Two baby twin sisters are seriously ill in hospital after apparently being attacked by a fox while sleeping in their cots in east London.
karlog wrote: » There's only one solution. We have to kill every fox within a 50 mile radius.
up for anything wrote: » Seems like it was true
It is not clear whether the fox captured was the animal involved in the attack, which apparently entered the girls' home through a ground-floor door which had been left open because of the heat.
stupidusername wrote: » I thought there was something a little odd about this story. On Sky it was said that twins were attacked in their beds. I thought, if they're 9 months old, why would they be in beds? But obviously that could just be Sky News being Sky News. So assuming they were actually in cots, and the idea of a cot is to be secure, so the child can't roll / fall out, and so are fairly high up at the sides. Another thing that's odd about this is, why would one fox attack one child, then go to attack the other? This just seems weird to me. If he was looking for food (sorry to be gross but..) why wouldn't he just continue trying to eat the first one, rather than trying to eat the second one? So whatever about them getting attacked, it's not nice, unfortunate etc etc. But now on Sky News they're talking about getting the councils to take control of the fox population. A journalist on there a little while ago was saying it's been a problem for a while, and obviously needs to be sorted. They need to be treated like vermin, cause they're pests etc etc. This attitude pisses me off. Why do humans not get how things work? -There's too many of us, and we're the ones that create these problems -We don't own the world, so why is it our right to kill off any animal / species when it becomes inconvenient to deal with? The human population is what needs to be controlled not that of other animals...! When will they get it!?
silverharp wrote: » it seems the family were just bloody unlucky.
Forest Master wrote: » They left the door wide open because of the warm weather - that's not "unlucky".
johngalway wrote: » Urban foxes are around people all of the time.
silverharp wrote: » and your an expert on fox behaviour how? ring up one of country cousins if you have and ask them what happens if a fox gets into a hen house. The last thing a fox will do is select the tastiest hen and head off into the night
General Zod wrote: » the pro-hunting lobby will have a field day with this.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Apparently they do this with the intention of burying the excess for later when food might be scarce. They don't hunt for sport. If this story is true, obviously it's terrible that children were hurt but it's just one of those freak things. I mean, who leaves their door open at night with children in the house anyway? The scaremongering going on about this is disgraceful but to be expected from the likes of Sky News et al. The Daily Mail is practically giving a guide of how to kill one without getting into trouble with the law. Disgusting imo I live in London and do see foxes at night quite regularly but they certainly aren't 'fearless' as some sections of the media are reporting. They always run away if approached. I would have thought if they were to venture into someones house they would make sure to stay near an exit so they could bolt easily if disturbed? I do think there's more to this story
Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: » Why? The story doesn't suit your agenda? Also, how can you get in trouble with the law for killing a fox???
The Daily Mail wrote: But legislation brought in by Labour and aimed at foxhunting enthusiasts makes it an offence to subject the animals to abuse or ill-treatment, which includes pursuing and finishing them off with dogs You can still shoot, snare and catch foxes in cage traps, but caution must be exercised to stay within the law. You can shoot foxes only with firearms, not crossbows for example, and neither live nor dead livestock can be used to bait traps, to avoid spreading diseases or further cruelty. The poisoning and gassing of foxes is also illegal.
Fitzcaraldo wrote: » Has anyone verified the whereabouts of Gerry and Kate McCann? Just interested.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Just because I think that this story seems very strange and there is possibly more to it I have an agenda? According to said article on the Daily Mail site (I know, not the most reliable source), it is an offence to subject a fox to abuse or ill-treatment. I think certain methods of killing are not allowed
Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: » Well you have been given the actual facts and reasons, you have been told what has happened but refuse to believe it as you have your own thoughts and opinions on the matter, which hold no weight as what happened... happened. The story is strange, but a lot of things are strange, doesn't mean there is more to it.
Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: » WTF? I think that law would extend to most animals. Well you have been given the actual facts and reasons, you have been told what has happened but refuse to believe it as you have your own thoughts and opinions on the matter, which hold no weight as what happened... happened. The story is strange, but a lot of things are strange, doesn't mean there is more to it.
Truley wrote: » Sky News is not a source for actual facts and reasons, it is not a reliable or honest news source and should never be treated as such. Yes the story is strange, very strange. Even a person with the most vague knowledge of foxes and how they live would agree this is a very unlikely thing to happen. There is always more to a story than what you are told. People should never stop questioning the news that is fed to them.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Well in fairness unless you were actually there then you don't know that what happened happened really. The same goes for any story you hear about in the news. There might be more to it, there might not be. Everyone is entitled to form an opinion based on the details available. In this case, most of the facts available outside the tabloids provided by people who are experts in the field suggest that this is not normal behaviour for foxes.
Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: » What about the facts comming straight from an eyewitnesses mouth? Lets ignore them, shall we? That way we can make up our own stories and begin the witch hunt as soon as possble. Again, nobody is saying it is common, but doesn't mean it cannot happen. An opinion? You mean conspiracy theory, right? Nobody said this is normal, but just because it is not normal does not mean it is not true.
ceadaoin. wrote: » Conspiracy theory? Eh....no! All I'm saying is I'm keeping an open mind, I never said it cannot happen just that my feeling is there's more to this. Slightly off topic but eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Just look at some of the eye witness descriptions in the Jean Charles de Menezes case.
Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: » Yet cases are won and lost on accounts of eye witnesses. The mother of the children, and father said they spotted the fox in the room. That cuts out the accusations of the family dog attacking the children, it also debunks any "child abuse" accusations, which were absurd to begin with.
Truley wrote: » How does that cut it out? Do you not think it's possible the parents lied to cover up an accident with the family pet or even deliberate child abuse? When they did a post-mortem on baby P they found dog bite marks, it can happen. I'm not saying it did happen, it's just a (conspiricy :P) theory. You don't have to mock people who don't automatically believe everything they see and hear on tv. If foresnic evidence can prove it was a fox then I'll be a little more accepting, 'eye witness' accounts don't cut it for me.
Standard Toaster wrote: » Jayus, only 9 month old. Very very unusual attack. Was the fox destroyed?
