A Moral Panic has been set in motion, not by the disturbing news that a fox has attacked two children, but by the reporters covering the story. I’ve now seen four news programmes and two news websites asking what should be done to deal with the problem.
A Fox yesterday.
Does anyone have any recollection of this kind of attack ever happening before? The BBC even quote a wildlife expert who says in 40 years he’s only had two reports of such incidents, one turned out to be a dog and the other a cat. Domestic pets injure thousands of people every year, and kill a few too, but no one is calling for all pets to be destroyed.
According to BBC London news there could be 10,000 foxes in London alone. So, on maths alone, it looks like as many as 1 in every 10,000 foxes might be dangerous.
Remarkably, it’s now considered acceptable for serious journalists to enroll the opinions of fuckwittted members of the public by soliciting email from them and then broadcasting the drivel that comes back as if it’s somehow newsworthy content.
I highly recommend this piece on the BBC site, not for the writing, but for the comment from Mr C Quinn of Ilford. Mr Quinn appears to suggest wolves should be put into the environment to deal with the foxes. Mr Quinn even reins himself in slightly for the sheer stupidity of what he’s said, but it hasn’t stopped the BBC from publishing it.
Excellent piece of misguided anthropomorphism in the comments too – ‘foxes kill out of spite’ – yeah – bloody spiteful foxes. I hear they’re really bitchy as well. And racist.
Quite a good, balanced thing about foxes in the Grauniad today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/07/invasion-urban-foxes
I don’t think the comment from the bloke in Ilford was seriously suggesting we use wolves:
“Wolves might get rid of them, but they may be a step too far. ”
Doesn’t sound like a serious suggestion to me.
Yes Dave, as I said, he reins himself in on the idea, leaving the question what’s a serious news broadcaster doing publishing his comment.