This is how bad it's become . . .

[Busa_Rush]

14 year old boy sent to buy a Goldfish and Pet Shop owners prosecuted, fined and tagged with community service for selling it !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262250/Pe...

I know it's the Daily Mail but I couldn't find it elsewhere. What utter morons are involved in this ? Surely the CPS would have thrown this out as a waste of time ?

[Oakey]

Article said:

sold the youngster a goldfish without questioning his age or providing any information about the care of the fish

Good lord.

1.) Put in tank / bowl of water
2.) Feed occasionally
3.) Clean tank occasionally

At the end of the day, it's a fking goldfish.

[nelly1]

Do we now have H&S goons patrolling funfairs in case some kid wins a Goldfish in a bag?

FFS!

[becksW]

The law now states that you cannot be classed as responsible for a pet under the age of 16 years. If a pet is neglected a parent used to be able to say 'oh it was my childs responsibility', this is no longer acceptable the parent of the child is automatically responsible for the welfare of that animal, goldfish will be included in this.

The fine on the pet shop owner does seem heavy handed but it is the fact he sold a pet to a minor without an adult in attendance. He could just as easily been going in to buy a hamster/ rabbit etc.

I used to buy hamsters etc at that age but this law has been designed to protect the animals so I have to agree with it.

There is also the added fact that there was a bird with a broken leg and bad eyes supposedly in her care. She may have run a pet shop for 28yrs, doesn't make her immune from checks. I think there was more behind this story for them to test her in this way. Call it entrapment but they do it to off licenses etc all the time.

Edited by becksW on Tuesday 30th March 18:52

[Somewhatfoolish]

becksW said:

The law now states that you cannot be classed as responsible for a pet under the age of 16 years. If a pet is neglected a parent used to be able to say 'oh it was my childs responsibility', this is no longer acceptable the parent of the child is automatically responsible for the welfare of that animal, goldfish will be included in this.

The fine on the pet shop owner does seem heavy handed but it is the fact he sold a pet to a minor without an adult in attendance. He could just as easily been going in to buy a hamster/ rabbit etc.

I used to buy hamsters etc at that age but this law has been designed to protect the animals so I have to agree with it.

IT

IS

A

GOLD

FISH

[becksW]

Somewhatfoolish said:

becksW said:

The law now states that you cannot be classed as responsible for a pet under the age of 16 years. If a pet is neglected a parent used to be able to say 'oh it was my childs responsibility', this is no longer acceptable the parent of the child is automatically responsible for the welfare of that animal, goldfish will be included in this.

The fine on the pet shop owner does seem heavy handed but it is the fact he sold a pet to a minor without an adult in attendance. He could just as easily been going in to buy a hamster/ rabbit etc.

I used to buy hamsters etc at that age but this law has been designed to protect the animals so I have to agree with it.

IT

IS

A

GOLD

FISH

IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is a live creature the welfare act is there for a reason. All the woman had to do was ask him to come back with an adult and provide advise on care and she would have done her job correctly.

Edited by becksW on Tuesday 30th March 18:58

[Sheets Tabuer]

Ah the lovely Daily mail.

The lady in question was prosecuted under the animal welfare act and pet animal act.

Not only was she caught selling pets to young children she also sold one to a child with learning difficulties who then proceeded to stuff it into a coffee cup to see what would happen killing it.

When vets were called in they found animals being keept in an appalling state.

She pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to a cockatiel by failing to provide appropriate care and treatment as well as selling animals to children.

[Fittster]

becksW said:

IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is a live creature the welfare act is there for a reason. All the woman had to do was ask him to come back with an adult and provide advise on care and she would have done her job correctly.

YES IS DOES MATTER. Would you swat a fly?

[turbobloke]

Fittster said:

becksW said:

IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is a live creature the welfare act is there for a reason. All the woman had to do was ask him to come back with an adult and provide advise on care and she would have done her job correctly.

YES IS DOES MATTER. Would you swat a fly?

And after years of tender loving care, including giving more water to the damn things than that poor old chap who died recently was given in hospital, can you still flush a dead-un down the loo or is it necessary to get a minister of some animalist religion to condict a service prior to burial / cremation?

I refer to goldfish not house flies, though probably the daft as a brush law treats them equally with human pensioners.

[becksW]

Fittster said:

becksW said:

IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is a live creature the welfare act is there for a reason. All the woman had to do was ask him to come back with an adult and provide advise on care and she would have done her job correctly.

YES IS DOES MATTER. Would you swat a fly?

My response in capitals was only because of the reply I received initially. Actually I don't swat flies, though I don't really think the daft question was really worthy of my answer!

See Sheetsbauers post, as suspected more to the story than article suggested, as I suspected.

[Fittster]

turbobloke said:

Fittster said:

becksW said:

IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is a live creature the welfare act is there for a reason. All the woman had to do was ask him to come back with an adult and provide advise on care and she would have done her job correctly.

YES IS DOES MATTER. Would you swat a fly?

And after years of tender loving care, including giving more water to the damn things than that poor old chap who died recently was given in hospital, can you still flush a dead-un down the loo or is it necessary to get a minister of some animalist religion to condict a service prior to burial / cremation?

I refer to goldfish not house flies, though probably the daft as a brush law treats them equally with human pensioners.

Everyone has their own little bit of regulation or welfare they want enforced by the state but we are completely and utterly broke. I'm past caring about the rights and wrongs but why can't people see we are broke and can't afford anymore stuff?

[turbobloke]

Fittster said:

turbobloke said:

Fittster said:

becksW said:

IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is a live creature the welfare act is there for a reason. All the woman had to do was ask him to come back with an adult and provide advise on care and she would have done her job correctly.

YES IS DOES MATTER. Would you swat a fly?

And after years of tender loving care, including giving more water to the damn things than that poor old chap who died recently was given in hospital, can you still flush a dead-un down the loo or is it necessary to get a minister of some animalist religion to condict a service prior to burial / cremation?

I refer to goldfish not house flies, though probably the daft as a brush law treats them equally with human pensioners.

Everyone has their own little bit of regulation or welfare they want enforced by the state but we are completely and utterly broke. I'm past caring about the rights and wrongs but why can't people see we are broke and can't afford anymore stuff?

At a guess, because those who dream up laws and regulations think it's their job to do so as much as possible regardless of quality while realising that others will have to pay for it all, not them.

[SmoothRB]

Good use of tax payers money

[eldar]

becksW said:

The law now states that you cannot be classed as responsible for a pet under the age of 16 years. If a pet is neglected a parent used to be able to say 'oh it was my childs responsibility', this is no longer acceptable the parent of the child is automatically responsible for the welfare of that animal, goldfish will be included in this.

The fine on the pet shop owner does seem heavy handed but it is the fact he sold a pet to a minor without an adult in attendance. He could just as easily been going in to buy a hamster/ rabbit etc.

I used to buy hamsters etc at that age but this law has been designed to protect the animals so I have to agree with it.

There is also the added fact that there was a bird with a broken leg and bad eyes supposedly in her care. She may have run a pet shop for 28yrs, doesn't make her immune from checks. I think there was more behind this story for them to test her in this way. Call it entrapment but they do it to off licenses etc all the time.

Edited by becksW on Tuesday 30th March 18:52

What about kids that have nits Or tapeworms...

[dilbert]

This reminds me of the parrot sketch...

That's what think tanks are for, you see.
They make fantasy into reality.

[Somewhatfoolish]

becksW said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

becksW said:

The law now states that you cannot be classed as responsible for a pet under the age of 16 years. If a pet is neglected a parent used to be able to say 'oh it was my childs responsibility', this is no longer acceptable the parent of the child is automatically responsible for the welfare of that animal, goldfish will be included in this.

The fine on the pet shop owner does seem heavy handed but it is the fact he sold a pet to a minor without an adult in attendance. He could just as easily been going in to buy a hamster/ rabbit etc.

I used to buy hamsters etc at that age but this law has been designed to protect the animals so I have to agree with it.

IT

IS

A

GOLD

FISH

IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is a live creature the welfare act is there for a reason. All the woman had to do was ask him to come back with an adult and provide advise on care and she would have done her job correctly.

Edited by becksW on Tuesday 30th March 18:58

So is a bacteria.

I could understand where you are coming from were it a dog. But I don't think they should be sold by pet shops in the first place tbh.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Tuesday 30th March 20:20

[andy43]

I'll let you into a little secret.
<Looks left and right nervously>

I squash snails

Cue sirens....

[bigburd]

Somewhatfoolish said:

becksW said:

The law now states that you cannot be classed as responsible for a pet under the age of 16 years. If a pet is neglected a parent used to be able to say 'oh it was my childs responsibility', this is no longer acceptable the parent of the child is automatically responsible for the welfare of that animal, goldfish will be included in this.

The fine on the pet shop owner does seem heavy handed but it is the fact he sold a pet to a minor without an adult in attendance. He could just as easily been going in to buy a hamster/ rabbit etc.

I used to buy hamsters etc at that age but this law has been designed to protect the animals so I have to agree with it.

IT

IS

A

GOLD

FISH

IT

IS

THE

LAW!

BUT>>> I do agree that one face value it seems a bit over the top.

However, it could be that this one of many offences - others could not be proven.

ie it is also a Fishing Tackle Shop and they may have sold knives to minors as well.

[Somewhatfoolish]

bigburd said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

becksW said:

The law now states that you cannot be classed as responsible for a pet under the age of 16 years. If a pet is neglected a parent used to be able to say 'oh it was my childs responsibility', this is no longer acceptable the parent of the child is automatically responsible for the welfare of that animal, goldfish will be included in this.

The fine on the pet shop owner does seem heavy handed but it is the fact he sold a pet to a minor without an adult in attendance. He could just as easily been going in to buy a hamster/ rabbit etc.

I used to buy hamsters etc at that age but this law has been designed to protect the animals so I have to agree with it.

IT

IS

A

GOLD

FISH

IT

IS

THE

LAW!

BUT>>> I do agree that one face value it seems a bit over the top.

However, it could be that this one of many offences - others could not be proven.

ie it is also a Fishing Tackle Shop and they may have sold knives to minors as well.

"It is the law" is an argument that will never convince me, nor I hope any other reasonable person. There are just far too many ridiculous laws.

If I were a magistrate I'd have been giving an unconditional discharge.

[rpguk]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Ah the lovely Daily mail.

The lady in question was prosecuted under the animal welfare act and pet animal act.

Not only was she caught selling pets to young children she also sold one to a child with learning difficulties who then proceeded to stuff it into a coffee cup to see what would happen killing it.

When vets were called in they found animals being keept in an appalling state.

She pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to a cockatiel by failing to provide appropriate care and treatment as well as selling animals to children.

Do you have more information on the other aspects? I have to admit the DM story had more then a feint whiff of crap about it and if what you say is true this is yet another DM non-story whipping the populace into a frothing frenzy.