system to access a child and now the system appears to be refusing to name them as paedophiles.

These are the words of the judge I picked up from BBC News website

"You, Varley, were primarily responsible for the daytime care of Preston.
"Unfortunately Preston proved to be restless at night.
"Otherwise he was described as a dream to care for.
"I’m sure that your growing and selfish resentment towards Preston played a part in your treatment of Preston."

I can see why both the prosecution and the defence would use the narrative which you find 'misrepresenting'. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it wasn't used in court to explain what happened or to try to excuse it. Presumably that's why the judge referred to it.

If your motivation for adopting is to sexually abuse a child, then you are more likely to lose your shit at the challenges such young children present. That is the way around it would have worked.
They didn't adopt to love and care and support a child.

You just can’t claim someone’s motivation without proof. Thats the whole point of a trial.

These people did disgusting things and have rightly been punished with the full weight of the law.
Not sure why you keep embellishing the details as though you have more information than what was presented at trial though.

Was this World at One on Radio 4? I listened to that and didn't have the same impression

1. It was noted that he had told a friend he was finding parenting difficult.
2. It was also noted that most/all parents find parenting difficult and don't do what they did.

What do you want them to do, not report fully?

I read the Guardian article about this case and felt that it too emphasised the fact that the two men struggled to cope with the demands of parenting.
l agree with the OP that they were motivated to carry out this heinous crime by paedophilia, not because couldn’t cope with looking after a young baby.
It would be appear that a number of media outlets have minimised the sexual abuse as a motive for the crime.

Millions of parents care for their children in many many challenging situations without ever thinking of harming or sexually abusing them in any way. What possessed the judge to mention how hard parenting can be, in this very harrowing case?

The TV news said the judge said injuries were inflicted for the men's own sexual gratification. And that his previous good behaviour lead to the abuse being overlooked. That's pretty clear that the judge is not okay with either of those facts. And what else can you say if there was no evidence previously that the men had these tendencies. Or at least that hasn't been presented in court.

Where else have you heard of people sexual abusing children because they are stressed and overwhelmed? That's just not a thing.

Ignoring what is staring you in the face is not a virtue.

I only heard the report on the Today programme earlier this morning, and I thought they were being INCREDIBLY careful not mention either the words "paedophile" or "homosexual." They really skirted around it.

I suppose I can see why - it wasn't not long ago that anti-gay bigotry was phrased in the "All gay men are paedophiles" sort of prejudice.

But still ... this man is gay and he is a paedophile.

I just listened to the headlines on BBC iPlayer and yes, the intro was clear. Danny Savage was then asked to comment on what else Justice Turner had to say. And that made it clear Varley’s previous good character was used as a facade to hide the abuse.

In the shorter headline on Radio 4 it was truncated badly.

This x 100

Totally agree

Reporting fully would have been acknowledging this is a tale of two paedophiles.

This is a case of misrepresentation.

I suspect due to this being a gay couple - this matters as there have been other cases of children not being properly protected in part due to social workers admitting they ignored warning signs due to the ' identity group' of the abuser.

I head that too... shocking quote from the judge.

People struggling with parenthood and frustration shout at them , hit them, shake them, punch them. all of which are abusve and can lead to death. It is unjustified but is an extreme version of what might be deemed "normal" behavior.

Reacting to the pressures of parenthood by sexually abusing is something else entirely. Its completely abnormal and pathological and is a pre existing tendency. Its not somethibng that "develops" from nowhere in response to your baby being a poor sleeper.

That bloody judge needs looking at very closely if he thinks it is