So so sad...

West · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7163696.stm

What is a 16 year old doing taking care of a baby un-supervised.. then giving the baby to a SEVEN year old... then the Rotty snatches the baby off her.. un-believeably sad..

Biohazard · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:13

I thought you meant our mod their for a second!

badbob · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:14

The parents fault for having a dangerous animal around babies..

Muffin` · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:34

badbob said:
The parents fault for having a dangerous animal around babies..

I hope they get prosecuted, have thier benefits taken away or, something.

Duke · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:36

Yes very sad loss. How people can let any animal near young children is beyond me. They can react to anything without warning.

doofer · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:38

Such a needless death and what's really the sad thing is, it'll happen again, people just cannot seem to realise you cannot leave dogs of any kind unsupervised with children about.

"andy" · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:40

West said:
What is a 16 year old doing taking care of a baby un-supervised.. .

say that to all the 15/16 yr old mothers :/

tragic story

West · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:45

"andy" said:
say that to all the 15/16 yr old mothers :/

tragic story

True.. mis-worded that I suppose, but they weren't even the kids parents.. and the girl that was holding it was 7...

neoboy · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:50

Nothing wrong with leaving kids with 16 year olds, but it was wrong to keep that dog in the house.

Gilly · 29 Dec 2007 at 18:59

neoboy said:
Nothing wrong with leaving kids with 16 year olds, but it was wrong to keep that dog in the house.

They didn't, apparently it was locked in the garden.

Unfortunately one of the kids went out to pet it without locking the door.

eLbot · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:01

"andy" said:
say that to all the 15/16 yr old mothers :/

The 16 year old is one of the aunts, not the mother.

“The boy's parents were at a nearby property at the time.”

Gilly · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:03

eLbot said:
The 16 year old is one of the aunts, not the mother.

He didn't say it was. His meaning was clear, someone said not to leave kids with a 16 year old, and he was saying there are plenty of parents of that age.

Besides:

The boy's family, including his teenage mother, are now receiving support from specially-trained officers, he said.

eLbot · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:05

Gilly said:
He didn't say it was. His meaning was clear, someone said not to leave kids with a 16 year old, and he was saying there are plenty of parents of that age.

Sorry my mistake. I shouldn’t be trying to correct people for misreading the article when I can’t even read forum posts.

Robosapien · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:14

[DW]Muffin;10772218 said:
I hope they get prosecuted, have thier benefits taken away or, something.

I hope another baby dies. That'll learn 'em.

Jon Frost · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:16

Well if we keep getting these events, it wont be long before dog keeping is restricted. Its obvious that there was a problem with the dogs upbringing. Muppets like these people shouldnt be allowed to keep powerful animals.

Clinkz · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:23

badbob said:
The parents fault for having a dangerous animal around babies..

Rottweilers and dogs in general are not remotely dangerous however young children do not understand certain actions may provoke it into attacking. I agree that they should not have let a young child be alone with the dog however i strongly protest your use of the term 'dangerous'.

I would probably be dangerous to if you came up to me and repeatedly poked me in the eye going 'gah blah blar yaaaaah!'. However, I know the toddler doesnt know any better which is a concept the dog cannot possibly understand.

Jon Frost · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:25

Powerful is probably a better term than 'dangerous'?

Gilly · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:27

Jon Frost said:
Powerful is probably a better term than 'dangerous'?

Not for Rottweilers, no. Dogs in general I'd probably agree.

TriedandTested · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:28

Clinkz said:
Rottweilers and dogs in general are not remotely dangerous however young children do not understand certain actions may provoke it into attacking. I agree that they should not have let a young child be alone with the dog however i strongly protest your use of the term 'dangerous'.

I would probably be dangerous to if you came up to me and repeatedly poked me in the eye going 'gah blah blar yaaaaah!'. However, I know the toddler doesnt know any better which is a concept the dog cannot possibly understand.

Of course dogs are dangerous. They're animals, have teeth and don't understand the difference between right and wrong.

Clinkz · 29 Dec 2007 at 19:29

Jon Frost said:
Powerful is probably a better term than 'dangerous'?

Im thinking more along the lines of unpredictable. You can slap push a dog away a hundred times and he would probably think it was just a game, but say that on a different day he was grumpy, the action could provoke him to respond harder than he means to.