Baby death dad told girl to 'shut up'

The court heard on Tuesday Mr Scully-Hicks had referred to Elsie as "a psycho" and "Satan".

Elsie died in the early hours of 29 May 2016, two weeks after being formally adopted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-41583264

Of course, this doesn't mean gay people cannot be good adoptive parents. What it means is that some gay people are being trusted with children by the State just because they are gay and without being put through as rigorous checks as heterosexuals do. Affirmative action, they call it. They love children too. All done in their name and with their best interests at heart by the beautiful people.

Neighbour James Bevan told Cardiff Crown Court he heard offensive swear words being shouted at the infant.
He told the jury the swearing and shouting would happen when Elsie cried.
Mr Bevan, who lived in the semi-detached house next door to Matthew Scully-Hicks in Cardiff, said: "The first initial time I heard anything (unusual), I heard like a tantrum, like a 'argh', an adult's voice, a baby crying, and as the baby was crying I heard a door slam… I identified the crying as being that of a baby."
He explained on the next occasion he heard a baby crying, he also heard Matthew Scully-Hicks swearing at the child and saying "shut up".
He told the court: "Eventually she stopped crying. Then there was a pause and loud music started playing next door.
"It played the duration of a song. It stopped and the baby was still crying. The one who stayed at home shouted "shut up, shut up, shut up" over and over again.
"I would normally hear similar occasions happening once a week. Shouting, babies crying, tantrums."

She had been taken in by the couple eight months previously but in that time had suffered several injuries including a fractured ankle and a fall down the stairs.

Either tests for fitness as an adoptive parent are much more relaxed than we are made to believe or the people supervising this process were all incompetent and morally liable for this death. If they were just feeding the official drive for equality and diversity at all costs it is their superiors who are responsible.

Makes you wonder how much more evidence Social Services need to deny a couple of any persuasion the right to adopt. Had it been a Christian couple... Even this guy, he only adopted because he is gay. Obviously, it wasn't his love for children.

What it means is that some gay people are being trusted with children by the State just because they are gay and without being put through as rigorous checks as heterosexuals do. Affirmative action, they call it

As I thought, just conjecture.

You do realise that social services miss lots of cases of abuse where the perpetrators are a heterosexual couple too, don't you?

'Christian couple'? What has religion got to do with it?

'Only adopted because he was gay'? Yes, insofar as he couldn't have biological children without using a surrogate. Otherwise, that comment makes no sense.

Complete nonsense. The adoption/fostering process is the same for everyone, and the checks done are not relaxed in any way because of a parent/carer's sexual orientation.

Are you quite sure of that?

You are majing an incredibly inflammatory accusation, that Social Services are knowingly and deliberately putting vulnerable children in the care of people they know to be dangerous because of an assumed political motivation.

Despite the seriousness of your accusation you have provided no evidence other than that of your rampant homophobia.

I am indeed.



It's what I regard as the only logical explanation, yes. Don't waste time on buzzwords, doesn't work on me.

Why should we fake surprise at it, it's happening all over the public services network. The promotion of artificial equality, under whatever means.

Show us some evidence then. Show us any testimony daying this is official practice. Show us some evidence of increased in abuse in kids adopted by gay couples. Show us anything to back up your claim.

You wont though, because you cant. Your entire 'argument' is based on the fact you are an ignorant homophobe.

i do but even then... they shouldn't. It is a matter of fact, as evidenced in court, that there were serious grounds to question the suitability of this couple or at least one of them, all within a space of 8 months and the two weeks it took for the child to be killed by him after adoption. Those other 'missed' cases sometimes do contain indeed elements of political correctness as the source for the malfunctioning in the system, this one is as open to scrutiny as any other.

What made this guy look like a good person to be at home looking after a child, just look at the way he talks about her. It would be exactly the same were we talking about a hetero-couple, how could anyone trust a child to someone like this? Based on what? Even smoking in the shed is a problem for a prospective adopting parent, or holding strong religious views. There is only one logical explanation for this episode.

Social Services won't just tick the box, they will want to know more about how Christian you are and your views on the world. The idea is that children must be protected from the incorrect ones as much as uni students may need safe spaces. Or from smoking, it couldn't just be a no questions-asked, could it?

You're right, once again my words didn't fully reflect my views. I meant that the only rational explanation for his adopting of the child he went on to kill within 8 months and a half, two weeks after the State endorsed him as a suitable parent, is that he did so as a gratuitous act of virtue-signalling to the world and nothing to do with a heartfelt love or desire to have to look after a child. To him, that deceased child was a fashion-gadget. Let him sue.

The evidence is all there in the link to the court reports, this child was trusted to someone capable of referring to her as Satan. Dead within eight months.

Don't be pathetic in your requests for evidence.

That's just one couple though. I could link you to quite a few straight couples who've murdered children. What exactly would that prove?

The evidence is all there in the link to the court reports, this child was trusted to someone capable of referring to her as Satan. Someone who would abandon her and slam the door before turning up the music and drown her crying. Her fits were like 'the strop of a diva'. Dead within eight months. Is it that strange to wonder what made anyone trust him with the child?

Don't be pathetic in your requests for evidence.

Again, where is your proof of that?

Maybe. Nobody can know for certain what his rationale was in adopting that child. It still has nothing to do with him being gay, though.

The article contains no information that would back up your claim and even if it did you would need more than one case to prove that this is a systematic issue.