Cherish Your Foxes By Simon Barnes Summary
43 Chester Avenue
Richmond
WT2 6RA
Dear Sir,
I am writing in response to your recent article by Simon Barnes 'Cherish your foxes as status symbols'. Firstly I find it quite shocking that such an esteemed paper such as yours would print what seems to be heavily biased views on the urban fox, as seen through the eyes of someone who was obviously under the influence of too much alcohol. Secondly, if Mr Barnes was to leave Suffolk a but more often then he would certainly loose his obscured idea that London has been concreted over. He himself describes the 'wonderfully and suburbanly verdant' garden in Mortlake, that just happens to be placed in between Richmond Park, Chiswick and Kew garden. His idea of London is as biased as his love for the urban fox.
We all know we are more likely to see an urban fox than one that resides in the countryside. So just like a Londoner being excited about seeing a badger in Suffolk, Mr Barns was excited by seeing a fox. However unlike Londoners, Mr Barnes can go home to Suffolk leaving behind what is becoming the dangerous, damaging and very aggressive urban fox. Mr Barnes states 'they are not coming in'. They can't, there's no room. We have over ten thousand wild urban foxes in London. I know this because I am one of the 'seventy percent of Londoners' who see a fox everyday. …show more content…
Or Nick and Paulin Koupparis who's twins were savaged in their own cot in their own house. After one attack in Victoria park the police told to the public to 'keep their doors and windows closed for their own safety'. Does Mr Barnes realise that the urban fox causes problems even at the highest level, and I'm not just talking about Zanan Rahma's report about the fox living on the 72nd floor of the shard building. No, I'm talking about our Mayor Boris Johnson joking suggesting that fox hunting should be 'legalised in the
Richmond
WT2 6RA
Dear Sir,
I am writing in response to your recent article by Simon Barnes 'Cherish your foxes as status symbols'. Firstly I find it quite shocking that such an esteemed paper such as yours would print what seems to be heavily biased views on the urban fox, as seen through the eyes of someone who was obviously under the influence of too much alcohol. Secondly, if Mr Barnes was to leave Suffolk a but more often then he would certainly loose his obscured idea that London has been concreted over. He himself describes the 'wonderfully and suburbanly verdant' garden in Mortlake, that just happens to be placed in between Richmond Park, Chiswick and Kew garden. His idea of London is as biased as his love for the urban fox.
We all know we are more likely to see an urban fox than one that resides in the countryside. So just like a Londoner being excited about seeing a badger in Suffolk, Mr Barns was excited by seeing a fox. However unlike Londoners, Mr Barnes can go home to Suffolk leaving behind what is becoming the dangerous, damaging and very aggressive urban fox. Mr Barnes states 'they are not coming in'. They can't, there's no room. We have over ten thousand wild urban foxes in London. I know this because I am one of the 'seventy percent of Londoners' who see a fox everyday. …show more content…
Or Nick and Paulin Koupparis who's twins were savaged in their own cot in their own house. After one attack in Victoria park the police told to the public to 'keep their doors and windows closed for their own safety'. Does Mr Barnes realise that the urban fox causes problems even at the highest level, and I'm not just talking about Zanan Rahma's report about the fox living on the 72nd floor of the shard building. No, I'm talking about our Mayor Boris Johnson joking suggesting that fox hunting should be 'legalised in the