Jail for eating a live goldfish? - Page 22

On April 24 2012 12:22 shaftofpleasure wrote:


He likes his Sushi 'Golden'.

On April 24 2012 12:38 ZaplinG wrote:


he couldn't pass up the golden opportunity for a meal

is possibly gonna go to jail or have to pay 20k pounds

9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare

(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.


(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include—
(a)its need for a suitable environment,
(b)its need for a suitable diet,
(c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,
(d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
(e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.


(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular—
(a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and
(b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.

4 Unnecessary suffering

(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

(2)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is responsible for an animal,
(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,
(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include—
(a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced;
(b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment;
(c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as—
(i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or
(ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal;
(d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned;
(e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.

(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.

32 Imprisonment or fine

(1)A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b)a fine not exceeding £20,000,or to both.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under section 9, 13(6) or 34(9) shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b)a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,or to both.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under regulations under section 12 or 13 shall be liable on summary conviction to such penalty by way of imprisonment or fine as may be provided by regulations under that section.
(4)A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale,or to both.

(5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (4)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

On April 23 2012 18:29 EneMecH wrote:
Unnecessary gratiutious cruelty and violence towards animals is what this is.

@Above: are you really all missing the point that the goldfish drowns in acid while alive?

On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote:
As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:




Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:

On April 24 2012 13:23 sigma_x wrote:
As far as i can see, he is going to have a hard time defending himself. He is charged with Sections 9 and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which state the following terms:




Section 1 of the Act defines animals to be verterbrates other than man (but not in foetal or embryonic form). A protected animal is an animal under the control of a person, commonly domesticated in the British Isles and not living in a wild state. This would include his goldfish. I'm guessing the RSPCA think they can succeed because Louis declares that the goldfish is his "pet", which under s3 of the legislation means he is responsible for the goldfish. Even if his April Fool's disclaimer is effective, s3 allows responsibility for an animal to arise by a finding that the animal is under his care. Because his actions were to eat the goldfish - to garner views on youtube, to entertain and by doing this, to earn money, all other elements under s4(1) are clear. Perhaps his one out is s4(4), but this will depend on what "appropriate and humane manner" means. I'm guessing it doesn't cover eating your goldfish. Finally under s32, the offences are:

On April 24 2012 13:51 Arghmyliver wrote:



But say you catch a crab or something. You have to keep it alive until you cook/eat it so wouldn't boiling it alive be considered mistreatment by the owner?

On April 24 2012 13:45 Antimatterz wrote:


Wait did he just swallow that shit whole? I thought he would like actually eat it, not just inhale it lol

Also, are goldfish brains large enough to register pain? I thought they were too small to feel actual pain and only have sensory input (like pressure).

This video is unavailable
Det här videoklippet har tagits bort eftersom dess innehåll bryter mot YouTubes användarvillkor.
Vi ber om ursäkt för det.