Who are the real animals?

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

After watching the programme last night I'm still not convinced it's a fox!!
Becky

I watched the last bit of the programme, Shame I missed it.
But the bit that stuck out for me was the fox walked passed a BBQ of food, I just thought that was a little odd.

Im not saying their lying - Just something with the foxes behaviour seemed odd to me. Them poor babies are in a right state though

6 Foxes have been destroyed..

I dont think it was a fox either. Nothing rings true to fox behaviour. I definitely think theres far more to it. x

I think they are lying. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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

Ah, the Daily Mail...
Britains answer to Marvel Comics

Hmm yes I wasnt sure about the fox thing - and thought it was a bit interesting that he worked for the TV
I dont agree they should have been getting hate mail and stuff, IF it is true then that woudl be horrible for them
If this stops people trying to tame foxes then that is a great thing
But so sad for all them foxes that had to die! Why are so many in cities?? cos we feed em and leave enough junk about that they make a good living close to humans

IF it was a fox then it must have been pretty tame! The foxes round here are cowerds who get beaten up by the local cats all the time

They didn't say it was a 4 mth cub---the 'wildlife expert' did. The same one who originally said it could never happen---so he was being careful and trying to make his original comments stand up a little.

If I had baby twins and a 4 year old I would make sure he had time alone even if it was late at night. I would also think that given the screaming and shouting it was a given that he would hide TBH. He must have been terrified.

The police were happy given the blood splatter etc that it was an animal and the fact that a fox was trying to get in after the event in spite of all the noise seems to indicate that it, at least, was not frightened away.

I don't understand why people feel it couldn't have been a fox---would they rather it had been a dog?

As for being human teeth----the difference in bite is obvious and would have shown up instantly at the hospital.

rune

I don't believe it was a dog either. I think they were stabbed with something. Too much doesn't add up.
Becky

Whats wrong with it being one sided the bloke was giving his story , and dont forget there was a leading expert on the TV programee, that also agreed a fox is capable of doing that damage.



What doesn`t add up Becky!!
No one believes it was a fox, they are making it up, now the parents must have done it, now we even have a knife )or something) attack it just gets better.

Would you all be so suspect if it was a dog that had done it. the family dont have one so that theory is out,

Maybe the father being a production manager was just looking for a subject to make a programme about, and get some ratings for his company, by mutilating his children to get publicity Oh no sorry, its was their other child!!!!!

So the fox walked past a BBQ, why woudl that make it unbelievable

I dont think anyone has said the fox was looking for food, or hungry , simply it had wondered into the house (which happens) and for what ever reason attacked the babies.


I cant beleive that some are so insensitive to the damage caused to two babies , one of which will have to have treatment for a very long time... they would much rather see it as "poor fox" , glad I am not one of them,

Seems the exteme views are not restricted to those in the article , plenty of them here too!!!