Baby death dad told girl to 'shut up'

Let's not misrepresent the question, what sort of proof do you want? There are facts for people to read and form an opinion, that is it. I can't address all your other points, no disrespect but gotta go now.

I think it does but even if it doesn't... there is nothing in it to prove me wrong on anything either. So, as an argument, that counts for nothing.

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.

Inevitably, tragedies like this will happen. Who's to blame?



Honestly, this is the end of civilization. Worth going down on one knee outside Parliament.

It's you that's making the claim that the abuse has anything to do with the fact that the man was gay. It's your responsibility to prove it. If you can't prove it, stop claiming that 'there's only one logical explanation'. You misunderstand the difference between opinion and assertion, it seems. You're not presenting an opinion, you're presenting an unequivocal assertion, based on no evidence.

'I have no time to respond' is such a cop-out. You come and make a homophobic statement, and then run away when people ask you to back it up.

It means nothing of the sort. The article says nothing about them not being fully checked. In fact, it mentions formal adoption which would imply full checks following policy.

Yes what that "father" did was horrendous, but it does not speak of any larger issue. Somebody did a bad thing, that's all. Straight people kill their kids too- kids who may not even be known to exist and who the parents don't need any background check for cos they made them.

Ok, let's talk then. This is what atheists do with God, incapable of making a coherent case against it they make it all about proof just to shut it down.

Do you know there is a drive in our society to promote 'equality'? It is institutionalized in our public services, it is no coincidence that we have women at the head of so many branches of them these days and it didn't happen naturally. Denying that is denying the real world, really. One of the ways that may reflect itself, among so many of them, is that promoting the concept of gay people as perfectly able to adopt is indeed part of the established social agenda.

Are you lot embarrassed about it or something, what's the matter with you? To suggest that this case is better explained as an extension of such official policy, based on all the evidence pointing to this guy's unsuitability, is enough to make you all run for the nearest safe area. It's not ven as if there is no evidence at all from the courts to suggest it.

Yes, this is not about gay people or even the guy himself. It is about what makes SS keep giving children away to people not fit for it. The same question would apply to any other socially defined group of people unfit to be trusted with a child. This guy was just that, totally unfit. Not for being gay, it's not confined to them. And it is about a dead child too, goes without saying but just in case...

I'm totally opposed to the promotion of artificial equality in our public services, regardless of where it may be applied.

I have tried to explain that you can't know what this man's mindset or prove it, but if you insist on making unilateral assertions, you will obviously be asked to back them up. Why do you choose to say 'there's no other logical explanation' rather than 'I think [x] might be the case for [y] reasons'?

Affirmative action is intended to level the playing field for social groups who have historically been denied certain rights, not to give opportunities to people who haven't earned them.

Are you seriously suggesting that gay people aren't 'perfectly able to adopt'? Based on the case of one individual? Despite there being examples of heterosexual adoptive parents also abusing children? How are you unable to see that you're making an illogical leap? I don't know how else to phrase this; I won't repeat it again. If you choose not to engage with it, that's your problem.

Again, you're making no sense. What part of this case suggests it has anything to do with the perpetrator's sexuality? Do you think that similar cases involving heterosexual couples have anything to do with those people's sexuality?

All that is very nice but what does 'fully checked' mean? From THE COURT EVIDENCE, we can gather that had the neighbours been consulted they wouldn't have been very enthusiastic, what would they have said? There is mention again of visits to hospital, injuries, broken ankle, falls down the stairs. All within eight months. Forgive me for failing to understand what made this guy look so suitable, who checked what?



Yes, this is not about gay people or even the guy himself. It is about what makes SS keep giving children away to people not fit for it. The same question would apply to any other socially defined group of people unfit to be trusted with a child. This guy was just that, totally unfit. Not for being gay, it's not confined to them. And it is about a dead child too, goes without saying but just in case...

I'm totally opposed to the promotion of artificial equality in our public services, regardless of where it may be applied.

Whoa, so all of a sudden this isn't to do with the man in question being gay? You've changed your tune.

Because the man's mindset, as you put it, is well documented by the court reports. There is no point in persisting with the myth that there is no evidence to back up the claim that he was not someone who should be trusted with a child. Were this a hetero-couple and you'd be saying exactly this.

The very opening line in this thread and everything since proves I'm not suggesting that at all.

It's about the grounds on which those children are trusted to them by the State. Give me an example of a 'similar' case.

It has nothing to do with being gay in the sense that it wan't his sexuality that made him kill a child, not anymore than it happens with heteros or ginger people who do. I don't oppose gay adoption, for all the traditional hysteria that crops up in reaction to discomforting ideas these days.

It isn't even saying 'he was trusted with a child for being gay', it is saying that the institutionalized practice of promoting 'equality' and with gay adoption being just another branch of such consensual policy... that a relaxation of criteria is the best explanation for how such a manifestly unfit person may be trusted with a child by the State. That is how positive affirmation is enforced by the State, isn't it? Yeah, the child fell down the stairs once or twice and the neighbours hear shouting and door slamming but... It is dead hard for a hetero-couple to adopt. By all means, if people have a better theory as to why these things may happen just go for it.

I think my being a parent makes it harder to stomach. Every word from that guy's mouth shows he was all wrong for the task and with fatal consequences. He referred to the child's crying as 'the strop of a proper diva', how long does it take to suss him out? He wouldn't have survived an interview for a job as a nanny, by the sound of everything revealed in that courtroom and the history of incidents over the short period that preceded the official stamp. You wouldn't have hired him on the back of all available evidence.

Everyone in that courtroom will have been left asking the same question: how on earth did he end up with a child in arms? In the absence of any constructive replies or more plausible theories as to why this may have happened, we can put it to rest now. Baby Z.