Goldie

I read that the Boston May Fair, an event granted by Royal Charter for 450 years, was in jeopardy last year because the local council would not pay for the extra policing required. The cost of the extra police presence was under £15,000. Nobody seems to have factored in the extra revenue the fair garners, or the effect it has on maintaining the special identity of this curious market town or indeed, the fact that the Council's own web site features this as a reason to visit. You see, it is all down to elf and safety. In years gone by, I looked forward to this spectacle, and then, being given One Shilling per day (until the great visit) I could enjoy an evening in the balmy May air and have at least two rides - usually the Speedway (known in the Trade as an "Ark"), or the Waltzer. I remember my sister being interested in goldfish; they hung by the score in little plastic bags, waiting to be won somehow. Or not at all, as was mostly the case. Nobody paid much attention to these creatures, for their well-being because, for goodness' sake, they were fish. On any day in Boston except Sunday and Monday, you could buy freshly caught North Sea fish from a selection available at not one, but three adjacent shops, smack in the centre of the town. Almost every single one of these fish died of asphyxiation or worse, boiling, or crushing, in order to sate an endless demand for this food. They still do.

Every year, thousands of Chickens are bred in cramped conditions, pumped with God knows what chemicals and growth hormones; unable to exercise, unable to exhibit their natural behaviours and made to exist claw deep in their own shit.

I am not aware that Bernard Matthews or anybody else has been fined or imprisoned for this cruelty, this deliberate mass cruelty and I am not aware that the country's fishermen have been fined for cruelty to fish.

And so it has been something of a surprise to me that, as a result of an elaborate and costly sting operation, a woman, a grandmother who has owned a pet shop for over 25 years, has been punitively treated for selling a gold fish to an un-accompanied 14-year old boy.

Pet shop owner Joan Higgins, aged 66, has been fined £1000 and made to wear an electronic tag.

According to an article in the Daily Mail:

Defending the goldfish case, Iain Veitch, head of public protection at Trafford Council, said: 'The evidence presented for this conviction clearly demonstrates that it is irresponsible to sell animals to those who are not old enough to look after them.
'Let this conviction send out a message that we will not tolerate those who cause unnecessary suffering to animals.

Of course, there may be other issues here. Perhaps this owner had it coming; she certainly had a very poorly cockatiel in her shop when the raid took place. I don't know.

The thing that worries me is the inconsistency and the arbitrary nature of the law.

At stake here was the well-being of a gold-fish. I wonder if the use of council resources, and the law and the effect of being criminalised this way is worth it? If it is, then why are animals for human consumption being treated far, far worse, with the consent, the connivance and the financial support of the Government?

Can anybody explain to me why you can fine a 66 year-old woman for merely selling a goldfish to a 14 year old, when hundreds of concentration camp chicken farmers get away with murder?