"Her offence was to unwittingly sell a goldfish to a 14-year-old boy taking part in a trading standards 'sting'.
At most, pet shop owner Joan Higgins, 66, expected a slap on the wrist for breaking new animal welfare laws which ban the sale of pets to under-16s.
Instead, the great-grandmother was taken to court, fined £1,000, placed under curfew - and ordered to wear an electronic tag for two months.
...Defending the goldfish case, Iain Veitch, head of public protection at Trafford Council, said: 'The evidence presented for this conviction clearly demonstrates that it is irresponsible to sell animals to those who are not old enough to look after them.
'Let this conviction send out a message that we will not tolerate those who cause unnecessary suffering to animals. The council will always try to support pet and business owners so that they are able to care for their animals properly, but where they continually ignore the advice they are given, we will not hesitate to use our statutory powers.'
The goldfish was later adopted by an animal welfare officer and is in good health."
Daily Mail
What about the unnecessary suffering of poor Mrs Higgins? And how do they know the goldfish is in good health? Does the government pay for regular examines?
Posts
Goldfish don't live very long usually. Especially not the "bait" ones. I doubt that one is in good health. This story is awful. No way that lady should have to wear a tag like a sex offender.
ReplyDelete