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.

Finn’s Law – better late than never.

Finn’s law came into force in June, 2019

Injured German Shepherd with stab wounds.
Finn the police dog with stab wounds to head and chest soon after major surgery to save his life.

Why did it take so long to protect UK police dogs and horses with Finn’s Law.

Until recently police dogs and horses have always been treated just as a piece of police equipment or property. Countries have been extremely slow at recognising the need to protect them and it has often taken too many tragic incidents and thwarted campaigns to force lawmakers to do so. The UK, the great nation of animal lovers, has followed its usual path in lagging behind other countries in protecting service animals and like most countries has only done it through public pressure.

New Zealand has protected its police dogs since 2008 with the Policing Act 2008 (Killing or injuring Police Dogs) and has recently increased the punishment under the Policing (Killing a Police Dog) Amendment Bill 2016 to 5 years in line with many other countries and 2 years for injuring a dog plus a NZ$15,000 fine.

The USA has had protection in place since 2000 under the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act with up to 10 years in prison and a $1000 fine for assaulting, maiming or killing federal law enforcement dogs and horses following many attacks on them and drug dealers putting bounties on narcotics sniffer dogs, but State laws vary.

Police dog handlers have to fight for the rights of their dogs.

Finn's Law. Injured police dog
Major the police dog paralysed in a stabbing with his handler, Officer John Jorgensen.

On the 12th. November, 2010 in Roseville, Minnesota, USA, Officer John Jorgensen sent  his police dog Major into a wooded area to chase after intruders and within minutes he found Major covered in blood and rushed him to the vet where he was found to have suffered four stab wounds puncturing the lung and damaging the spinal cord resulting in permanent paralysis of his hind legs. Although it was a felony to kill a state police dog, assaulting one was treated at the time as a mere misdemeanour so the attacker only served 4 months. The officer was so appalled at the lack of protection of his partner that he began a campaign for more stringent laws in the State which he succeeded in.

In August 2013 in Adelaide, South Australia a police dog named Koda was  stabbed in the chest in the line of duty when he caught up with a knife-wielding man following a burglary. He was stabbed in the chest causing a 8 c.m.-deep wound and was rushed to a vet where he underwent emergency surgery and survived.  The incident was greeted with public outrage as no law existed to prosecute the offender and following a campaign a new law, known as “Koda’s Law” was introduced.

Finn's Law. Police horses wearing eye and face shields and leg protection.
We are already having to kit police horses out with protective gear to avoid injuries.

On the 5th. October, 2016 in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK a 16-year-old boy stabbed a police dog named Finn in the chest and head causing life threatening injuries, but he survived following surgery and weeks of treatment. It sparked outrage and there was a campaign, including a website and Facebook page for Finn, involving his handler PC Wardell to enact a law to protect them , something that should have been included under the Animal Welfare Act back in 2006 but was either overlooked or not felt necessary.

UK Government slow to introduce Finn’s Law and come to the rescue of police dogs and horses.

A petition was launched which stated “I propose that UK police dogs and horses be given protection that reflects their status if assaulted in the line of duty. This would be similar to the US Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection”, but prior to the petition being debated the Government responded by saying “It is unnecessary to give police animals the same legal status as officers in light of the penalties already in place”. This was not helped by a delay caused by Sir Christopher Chope MP who unbelievably objected to the new proposed law.  Such is the UK’s commitment to animal welfare.

Despite this a new amendment, the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Amendment, to the Animal Welfare Act, which has been dubbed “Finn’s law,” was finally  debated by the Lords and came into force on 7th. June 2019. It is obviously better late than never but it seems sad that we haven’t found it necessary to help our police dogs and horses much sooner.

Is it time to reduce the usage of animals on front line duties?

Having such a law is obviously to be applauded, but it is not unfortunately going to solve the problem of attacks on police animals in the future and brings into focus the danger we put these animals in on our behalf. It raises the question of whther it is ethically and morally fair to intentionally put animals in harms way in the first place?  Would it not be better to restrict them to ceremonial use or purely as “search” and “sniffer” dogs who appear to have a fun time at work.

Updated June 2020