Great-grandmother is tagged for selling a gold fish

Locky

Locky

Locky

Soldato
Joined
14 Oct 2003
Posts
13,583
Location
South Derbyshire
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.


The punishment is normally handed out to violent thugs and repeat offenders.
The prosecution of Mrs Higgins and her son Mark is estimated to have cost taxpayers £20,000 and has left her with a criminal record.
Mark, 47, was also fined and ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work in the community.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262250/Great-grandmother-tagged-selling-goldfish.html

I know it's the dailyfail but hey.
 
Harsh. I mean, was it really necessary? Unless she's keeping the animals in atrocious conditions then she deserves to be punished regardless. What's the harm in kids buying pets as insignificant as a gold fish? She's hardly gone and sold a child a tarantula or some other pet that needs properly looking after, not just chucked in a bowl of water and fed once a day.
 
come on its not like some hapless granny? it looks like she runs a commercial organisation and should full well know the law.

you cant have one rule for one and one for another.... just because she happens to have had kids who have also had kids who have also had kids does that mean she should not be prosecuted?
 
and with causing unnecessary suffering to a cockatiel by failing to provide appropriate care and treatment
Click to expand...

I'd imagine most of the sentence is on some sort of animal cruelty basis, i'd imagine there is more to it than what the DM tacked on the end too.
 
What has grandmother got to do with it, she is a shop owner and business women and should know the laws. Bet you wouldn't have such a problem with it if it was a landlord selling alcohol to under 18s. Although I agree its a bit of an odd punishment.
 
Now I could understand the fines in place but tagging her? What the **** is that going to achieve? Seriously!
 
The Independent said:
A pet shop owner was prosecuted for selling a goldfish to a child after previously selling a gerbil to a teenager with learning disabilities who put it in a cup of coffee, a council said today.

A complaint was made to Trafford Council last May after the Rodent died following the purchase made by the 14-year-old girl at the shop in Sale, Greater Manchester.
Click to expand...

LOL, how random
 
I have to wonder what the tag is going to stop her doing?

No more sneaking out at night to buy goldfish on the black market!

P
 
She didnt get that sentance for selling the goldfish, she got it for continuous law violations - selling pets to underage kids, and failing to take proper care of the pets in her store.

What do you think happens when you walk into a pet store, and buy a cockatiel with a broken leg and eye, or even a poorly bred dog with severe medical problems that need to be put down two weeks after buying them? You would complain, then if the same store gets too many complaints it gets investigated.

The tag was stupid and unnecessary, but the fine was appropriate.
 
Locky said:
The punishment is normally handed out to violent thugs and repeat offenders.
Click to expand...

Telegraph said:
Mr Higgins was fined £750 and ordered to complete 120 hours of unpaid work. However, because his mother was not fit enough to do the same she was issued with a ten-week 6pm to 7am curfew instead.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/p...-for-selling-a-goldfish-to-a-14-year-old.html

Telegraph said:
The pair pleaded guilty at Trafford magistrates court to selling the fish to a person under 16 and for causing unnecessary suffering to a cockatiel by failing to provide appropriate care and treatment after council officers noticed a cockatiel bird in the shop in need of veterinary care with a broken leg. It was later put down.
Click to expand...

Telegraph said:
A spokesman for Trafford Council said their legal costs were met by the total fines paid by Joan and Mark Higgins of £1750.
Click to expand...

Whilst the punishment does seem a bit harsh for simply 'selling a gold fish to a 14-year old", I don't think she'd have been taken to court if her and her shop had otherwise been 'squeaky clean'.
 
Maybe her and assosiated son are a PITA in general and this was all they could legally get on them so they went for gold. Aka lots of minor community crimes that nobody seems to bother with nowadays.
 
Sirrel Squirrel said:
The tagging is stupid but I agree with the fines as they have broken several animal welfare laws.
Click to expand...

LeJosh said:
Now I could understand the fines in place but tagging her? What the **** is that going to achieve? Seriously!
Click to expand...

G-MAN2004 said:
She deserves it, it seems. However, the tagging will achieve nothing.
Click to expand...

bhavv said:
The tag was stupid and unnecessary, but the fine was appropriate.
Click to expand...

The tag was because she refused the option of community service, on the grounds that she was too unfit to do it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/p...-for-selling-a-goldfish-to-a-14-year-old.html

Mr Higgins was fined £750 and ordered to complete 120 hours of unpaid work. However, because his mother was not fit enough to do the same she was issued with a ten-week 6pm to 7am curfew instead.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom