"After being sentenced for his foot sex fetish, police described him as a 'dangerous offender.'"
That sentence from the article is the one inaccuracy that jars with me. He wasn't sentenced for his fetish, but for his abuse of children.
I can't remember hearing of any other case like that one reaching the media, where the abusive behaviour was expressed purely through the perpetrator's fetish, and in a fashion which might not even be considered sexual by mainstream observers if it had been between consenting adults. But clearly it does qualify as sexual abuse since his motive was sexual.
I didn't see this case when it came out, even though I am resident in the UK, where it took place. Surprised to see it now.