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 actually not the definition though, the generally accepted definition it is a primary attraction to prepubescent children, often exclusionary to other types of attractions.

We can be clear about terms without justifying anything that happened. They raped a child and conducted many other horrific and abusive acts.

'struggled with parenting contributed to the abuse'.

Most parents struggle with parenting. It doesn't make them abuse their children.

What the hell is going on with the judiciary in this country? They make comments like this about paedophiles. They're not giving custodial sentences to convicted rapists and guys who've been found with 1000's of indecent images of children. It's becoming a worrying pattern.

Maybe it requires some investigation.

I don't think you have to have a primary attraction to prepubescent children, this is old thinking. Saville had an attraction to prepubescent, pubescent, young adults and grown women and men! It's part of a pattern of seeing others as tools for your use, sexual and otherwise.

It doesn't surprise me that as an angry person, the murderer also committed physical abuse, but to collude with another and share photos of a baby being abused- there's no other word for it!

I take everything the BBC says with a great big packet of salt. I rarely watch the BBC and only listen to BBC radio occasionally. Shame, as it used to be good.

This isn't about whether gay couples are good adopters. The fact he said that shows where the focus is, and that is not where it should be. I see that comment as adding to the concern here, not mitigating it.

I have already mentioned one case upthread. Another is the Victoria Climbie case where the SW admitted that she saw things which would have caused her concern and caused her to act if the family had been white.

The BBC does not offer opinion pieces while court reporting.

What you heard was reported speech, from the court room. And it was in the public interest for you to hear what the judge said. So you did. If the judge had said they were paedophiles, you'd have heard that. As reported speech. If the judge didn't call them paedophiles, then the BBC won't either. Because, court reporting.

And then there's this, and other influential opinions on such labels. Which I imagine inflence what judges say, and what goes into news organisations' editorial guidelines: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/why-language-matters/paedophile-problematic-caution

I wouldn’t worry too much. They’ll last about 2 months in prison. What they did is not liked by other prisoners.

I think the secual abuse has been downplayed throughout actually. Often buried in a few words in a massive report. He sexually absued and murdered the poor baby. I said to hubby only the other day I thought the same.

And you failed to understand that what was reported was the judge’s comments, and the reason that matters is that the perpetrators presented themselves that way to evade detection.

Thank you.

To add to this, the Judge would not have referred to them as paedophiles if that was not something on which evidence was presented in court, which it was not. Per the NSPCC link it is not just a case of “ipso facto” from CSA. Expecting anything else misunderstands what sentencing remarks are.

The crime was heinous. The judge sentenced them accordingly. The BBC reported his remarks accurately. Energy is far better placed finding out how it could be prevented and doing everything possible to prevent something like this happening again.

No one except him can possibly know whether he always intended to abuse a baby and the whole adoption was a ruse to achieve that aim all along, or whether he was someone with paedophilic attraction who never intended to abuse his baby (because one does not inevitably follow the other, some do have attraction they do not act upon) but came to resent the child and this tipped him into abuse which then escalated.

The judge shouldn't be speculating which it is either.

Did the BBC choose to report that quotation from the judge, even though the judge said a lot more in his summing up that could have been quoted instead? If so, then the BBC are at fault here.
Or did the BBC go with that quotation because that was the main comment from the judge? In which case the judge is at fault.

So, you've basically decided where the focus "should be" in advance of the review?

Are you actually interested in the facts/evidence?

Victoria Climbie's death was attributed to multiple failures and was not simply a "would have acted if they were white" issue. What even is the implication here? That they were worried about being seen as racist?

Not sure why you're posting in AIBU tbh because you seem much more interested in pushing your own opinion that listening to others' views.

To make sense of the judges remarks - remember men rape all the time and it doesn't mean they have a sexual interest in their victims. Straight men will rape other men just for power and control. They'll rape 90yr old pensioners. Men will rape a cat - without a long standing sexual interest in cats, or evidence of a catalogue of cat porn on their hard-drives.

This is how I interpreted the judge's understanding of the case - Jamie Varley became so enraged with the 'stress of parenting' and hated the child so much because of it - that he killed him through sexual violence (because he's a f-cking monster more than he is a pedophile or anything else)

Sexual violence is a form of violence but it doesn't always equate to a sexual interest in the victim.

It's a hard concept to grasp but it does exist. I can see what the judge was trying to say.

I saw on another thread it summerized a a biases of belief towards them even with the three hopsital visits.

Though someone then posted a list of issue with the hopsital itself. I suspect being middle class, teacher and a safeguarding lead and having gone thorigh adoption vettting also heavily influnced that.

I find it odd that resentment was considered a trigger by the judge for the abuse TBH and do find some of the reporting odd to say the least.

Or women.

Paedophilia was because he is a paedophile.

It's a paraphilia, not an orientation.

Oh you're right, the wonderful BBC.

The same BBC that seems to have historically employed a LOT of sex offenders and predatory men.

I think the reality is that the depravity of what they did is so disturbing that they can’t print it.

👏 well said! I agree wholeheartedly. Lessons will be learned… or will they?😢

I think it is being told in this way (by the judge and reporting outlets) with an eye on missed opportunities for family and authorities to be curious and potentially intervene (rather than justifying sick behaviour). There will be a huge review (probably a number of reviews) after this.

I agree entirely.
The 'trenches' of parenting are hard. It is possible to imagine how an exhausted frustrated parent might be momentarily too rough with a baby. NOT condone it/ behave that way themselves but perhaps see 'how it could happen': perhaps?.
What these two paedophiles did to Preston is simply unimaginable.
The judge has access to information the public do not. But mentioning 'finding parenting difficult' & linking that to the abuse Preston suffered is rather odd.

I am glad that the chief paedophile got given a whole life term & the other one 25 years but nothing can bring Preston back or spare him his awful suffering.

the BBC presented him as a Dad who had found parenting really overwhelming and hard and had come to resent his baby.

Do you mean BBC reporter Danny Savage who was at the court for the sentencing? He says in his report that the details are so terrible and the scale of the abuse so bad that the public will never see them written up and talked about om broadcast journalism.

He also reported that Jamie’s ‘previous good character led to his behaviour being overlooked by professionals.

So I can’t see where the reporter has presented him as an overwhelmed dad.

I wonder if they may change their reporting later, as some details not able to be broadcast early in the day and some details might not be able to be reported to the general public at all