|
Location: South Oxfordshire, England
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,386
|
|
Originally Posted by
DevilDogz
The animal rights fanatics who waged a hate campaign against the fox attack family can be revealed today by the Daily Mail (and, oh yes, they're almost all on benefits).
More here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rotection.html
Animal right fanatics like this IMO are generally people in need of some strong medication, just look at PeTA
I will write a post, I will though admit I didn't watch the show as I didn't know it was on.
Originally Posted by
Mahooli
I think they are lying.
Well good job that you are not the judge and jury then.
Originally Posted by
Mahooli
There is no way a 4 month old cub could have caused the injuries claimed. The puncture woounds were deep and relatively large, a cub at 4 months would still have baby teeth or losing them.
Four months is a guess, unless the right fox was caught and identified through DNA tests no-one will know what Fox it is, so no-one can give the correct age of the Fox.
Originally Posted by
Mahooli
The wounds also seem only to carry an impression of the canines (if we believe they are animal bites) yet not any of the other teeth, again very odd.
If an animal grabbed an arm and bit down so hard as to cause the damage seen then there would have been a complete set of teeth marks on the top and bottom of the arm yet the damage was only on the top. I defy anyone to bite deeply into something without using both top and bottom jaw.
Well looking at my own hand where I was bitten mainly on the fingers, guess what you can only really see where the canines went through, I have one large scar on the bottom of one of my fingers and a smaller one on top, guess I'm lying and it wasn't a dog or anything canine
the childs arms would be small, so IMO its easy for the wounds to carry most of the canine teeth in them as again IMO based on personal experience with a dog where my skin was sliced by the canine teeth, but we wasn't there, we can't tell how the animal bit the poor children, but experts who can look at them have a lot better idea about identifing the bites, are they lying too?
Originally Posted by
Mahooli
Also, as you say, the fox apparently walked past food left lying out, that simply wouldn't have happened, foxes would take the easiest way out.
They never mentioned that the fox they saw was covered in blood, which there must have been some evidence of given the injuries.
The fact that a young cub was scratching at the door to come in I believe that they may have been raising a cub and it was an easy scapegoat when the incident occured.
The Fox could of looked at the food, the Fox might of also smelt more food in the house and gone investigating before finding two young children who were vunerable.
Originally Posted by
Mahooli
I personally think that their other child may have been involved and they made this story up to prevent them being investigated by social services. It is well known that sibling rivalary occurs to a greater or lesser extent. After all why was a 4 year old still up at 10pm. Surely he should have been in bed at the same time as the babies? Why also did he 'hide' from the fox which he had no idea was there?
Why did the parents leave him downstairs to attend to the other children, why were both mauled before the parents took note, surely, given the severity of the injuries one would have been screaming it's head off before the fox went for the other one.
I think that the doctors would of looked at the marks on the children if there was any concern they would of called socail services whether they were told they were from a Fox or not
, also the parents could of just thought that the children were stirring and gone up to settle them back down to begin with, I mean who would imagine that their children were screaming because a Fox was attacking them? The boy could of then been left down there in the panic of the moment.
Originally Posted by
Mahooli
The father is apparently also an employee of the production company that did the film so was all one sided. I have put in my complaint to the BBC about that bit!
As for 6 foxes dying then that isn't so. They were apparently all vixens so if they all had cubs as well then a lot more than 6 died!
Becky
I think its sad how you think, IMO it doesn't matter where the father worked, it was a story that they would of investigated anyway.
Originally Posted by
Mahooli
I don't believe it was a dog either. I think they were stabbed with something. Too much doesn't add up.
Becky
That is vindictive, offensive to the family, and said without any substance, you've seen photos, and already think that the family is lying. I just hope that no-one you know and love is attacked by a wild animal and you don't have people saying that you are lying about it.
Originally Posted by
rune
Doctors can tell the difference between bite wounds and stab wounds!
rune
Didn't you know medical degrees mean nothing compared to a biast person looking at photos
Originally Posted by
werewolf
I did not watch it. I do not know if it was a fox or not but I still stand by the fact that living where they live it was
stupid to keep their back door open like that, at that time of night. Of course people should be able to keep doors open etc but in
OUR WORLD it does not work like that, unfortunately. It is unsafe out there and anything could've happened to those children and
SOMETHING did.
If I lived in a house my doors would be open right now, nice to know that would be stupid, should I also shut my windows in my flat?
Originally Posted by
Moobli
I also meant to say that the couple in no way deserve the abuse they are obviously receiving though
They have been through enough trauma without strangers accusing them of staging the attack themselves
I agree, I think anyone who is causing more stress to the family and starting conspiracy stories should hang their head in shame.
Originally Posted by
Mahooli
I've just had as close a look as I can at the scars left on the children, not many pictures available, and I'm still not convinced.
ETA I don't agree with the abuse the parents recieved but I still have a right to question the validity of what they say.
Becky
No-one at that point I believe would think of grabbing a camera, I think that the childrens welfare is more important at that point!
Also I think that if you don't agree with the abuse the parents are getting you should apoligise for all that you have said, that they are lieing, that their children have been stabbed, that they are trying to keep social services off their backs, IMHO you are no better then those who have been writing abuse to them, infact maybe worse, as you are writing things with no way of backing up what you are saying on a public forum, where anyone can read what you write, about a family who have just been through a terrible experience, and seem to see nothing wrong with it?