In 1997 Labour said they will be 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'.
Is this article what they were on about being tough on crime?
When I first read about this I thought it was an April Fools joke, but it isn't.
The headline to the article.
Great-grandmother given an electronic tag and curfew for selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old
A great-grandmother has been ordered to wear an electronic tag for breaching new animal welfare laws by selling a goldfish to a 14 year-old boy.
Joan Higgins, a pet shop owner, was caught selling the fish to the teenager in a 'sting' operation by council officials. She was then prosecuted in an eight month court process estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £20,000.
Under new animal welfare laws, passed in 2006, it is it illegal to sell goldfish to under 16s. Offenders can be punished with up to 12 months in prison.
I can understand 'sting' operations where shop keepers sell cigarettes and knives, but goldfish. When I was a kid we went to fun fairs and we won goldfish and we took them home.
Mrs Higgins, 66, who thought the boy was much older than 14, escaped jail but was instead ordered to wear an electronic tag and given a night time curfew. She was also fined £1,000 by Trafford Magistrates Court.
Her son Mark Higgins, who was also prosecuted in connection with the case, described the treatment of his mother as a "farce" and "legal lunacy". He said the punishment she had received would prevent her from attending her weekly bingo sessions as well babysitting her one month-old great grandchild.
Why are they prosecuting a grandmother for selling a goldfish when we have real criminals being let off on community service orders. or at the most a couple of months in jail.
Labour have brought in so many new laws, the law abiding people of this country don't know if they are breaking the law or not now.
What should of happened in this case is the council should of given Mrs Higgins a warning, and to inform her if she knew about the law about not selling animals to children. Not take her to court costing the taxpayer £20,000.
It's common sense, but councils have lost most of their common sense over the years.
Has anyone escaped from a lunatic asylum and got a job at this council, because I'm sure who ever made the decision to prosecute her must be mad.