> They weren’t calling the guy who did that ‘angelic’. They were referring to a picture of him as a young child. How to put a speedy spin on it in one easy lesson.
That did seem odd, so I went and read the article. His reasoning: "The attempts to humanise somebody who had committed such an atrocity seemed very unusual." And on reflection I think he's right that showing the murderer as a child humanises him. I also think he's right in implying that you can't imagine it would be done in, say, the case of Salman Abedi, the Manchester Arena Bomber - "Here's Salman as a sweet little boy, how could he have turned into such a monster?"
But I think he's wrong to imply that humanising the murderer and showing him as a child was a bad thing. We want to know that apparently innocent and angelic children can grow up to be stone cold killers, no matter what shade their hair, skin or religion.