Preston Davey: Another Child Failed by a System That Put Ideology Before Safeguarding?
The recent case of the abuse and murder of Preston Davey represents an unforgiveable failure of British society. Preston was born in prison — his mother is a convicted murderer, and his father is also a convicted criminal. He was removed from his mother’s care at just five days old and placed with a foster family who loved him for 9 months before he was placed in the care of two men, Jamie Varley and John McGowan-Fazakerley — both of whom have been found guilty of appalling crimes against the child.
There are no adequate words to describe the fate of baby Preston. At the root of the matter is the desecration of the natural family – a man, a woman and their children. The concept of the natural family is increasingly diminished in this culture via same sex ‘marriage’, surrogacy, and adoption by same-sex couples, which we reported on in detail recently. In baby Preston’s case it appears that his biological parents failed him through their unstable lifestyles, but there is evidence to suggest his maternal grandmother would have provided a suitable loving home. According to reports she had previously adopted Preston’s older sibling, but was ruled out in Preston’s case because she was undergoing cancer treatment, even though foster parents said that they would care for Preston until that was completed.
Instead of being placed in a familiar home, Preston was placed in the care of his killers; two men who wanted to play at being ‘daddy’ and ‘dad.’ They weren’t ‘daddy’ or ‘dad’, they were two total strangers who had no biological imperative to love and nurture little Preston. Nature, some of us would say God, has designed the natural family unit for the begetting and raising of children. Children need a mother and a father. Of course, circumstances arise, such as death, illness or other incapacity, where someone must act in loco parentis, like Preston’s grandmother did for his older sibling. But Preston’s adopters could not take on this role; they wanted to make a simulacrum of a family for their own gratification, and it seems that all the authorities around them were hoodwinked by their wealth, charm and apparent respectability.
Preston’s killers and the people who gave Preston to them used Preston as a commodity. He was, essentially, a victim of a child trafficking business that frames children as an accessory or plaything for grown adults’ fantasies. The LGBT lobby is so powerful that they have managed to persuade us that two unrelated men should be able to form a ‘family’ just because they desire it. Indeed, it seems that many people would consider the reimagining of the family unit to be praiseworthy on account of its ‘inclusivity.’
Many people raised questions about Preston’s care – he had multiple hospital visits before he died, and his foster parents raised concerns about his welfare. It begs a question about what would have had to have happened to get someone to take notice of Preston. The authorities responsible for Preston appear to be have been so blinded by the ideology of inclusivity that they simply couldn’t imagine a same-sex couple inflicting horrors on an innocent child, or simply didn’t want to know.
LGBT apologists will say that the ‘sexuality’ of these murderers is irrelevant, that children are at times also abused and killed by biological parents and step-parents; but, when one considers the depraved nature of the abuse suffered by Preston, the sexuality of the murderers becomes very relevant indeed. Notably, when Sara Sharif was killed, the fact that she was home educated was highlighted as a ‘risk factor’, and, indeed, then used as a justification to introduce restrictions on home education via the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. This was despite the very well documented long history of failure by social services to take action to intervene in safeguarding Sara, including when concerns were raised, when she did attend, at her school. The official report said it was the fear of being accused of racism that prevented neighbours also raising concerns. Indeed, it is well-established that authorities were so afraid of perceived racism that they allowed predominantly Pakistani rape gangs free reign on children in towns like Rochdale and Rotherham.
For too long in this country vulnerable children have suffered appalling abuse which has been facilitated by political correctness and a selective blindness based on the protected characteristics of the perpetrators. Inclusivity cannot be higher than truth and justice, and making inclusivity and diversity a higher value than the safeguarding of children will only lead to more such tragedies in future.
ParentPower Team
ppadmin
