Naughty Nanna

[forby3]

http/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262250/Pet-shop-owner-sold-goldfish-boy-fined-given-electronic-tag.html


went to the shop to get morning paper and front cover news

 

[angelfishguy]

what a load of #105###

 

[Curiosity101]

Ha! How ridiculous.
I agree with the fine as she did break the law and that'll certainly make her think twice in future (ignorance is not a defence). But tagging her and imposing a curfew? Seriously... who spent 5 years and law school and then further years training to become a judge to give out that sort of sentence?!

And a second offence could result in prison...I mean err what... How about second offence = bigger fine and animal selling license taken away. But hey what do I know...lol.

 

[Ben M]

that's a bit harsh! i was considering going to the garden centre near me to buy some more kuhli loaches yesterday, because my mum couldn't be bothered to take me, but i don't suppose they'd serve me.

cheers

 

[raptorrex]

Ha! How ridiculous.
I agree with the fine as she did break the law and that'll certainly make her think twice in future (ignorance is not a defence). But tagging her and imposing a curfew? Seriously... who spent 5 years and law school and then further years training to become a judge to give out that sort of sentence?!

And a second offence could result in prison...I mean err what... How about second offence = bigger fine and animal selling license taken away. But hey what do I know...lol.

ok so, what type of law breakers should be prosecuted? it seems she was known for selling to under16's. so, could be assumed to have been a repeat offender. though only one case was tried.

if fines, and sanctions, were used like this more often. greedy unscrupulous LFS/petshop owners might, actually, follow the law. she got caught, deal with it. or else, don't break the law. simple's really.

here's to a few more copping it! well done magistrates.

 

[Always Learning]

Ha! How ridiculous.
I agree with the fine as she did break the law and that'll certainly make her think twice in future (ignorance is not a defence). But tagging her and imposing a curfew? Seriously... who spent 5 years and law school and then further years training to become a judge to give out that sort of sentence?!

And a second offence could result in prison...I mean err what... How about second offence = bigger fine and animal selling license taken away. But hey what do I know...lol.

ok so, what type of law breakers should be prosecuted? it seems she was known for selling to under16's. so, could be assumed to have been a repeat offender. though only one case was tried.

if fines, and sanctions, were used like this more often. greedy unscrupulous LFS/petshop owners might, actually, follow the law. she got caught, deal with it. or else, don't break the law. simple's really.

here's to a few more copping it! well done magistrates.

Bright spark..

It's more the fact that they felt the need to tag her which is the issue. You might not have been able to see that though, so high on your horse.

 

[Defiance]

Under age drinking and loutish behaviour, check

Under 18's allowed to get away with murder (literally) , check

Career burglars not to face imprisonment, check

Wasting tax payers money on a daily basis, check

Giving a 66yr old shop keeper a criminal record, Priceless

Sheesh, last one out of the UK turn the light off and shut the door please

Tony

 

[Curiosity101]

ok so, what type of law breakers should be prosecuted? it seems she was known for selling to under16's. so, could be assumed to have been a repeat offender. though only one case was tried.

if fines, and sanctions, were used like this more often. greedy unscrupulous LFS/petshop owners might, actually, follow the law. she got caught, deal with it. or else, don't break the law. simple's really.

here's to a few more copping it! well done magistrates.

^^ Oh yeah sorry...I forget I actually wrote a reply that said she shouldn't be prosecuted even though she broke the law didn't I?

Being tagged and given a curfew is inconvenient, it's not going to hit hard to anyone who really wants to break the law. It's also going to serve no purpose when place on an old lady.

Oh and they can't even bring up in court that it may be a repeat offence because none of them were investigated. As a court case this is a stand alone event, they only have proof of one illegal transaction and the punishment they gave was in response to this (and mis treatment of a bird).

So just incase you completely missed my point again. It was that she was given a punishment that didn't fit the crime and that as a repeat offence imprisonment is ridiculous. What is the point of imprisonment? I personally thougt it was if people posed some sort of danger or chance of re-offence. Hence why I think a huge fine and their pet selling license removed is much more appropriate than a prison sentence.

 

[ellena]

I agree, the tagging is completely pointless. She's not doing anything wrong between 6pm and 7am, why does she have to stay in?
I am completely behind her being given some punishment for selling to under 16's, the most appropriate being removing her licence, but this is not the right punishment.

 

[demonmagus]

Ah well. Don't break the law?

 

[Always Learning]

Go back and cover every minuite of the last week. I bet there's more than one occasion where you have broken the law. Might be something so pathetic you didn't even think about it.. but would it deserve an electronic tag? Most likely not.

 

[Peggers]

She was given a curfew because she was judged to be unable to do community service. The tag is to make sure she doesn't break her curfew at much less cost than having someone sat outside her house.

 

[Curiosity101]

She was given a curfew because she was judged to be unable to do community service. The tag is to make sure she doesn't break her curfew at much less cost than having someone sat outside her house.

How do you know? (not questioning whether you're right). It just didn't say in the article that this was why she was on a tag/curfew...

 

[dave_oddballs]

i think its a load of rubbish, you can easily say oh a break in the law is a break in the law, you ever broken the law? no matter how big of an offense it was, i know a lad who battered someone, to the point you couldn't really tell who it was, he was put on tag for a few months and given a fine, is this lady in the same category as him? doubt it. i remember when i was little i used to eat sweets on the way round the shop, did i pay for them? nope, im a serial thief i should definitely be locked up! ha,
all im saying there is people that get away with things daily, there the ones who should be made an example of not this lady, where does it say she did this repeatedly? she said in an interview she was always careful about selling to children, plenty of people under 16 years of age wouldn't even be questioned about their age simply because they look older, some look a lot older.

 

[Peggers]

She was given a curfew because she was judged to be unable to do community service. The tag is to make sure she doesn't break her curfew at much less cost than having someone sat outside her house.

How do you know? (not questioning whether you're right). It just didn't say in the article that this was why she was on a tag/curfew...

Different paper
Also the cockateil must've been pretty bad to have to have been put down.