View Full Version : Pet shop owner fined £1,000 and told to wear an electronic tag for selling a goldfish
The goldfish was later adopted by an animal welfare officer and is in good health.
Oh, praise Jesus!!!
It seems the welfare of goldfishes is more important to the English State than the welfare of home-invasion victims.
GermanSynergy
03-30-10, 21:25
Don't laugh. We're on the very same road.......
Don't laugh. We're on the very same road.......
In some ways, but as far as self-defense...more states enacting/clarifying castle doctrines, liberalizing CCW...most states are enhancing the rights of self-defense, not limiting them.
Looking like very shortly, pets in Minnesota will enjoy legal protection from domestic abuse.
Just like in 14 other states.
I use to buy goldfish. They didn't get along well with the piranhas. :cool:
If you (kind of) want to see what the US will be like in 20 years, look at the UK today.
There are some differences. The "Council" form of government has a lot more power it seems from all the stories I read but this sort of thing will start to happen here as well...
Abso****inlutely ridiculous!!! :rolleyes:
does anyone have a first-, or even second-hand scoop on the feel in the UK? are these people just OK with the direction their government has headed in recent years? or are they on the cusp of revolution? i always read these stories, but i never hear opinions from the masses. is the state-controlled media just so well controlled that the people buy everything fed them?
I read all sorts of crazy shit going on in the UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html
Burglars should not be jailed unless they cause damage or hurt someone when committing their crime, Government advisers said yesterday.
The Sentencing Advisory Panel called for judges and magistrates not to hand down prison sentences to ordinary burglars who were responsible for 'minimal loss or damage'.
But even criminals who operate in gangs or steal large sums of money may walk free under the guidelines, which suggest 'community' punishment for many offenders.
The recommendations contradict last year's ruling by Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, which stated that jail should be the 'normally appropriate' punishment for convicted burglars.
Instead, the Sentencing Advisory Panel said yesterday that 'any starting point for domestic burglary should be non-custodial'.
Damage, harm to householders or other factors making the crime more serious should make a jail sentence more likely, it suggested.
But its report acknowledged that some experts had expressed 'grave concern' over the advice.
The recommendations to let burglars walk free come as, for the first time in several years, burglaries are increasing.
Police recorded more than 284,000 burglaries last year, a one per cent increase on the previous year, and the Panel report said the crime was 'still sufficiently common to affect many individuals and households'.
The Panel has for the past decade existed to advise judges on sentencing. However, it will be abolished in April and replaced by a new Sentencing Council.
Its report is nevertheless likely to be considered by its successor.
Criminologist Dr David Green, from think tank Civitas, said: ' Burglary is a shocking invasion of privacy. While a burglar may not attack anybody, many are prepared to do so if detected.
'Police have recorded rising numbers of burglaries in the latest figures. The recommendation that burglars should not be jailed sends completely the wrong message.'
The guidance from the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which is headed by academic lawyer Professor Andrew Ashworth QC, appears the first challenge from within the judicial establishment to the tougher approach introduced by Lord Judge.
Since becoming leader of the judiciary in England and Wales in 2008, he has reversed the liberalising moves of his predecessors by ordering longer sentences for armed criminals and murderers.
Maybe I should start a thread with articles about the whacked out Brits and their idea of self defense laws. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249958/Cleared-Builder-chopped-thugs-ear-Samurai-sword-threatened-rape-kill-family.html
A father who defended his family from drug-crazed thugs by wounding one with a Samurai sword has been cleared by a jury.
David Fullard, 47, was prosecuted for attacking the two strangers who forced their way into his home and threatened to rape his partner and kill his two teenage children. He insisted he was a desperate man acting legally in self-defence and struck out once with the ornamental sword, because it was the only weapon to hand.
The blow almost sliced off the ear of Michael Severs, one of the thugs.
The prosecution refused to accept that his actions amounted to lawful self-defence and argued it was 'over the top' to attack a man armed with a knuckleduster by using a 'battlefield weapon'.
The two thugs were both high on a cocktail of drink and drugs at the time, the court heard.
But after a five-day trial at Hull Crown Court, Mr Fullard, a builder, broke down in tears as he was found not guilty of unlawful wounding.
It ended a nine-month ordeal for a man described by neighbours as 'honest and caring'. He had faced the threat of a long prison term.
The case represents another landmark in the debate over how far a householder should be allowed to go in defending his home from an intruder.
Yesterday jobless Severs, 22, and Michael Smith, 19, escaped with a suspended prison sentence and 100 hours of community work after admitting affray at the court.
Judge Michael Mettyear then lifted a reporting restriction on the case.
Outside court Mr Fullard criticised the judge for allowing the men to get away with a 'slap on the wrists'.
He added: 'You cannot stand around and do nothing when someone-comes to your house and starts threatening your family.'
Mr Fullard has been supported throughout by partner Susan Neal, 53, and his sons Danny, 14, and Tom, 17, who were in the house during the incident in March last year.
He added: 'I only struck one blow with the sword. If there had been a walking stick or umbrella by the door I would have hit him with that.'
'You cannot stand around and do nothing when someone comes to your house and starts threatening your family'
The court heard Severs and Smith, who both have previous convictions for violence, vaguely knew Mr Fullard's elder son and knocked on the door of the family home in Brough, East Yorkshire, claiming he owed them £5 from earlier in the day.
It was a ruse to get cash but Smith barged into the living room while Mr Fullard was upstairs and threatened Miss Neal. She told the jury he picked up the ornamental sword and said: 'Do you want some of this?'
She said: 'They threatened to rape me, burn the house down, kill the kids and kill Dave.'
Smith then ran out and Mr Fullard was confronted by Severs in the garden. The thug was armed with a spade and a knuckle-duster.
Mr Fullard told the jury he picked up the sword and 'hit him once' and intended for the 'flat of the sword' rather than the blade to connect. He then called police.
Mr Fullard was arrested and only later did police arrest Smith and Severs, who had his ear re-attached in hospital.
so the guy whose mom sold a goldfish to a 14 year old got a harsher sentence than two burglars who were stopped from raping women and children only by a man with a sword...
Looking like very shortly, pets in Minnesota will enjoy legal protection from domestic abuse.
Just like in 14 other states.
Does this mean that there will be stricter/harsher laws against animal abusers? If so, I am all for it. People who abuse animals are on the same level as child abusers in my book. I can't even watch Animal Cops on Animal Planet. I get so F'ing mad at those people, if I were in those cops’ shoes I don't know if I could stop myself from beating the abuser to within an inch of their life.:mad:
Does this mean that there will be stricter/harsher laws against animal abusers? If so, I am all for it. People who abuse animals are on the same level as child abusers in my book. I can't even watch Animal Cops on Animal Planet. I get so F'ing mad at those people, if I were in those cops’ shoes I don't know if I could stop myself from beating the abuser to within an inch of their life.:mad:
you got this far through this thread, and THIS is what you're pissed about?
People who abuse animals are on the same level as child abusers in my book.
Not even close. I'm gonna go flush a goldfish down a toilet tomorrow. :p
you got this far through this thread, and THIS is what you're pissed about?
Well, if lived in Great Brittan I would definitely be more pissed about how my rights were being trampled on; however, that country has been heading down this road for quite some time and seeing stories like this isn’t surprising anymore.
I was just expressing an opinion related to what 11Bravo posted.
Don't laugh. We're on the very same road.......
No kidding. We are currently on the same trajectory as the UK, we're just 20-30 years behind on the curve. This kind of shit will be in our papers in another generation of things do not change drastically.
Well, if lived in Great Brittan I would definitely be more pissed about how my rights were being trampled on; however, that country has been heading down this road for quite some time and seeing stories like this isn’t surprising anymore.
If I lived in Great Britain, I'd go buy 10 goldfish and swallow them in front of news cameras in protest.
Then again, I wouldn't live in that Orwellian shithole of a country in the first place, and if I did, I would have already been branded a serious criminal for any number of other things I do every day.
God help that place.
rifleman2000
03-31-10, 09:33
Does this mean that there will be stricter/harsher laws against animal abusers? If so, I am all for it. People who abuse animals are on the same level as child abusers in my book. I can't even watch Animal Cops on Animal Planet. I get so F'ing mad at those people, if I were in those cops’ shoes I don't know if I could stop myself from beating the abuser to within an inch of their life.:mad:
Your book is written wrong or you are reading it backward. Abusing animals, especially what the .gov considers "abuse" is not even in the same realm as child abuse.
I second the motion to flush goldfish down the toilet to protest the sentencing of that poor woman.
GermanSynergy
03-31-10, 09:48
No kidding. We are currently on the same trajectory as the UK, we're just 20-30 years behind on the curve. This kind of shit will be in our papers in another generation of things do not change drastically.
20 to 30 years appears to be generous, IMHO. 5-10 at most....:mad:
20 to 30 years appears to be generous, IMHO. 5-10 at most....:mad:
Recent elections didn't do us any favors here, but on some fronts we're still MUCH better off. We can own most types of guns and most of us can carry them. If George Michael got caught with drugs while having buttsex in a public park, I'm pretty sure he'd still be in prison if it happened here.
I could go on with other examples, but my main concern is that the current crop of kids is being molded to think and act like the nannies over in the UK on many of these issues. It's going to be ugly when they start voting.
Not even close. I'm gonna go flush a goldfish down a toilet tomorrow. :p
is that mean you are swallowing it today ;)
(like the old college pranks)
is that mean you are swallowing it today ;)
(like the old college pranks)
I like your style.
Does this mean that there will be stricter/harsher laws against animal abusers? If so, I am all for it. People who abuse animals are on the same level as child abusers in my book. I can't even watch Animal Cops on Animal Planet. I get so F'ing mad at those people, if I were in those cops’ shoes I don't know if I could stop myself from beating the abuser to within an inch of their life.:mad:
I have no idea really, it's been on the news here (north Iowa within 30 miles of the state line) for a couple of weeks.
Something about women not leaving abusive situations because of pets.
I don't know...
To me, it is likely just more liberal BS.
Another law we just CAN'T live without.
I am in no way in favor of abusing animals, but to grant them the same protections as people?
If the real purpose is to give authorities another way to nail someone that is truly a douchebag, OK, but I see it being used in goofy ways.
I have no idea really, it's been on the news here (north Iowa within 30 miles of the state line) for a couple of weeks.
Something about women not leaving abusive situations because of pets.
I don't know...
To me, it is likely just more liberal BS.
Another law we just CAN'T live without.
I am in no way in favor of abusing animals, but to grant them the same protections as people?
If the real purpose is to give authorities another way to nail someone that is truly a douchebag, OK, but I see it being used in goofy ways.
I agree with you 100% here.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.