Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Baby death dad told girl to 'shut up' Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    The court heard on Tuesday Mr Scully-Hicks had referred to Elsie as "a psycho" and "Satan".
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-s...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?

    Elsie died in the early hours of 29 May 2016, two weeks after being formally adopted.
    Honestly, this is the end of civilization. Worth going down on one knee outside Parliament.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It has nothing whatsoever at all to do with being gay
    It has everything to do with the perpetrator being scum.
    This is not a gay issue
    It’s about a baby murderer who will get what he deserves inside
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    How does it 'mean' anything of the sort? I don't see anything in that article to suggest the adoption process was any less gruelling for this couple than it would be for anyone else - do you?

    It does seem possible that signs of abuse were missed - it's not common for children that young to suffer accidental fractures, though it does happen. But what evidence is there to suggest that those same signs of abuse wouldn't have been missed had the adoptive parents been heterosexual? What you're suggesting is just conjecture, as far as I can see.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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."
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    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?

    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.
    '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.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *pitseleh*)
    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?
    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.

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

    '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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    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?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    You should be quiet before you embarrass yourself any further.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    Are you quite sure of that?
    Why would they be any different?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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.
    I am indeed, that they may have placed one with someone unsuitable and with fatal consequences. Don't bother with the 'vulnerable' and 'dangerous' exaggerations.

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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Christ you talk a lot of *******s
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    Again, where is your proof of that? The fact that this man should have aroused suspicion (due to the injuries) but didn't does not automatically lead to the conclusion that he wasn't properly investigated because of his sexuality. You're making a logical leap with no evidence whatsoever.

    Besides, you have no idea whether those injuries were properly investigated or not. There are plausible accidental mechanisms of injury when it comes to fractures. I have worked in paediatrics as a doctor, and have looked after patients who have been victims of non-accidental injury. What we look for when a child comes in with a suspicious injury is whether the parents' account of what happened matches the injury. I remember a case where a mother fell down the stairs whilst carrying her two-year-old, who ended up with a fractured tib/fib; the mother's story was consistent with the injury, and she wasn't investigated further. For all I know, the father of this child told an equally plausible story. There simply aren't the resources to investigate every fracture injury that comes through A+E; you have to have a good reason for doing so. Don't assume this is necessarily a case of people deliberately looking the other way.

    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.
    You have no idea how this man appeared prior to the adoption process. Child abusers do not necessarily have a forensic history of any kind.

    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 not making any sense. I'm well aware that social services make background checks. Christianity is neither here nor there, though; it's certainly not a particularly sought-after facet of potential adoptive parents, nor should it be. You also appear to be assuming that being gay automatically precludes being Christian.

    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.
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    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?
    That none of them did so within eight months? It would prove just the same anyway if you find one, that whoever trusted them with that child didn't do a good job and we deserve to know why. That's the thing, this is about who and why made it possible to happen? It's not on gay people.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    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.

    Just give up already.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *pitseleh*)
    Again, where is your proof of that?
    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..

    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.
    Where's your proof of that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    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.
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.