The law really is an Ass!

[Blasphemous]

I know it's the Daily Mail an all but these sentences are ridiculous!

Pet shop owner fined £1,000 and told to wear an electronic tag... for selling a GOLDFISH to a boy aged 14.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-electronic-tag.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

Bride-to-be's fury as boy racer who killed her fiance and left her in wheelchair is jailed for just THREE years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...just-THREE-years.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

And again, I realise the Mail are trying to be inflammatory but this does drive you up the wall...

Untitled

• Blasphemous
• 31 Mar 2010
• 1

 

[dextrous]

I know that these bad apples spoil the barrel, but in fairness we really ought to remember all the times the system does get it right.

I wish that "they" managed to iron out the anomalies a bit more quickly and avoided their knee-jerk reaction to defend ridiculous situations.

 

[Karinska]

I think that part of the problem is that there are so many examples (thousands) of this sort of thing that, over the years, the public have, to a certain extent, become somewhat 'de-sensitised' to it and their sense of outrage has started to wane because they know there's nothing they can do about it

 

[skitzee2k]

...we do not know the circumstances of any of these stories so it is impossible to say if the right sentence was given or not.
We don't know for example if the boy came in and said "Aiiight, me and me bluds wanna kick something to death but like 'av got a problem with me dolla flo. Whats only one parrrnd fiddy?"
and the shop owner said, "Er mush, av dis fish!"

Either way, there is a law, which the owner would have know that says you can't buy anything living from a shop unless you are 16 or over...a law I agree with. He broke it, he got charged.

 

[joinerjohn]

Having read the article, I tend to agree with the owner of the pet shop. She says that as far as she is concerned , this is entrapment by the local council.
Our local council use schoolchildren around 14-17 to go into off licenced premises and try to buy alcohol and tobacco products. Although I agree that shops should not sell these items to them, surely the council should use a modicum of commonsense and should not be using underage people to try and buy alcohol in the first place.
It's out and out entrapment. I remember a case some years ago where a police force used a serving officer to get friendly with a suspect, hoping she could elicit some sort of confession from him. The case was thrown out of court and the judge at the time said deliberate entrapment was totally wrong. Has the law changed since then??

 

[Lincsbodger]

30 years ago, all that woudl have happened would have been the locally bobby woudl have had a quiet word in her ear, and advised her she cant sell pets to kids anymore.

However this is Blairs politically correct Elf'n'Safe Nazis Nanny state, where common sense and compassion flew out he window years ago, and where petty bureaucrats have far too much power, and time on there hands, to pursue there own petty vendettas, a nation where minor towns hall officials really do demonstrate that 'power corrupts', because they know they cant be brought to account for there idiot actions and cockups, or wastage of public money.

 

[roughcaster]

Two good replies above,,,, says it all about the way this country is going,,,, to the dogs.

 

[conny]

So a dad goes into a pet shop with his 14 year old son and buys a goldfish. He promptly hands the fish to his son and says, "Here you are Tommy, your very own goldfish, make sure you look after it." Is he guilty of a crime?

 

[Karinska]

Presumably not as he is an adult and therefore 'responsible'

 

[conny]

Presumably not as he is an adult and therefore 'responsible'

But the shopkeeper was an adult and 'presumably' responsible.

PS Love the signature, I think.

 

[Karinska]

Sorry, I misunderstood you.
Maybe it's got something to do with money changing hands otherwise every parent who has ever given their child a pet would be prosecuted

 

[skitzee2k]

Entrapment only occurs if the 'sting' induces a crime that wouldn't normally happen. So for example, a police person acting as a prostitute standing on the side of the road who is approached, who then arrests the perp is not entrapment. If however you have a police person who approaches you and convinces you to buy drugs off them and then arrests you, that IS entrapment.

This 'crime' would have happened (and presumably DID happen before otherwise they wouldn't have targetted her for the sting) even if the teen wasn't involved in a sting.

Secondly, this suggestion that she should have just been told not to do it no more is ****. She KNEW she shouldn't have done it and that didn't stop her. This is just liberal wishy washy crap.

 

[skitzee2k]

Presumably not as he is an adult and therefore 'responsible'

But the shopkeeper was an adult and 'presumably' responsible.

PS Love the signature, I think.

The adult is legally liable if they hand responsibility over to the child. It is assumed he knows the child and judges them to be responsible, if he is wrong HE is in trouble.

The shopkeeper has no such authority.
In the same way that a parent can buy a PG movie for their child, but the shop keeper can't decide that it is ok for the child. It is NOT their call.

 

[mikeyd]

There is more to the pet shop owner story than the Daily Mail reported.

They sent the 15 year old in to see if she would check his age because it was alledged she had sold a gerbil to a 14 year old (who later dropped it into a cup of coffee)

While the inspectors were there they found a cockatiel with a broken leg and in obvious distress in the shop. So the fine / tag was not just for selling the fish.