9 month old twins attacked by fox

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!?

Foxes are seen in the day time, especially when the weather is warmer. Though their most active time is dusk through to dawn.

A fox is quite capable of jumping, and can climb to around eight feet with something in it's mouth. It's not unheard of for foxes to get into some trees.

If it's the same guy the Beeb interviewed, John Bryant, then he certainly knows his stuff when it comes to foxes as I know the man.

Urban foxes are around people all of the time. It's quite believable some of them have learned to temper their fear of us. As for the size of foxes, they're a fair bit bigger than cats as someone said. The heaviest one I've heard of shot was 36 lbs weight, in Wales, though that is far far from normal.

Did a fox do it? I haven't a clue, and honestly I could care less as it still leaves the kids hurt, which isn't the story for the media whores.

Forest Master wrote: »

They left the door wide open because of the warm weather - that's not "unlucky".

The fact that a fox went into their house, up the stairs and mauled their two offspring, is pretty fcuking unlucky. Don't you think?

Some people live very very sheltered lives it seems. I mean, thinking a fox can't get into a coth is laughable...

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Has anyone verified the whereabouts of Gerry and Kate McCann?

Just interested.

WTF?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your opinion doesn't matter though, not in court.

How exactly can you equate it to family abuse? Bite marks from a fox. Think about it.

It's quite possible that it was a dog, but the parents said they seen the fox in the room, why would they say otherwise? To protect the family pet of course, but I seriously doubt it. "Our children just got mauled by our pet dog, what will we say to make sure our dog isn't put down..." Yea, I can see it happening... :rolleyes:

Who did I put down? I challanged peoples lack of knowledge of foxes, stating opinions as fact, scare mongering and talking utter rubbish. This is exactly how rumours start and how ignorance grows. It wouldn't be difficult to prove it was a fox if any hairs were left, which is quite possible. Depending on the bite marks, they can check that also.

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Jayus, only 9 month old.
Very very unusual attack. Was the fox destroyed?

No, but another fox was caught in a trap close to the house. They don't know if it's the same fox or not.