Goldfish eating, social media and Neknominate

The recent prosecution by the RSPCA of Josh Coles for eating a goldfish that he had just won at a fairground in Stafford caused a stir on social media and revulsion in many people, but there are those that see it as just a bit of harmless fun. Josh Coles pleaded guilty and received a 12 month community service order, £385 costs and was strangely banned from keeping fish for 5 years.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue, I’m an animal lover”.

To its credit, the RSPCA stepped in early on when the craze became popular and has prosecuted many cases over the years but has perversely been accused of heavy handedness and expending money on pointless and worthless prosecutions as they are only fish.

Many people would suggest that as we pay little attention to fish slowly gasping for breath and asphyxiating on the quayside or on fish market slabs and that we find it entertaining to watch celebrities eat live small animals on reality shows why should we be so uptight about a goldfish.

What obviously shocked people the most was the fact that he ate a live goldfish, filmed it and displayed it on YouTube for no other reason than to gain fame and notoriety. It could also be that we identify goldfish and their ilk as pets not food, so we get upset when some inept unthinking person eats one at a funfair, in a Macdonalds restaurant or in the local pub.

Although these acts are mostly done under the influence of alcohol and for a dare there are many which are intentional and planned. Back in 2012, Louis Cole gained fame for regularly eating unusual live animals such as tarantulas and scorpions on his YouTube channel until he came unstuck after he ate a simple goldfish, as he didn’t realise that fish, by having a spine, are covered under anti-cruelty laws and he found himself under investigation by the RSPCA.

Eating live small animals is a common practice and a sure way of getting hits on social media which is awash with such videos. The sad part is that so many young adults appear to find it acceptable behaviour and amusing despite its lack of originality.

It was probably a surprise to many people that it is still lawful to continue this archaic tradition of giving goldfish as prizes in the first place, but it was yet another omission from the Animal Welfare Act back in 2006. Of course the frequency of these incidents could have been reduced if it had been banned as the fish would not have been so easily available.

Social media & Neknominate is mainly to blame.

The online drinking game of neknominate has fuelled the trend over the last few years. In 2014 a 22-year old named Gavin Hope prepared a cocktail then swallowed a pet goldfish and washed it down with a pint as a neknominate dare and was heavily penalised with a £330 fine and £3430 costs. Some take it too far and in the same year Sheldon Jeans swallowed a live frog and lizard and was prosecuted receiving £1,200 in costs.

Although such behaviour is nothing new, social media encourages far more of it in this modern era. There is a pattern to it though, as it mainly involves drunken young males who once they find themselves in court declare they didn’t mean any harm and believe it is funny.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue and I’m an animal lover”

In another incident a Robert Atkinson aged 20 was filmed by his friend Lewis Summers, who ironically worked in a solicitors office, swallowing a live goldfish in their local MacDonald’s having first put it in a pint of beer. Atkinson pleaded guilty and Summers guilty to aiding and abetting and they were both ordered to serve 40 hours of unpaid work and pay a £723 fine each, alongside a victim surcharge of £60. It was a premeditated action and yet he viewed himself as an “animal lover”.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue with it being a small animal. I’m an animal lover myself and I didn’t know I was committing an offence. I have thousands of followers on social media, and I posted the video because I knew it would go viral. Some people thought it was funny but there were a few who thought it was cruel.

Robert Atkinson in his defence.

Judges and Magistrates appear to take the issue seriously.

What is interesting is that magistrates and judges appear to agree that it is a serious act and have made this quite clear. At the trial of Gavin Hope presiding magistrate, David Randall, called it “a stupid thoughtless incident” and at the trial of Atkinson and Summers the judge, to his credit, summed it up in this way and I cannot put it any better:

The real question is how far down the evolutionary scale should we go in pursuing prosecutions of people who commit such acts of cruelty before it is viewed as nonsensical and heavy handed. Theoretically any lack of respect of a living creature must surely be tackled as who knows where it might lead if left unpunished.

Want to report animal cruelty in the UK- who should you call?

Reporting animal cruelty in the U.K can be confusing. Ask most people who they think of first when reporting animal cruelty in the U.K and you can almost guarantee they will answer RSPCA or Scottish SPCA. Ask them who they think is legally responsible for investigating and prosecuting animal abuse and you will probably get the same answer. But in reality this is not the case as they have only become the default agency because those who should be responsible show little appetite to get involved.

Many people do not realise that there are other official authorities they can contact.These include the police, local authorities and Department of Environment, Farming & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), who have all been happy to decry the RSPCA in the past but have shown little interest themselves, as it is an expensive and specialist area of law enforcement.

When the government introduced the all-encompassing new Animal Welfare Act 2006 they failed to appoint anyone to enforce it.

There is also a misplaced conviction that the Society has mythical powers of arrest, forced entry and seizure when the sad truth is that they have no powers at all. The other agencies do not have a statutory duty to bother only a moral one and because of this mindset the RSPCA have always stepped in to fill the breach. But not everyone is happy with this situation and many believe they should not be allowed to prosecute and police authorities, judges, the media and legal profession regularly condemn the RSPCA and state that there is a conflict of interest and they have muscled their way into becoming the default agency.

Ironically there would be little or no investigation or prevention of animal cruelty without their input as they prosecute over 90% of cases taken under the Animal Welfare Act, 2006 and they are the only organisation that collects statistics on cruelty, so without them we would not even know the level of animal abuse in the country. Basically the Police, our local authorities and DEFRA should in theory be playing a bigger role. Recently there has been a lot of hand wringing at suggestions of giving legal powers to the RSPCA even though most other countries have gone down this route successfully.

The National Police Chiefs Authority have stated that: ‘Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 there is no one agency that is held responsible or accountable for enforcement of animal welfare. This means there are inconsistencies, however the Police, local authorities and animal welfare charities do seek to work together to deal with serious cruelty to animals.’ 

reporting animal cruelty

So what is the real situation and who should you contact.

Reporting animal cruelty to the Police.

If you call a Police call centre they will usually automatically refer you to the RSPCA, but you should insist they attend if it is an emergency situation. The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) stated they are happy to: signpost reports of animal welfare to the RSPCA and only provide a police response in emergency cases’.

In all fairness the Police are overstretched and in reality are out of their depth or comfort zone when it comes to animal cruelty issues. Many officers no doubt have the attitude that they have better things to do. They also admit that their front-line officers rarely use or even know about the Act and many forces rely on a few ‘specialist’ dog and wildlife crime officers to deal with animals.

Reporting Animal Cruelty to DEFRA.

You can report many aspects of cruelty to the local Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) who are tasked with most aspects of the care, welfare and transport of livestock, slaughterhouses and animals in general, but the number of inspectors and inspections is woefully inadequate.

In 2016 they only managed to visit  1,676  farms out of  362,151 that were due inspection for animal welfare  just 0.46%. The potential for missed cases of suffering is huge.

Reporting animal cruelty to local authorities.

Local government authorities, usually the environmental health department inspectors, are responsible for licensing animal premises and welfare in dog breeding, pet shops, riding stables and most places where animal are kept. Like the Police they have no statutory duty to enforce the Animal Welfare Act.

But the Animal Welfare Act has discretionary powers for national and local authorities to appoint ‘inspectors’, but because of the cost and training required only 60% did so when the law was introduced, with many withdrawing them over the last decade due to the costs involved, and of these only 17% had inspectors dealing with companion animals.

In May 2020, Tracy Crouch, M.P. asked in the House of Commons how many animal welfare inspectors there were in Kent and was told the Government did not hold any such data under the Act and it was up to local authorities to “prioritise their resources”, so it seems the situation hasn’t changed.

Other Animal Charities.

Straying into areas involving campaigning against and prosecuting animal cruelty is contentious as well as expensive and risks alienating donors so most animal charities steer well clear and prefer instead to concentrate on the aftermath of irresponsible ownership and ill-treatment of animals.

Reporting animal cruelty in Scotland

Scotland approaches the subject differently and the Scottish SPCA (SSPCA) is designated a ‘Specialist Reporting Agency’, who report the facts of a case of cruelty to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. And it is they who decide whether the evidence warrants a prosecution and is in the ‘public interest’. In this way it protects the SSPCA from any criticism or blame of victimisation or conflict of interest.

Many believe this is the way forward and ensures an independent and unbiased approach, but in reality, with all agencies already giving cruelty a low priority because of funding restraints and staffing, plus having a differing viewpoint on what constitutes abuse from those who deal with cruelty daily, it would undoubtedly result in very few prosecutions being taken and remove any deterrent to those who harm animals.

The easy solution would be to give the RSPCA more powers following extra police training and other safeguards, the road many other countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the USA have gone down, but in our land of animal lovers we don’t seem to be able to get our head round the idea.