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.

Did you hear it? I listened to WATO and I was shocked at that comment too. I mean, it was the judge’s comment - but they went with that tiny extract, something which in the full context of the report may not have come across as it did when “cherry picked” by the BBC (and I would normally be a supporter of public broadcasting and the BBC in particular, so I don’t agree that the OP is being unreasonable to find it offensive.

Really? His defence barrister argued that he was sexually motivated? I thought he denied all charged, including having a sexual interest in children throughout the trial.

Perhaps the BBC led with that particular comment because they knew it was shocking (as evidenced by this thread) and didn't want it to get lost in the whole horrible story? As in was that comment by the judge a shocking thing to say?

They didn’t report fully though did they? They selected a couple of bits that they found relevant and reported those.

I listened to it and it was very strange.

Yes, you can read about the defence he put forward to argue that he did not warrant a full life sentence (no parole) because he did not intend to murder and that's why it is not the 'severest' crime. Luckily, the judge disagreed.

You can also read about the fact that there is evidence of 13 of the most serious categories of sexual offences, i.e., making and distributing child sex abuse images, but that it is not deemed in the public interest to sentence for those separately, given he has a whole life tariff.

Of course he's a paedophile, I absolutely can't believe anyone is surprised by this news and of course this should be front and centre of any reporting, nothing to do with his MH suffering with tiny baby, sleepless nights.

From that, it's also pretty easy to conclude, and will eventually come out, that they planned to adopt for this reason.

What a daft comment. The particular point referred to by OP and being discussed on this thread was a report of the sentencing remarks. That doesn’t mean that’s all the BBC are reporting on the case and it just looks silly to suggest it is.

And also, who gives a fuck if he found it difficult??? Its bullshit being given as a justification or excuse. No its bullshit because people who find parenting difficult dont go on to sexually abuse a baby. Who know who does that pedophiles. Not struggling people. Ffs this whole story makes me so fucking angry. I cant believe the injuries that boy had and nothing was looked into. Other people played a part (social workers, medical staff) and should equally be given sentences or sacked.

I think they have confused the judge's sentencing remarks with the defence.

Why is this a daft comment? News is a selection of things that could be reported- that selection pays attention to certain things, and not to others. Here, the selection payed more attention to the stress of having a small baby and not enough to the extreme severe child sex abuse which must raise questions of if there were signs of this during the adoption process or how this could be picked up in another case.

@Emilesgran What did they leave out?

Don't be ridiculous, they raped that baby ffs, people dont turn into paedophile because of 'stress', jesus christ.

@Corvidsarethebest but the judge was commenting at that time on the sentencing of these 2 monsters. He’s not going to comment at that point about other potential abusers and the reporter was relaying the judge’s comments

What I heard was a man whose motivation was clearly sexual interest in children, not having that named and crap about him being desperate to be a Dad ( sure he was but to gain to sexual access to a child) who had then been overwhelmed by parenting.

I think it goes beyond sexual interest in children, as repellent as that is. The main perpetrator is clearly a sadist who enjoyed causing fear and pain. Thats another layer of awfulness here.

You’ve heard people described as monsters or evil on the BBC News?

I think we overlook the many odd comments made by judges in their summing up, we attribute it to a sort of BoJo phenomena, posh twattish, eccentric, old......nope, doesn't wash with me. The judiciary is stacked to the rafters with paedophiles.

Unsure if this has already been said but surely the authorities will be investigating whether the teacher had abused any of his pupils? I’d be surprised if this was a first offence.

I am struggling to find the right words to express this.

Obviously, many many many people find parenting frustrating and hard and would never abuse their children, sexually or not.

Therefore it doesn't follow that their sexual abuse of Preston was caused by their struggles in parenting.

However, in these particular people, who seem to have been sadists (they found extreme pornography, rumoured to be related to choking, on Varney's phone), the stress of parenting seemed to have triggered them to abuse Preston.

Obviously you have to have the pre-existing psychology there to do that in the first place.

it's not the same as saying that paedophilia is caused by struggling with parenting.

These particular individuals seem to have expressed their frustration against Preston sexually.

The police didn't find evidence of a pre existing sexual interest in children on any of their devices. I assume they looked quite hard. Or at least I hope they did.

Really?

Has Tim Davie resigning over the impartiality crisis at the BBC passed you by?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrx8gj112mo

There is absolutely nothing here that excuses their acts or minimises them

Using the actions of 1 or 2 criminals to whip up a frenzy about a whole group …is prejudice in action…heterosexual adopters have tortured children as have biological parents

Why do you think he’s a paedophile apologist when he just handed down a whole life sentence to Jamie Varley and gave John McGowan-Fazackerly 25 years (almost unheard of for a non-murder crime)? Does that sound like someone who is soft on this sort of crime?

You are surprised a paedo supporting network supported a paedophile? Wakey fucking wakey!

Their crimes are utterly horrendous - and all of the reporting I have seen on this case has said nothing different.

What is awful here is the OP using this as an excuse to try and push some kind of homophobic agenda and then opening the door to the racist agenda as well.

This has nothing to do with a male gay couple being allowed to adopt - and the underlying inference that somehow social workers overlooked red flags because the men were gay is nothing more than pure homophobia. The vetting process for adoption is intense but not perfect - and monsters don't announce their intentions and here's the shocker - look and sound just like normal people - the fact that one was a teacher added another level of perceived safety.

A child has been violated and killed - please remember that and don't use that for cheap political point scoring.

The judges comments were the issue in that particular case. Not the sentencing.

Yes I agree we’re not talking about a parent lashing out and losing it due to delirium over zero sleep for months, are we. I mean don’t get my words twisted I’m not saying that would excuse anything but it would have a strong argument for temporary insanity. Those 2 beasts were evil and manipulative.