# KFC Scam



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

We (to include myself) have been hitting things a bit heavy on a couple threads so I thought perhaps we can move onto a lighter debate. I'm sure most of you have heard of this by now. A 3 year old girl named Victoria (same age and name as my youngest) was attacked by her grandfather's pitbulls. The guy had 10 of them (I've never seen the reason why be it his hobby or that he was breeder). The facial injuries were quite severe. The grandmother claimed that she took the girl to KFC and that they were asked to leave due to the girls disfigured face. These claims were posted to Facebook. KFC got Wind of the post and the whole thing blew up. After 2 investigations, there is no proof of the 2 ever being there. KFC has played the "good guy" on this from the start and pledged $30'000 for the girl's treatment. Instead of suing the family for libel, they have stuck to this even though they now are "pretty certain" the event never took place 

a few thoughts....


Who owns 10 of any type of dog and why? Someone living in a trailer doesn't really seem to have the proper facilities to be considered a decent breeder of such animals (Obviously containment of the animals was less than optimal).

Is it just me, or did KFC public relations play this one perfectly? They took the time to notice a serious complaint, they responded with a promise to investigate, they promised money to help the little girl and they follwed through although it was found through 2 independant agencies (albeit paid by them) that they had no fault whatsoever in the matter. The 30'000 is almost nothing to KFC (compared to the bad press initially given over the situation) and they now look a bit like heroes. While there are no KFCs in my area, I myself am left with the feeling that I should buy a bucket of chicken from them for supporting the child while denying the parents/grandparents claim.

I like to think that the family wasn't after KFC versus perhaps playing off of the public's emotions for medical donations. While I think this is still wrong, it seems that they perhaps told a "little lie" in order to help the girl and didn't realize that it would snowball into an avalanche of global press and the scrutiny of a International restaurant chain. I could be wrong, perhaps they wanted a chance to sue KFC, but I haven't seen anything that really states so. 

If Universal health care existed in the U.S. would this situation even exist?

If the family was indeed trying to scam KFC and there were limits on lawsuits, would these type of situations exist? While the situations are a bit different, spilling coffee on your lap doesn't really mean that McDonalds owes you a few $million. Do we not see another snowball effect here where people come to think that a way of making money is to file claims that are perhaps less than realistic? If I collected $millions everytime I spilled coffee on myself, I'd be a freaking billionaire by now. On the other hand, as 32R&R stated on the obamacare thread, if something serious does happen, we need to have the "victim's" healthcare and life covered (a $50'000 settlement won't cover someone that has been disabled for life). 

I myself could find a bit of forgiveness to the situation....IF...IF...IF... The family was actually doing this to aid their little girl... actaully for the little girl.... over some type of financial gain for themselves. Should they have no ways or means to treat their children, and the only way to get help was to play the sympathy card, the good natured part of me thinks that it might be understandable. If you were forced into the situation and had no other choice to help your children, you might try something similiar. Again, I am not making exuses for these people, but what parent under worst case scenarios wouldn't lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order to protect their child?

These are obviously rather small time and small minded people. Who in their right mind wouldn't consider that video cameras are everywhere in this day and age? If I were in London and an "emergency" occured, I would probably just pee my pants over finding an alley because I damn well know that you can't move from one block to the next without being filmed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Kentucky Fried Chicken latterly trades as KFC after being legally obliged to change their name. This is because the U.S Supreme Court & the FDA ruled that the genetically modified centipedean creatures (two hundred legs and breast sections) that were being factory farmed by the company could no longer be described as 'chickens'. 

Reliable scientific research has indicated a direct correlation between IQ and consumption of KFC - to be clear, people with less able minds tend to ingest KFC regularly.

It's finger lickin' good.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Kentucky Fried Chicken latterly trades as KFC after being legally obliged to change their name. This is because the U.S Supreme Court & the FDA ruled that the genetically modified centipedean creatures (two hundred legs and breast sections) that were being factory farmed by the company could no longer be described as 'chickens'.
> 
> Reliable scientific research has indicated a direct correlation between IQ and consumption of KFC - to be clear, people with less able minds tend to ingest KFC regularly.
> 
> It's finger lickin' good.


Ha. Perhaps that explains why I have never seen a KFC in Switzerland. To be honest though, when I first came here, there was only one McDonalds in Lausanne and that number has expanded to 5 or 6. We also had a burger king pop up in the last year. We even have a Domino's Pizza although I'm not sure how it survives here as the cost is idiotic ($30 for a pizza) and the pizza is a cra**y tasting as it is in the U.S. Needless to say, we are flooded with several Starbucks in the area nowadays and I noticed that on the mainline trains to major cities, they even have a "Starbucks cabin"


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Kentucky Fried Chicken latterly trades as KFC after being legally obliged to change their name. This is because the U.S Supreme Court & the FDA ruled that the genetically modified centipedean creatures (two hundred legs and breast sections) that were being factory farmed by the company could no longer be described as 'chickens'.
> 
> Reliable scientific research has indicated a direct correlation between IQ and consumption of KFC - to be clear, people with less able minds tend to ingest KFC regularly.
> 
> It's finger lickin' good.


What is even funnier than your story is the idea that so many people can be so naive as to believe it (or one of its numerous preceding variants).

https://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/kfc.asp


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> What is even funnier than your story is the idea that so many people can be so naive as to believe it (or one of its numerous preceding variants).
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/kfc.asp


I would guess that Shaver was being a bit sarcastic. He did mention "200 legs and 200 breasts" which would be absurd to anyone that gave it a moment's thought. I wouldn't doubt however that KFC has paid a few R&D dollars to explore cheaper breeding options for their supply... Would you? I don't mean 200 legs but more as to genetic engineering that allows perhaps higher weight to feed ratios, etc... It's just a thought versus fact but all other major companies pay for R&D for higher profits and therefore I wouldn't think KFC has ignored it either.

Of course most fast food R&D dépends more as to what chemicals compunds taste better to the general public compared to the other. TAco Bell was taken to task and therefore released their "recipe" to the general public. While most of it was indeed beef, there was a good portion of chemical taste substitutes as well (if memory serves me correct).


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> What is even funnier than your story is the idea that so many people can be so naive as to believe it (or one of its numerous preceding variants).
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/kfc.asp


My understanding has always been that KFC does use chicken pieces - tumours in fact that have been removed from diseased birds.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Regardless of what the breeders or owners of fighting dogs say, the fact remains, proved by science that any behavioral trait bred into any type of dog (regardless of breed) by man for a specific purporse or acquired naturally by any dog or other animal, no matter how quickly or how slowly, can in most cases never be removed by man, evolution may do so, but that takes thousands of years.

When a chimp has tasted meat just once it becomes an omnivore immediately, no going back.

So saying that such dogs are safe or usually safe is a crock of BS! And owning ten is simply irresponsible. Importing them, breeding them, selling them, and owning them if unneutered has thankfully been illegal in the UK for many years. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Amendment Act 1997.

Under the 1991 Act (and as amended in 1997) it is illegal to own any Specially Controlled Dogs without specific exemption from a court. The dogs have to be and kept on a lead in public, they must be registered and insured, neutered, tattooed and receive . The Act also bans the , sale and exchange of these dogs, even if they are on the Index of Exempted Dogs.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Four types in particular were identified by the Act:


 (The English is not on the list)



The Act also covers cross breeds of the above four types of dog. Dangerous dogs are classified by 'type', not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is prohibited under the Act will depend on a judgement about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited 'type'. This assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court.
The Act applies in England, Wales and Scotland,[SUP][2][/SUP] with The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 having a similar effect in Northern Ireland.[SUP][3][/SUP]


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

But of course we are off topic... The girl only orders a sweet tea (which contains about 70% of refined sugar) and some "sweet potatoes" (that are infused with "Brown sugar").... Nothing at KFC is healthy (nor is anything from the fast food chains) but the fact is that these folks ordered nothing from these restaurants s per the cameras


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Off topic? I won't stand for it! :mad2: 















:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Thankfully, I haven't eaten at a KFC since the mid-90s.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Langham said:


> My understanding has always been that KFC does use chicken pieces - tumours in fact that have been removed from diseased birds.


I conducted a brief Google search and could not find anything corroborative.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I conducted a brief Google search and could not find anything corroborative.


Hmmm - I was speaking tongue in cheek, sorry if that was not clear. It is, however, something I have often told my children.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Hmmm - I was speaking tongue in cheek, sorry if that was not clear. It is, however, something I have often told my children.


Guess which multinational corporation has Mike on a retainer?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Langham said:


> Hmmm - I was speaking tongue in cheek, sorry if that was not clear. It is, however, something I have often told my children.


Sorry, so many absurd claims are made and taken seriously that I have lost my ear for distinguishing unfounded stupid claims versus sarcastic ones.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Guess which multinational corporation has Mike on a retainer?


Nope, but I'd be happy to represent them. They'd be a libel lawyers dream client.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Nope, but I'd be happy to represent them. They'd be a libel lawyers dream client.


I would consider representing such a company to be a fiendishly immoral act. All multinationals are, to my mind, thoroughly despicable. The world would be a better place if every last one of the Globalists ceased to exist.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Sorry, so many absurd claims are made and taken seriously that I have lost my ear for distinguishing unfounded stupid claims versus sarcastic ones.


I'm with you on that one Mike, and internet forums make it almost impossible for me nowadays to distinguish between irony/sarcasm and seriousness.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I would consider representing such a company to be a fiendishly immoral act. All multinationals are, to my mind, thoroughly despicable. The world would be a better place if every last one of the Globalists ceased to exist.


See, whereas I simply view lies that harm reputations to be fiendishly immoral.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> See, whereas I simply view lies that harm reputations to be fiendishly immoral.


Bah! Lawyers, all the same. Agents of Satan to a man.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Regardless of what the breeders or owners of fighting dogs say, the fact remains, proved by science that any behavioral trait bred into any type of dog (regardless of breed) by man for a specific purporse or acquired naturally by any dog or other animal, no matter how quickly or how slowly, can in most cases never be removed by man, evolution may do so, but that takes thousands of years.
> 
> When a chimp has tasted meat just once it becomes an omnivore immediately, no going back.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I have known a lot of pitbulls and all have been exceedingly sweet dogs with good and gentle temperaments. However, I have never known a pitbull that has lived with another dog, much less 9 others! I think a lot of it is a pack mentality sort of thing, too - I grew up with some Jack Russel terriers and once they made a pack, they became really nasty.

I don't see why you would own 10 dogs period unless you were a) fighting them (the most likely scenario) or b) breeding them (in which case, a license is necessary). Not to sound callous, but if you raise dogs for fighting and let them run free near your 3-year-old granddaughter, you deserve everything that's coming to you (plus probably some jail time). Unfortunately, the 3-year-old granddaughter deserves none of that, but suffers the most.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I am immediately distrustful of dogs whose owners assure me 'He's very friendly...'. Frequently when there are such incidents of a childe being mauled by a dog, the dog was previously quite placid.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Bah! Lawyers, all the same. Agents of Satan to a man.


Some of us are double agents.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'm with you on that one Mike, and internet forums make it almost impossible for me nowadays to distinguish between irony/sarcasm and seriousness.


I normally have a pretty good eye/ear/nose for this kind of stuff, but for some reason not so much on this Interchange.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Langham said:


> I am immediately distrustful of dogs whose owners assure me 'He's very friendly...'. Frequently when there are such incidents of a childe being mauled by a dog, *the owner insists that* the dog was previously quite placid.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

My dad had a pitbull. A perfectly nice dog, unless you were another dog. Or a cat. Or a goat. He managed to train it so that it would not leave his property, until one day, it started leaving his property. He put it down. No one was able to prove it, but the dog killed his neighbor's goat. It would attack other animals for no reason at all and getting it to unclamp once it bit something was nigh impossible. A friend of Mrs. 32 also had a pitbull. He brought it over one day and the dog, with no warning whatsoever, snapped at my face. I nearly lost my nose as well as control of my bowels. The owner explained that this was actually my fault. The dog, he said, did not like it when people put their faces to close to the dog's face, and when people did that, the dog bit. Oh. The dog had bitten several people. The owner saw nothing unusual in owning a dog that bit people for no reason and without warning. In fact, he got p.o'd at a neighbor when the neighbor spoke to him about the dog and how much the dog scared him and his family. The head of a local animal welfare group favors pitbulls. She cannot legally allow her own to leave her property unless they are muzzled, due to their documented history of biting people and other dogs.

Some people don't have the sense that God gave a dog.

Pitbulls are having their reputations resurrected due to a surplus of pitbulls in animal control facilities. Some people believe that no dog should ever be euthanized for any reason and that any misbehavior by a dog is really caused by humans. Rather than put surplus pitbulls down, they are being promoted as perfectly safe, and that may be true for many pitbulls. I prefer not to take a chance. There are lots of breeds and mutts out there that need homes that have no pitbull in them. These are the type of dogs that I prefer.

As for owning ten dogs, that's ridiculous. We have three cats, three dogs, two snakes, a lizard and two large aquariums in our home, and that's more than enough.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The grandfather's irresponsibility led to the incidence of the medical catastrophe referenced in the OP and if it is proven that the grandmother has perpetrated a fraud in an effort to fund the correction of the problem(s), those grandparents should be lodged in adjoining jail cells. That young girl needs a new set of grandparents. Nuff said!


----------

