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

Baby death dad told girl to 'shut up' Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    Wow, I literally lol'd.

    You're a moron.

    I'm done.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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?



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

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *pitseleh*)
    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.
    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. Positive affirmation is everywhere, why couldn't it be here?

    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 even as if there is no evidence at all from the courts to suggest it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    Oh dear. Someone who dislikes being asked for proof when they make statements. Got it. Anyway, this is hardly comparable with proof of the existence of a god. One is a case involving real, tangible people; the other involves an intangible entity. There are some things that can't be proven, like the existence of a god. 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'?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

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

    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.
    Yeah, the oppressor and the oppressed. Step one to justify it all, I know.

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

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    I agree that in hindsight at least it was clearly not a fit home for her and I've looked at enough child abuse cases to know that it unfortunately was not an isolated incident.
    The SS system is by no means perfect and even one child slipping through the net means improvement is needed. It is not some gay conspiracy though. It is just as bad for straight couples too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *pitseleh*)
    Whoa, so all of a sudden this isn't to do with the man in question being gay? You've changed your tune.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    Where have I suggested otherwise? All I've said is that (a) the fact that he may not have been suitable to become an adoptive parent has nothing to do with his sexuality, since you appeared to be suggesting the two were linked in some way and (b) that you can't know how he presented himself to the services involved prior to the adoption. The neighbours heard him shouting at the child, but apparently didn't report it because they didn't think she was in danger. And it's not as though he made those comments about that little girl in front of social services; he made them in private, to his husband. My point is: it's easy in hindsight to say he 'shouldn't be trusted with a child', but all the awful things this man said and did apparently came to light after the event, according to the article you linked to. How exactly was anyone supposed to know that he wasn't to be trusted? As I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, not all abusers have a forensic history. One-off injuries with a plausible mechanism of action don't tend to raise suspicion in the same way as multiple trips to A+E/inconsistent accounts from the parents might. If the clues aren't there when the background checks are made, how are people supposed to predict that something like this might happen before the adoption takes place?

    The very opening line in this thread and everything since proves I'm not suggesting that at all.
    Glad to hear it. When you repeatedly bring the fact that this man is gay into the mix, I presume you can see where the source of the confusion lies.

    It's about the grounds on which those children are trusted to them by the State. Give me an example of a 'similar' case.
    My question before you moved the goalposts was '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?'

    Here, here and here are three cases of heterosexual parents murdering their adopted children. If you think this man's sexuality is relevant in this case, what is the relevance of these people's sexuality to their cases? At least two of them were apparently 'Christians' as well.

    (Original post by zhog)
    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.
    There are a lot of problems with this, but I feel as though you're not really willing to listen to any criticism. Complaining about a lack of 'constructive replies' is particularly risible. 'Relaxation of criteria' isn't something you can 'theorise' about; it either is the case, or it isn't. If you don't have evidence that such relaxation has occurred, it's just prejudicial conjecture. Do you have any proof that it was 'easier' for this man to adopt than it would be for any other couple? You're just making unfounded assertions if not. As stated above: apparently his 'unsuitability' only came to light after the event; the neighbours didn't report anything, and no mention is made of any injuries/presentations to A+E other than that one. Perhaps, when the court case is done, it will turn out that he should have been ringing alarm bells much earlier. The point is that you're still making assumptions that things were missed, that aren't backed up by the information released so far.

    I don't really feel like we're getting anywhere with this, sadly.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.