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.

Very very few people only experience sexual attraction in this way, and most 'paedophiles' as the term is commonly used might also have wives, partners, also abuse young people, the whole age range. As I said up thread, Saville is a classic example of an equal opportunity sex offender- but you wouldn't say he wasn't a paedophile, would you?

You don't have to meet some diagnostic definition of paedophilia by a psychiatrist to be called one in the press or by the public, and to stop labelling these people as such is crazy! You also don't have to be a diagnosed paedophile, technically, to be found guilty of child sex offences and go on the sex offenders register.

The DSM definition isn't actually how the law uses it or public opinion or the press.

The BBC's account did mention them being overwhelmed as new parents- I think that the fact they were paedophiles or child sex abusers is more relevant to mention, that's the opinion of the OP and saying 'this is such a horrible crime we can't repeat the details' makes it even more important to name exactly what they were.

Exactly so. Whole life orders are very, very rare and even more so for single murders. I think the fact that the judge wanted this repellent pervert to be stuck in prison for ever shows us just how he feels. Is anybody denying this scumbag is a paedophile? Not that I've seen. But it is also true that he had no previous convictions so prior to this case there was no reason to suppose he was a paedophile, unless you are the sort of person who assumes all gay men are that way inclined which would be very bigoted indeed.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/why-language-matters/paedophile-problematic-caution

I assume the case talked about their resentment to baby Preston and how their abuse escalated as their resentment escalated and the abuse wasn’t all sexually motivated. Obviously, not all parents who experience sleepless nights will abuse their child, but this could have started their abuse and then it grew into their hideous behaviour.

In the same way most men in a relationship breakdown move on, a minority kill their ex girlfriend. It’s possible one of those men wouldn’t kill their partner if the woman never left them but the woman leaving them triggered their violent response.

Courts and journalists have to focus on evidence. In terms of motive for the abuse, there wasn't any evidence uncovered that paedophilia existed before the abuse. There was early evidence of resentment from Varley and it's plausible to suggest that the resentment was the motivation for the abuse, especially as we know that men rape for power and control. You imply that giving a reason for the abuse creates a more favourable impression of the killer. Again it depends on how you look at it. For some, being a paedophile and being motivated by paedophilia is much worse than being motivated by resentment. But some might argue that it's a condition that they cannot help. This doesn't excuse their abuse but it does suggest some mitigation. Arguably killing a baby because you are motivated by resentment towards them could be seen as worse. Certainly Varley's defence used the defence that he was motivated by a sexual motivation rather than seeking to kill (die to resentment) as a mitigation. Does reporting the evidence of resentment place Varley in a more favourable light? I don't think it necessarily does. As many posters have pointed out, many parents experience stress or resentment but don't kill their kids. Arguably that makes what he did worse in terms of his actions. To resent such a beautiful baby boy and treat him in that way as a result. It's horrifying.

Didn’t the defence bring the sexually motivated bit not murder before sentencing, to try and reduce the sentence?

Not sure they could have used that in the main trial as Varley denied all charges so they couldn’t admit he carried out sexual acts.

I understand what you are saying but the judge will have had a duty to consider all the evidence presented. The wording of the judge referring to the evidence that the Defendant (can't bring myself to type his name) struggled with parenthood shows that that was considered but not found to be a mitigating factor in the sentencing given the overwhelming evidence of protracted sexual and physical abuse.

Explaining that all evidence was considered is pretty important as it makes it much less likely that Defendant can appeal against the sentence on the basis that the judge did NOT appear to fully and objectively consider all the evidence. In doing so the judge was (in my opinion, I'm a solicitor) sending a very strong message that the whole life sentence must remain intact.

I don't know if that helps ...

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

I think the same, he didn't become a pedo out of nowhere, and bollocks to "stress" we all have it we don't abuse babies because we're stressed. As for that evil POS, it was probably always there lurking in the depths of his mind, and then comes along an innocent baby presenting the the perfect opportunity.....fucking grim

It’s not my definition and I’m simply saying we don’t know enough to apply the label ..which so many are desperate to do. What we do know is that they are murderers

…and I’m saying you can’t assume what they were and what motivated their acts

Eh? Are you ok?

I hope there is an investigation to find their previous victims

Did they intend for him to die? Is that not the definition of a murderer or is it ok for definitions of murder to be less rigorous than that of paedophile?

They were quoting the judge. For some reason judges often go easy when sentencing paedophiles.

No, you don’t have to intend for somebody to die to be convicted of murder. You have to either intend to kill them, or really seriously harm them, and that harm caused their death. Hence sometimes cases are charged as s18 GBH then the victim dies and it changes to murder. Attempted murder is very hard to prove and charged less often.

But if they were using him for sex, they weren’t trying to harm him.
(I’m not disagreeing with the verdict, I’m just wondering why that PP needs to be so picky about the definition of paedophilia, but not the definition of murder.)

That is the very attitude that was behind this series of disasters leading to outright tragedy. The professionals who placed the baby for adoption, social workers, police, and probably the hospital consultant who dismissed the two nurses' concerns about injuries, and returned the poor baby to this horror. To read that the judge may also be infected by this cowardly madness is awful.

I don’t understand your post ..did you read the link someone kindly posted from the NSPCC saying that bandying about the word paedophile is unhelpful.

Paedophile is different from abuse that has sexual elements. The NSPCC article is above

Murder was proven and convicted so how is that relevant?

The BBC has been found time and time again to manipulate editorial content to fit their Agenda.
I surprised anyone is prepared to post what you have posted.
Editing content to make it look like the President of the USA incitted a insurrection against democracy because they 'think' he did. How can a news reporting organisation have any credibility after that. They have a view on Trump and deliberately created false reporting to support their narrative. So if they feel justified in doing it in that situation there is no doubt what so ever they will do it in other situations.

The issue with the BBC is they are an echo chamber where they recruit and promote from a narrow liberal elite talent pool, which has created a culture where they believe their so called progressive agenda is the only morally correct agenda. They don't even think it's wrong to report like this. They justify it as protecting society from prejudice or discrimination or 'far right' extremism.

Yeah you're not wrong but saying it like it's categorical proven fact in the trial isn't the case. And the defense clearly tried to distance themselves from that narrative. And evidently succeed to an extent.

But no members of general public are sitting here thinking 'oh, he was a loving, caring person who honourably wanted a child for normal decent reasons and things just too much..'

What do you think awaits the murderer in prison in all likelihood? And the judge probably does not want any accusation of further incitement in that regard. He gave the harshest sentence in the book “whole life order”.

Lol yeah, a whole life order is “going easy”

I just meant in general. I'm not looking for conflict. This is a very upsetting case.

I suspect the whole life of that order might not be very long once he’s inside.

Since whole life orders were introduced in the 80s, only about 100 have been given. I think there are under 75 left now. Tells you all you need to know!