davieboy Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Why is a further investigation required, when both the mum & the dad saw the fox in the room?!? The fox didn't even run away when the parents came into the room. A further investigation would be a waste of time & money! Both the mum & dad say they saw the fox in the room. Perhaps in the same way that the parents saw their son in the hellium weather balloon last year!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1 Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Why is it so hard for people to believe that a fox could have done this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hels1977 Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Why is a further investigation required, when both the mum & the dad saw the fox in the room?!? The fox didn't even run away when the parents came into the room. A further investigation would be a waste of time & money! Firstly because I (and many others) are not foolish enough to blindly believe everything they read. Secondly, two children were badly injured - it would be stupid to believe like gospel two eye whitnesses who were both panicked and obviously upset (rightly so). Finally there is overwealming evidence to say that foxes don't eat babies, it doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Foxes are bad, 'mkay? The do make nice biscuits though:). This is not the first case of a fox attacking a child though. BBC news reported of a similar case back in 2002. Now with the banning of the only effective method of controlling fox numbers in the wild, numbers of foxes around the country and especially in towns will rise. Hunting foxes was allowed in 2002. How do you think this incident would have been avoided if there was no hunting ban in place (there was no hunting ban in 2002 - when the last attack took place) Now that would be a sight, liveried huntsmen hurdling traffic bollards in Southey Green in pursuit of an urban fox. There was a case a few years ago when a hunt chased a fox through a primary school (out Warncliffe way) a few minutes before morning break. Wonder what the rabbit or rat feel like when old foxy gets them, Hang about foxy this is hardly humane, eating me whilst still alive is not on you know. Do the people who hunt/want to hunt the foxes actually eat the fox? No? Another invalid comparison by our backward peter. if its the hounds they are doing exactly what the fox does. You like comparing apples & oranges, don't you. The hounds are domesticated animals, whereas the fox is a wild animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yog Sothoth Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Because foxes don't do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hels1977 Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Why is it so hard for people to believe that a fox could have done this? Because it doesn't make sense mojo, the link here pretty much sums up the confusion: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/07/urban-fox-attack-london At the end of the day, 2 babies were seriously hurt, I really would have thought it was in everyone's best interests to treat this seriously, examine the wounds and go from there. More questions need to be asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Why is it so hard for people to believe that a fox could have done this? I don’t thing people are doubting that it could be done but the circumstances just seem so strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1 Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 A fox is a wild predatory animal. They kill animals for food. Having seen the mess one made of a neighbours cat (which was better prepared to defend itself than two babies) I can quite easily believe that a fox is capable of it. I agree that these events were bizarre and the probability of it happening in the tens of billions to one, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daven Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 I would question why a downstairs door was left open at 10pm with sleeping children upstairs - the adults are to blame not the fox/dog/dingo or whatever 'animal' attacked the children. To repeat, why would loving parents leave their sleeping children upstairs with an outside door open at 10pm - it would be dark. What were they doing whilst the alleged fox savaged the most important and precious things in their lives? Presumably, unless there were 2 foxes, it would have savaged one child (presumably it would have made some attempt at crying or making some noise) and then moved on to the next child???? Something definitely doesn't add up........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Why is it so hard for people to believe that a fox could have done this? I can't understand this either! I love foxes & hate fox hunting, but I think this is the work of a fox! An urban fox that has over the years built up a tolerance to humans & is no longer afraid of them. Why would the parents lie for a start?? If it was a dog that attacked the children, wouldn't the parents want to find out who the dog belongs to & get them prosecuted & the dog put down?? Of cause they would! Even if they were pro fox hunting, surely they wouldn't lie & blame a fox! Some people just love a conspiracy don't they?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.