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.

I dont think he adopted the child to abuse it its lot more complicated than that..the point is they werent coping and social services at that point should have removed him but they didnt

Was the reporting on the BBC news or a BBC opinion piece?

The BBC did not say provide that view. They are reporting what was stated.

How about waiting for the Judge to publish their sentencing remarks?

I can see this.

This case is so extreme it really does make me think that monsters walk among us. There is a bit more of the reporting on twitter and it is absolutely sickening. I don’t understand if it was just hate or overwhelm why they didn’t give the poor thing back. They could have done that and walked away. What they did to that baby goes against any sort of social norms or human behaviour. I really can’t believe this is the only child they’ve harmed.

So you think the BBC should add their opinion to court news reporting?

I read an article on The Guardian about this and feel sick. If you haven't read about it don't.

They have to report the news objectively with the information they have.

Just because some people are upset about the situation, that doesn’t mean the tv news has to lose its objectivity.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'we'? The prosecution?

We will never know if these two scumbags went through the adoption process for an infant to abuse them sexually and physically. There was no previous signs or complaints before this . Or did they genuinely think they could have a family unit but were overwhelmed by it all . But that doesn't explain the sexual assaults .

I believe the first theory is the right one . This behaviour doesn't come from stress , etc. These were acts of pediophila , getting sexual pleasure from heinous actions with children. The fact that he was a vulnerable baby is even more depraved .

What happens in someone's mind that this is a behaviour. They had an adult relationship. One had a job with kids . A fully functioning normal couple . So you can see why some people would fear being homophobic or discriminatory . Or they couldn't believe the level of abuse . Both physopaths were able to pass as a genuine couple with good intentions.

Evil walks amongst us .💔. Sorry Preston RIP

This is what I think, but you said it better than I did

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.

This!!!!!!!!

Would you prefer the newsreader to sob uncontrollably and vow to ensure they will burn in hell?

The reporting today is all about the sentencing and the judge’s comments, so a factual account of what was said in court. The BBC News website followed it live, did you expect them to put different comments than the words the judge actually used

Let's not get technical with the term paedophiles, as that's a loosely used term, but definitely covers, in common parlance, people who are sexually oriented around pre-pubescent children. The NSPCC report that someone linked to saying don't call all child sex abusers 'paedophiles' is pointing out that often it is older children that are abused and that other children are also abusers- it doesn't say don't call people who abuse babies paedophiles!

The OP is stating, and I agree, that the fact that these men were child sex abusers and sex offenders of the literally worst kind ever. Like beyond imagination, so bad that I feel the jury will be traumatised for life.

That should have been front and centre of the reporting; if you can't name it, you can't watch out for it.

I also bet my bottom dollar that once they do a proper inquiry to these people with 'spotless' records, they won't be so spotless, the chances of someone suddenly being so violent, so sexually depraved and so oriented to abuse a tiny child to death is incredibly low, as are the chances of them being together and complicit.

There will have been signs, they will just have been missed. I'd put money on it.

Yeah, this. Nobody but them knows what motivated them to adopt a child. Saying 'they categorically definitely did so solely for the purposes of abusing it' is just opinion or speculation.

Presumably they didn't admit this to be the case in the trial and it couldn't be proved. All that could be proved is that the child was abused.

To be fair, he was given a life sentence.

So if the BBC just report what the judge says, then why are we having to pay the license fee? Why have a reporter outside the court? They can just say 'the judge said this' and the newsreader can read it. Of course they offer their interpretation of the mood of the court, emphasise particular things over other things- this is a selection process, they don't just mechanically read out everything the judge said.

Pretty obvious the child was adopted to abuse.

Men don't suddenly become predators overnight or by accident.

That's not the case that was presented in court though.

Do you really expect the judge to say 'yeah well I reckon it's pretty obvious this was their motivation...'?

No, I do not. I was responding to someone else's comment.

@Corvidsarethebest but the judge has to be technical

I've also just read that the barrister for Vardey argued that his client was primarily sexually motivated- and so did not intend to kill. So, if his own barrister is arguing his intention was sexual and not to murder I'm pretty sure we could call him a paedophile on the national news and get away with it.

I always wonder, how do two awful parents like these men find each other? Was one horrible and turned the other one bad? Or did they meet via something equally disgusting and go from there?