Retailer fined £1,000 for selling a goldfish
Detail:
It’s all over the news – a retailer has been fined £1,000 for selling a goldfish to a 14-year-old boy in a sting operation launched by council officials.
Because the owner, Joan Higgins, who is 66, was declared unfit for community work, she has also been placed under curfew and has to wear an electronic tag for two months.
Her son, who manages Major Pets, in Sale, Greater Manchester, was fined £750 and ordered to carry out 120 hours of community work.
What can I say?
It beggars belief that in this day of soaring knife crime, drug dealing, gang-related violence and everything else thrown into the equation, a 66-year-old shop owner – who has held her pet shop licence for 28 years and never had a problem until now – has been prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act.
Also taken into consideration was the fact that there was an injured atiel on the premises. But Joan said the bird was not for sale; that she was looking after it; and intended to get it to a vet, but was distracted because another son was ill.
According to one report, the only other time Joan had been in court was when she was on jury duty.
Trafford council set up the sting operation in response to a complaint that the pet shop had previously sold a gerbil to a girl with learning difficulties who put it in a cup of coffee, causing its death. The age of the girl was not revealed, nor the extent of her learning difficulties.
The warning to retailers, however, is loud and clear.
If you sell livestock, you must make sure all under-16s are accompanied by an adult. If unsure, you have to ask for proof of age. And whenever you sell any creature, no matter how big or small, quiz the buyer about their knowledge of the animal in question and offer advice on its care.
If you’re caught, it’s obvious the law will come down hard. And no-one needs the bad publicity, or the stress of such a prosecution hanging over one’s head.
Because the owner, Joan Higgins, who is 66, was declared unfit for community work, she has also been placed under curfew and has to wear an electronic tag for two months.
Her son, who manages Major Pets, in Sale, Greater Manchester, was fined £750 and ordered to carry out 120 hours of community work.
What can I say?
It beggars belief that in this day of soaring knife crime, drug dealing, gang-related violence and everything else thrown into the equation, a 66-year-old shop owner – who has held her pet shop licence for 28 years and never had a problem until now – has been prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act.
Also taken into consideration was the fact that there was an injured atiel on the premises. But Joan said the bird was not for sale; that she was looking after it; and intended to get it to a vet, but was distracted because another son was ill.
According to one report, the only other time Joan had been in court was when she was on jury duty.
Trafford council set up the sting operation in response to a complaint that the pet shop had previously sold a gerbil to a girl with learning difficulties who put it in a cup of coffee, causing its death. The age of the girl was not revealed, nor the extent of her learning difficulties.
The warning to retailers, however, is loud and clear.
If you sell livestock, you must make sure all under-16s are accompanied by an adult. If unsure, you have to ask for proof of age. And whenever you sell any creature, no matter how big or small, quiz the buyer about their knowledge of the animal in question and offer advice on its care.
If you’re caught, it’s obvious the law will come down hard. And no-one needs the bad publicity, or the stress of such a prosecution hanging over one’s head.
By:
Sandra
Date/time :
31/03/2010
Replies to this topic...
By:
lfs-aaron
Date/time :
01/04/2010 19:01:37
Detail:
the fine makes sence, the tagging how ever bit extreme, the person should just quit the fish buisness and go in to buglary the punishment is less for that, you only get a slap on the wrist and a caution when you get caught for the first time
By:
newshound
Date/time :
01/04/2010 10:16:15
Detail:
No one can dispute that the shopkeeper broke the law but surely the punishment is completely disproportianate to the crime. surely the local authority has a duty to educate and assist the shopkeeper rather than a fine and tag.
By:
BellandBarker
Date/time :
31/03/2010 19:06:59
Detail:
TALK ABOUT "FISH FOR JOBS!"
By:
Pet Care Trust
Date/time :
31/03/2010 17:29:36
Detail:
The Animal Welfare Act has been in place since 2006, there can be no excuses. A pet retailer must ask for proof of age and not make a sale to a young person without it. They should expect that their local authority may conduct random checks - including entrapment - to ensure that businesses in their area are doing the right thing. If you don't check proof of age your business is left open to this kind of sting operation and punitive punishment.
The retailer was also criticised for failing to provide any care information whilst making the sale. Fortunately, our range of 28 pet care leaflets are downloadable for free from our website, www.petcare.org.uk. Providing good, accurate pet care information is an essential part of any animal sale and is easily done, so again, no excuses.
The retailer was also criticised for failing to provide any care information whilst making the sale. Fortunately, our range of 28 pet care leaflets are downloadable for free from our website, www.petcare.org.uk. Providing good, accurate pet care information is an essential part of any animal sale and is easily done, so again, no excuses.
By:
the_guv
Date/time :
31/03/2010 17:10:43
Detail:
What a relief! Now the good people of Trafford can sleep easy in their beds in the sure and certain knowledge that the shopkeeper has been tagged and restricted to quarters so won't be running round at all hours of the night selling goldfish to unsuitable people. How bloody ridiculous! I suppose if she'd been selling drugs to children, she'd have had her wrist slapped and then been put back on the streets.
By:
Newshound
Date/time :
31/03/2010 17:02:55
Detail:
Apparently the council had received a complaint that this shop was selling pets to underage children. So rather than confront the shop owner they sent in a child to do a test purchase, which she failed.
Did this shop owner deserve such a fine and electronic tag or would it have been more appropriate to advise her on the new legislation and issue a severe warning?
Did this shop owner deserve such a fine and electronic tag or would it have been more appropriate to advise her on the new legislation and issue a severe warning?
