INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Fox attack! Really?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Fox attack! Really?

#1 Post by getreal » June 8th, 2010, 3:31 pm

Anyone else think there is something odd about this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... enace.html

sorry, I've completely forgotten how to do the cool linky thing
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#2 Post by getreal » June 8th, 2010, 3:42 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... perts.html

Personally, I'm with Terry Nutkins on this. I also find the fact that the mother had time top make an appearance on Vanessa Feltz radio programme yesterday a little odd. Surely if your children have been mauled by wild animals you would be by their bedside every moment you could?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#3 Post by Alan C. » June 8th, 2010, 5:08 pm

It's odd that niether article mentions whether or not they have any domestic pets in the house.
If you saw a fox attacking your babies wouldn't you hit it with something hard and heavy?
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#4 Post by Dave B » June 8th, 2010, 6:12 pm

I have to admit to feeling a bit unhappy about this when I first heard it on the radio. Perhaps a cub might have been involved but it still seems a bit strange, I would expect panic to make an inexperienced animal to rush around trying all avenues of escape.

I have worked with animals, including in a wild-life rescue centre. About the only time an adult fox would attack was if there was no possible alternative and you were trying to corner and grab it (cricket pads came in handy!) They would repeatedly batter themselves against the wire rather than attack until cornered.

I will watch for developments with interest.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4354
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#5 Post by getreal » June 8th, 2010, 7:30 pm

Terry Nutkins comments on the matter.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 5679?f=rss

I can't understand how the fox had time to maul 2 babies in separate cots. Surely when it attacked the first child, it's screams would immediatly alert the mother who would immediatly rush to chack thing out? How did the fox then have time to get into the other cot and attack the other baby?

Maybe they have a very long staircase?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

Mike
Posts: 124
Joined: December 13th, 2009, 12:58 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#6 Post by Mike » June 8th, 2010, 10:49 pm

It does seem an odd story and certainly does not fit in with the MO of the average wild animal. Call me suspicious but has anyone else considered the timing of this event? Too much coincidence for me!!!!

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#7 Post by Alan C. » June 8th, 2010, 11:10 pm

Mike
Call me suspicious but has anyone else considered the timing of this event? Too much coincidence for me!!!!
I also am suspicious but I don't know what you're refering to, can you elaborate?
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Mike
Posts: 124
Joined: December 13th, 2009, 12:58 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#8 Post by Mike » June 9th, 2010, 12:02 am

Alan C. wrote:
Mike
Call me suspicious but has anyone else considered the timing of this event? Too much coincidence for me!!!!
I also am suspicious but I don't know what you're refering to, can you elaborate?
Alan,

I refer to the Tory Party desire to re-introduce hunting with dogs.

User avatar
Ninny
Posts: 545
Joined: December 13th, 2007, 12:03 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#9 Post by Ninny » June 9th, 2010, 8:41 am

Aha! The plot thickens! I never for a minute believed the fox story.

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#10 Post by jaywhat » June 9th, 2010, 8:49 am

motive?

all very incredible

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#11 Post by Dave B » June 9th, 2010, 10:00 am

The fox hunting motive, if posed seriously, seems somewhat less than credible if the children suffered actual injury.

Is there any real connection between the problem of urban foxes and fox hunting, will we see packs of hunters galloping down our suburban streets!?

OK, I guess any bad fox press is good bad fox press for the pro-hunters! I am all for getting rid of urban foxes where they are a real problem, even though I am normally pro-nature.

I have my suspicions regarding domestic pets, far more likely to attack even family children than a fox entering that far into a house.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#12 Post by Nick » June 9th, 2010, 11:29 am

A couple of thoughts: If I were the emergency services, I'd suspect a dog, long before a fox. Surey they would have examined the injuries to ensure they are consistent with a fox's dentation.

Perhaps a fox would be attracted by the smell of nappies, and attacked when the twins awoke...?

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#13 Post by Marian » June 9th, 2010, 1:39 pm

Dave B wrote: OK, I guess any bad fox press is good bad fox press for the pro-hunters! I am all for getting rid of urban foxes where they are a real problem, even though I am normally pro-nature.
As a good-standing, card-carrying member representing foxes, raccoons and other urban scavangers, I have to object on the grounds of unfair, repeated human encroachment on their territory and the human tendency to leave rubbish everywhere. We politely request that humans give back at least half of what they took and then we'll most likely leave you to yourselves.
:wink:
Nick wrote:A couple of thoughts: If I were the emergency services, I'd suspect a dog, long before a fox. Surey they would have examined the injuries to ensure they are consistent with a fox's dentation.

Perhaps a fox would be attracted by the smell of nappies, and attacked when the twins awoke...?
If it was the nappies, then why aren't babies everywhere being mauled by urban foxes in their prams, in the parks, on swings?
I'm surprised the hospital reports haven't been released to confirm what attacked these girls but I think there's more to the picture than meets the eye. The mother's story (where is dad btw???) doesn't really jive. She claims that she saw the fox, face to face after the girls were severely injured but it just seems way to calmly told to me. There would have been blood everywhere since facial wounds bleed terribly.

I am really curious about what possessed these parents to leave the doors wide open in the first place. What's wrong with this picture?
Transformative fire...

Caterpillar
Posts: 36
Joined: June 5th, 2010, 5:20 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#14 Post by Caterpillar » June 9th, 2010, 2:20 pm

If they were attracted to the smell of dirty nappies, why were the girls attacked on the arms and face? Where I come from, this is not where we put nappies.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#15 Post by Dave B » June 9th, 2010, 2:36 pm

Marian said:
As a good-standing, card-carrying member representing foxes, raccoons and other urban scavangers, I have to object on the grounds of unfair, repeated human encroachment on their territory and the human tendency to leave rubbish everywhere. We politely request that humans give back at least half of what they took and then we'll most likely leave you to yourselves.
Ha! I doubt the last. Humans provide so much in the way of good pickings that them there varmints are going to take advantage whatever! We humans provide a nice supermarket selection for them. :wink:

I am against covering ever large pieces of countryside in tarmac, and thus destroying the natural habitats of these creatures. But they are opportunists that find rich pickings in towns and will always be attracted to them. The consequent breeding success and large populations are not really natural and can lead to problems of disease and injury. The latter due to traffic hits, attacks by humans (including wire snare traps), dogs and possibly cats and, maybe, territorial fights, as my work in the animal rescue centre showed.

Whilst waiting in the entrance to an alley late one night a fox trotted up to me, sniffed my foot then legged it pronto when I moved. I saw another trot, in broad daylight, out of a garden, wait by the side of the road for a gap in the traffic, then cross at a run and enter a garden on the other side. There were no people nearby when it did this.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#16 Post by Nick » June 9th, 2010, 2:37 pm

On this nappy thing, I agree the whole story seems a bit smelly, but if they were attracted to the nappies, they attacked the noisy end when startled. It seems curious to me that the fox attacked both of them, rather than legging it...... Hmmm...

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#17 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » June 9th, 2010, 4:14 pm

Strange events happen sometimes. This event is strange: surprising but not incredible. If the twins have not been mauled by a fox, then presumably forensic evidence will show that in due course. In the meantime, I don't think it is appropriate to speculate.

Hmm. That sounds sniffy and pompous enough. But I'm on a roll, so I'll go further than that. I don't like accusing someone of lying when I have no real reason to do so, and I think it's a great shame that Pauline Koupparis is being, in effect, accused of lying all over the Internet, from Mumsnet to Think Humanism, at a time when she must be extremely distressed about her children. It seems much more probable to me that she is telling the truth than that she is lying. This is not like the "dingo took my baby" case, where there was no physical evidence because the baby's body wasn't found. It's not as though the Koupparises could be covering up their own abuse of their children. It must at least be pretty clear to the police and to the hospital that the children have been attacked by an animal that could be a fox. If the Koupparises owned a cat or a dog, then presumably that would have been reported. If the animal that attacked the twins had been a neighbour's or stray cat or dog, then why would Pauline Koupparis lie about it? The Koupparises must be wishing they hadn't left the patio doors open, but I often keep the French windows that open onto my back garden open on hot evenings because they are the only openings at the back of the house. I don't think this is unusual.

Scepticism is all very well, but there are times when voicing suspicion is inappropriate and insensitive. And I think you've all been watching too many cop shows. [-X

Emma

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#18 Post by jaywhat » June 9th, 2010, 4:24 pm

Take your point Emma and I feel a bit like that, but these things are presumably being said privately - sort of.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#19 Post by Alan H » June 9th, 2010, 5:11 pm

What Emma said.

A fox seems, at least, plausible. If they had claimed it was done by, say, an eagle, then I think suspicions would be aroused. But then again, in the heat of the moment, with your babies in the state they were in, anyone could be excused for mistaking a fox for a cat, dog, etc. However, since a fox is perfectly plausible, we should wait to see if any further details come out [---][/---] particularly before calling for a cull on all urban foxes!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Fox attack! Really?

#20 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » June 9th, 2010, 5:24 pm

jaywhat wrote:Take your point Emma and I feel a bit like that, but these things are presumably being said privately - sort of.
Well, not really. Not just privately, anyway. These comments can easily be found by Googling. The Mumsnet ones are easily found, and they have a lot in common with this thread.

I think part of the problem may have been that John Bryant and Terry Nutkins expressed their doubts about the attack without knowing that Pauline Koupparis had said that she saw the fox. John Bryant has since said that he thinks it must have been a cub attracted by the smell of the nappies, and Nutkins is now referring to the attack as "one isolated incident". But their initial comments have fed the suspicion.

Emma

Post Reply