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.

That’s not what was said though, nor is it a response to you claiming the motivation to adopt in the first place was to sexually abuse the child, there is nothing to back that up from the investigation.

Hung
Drawn
Quartered.
Nothing less is justice.
Imo

They could have given the baby back if they were struggling, adoptions do break down sometimes and it doesn't end in paedophilia and murder. The judge would probably have made different comments had the adoptive dad been a binman not a teacher.

I assume if it wasn't stated in court then you have to be careful how it is reported. It isn't a legal term as far as I am aware

Huh? They've sexually abused a baby. What more evidence do we need? We all struggle with parenting at times. We all lose our rag and shout at our kids on occasion (then feel incredibly guilty). The vast majority of people struggling with parenting don't sexually abuse their children. Only fucked up paedos do that.

I'm with you, OP. Anyone portraying these foul individuals with even the smallest amount of empathy are a disgrace.

Yes, I heard that on the radio and thought it was an odd take... hundreds of women come to this site asking for advice, overwhelmed and stressed by childcare, and I've never heard one say 'I need help with my stress or I'm going to sexually abuse this child...'. 😕

But I think one would have to see the whole of the Judge's summing up to know if that was his take, or whether the BBC cherry-picked it...

To believe what you present here you would have to believe that a couple who had no sexual interest in children suddenly developed one after adopting. Both of them.

That is not a credible position.

And I think if they didn't have or show previous interest in young children, then you would need to look at what they did in this case. Obviously, horrendous but what it just another form of abuse to them and not necessarily getting sexual satisfaction from it as such.

I imagine because in law there’s quite a distinct definition of a paedophile, for the same reason there were testimonies that the fedex driver who killed the little girl in the US wasn’t classed as a paedophile either.

And yet nothing at all which pointed to that was found by any part of the police investigation.

Your random online comments don’t have anywhere near the same level of information as the investigation and yet you feel more informed.

They took indecent photos. That detail destroys any claim that this was not about sexual satisfaction.

Varley had a year of paid leave from work to care of his adopted baby, plus a partner.

The ‘struggling parent’ defence really doesn’t work.

The judge said Preston was a ‘plaything’ for them and this is correct. Preston was a live doll to them that they thought would take limitless abuse.

The adoption process also found that were suitable adopters and look how accurate that was.

Your refusal to see what is obvious is quite disturbing.

Obviously, horrendous but what it just another form of abuse to them and not necessarily getting sexual satisfaction from it as such.

What om earth are you about? Have you read about the case at all?

If that's true then that is disgusting. They were evil abusive pedophiles, end of.

It’s your refusal to accept anything than your own ill-informed opinion that’s the problem.

Sometimes people will do something without showing signs that they’re going to do it in the run up. You always predict or mitigate things unfortunately.

You may not like it but that doesn’t change the facts that these men were background checked in many ways prior to the adoption, and the police investigation looked into their life, their devices, their online activity and found no previous interest in sexual activity with children was found.

They listed all the charges and it was very clear that both men were pedophiles.

As you will also have heard the second guest Tim Lawton, who was conservative minister for children and families noted that the record of same sex couples adopting was a good one.

He also stated that we need to wait for the child safeguarding practice report in order to understand what happened in this instance.

What are the caes you refer to?

There was a point made on the longer World ar One piece about getting together everyone responsible for a child sitting in the room. I do think there's a value in that. Say someone had a very small wondering. They are more likely to voice that in person and it might cause another person to chime in with something that agrees leading to identifying a genuine problem. I think people talk differently over a typed Teams chat.

Of course it doesn't mean that people won't be subject to confirmation bias and groupthink. Ultimately it's pretty awful if you wrongly accuse a parent too - that absolutely has negative consequences and we can't ignore that.

I wish our courtrooms were allowed to be streamed like in the USA.

It would make it easier to identify those judges who always seem to have soft spots or excuses ready for child rapists.

A paedophile is a person who engages in sexual activity with a child. They anally raped him. There really isnt any sublety to this. They raped a child. To death probably. They are paedophiles by any definiton.

What part of a whole life order makes you think the judge had a soft spot for child rapists?

Some men will use sexual abuse as a way of showing their resentment and anger at a person. It's similar to when people say rape is about power rather than sex. I am actually not convinced that they were purely motivated by paedophilic urges when adopting. I think Jamie Varley in particular quickly developed resentment and even hatred for Preston and sexually abusing and humiliating him was part of that. He also was physically violent to him - he broke his elbow, he bit him, he hit him. And the messages to his sister and colleagues about wanting to drown Preston or suffocate him and his extreme rage when his partner's flight was delayed that led him to make that horrible video also show his anger and resentment that he was having to look after this child.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The fact these men were both paedophiles is evidenced by their crimes.

That's informed by the court case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly114y8gn7o

I agree OP, the reporting of this is just awful, they were BOTH paedophiles who like babies, they BOTH engaged in sexual abuse with an actual child (not even the crime of viewing abuse online) and that is by far the most likely explanation and evidence that they deliberately adopted to gain a child for this purpose.

I can't believe anyone disagrees with you! It's not about parenting stress ffs.

Anyway, the BBC have kept the lovely statue of a paedophile outside their building, and paid extra money (from our license fee) to put it behind bulletproof glass to protect it instead of allowing it to be smashed into 1000 pieces.

Having listened back to the broadcast, Sarah Montague asked Danny Savage about the offender.

His response was "he ticked all the boxes...he was safeguarding trained...he was desperate to be a dad...he quickly found that being a dad is a very difficult thing and the judge said to him that his selfish resentment of the baby is what fueled the abuse."

The first part came across as the journalists summary and then he segued into the judges remarks.

The judge placed the resentment as the trigger. The jourmalist mangled the presentation of it.

I get what the OP is saying though.

Stressful parenting does not lead to sexual abuse, pornagraphic photography of a baby, three visits to A&E in a month.

Why did the NHS not report this? Why did social workers not actually on this? This is the greater concern.

The journalist was right that he appeared to tick all the boxes and professionals were not prepared to question this man.

Without wanting to get onto a bun fight, I also wonder if their sexuality gave them an extra layer of protection in environments where professionals like a rainbow lanyard. Who would question a lovely well educated gay couple?

That boy was failed by multiple people. May he rest in peace.