And has it occured to you that there are only 7 deaths a year because most people are sensible enough not to leave their newborns within reach of dogs?
It is a Jack Russell FFS. All the they had to do was put the baby to rest somewhere high enough to be out of reach of the dog until they assessed how it reacted towards a new born and it was idiotic not to do so.
So now we know they put the baby to rest within reach of the dog?
Do you have a link for that?
Or are you just speculating?
They could have been changing a nappy. Or sitting on the sofa babe in arms. Playing on the floor. Baby lain on knee. In a moses crib by the arm of a chair.
The dog could have seemed perfectly OK with the baby.
My idle speculation is a lot kinder than yours, but is none the less just speculation.
And it is just cruel speculation - unless you have real evidence to the contrary?
It could be that you are right, and they were 'idiotic' and are to blame for the baby's death. But I think it is in very poor taste to state that they are when you have no clue.
As for the second part, well i dont think dogs are that much of a danger to children but i wont get in the way of your outrage
No?
"Dog bites are a major child-health problem in the United Kingdom, exceeding the total combined number of cases of measles, whooping cough and mumps in the UK each year. Dog attacks in the UK are also one of the most common causes of severe facial lacerations in children. Each year, approximately 28,000 facial dog bites are reported in the UK, with just over 19,000 of them requiring plastic surgery"
(Note those last figures must include adults too.)
Link. (Warning: contains gruesome images further down the page.)
You wouldn't have a filthy, slobbering, boisterous dog running around a commercial or restaurant kitchen, why is it suddenly OK in someone's house (sticking their noses into plates of food, knocking things over so that people get scalded with liquids, getting under people's feet...)?
I can see you're going to continue playing silly beggars here, when it's not required.
"Dog bites are a major child-health problem in the United Kingdom, exceeding the total combined number of cases of measles, whooping cough and mumps in the UK each year. Dog attacks in the UK are also one of the most common causes of severe facial lacerations in children. Each year, approximately 28,000 facial dog bites are reported in the UK, with just over 19,000 of them requiring plastic surgery"
(Note those last figures must include adults too.)
Link. (Warning: contains gruesome images further down the page.)
I'd love to know where they get their statistics from - my Trust doesn't record dog bites specifically and certainly doesn't report on facial injuries to any audit body.
ok lets go back to basics. I read this article in the Mail. The problem I have is a dog bite isnt lethal unless it had a disease. To be sure it would be painful but lethal? No I don't think so.
ok lets go back to basics. I read this article in the Mail. The problem I have is a dog bite isnt lethal unless it had a disease. To be sure it would be painful but lethal? No I don't think so.
For real?
Are you aware how soft baby's heads are?
Huge gaps between the skull plates?
And how strong even a smallish dog like a JRT type can be?
ok lets go back to basics. I read this article in the Mail. The problem I have is a dog bite isnt lethal unless it had a disease. To be sure it would be painful but lethal? No I don't think so.
My heart goes out to this family. I have a rescue Jack Russell cross Staffie who is the most loving dog I have ever homed. And she is one jealous bitch. I honestly think it's a breed trait.
Would I leave a child alone with her? No. But that is because one of my Grandparents dogs went for my Gran when she came into wake me years ago. Breed? Jack Russell.
And it is just cruel speculation - unless you have real evidence to the contrary?
It’s not speculation. The baby was obviously within reach of the dog or it couldn't have killed it. if the baby wasn't within reach of the dog then it would be alive. That is fact.
We had a lovely, patient, mongrel Alsatian cross-breed when I was a child. She only ever bit me once during rough play, by accident. However, when my sister was born the dog was never left alone with her. My sister was left in her carry cot on the floor or on the sofa to sleep, and the dog was shut in the kitchen. When the dog was allowed in, supervised, she would occasionally look in the carry cot to sniff and inspect, so as to gradually acclimatise her to my sister. By the time my sister was crawling, the dog had got used to the noise and the extra creature in the house and it was no longer an issue.
The problem is that dogs, however domesticated, are wild at heart and can be unpredictable. Crying babies and dogs possessive of their territory are not a good match. You have to be careful to adjust the dog(s) to the new addition to the family. Grandparents, unfortunately, probably don't realise the impact that a baby will have on a well-established dog.
It's an almost certainly avoidable tragedy, which is frustrating and adds to the sadness of the event. However, without knowing the full situation, we should never pass judgement and I send my sympathies to all involved. What a terrible way to lose a beloved newborn child. It's the sort of thing you have nightmares about as a parent.
And how strong even a smallish dog like a JRT type can be?
If indeed it was the head. Of course if this is real then its a true tragedy. I just have zero faith in the media and doubt the vast majority of whats in the news by default
ok lets go back to basics. I read this article in the Mail. The problem I have is a dog bite isnt lethal unless it had a disease. To be sure it would be painful but lethal? No I don't think so.
Such a tiny body as a week old baby will bleed to death in no time. The ultimate result of the dog's bite was down to the parents' and grandparent's ignorance of what to do with a baby or small child around any dog and of basic First Aid.
Putting a dog to sleep under the circumstances of this "attack" is extremely harsh. The nip from a JRT would at most cause lacerations in a body bigger than that of a child this age.
Call me harsh but I'm finding all the "hole left in our lives" tripe being spouted by the family melodramatic and over the top. The child was a week old.
It’s not speculation. The baby was obviously within reach of the dog or it couldn't have killed it. if the baby wasn't within reach of the dog then it would be alive. That is fact.
You said
" All the they had to do was put the baby to rest somewhere high enough to be out of reach of the dog until they assessed how it reacted towards a new born and it was idiotic not to do so"
Which is what I responded to - both questioning what the adults were doing with the baby - was it 'resting' in reach of the dog? - and whether or not they had assessed the dog.
Neither of which you know. Hence speculation on your part.
Such a tiny body as a week old baby will bleed to death in no time. The ultimate result of the dog's bite was down to the parents' and grandparent's ignorance of what to do with a baby or small child around any dog and of basic First Aid.
Putting a dog to sleep under the circumstances of this "attack" is extremely harsh. The nip from a JRT would at most cause lacerations in a body bigger than that of a child this age.
Call me harsh but I'm finding all the "hole left in our lives" tripe being spouted by the family melodramatic and over the top. The child was a week old.
Really? You have no concept of the bond between a mother and the child she has grown in her belly for nearly a whole year, feeling it move for months and months? Of the utter, overwhelming love a mother feels for her child when she first holds it - all down to a massive hormone rush and designed to instill a desire to protect that helpless creature? Of the days and months spent planning for the arrival of the child - the shopping, the decorating, thinking of names? Then the child finally arrives - the culmination of all that planning and waiting. And then it's snatched away so senselessly and without warning? Wouldn't that leave a hole? That's not harsh, it's incredible.
If indeed it was the head. Of course if this is real then its a true tragedy. I just have zero faith in the media and doubt the vast majority of whats in the news by default
BIB - I am sure I read a crushed skull somewhere.:(
As for the rest, I have little confidence in any detail from the press but I think they can reasonably accurately report on police statements.
Such a tiny body as a week old baby will bleed to death in no time. The ultimate result of the dog's bite was down to the parents' and grandparent's ignorance of what to do with a baby or small child around any dog and of basic First Aid.
Putting a dog to sleep under the circumstances of this "attack" is extremely harsh. The nip from a JRT would at most cause lacerations in a body bigger than that of a child this age.
Call me harsh but I'm finding all the "hole left in our lives" tripe being spouted by the family melodramatic and over the top. The child was a week old.
Call me harsh but I'm finding all the "hole left in our lives" tripe being spouted by the family melodramatic and over the top. The child was a week old.
Obviously you have never lost a newborn, which I am glad for you.
I witnessed the effect it has had on friends and devastation is too small a word.
Such a tiny body as a week old baby will bleed to death in no time. The ultimate result of the dog's bite was down to the parents' and grandparent's ignorance of what to do with a baby or small child around any dog and of basic First Aid.
Putting a dog to sleep under the circumstances of this "attack" is extremely harsh. The nip from a JRT would at most cause lacerations in a body bigger than that of a child this age.
Call me harsh but I'm finding all the "hole left in our lives" tripe being spouted by the family melodramatic and over the top. The child was a week old.
Call me harsh but I'm finding all the "hole left in our lives" tripe being spouted by the family melodramatic and over the top. The child was a week old.
I'm not exactly child friendly but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read :eek:
Jack Russells were bred to be agressive, posessive and to hunt small things that moved. They are ratters and were used to clear farms of infestations! Just because it's become a common family pet doesn't take the risk away of someone being hurt.
No child should be left with a dog unsupervised, ever.
" All the they had to do was put the baby to rest somewhere high enough to be out of reach of the dog until they assessed how it reacted towards a new born and it was idiotic not to do so"
Which is what I responded to - both questioning what the adults were doing with the baby - was it 'resting' in reach of the dog? - and whether or not they had assessed the dog.
Neither of which you know. Hence speculation on your part.
The baby was 8 days old. They obviously did not assess how the dog reacted with the child before letting it anywhere near it because there simply was not enough time to do so.
The dog should not have been within reach of an 8 day old child.
The baby was 8 days old. They obviously did not assess how the dog reacted with the child before letting it anywhere near it because there simply was not enough time to do so.
The dog should not have been within reach of an 8 day old child.
How long does this assessment process take then?
What does it consist of?
Oh can you tell us, where the child and dog were located when this happened, I haven't a bally clue to the specifics of it yet.
Comments
Let's leave the dogs with children everyday for a year, and then take a look at the stats again....
So now we know they put the baby to rest within reach of the dog?
Do you have a link for that?
Or are you just speculating?
They could have been changing a nappy. Or sitting on the sofa babe in arms. Playing on the floor. Baby lain on knee. In a moses crib by the arm of a chair.
The dog could have seemed perfectly OK with the baby.
My idle speculation is a lot kinder than yours, but is none the less just speculation.
And it is just cruel speculation - unless you have real evidence to the contrary?
It could be that you are right, and they were 'idiotic' and are to blame for the baby's death. But I think it is in very poor taste to state that they are when you have no clue.
No?
"Dog bites are a major child-health problem in the United Kingdom, exceeding the total combined number of cases of measles, whooping cough and mumps in the UK each year. Dog attacks in the UK are also one of the most common causes of severe facial lacerations in children. Each year, approximately 28,000 facial dog bites are reported in the UK, with just over 19,000 of them requiring plastic surgery"
(Note those last figures must include adults too.)
Link. (Warning: contains gruesome images further down the page.)
What the FM was responding to was:
I can see you're going to continue playing silly beggars here, when it's not required.
I'd love to know where they get their statistics from - my Trust doesn't record dog bites specifically and certainly doesn't report on facial injuries to any audit body.
For real?
Are you aware how soft baby's heads are?
Huge gaps between the skull plates?
And how strong even a smallish dog like a JRT type can be?
Would I leave a child alone with her? No. But that is because one of my Grandparents dogs went for my Gran when she came into wake me years ago. Breed? Jack Russell.
It’s not speculation. The baby was obviously within reach of the dog or it couldn't have killed it. if the baby wasn't within reach of the dog then it would be alive. That is fact.
The problem is that dogs, however domesticated, are wild at heart and can be unpredictable. Crying babies and dogs possessive of their territory are not a good match. You have to be careful to adjust the dog(s) to the new addition to the family. Grandparents, unfortunately, probably don't realise the impact that a baby will have on a well-established dog.
It's an almost certainly avoidable tragedy, which is frustrating and adds to the sadness of the event. However, without knowing the full situation, we should never pass judgement and I send my sympathies to all involved. What a terrible way to lose a beloved newborn child. It's the sort of thing you have nightmares about as a parent.
If indeed it was the head. Of course if this is real then its a true tragedy. I just have zero faith in the media and doubt the vast majority of whats in the news by default
Such a tiny body as a week old baby will bleed to death in no time. The ultimate result of the dog's bite was down to the parents' and grandparent's ignorance of what to do with a baby or small child around any dog and of basic First Aid.
Putting a dog to sleep under the circumstances of this "attack" is extremely harsh. The nip from a JRT would at most cause lacerations in a body bigger than that of a child this age.
Call me harsh but I'm finding all the "hole left in our lives" tripe being spouted by the family melodramatic and over the top. The child was a week old.
You said
" All the they had to do was put the baby to rest somewhere high enough to be out of reach of the dog until they assessed how it reacted towards a new born and it was idiotic not to do so"
Which is what I responded to - both questioning what the adults were doing with the baby - was it 'resting' in reach of the dog? - and whether or not they had assessed the dog.
Neither of which you know. Hence speculation on your part.
Really? You have no concept of the bond between a mother and the child she has grown in her belly for nearly a whole year, feeling it move for months and months? Of the utter, overwhelming love a mother feels for her child when she first holds it - all down to a massive hormone rush and designed to instill a desire to protect that helpless creature? Of the days and months spent planning for the arrival of the child - the shopping, the decorating, thinking of names? Then the child finally arrives - the culmination of all that planning and waiting. And then it's snatched away so senselessly and without warning? Wouldn't that leave a hole? That's not harsh, it's incredible.
BIB - I am sure I read a crushed skull somewhere.:(
As for the rest, I have little confidence in any detail from the press but I think they can reasonably accurately report on police statements.
just WOW. that`s way way beyond harsh.
Obviously you have never lost a newborn, which I am glad for you.
I witnessed the effect it has had on friends and devastation is too small a word.
WTF :eek: I'd actually call you more than harsh.
I'm not exactly child friendly but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read :eek:
I'm guessing it was a trolling comment as the poster hasn't responded.
No child should be left with a dog unsupervised, ever.
The dog should not have been within reach of an 8 day old child.
Sometimes posts are best ignored IMO.
Serves only to generate more heat than light.
Myself, I probably wouldn't be devastated, but that's just me.
I can certainly understand the effect it could have on others.
How long does this assessment process take then?
What does it consist of?
Oh can you tell us, where the child and dog were located when this happened, I haven't a bally clue to the specifics of it yet.