Babies need women
Leaving children with only men who are not their parents is foolish and dangerous
JEAN HATCHET
In their lifetime not all women have babies, not all can, and not all want to. Yet every person who gives birth is a woman and all mothers are female. Feminists in the UK fought very hard for reproductive rights, and we defend them fiercely just as we do the right to retain the word “woman” and “mother” exclusively for female people.
You can’t and shouldn’t force women to be mothers, then, but at the same time men should not be allowed to completely replace women in the parenting of children, whether that is by adoption or surrogacy. Given the statistics on male violence against children, it simply isn’t safe for the child — and especially for babies — to be raised exclusively by male strangers.
This week saw the horrendously distressing court case of Baby Preston. Preston Davey was 13 months old when he was brutally murdered after serious sexual and physical cruelty, by two men who were allowed to adopt him.
Jamie Varley was convicted of murder, sexual assault and taking indecent images of Preston, and he has been given a whole life order. His sexual partner John McGowan-Fazakerley was convicted of sexual abuse, child cruelty and allowing the death of a child, and he has been sentenced to 25 years. Baby Preston’s body was found to have 40 internal and external trauma injuries, including some consistent with “forcible penetration”.
It is almost unbearable to consider what this infant endured at the hands of these two depraved men. Preston was removed from his mother at 5 days old and after a period with foster carers he was handed to his rapist murderers. Inquiries will probably follow into social work failures and will also likely include the ignoring of red flags made evident to Jamie Varley’s colleagues at the school where he was a Head of Year and safeguarding lead.
The stark reality is that these two male strangers should never have been allowed to parent Preston. Not because they were gay, not because they were insufficiently screened (though they clearly were), but because they are men.
There are on average 63 child homicides a year. Infants under 1 are over-represented in statistics, accounting for between 19 and 20 homicides each year. Most of these are committed by a parent or step-parent, and this murderer is most often a male. Over 90 evident of all homicides in the UK are committed by men. It is statistically evident that it is significantly safer to place a child in a home with a woman or multiple women.
The sexual risk to children from men makes this even more necessary. Last year a sensational revelation from Gavin Thomas, the President of the Police Chiefs Association was that there are so many child sexual offenders that it would be impossible to jail them all and he called for “softer measures”. Around 98 per cent of child sexual offenders are male. The National Crime Agency meanwhile revealed that it is possible that 750,000 men are interested in sex with children.
Placing them in homes where there are only men, perhaps multiple men, looks like lunacy.
When it comes to surrogacy, an ever-increasing number of men are seeking to buy babies from financially-exploited women both in the UK and from some of the poorest women in some of the most deprived areas of the globe. Some of these men are gay couples and some are single men. Between 2019 and 2025, 170 single men made applications to register as parents for a child they had purchased through a surrogacy arrangement. With no woman present in the home, these children are at even greater risk of serious harm.
A 72-year-old widowed man was granted permission in Scotland to become a parent to a surrogate child. The question anyone evaluating his suitability needed to ask is why he wanted this? His answer could never have been sufficient to make it primarily about the benefit to the child. Men like this make such a demand due to their own selfish needs — and in some cases those “needs” will be very much against the interests and safety of the child.
As Sanchez Manning discovered via FOI, since it became legal 43 men over 60 have applied to become the parent of a child born to a surrogate mother. These men are taking babies from women and some of these men will be a sexual and physical risk to those babies. It is an evil practice and governments are morally and ethically empty in allowing it to proliferate.
None of these men should be allowed to buy babies after renting the wombs of women. They aren’t all sex offenders, of course, but the appalling statistics on child sexual offending tell us that some are likely to be.
The suitability and safety checks on surrogate parents are frighteningly limited — especially if men seek a surrogate child abroad. Government control focuses more on the residency status of the intended parents than on the physical and sexual safety of the child.
Of course, it is inevitable that some men calling themselves women will seek to secure children into their deluded fantasy “woman world”. Men should certainly not be able to adopt or buy babies if they are confused about what sex they are. If they aren’t clever enough to understand where a baby comes from then they aren’t clever enough to raise one. In any case, they carry at least the same level of risk as any other man to that vulnerable baby.
If we saw Jamie Varley and John McGowan-Fazakerley as an “isolated incident” with all future risk at zero, then there would be no need to have the conversation about banning men adopting as a blanket rule, but it is not. Ian Watkins targeted and seduced women with babies in order to be able to rape the infant. He was sentenced to 35 years for some of the most hideous crimes against very young children and few shed a tear when he was in prison killed last year. Men with depraved sexual needs will do whatever is available to ensure those needs are met whether it is grooming or adopting.
Gay men are not any less risky than straight men, despite a willingness by some diversity and inclusion devotees to suggest otherwise. They are still men. For this reason, it is crucial that babies and young children are never adopted into homes where there are only men. It is vital that the government makes moves to ban surrogacy altogether. No one should be buying children or renting women’s wombs (including women and not even if those women are famous).
Baby Preston should be the tragic catalyst for this seismic change — for if change cannot come after what happened to him, how many murdered and raped babies will it take?
This article (Babies need women) was created and published by The Critic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Jean Hatchet
See Related Article Below
Justice for Preston Davey.
A whole term imposed on Jamie Varley
LAURA PERRINS
Jamie Varley was today sentenced to a whole life term for murdering Preston Davey. The total sentence for John McGowan-Fazakerley is 25 years. He will serve two-thirds. His Honour Mr Justice Turner passed sentence on both men.
What follows are the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Turner, with thanks again to the Manchester Evening News.
Readers again are warned of distressing details.
Mr Justice Turner, “Preston was 13 months old when he was murdered by you Jamie Varley on 27 July 2023. Over the previous four months you and John McGowan-Fazakerley had been responsible for his care as his adoptive parents.
Three days ago, following a trial lasting over six weeks, you were both convicted unanimously by the jury on an indictment containing 28 counts relating in different ways on different occasions to your unremitting abuse on Preston.
You had been together as a couple since 2019. In December 2021 you registered as prospective adopters. On March 9, 2023, you were approved.
Preston had been born 16 June 2022 and was promptly placed in the care of experienced registered foster carers both who read statements telling of the impact of Preston’s death on them. Statements have also been read by Preston’s birth parents.
The impact on all have been devastating.
Preston spent his first night with you on March 31, 2023. You, Jamie Varley, were the primary carer, you John McGowan-Fazakerley were out at work but taking active care during evenings and weekends.
Unfortunately Preston was restless at nights waking frequently – otherwise he was described as a dream to care for. You began to complain that he was not sleeping and it was having an impact on your relationship.
Addressing Jamie Varley.
I do not doubt your professional background as a teacher and your charm and easy manner did much to reassure professionals all was okay – when clearly it was not. On April 17 you took the first indecent images of Preston. I will not descent into unnecessary detail.
On April 19 you Jamie Varley took 2 pictures of Preston in the bath with bruises on his forehead. This was the first of a number of photos showing bruises. Even in the context of babies learning to crawl and sustaining bumps and bruises, there is no doubt through the number and location that these were non accidental. Post mortem bruises were found on Preston’s head, both legs, back and arms.
On May 25 Preston was admitted to hospital where he had a seizure, the judge says. His condition was attributed to a chest infection but two bruises raised safeguarding concerns which were alerted to the police.
You gave the reason Preston had started crawling and the bruises were down to him bumping his head.
On June 15 you John McGowan-Fazakerley were late from work. You Jamie Varley took out your frustration on Preston. You took a video of the chilling act of sleep deprivation and sent it to McGowan-Fazakerley who must have formed a clear view of what you were prepared to do to Preston.
The judge says a further video later shows Preston very unwell and Varley reported to McGowan-Fazakerley that he had a seizure. “I’m sure that was caused by your abuse,” he says. “He had a broken arm – due to abuse.”
Judge continued, on June 30 he had a temperature and rash and was vomiting. A nurse again noted bruising. You showed a video of Preston pulling a toybox onto him but that cannot have caused the bruises because it had been taken two weeks earlier.
On July 6 Preston was taken with a fracture to his arm. You gave a variety of explanations but you Jamie Varley were convicted of GBH.
While Preston had his arm in a cast you told a friend you were having harmful thoughts relating to drowning or suffocation. It was to prove to be a terrible omen. You went on to say you were not going to act on these thoughts.
On July 23, 2023, four days before Preston’s death, it was a Sunday and you were both at home. Jamie Varley took seven images showing Preston draped over the bars of his cot with his neck in direct contact with the bars. You do not need medical training to realise this was an alarmingly dangerous position.
You John McGowan-Fazakerley witnessed this and rather than laying Preston down to rest took part in a joint sexual assault. His lips were turning blue due to lack of oxygen, forming the basis of the charges of sexual assault.
At about 4:30pm on the same afternoon you Jamie Varley took a picture of Preston’s bottom which appears abnormal. This is evidence of the assault by penetration.
The following day 7.30am you John McGowan-Fazakerley had left for work. You Jamie Varley set up your phone to record Preston alone in the bath. The video shows him floundering about and losing his balance. No-one let alone an adoptive parent and teacher could watch this and not realise the obvious cruelty.
“July 27 was the day of Preston’s murder.”
You Jamie Varley were alone at home with Preston. At 4.35pm he was having a seizure. You videoed it. I’m sure it was caused by your further abuse – his lips were again blue.
The expert says he must have stopped breathing for 45 seconds or so and seemed to take no breaths for 15 seconds. He was clearly in need of medical attention and I’m sure the reason you did not seek it because of what you had done to him.
Your abuse that afternoon resulted in further injuries to Preston’s pelvic organs found on post mortem. They were not causative of his death but they show sexual assault.
You, Jamie Varley, say he made a full recovery of the seizure when you put him in the bath and left him momentarily, and you left him alone in the bath seat.
There was no evidence of drowning and the Home Office pathologist formed the conclusion he died from acute upper airways obstruction. I am sure it was your penis or other hard object that caused the bruising to Preston’s throat.
You were the only person with Preston that afternoon Jamie Varley. You did this. You murdered him.
The judge tells the court that at 6.15pm McGowan-Fazakerley returned home but it was too late to save him. He was taken to hospital but pronounced dead later that evening.
The judge continues: “Judges do not exercise a free ranging expression when passing sentence but must follow the guidance of the Sentencing Council.
Turning to you Jamie Varley there is only one sentence for murder which is life imprisonment, however I’m required to determine a minimum term if there is to be one before you can apply for parole. Where the court considers the seriousness of the offence or combination is exceptionally high the appropriate starting point for an adult is a whole life order.
Cases that would normally fall within this include the murder of a child if involving sexual or sadistic motivation. I am sure that your motivation fell within the parameters of this.
The facts of the case must leave the court in no doubt the offender must be kept in prison for the rest of their life. A whole life order is a sentence of last resort for cases of the most extreme gravity, reserved for a few exceptionally serious cases. If a judge is in any doubt, the minimum term is likely to be the appropriate disposal.
The judge says, “In your case Jamie Varley, not only the circumstances of Preston’s murder are to be taken into account but all the offences leading up to it over the previous months. The seriousness of your offending is exceptionally high even in the general context of murder, and the appropriate starting point is a whole life order.
Aggravating features are:
Preston was particularly vulnerable – not just a child but a baby;
Both mental and physical suffering was caused before;
There was a gross abuse of trust placed in you as adoptive parents;
Guilty pleas would have been relevant but this cannot be advanced.”
“I accept you did not intend to kill Preston despite the fact it was almost inevitable your assault would cause really serious injury. Your assaults fall into a pattern of repeated and persistent abuse. You are of good character however that is one of the factors that led to earlier suspicions of your abuse being overlooked by professionals.”
The judge says: “Balancing the aggravating and mitigating features I’m satisfied a starting point of a whole life order is necessary. This is a case of the utmost gravity. You will stay in prison for the whole of your life. You will never be released.”
The judge then dealt with the other counts, including GBH.
The total sentence for John McGowan-Fazakerley was 25 years, consisting of consecutive sentences. The judge in his remarks said “Preston was particularly vulnerable and you acted together with Varley in an abuse of trust.
Your good character is a very modest mitigating factor. Your egregious behaviour on this day falls for a consecutive sentence. On the cruelty charge, this involved gratuitous degradation of Preston.”
A total of 25 years was imposed.
This article (Justice for Preston Davey.) was created and published by Laura Perrins and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: Shutterstock
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply