Let’s not start building a defence case for ‘Foxy Loxy’
According to the “experts” it is highly unusual for a fox to enter a house and attack a small child.
Some “experts” stress the highly unusual aspect of it all to such an extent that you’re left with the unspoken inference that the parents of those two beautiful little twin girls savaged by the animal must almost have imagined it all.
They didn’t. Their little girls’ injuries are real and horrific.
And however big a fan of Mr Foxy Loxy you are (and I’m one), the stark truth is that the fox is guilty.
Granted so, too, are humans in a looser sense. We’ve encroached upon the fox’s territory.
In urban areas we encourage him to breed with easy access to dumped food. We’ve started to view him fondly, a bit like a semi-domesticated dog.
But he isn’t. A fox is a wild animal. Beautiful doubtless. But also capable of turning nasty. The average well-fed household cat is capable of doing harm to a baby. So why the bewilderment that a fox could attack? The internet hysterics venting their fury in favour of foxy are especially despicable.
There are overtones of the case of Lindy Chamberlain and the killer dingo to which “animal lovers” back then also gave the benefit of the doubt.
We don’t need to go on a wild fox cull. We do need a bit of realism though that they’re not harmless bundles of reddish fluff.