Video: Live fish drink dare lands binman in court

DARE: A binman drank minnows for a game

DARE: A binman drank minnows for a game

First published in News
Last updated
by

A 33-year-old binman from Herefordshire who drank four fish in a cocktail of alcohol has walked free from court after being charged with animal cruelty.

Paul Wooding was sentenced at Hereford Magistrates' Court, over two offences linked to the online Neknominate craze, in an incident in a pub which happened in February.

Wooding was handed an 18 month conditional discharge, concurrent, for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, and also for failing to protect the fish, after being prosecuted by the RSPCA.

He admitted both charges in court earlier this month.

In the video, Wooding, of Brampton Avenue, Ross-on-Wye, announces "this is my Neknominate" before downing a pint glass of wine, gin, vodka, rum and lemonade - together with the fish.

Rafe Turner, prosecuting, said it was a professional vet's opinion "the fish have been caused pain, based on the video evidence".

The footage came to the RSPCA'S attention after it was seen on Wooding's Facebook page.

In it, after downing the cocktail, he nominates four other people to join the drinking game.

The Neknominate phenomenon is understood to have emerged in Australia, with Wooding's believed to be the fifth such case to come to court in connection with the craze.

After being interviewed about the video, Wooding later posted on Facebook: "Some people's lives must be that sad and boring, to get any excitement they have to report me to the RSPCA for my Neknominate."

Wooding told investigators he had been nominated to drink by friends and "something was going around to get some fish, to make it different".

Mr Turner said he told the RSPCA the fish were "little minnows" and he had got them out of his friend's fish tank an hour before carrying out the act.

Wooding said he had drunk about eight pints and six double gins, before downing the cocktail at the Golf Inn, in Ross.

Chris Morgan, in mitigation, questioned why the prosecution had ever made it to court when cautions had been issued for "other similar matters".

He added: "Yes, those fish may have experienced pain and then died, but they are small fish, nothing more."

He said the offences should be looked at objectively, and that comparing the fishes' deaths, for example, to four horses would be "contrary to common sense".

Mr Morgan added his client was "stupid, irresponsible and ashamed" but had already suffered having been exposed to "public ridicule" and the press spotlight.

Wooding, he said, had no idea his drinking the fish was against the law.

"If it can ever be said of a crime, that a defendant has learned the error of his ways, it can be said here," said Mr Morgan.

Wooding was also ordered to pay £500 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

After the hearing, RSPCA inspector Mark Lewis said: “There was a deliberate decision to take these fish and swallow them as part of this irresponsible game.

"The fish suffered unnecessarily and it is simply not acceptable to treat an animal in this way purely for amusement.”

To watch footage of the dare visit worcesternews.co.uk

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:52pm Tue 19 Aug 14

voledog says...

For lunch today I ate a fish that had been trapped in a huge net, dragged to the surface with tens of thousands of other fish, sucked out of the net by a giant vacuum then pumped into a giant holding tank where it and its companions suffocated to death. It was then unloaded at a fish factory, put through a machine to be automatically filleted then deposited in a can in which it was cooked. I expect that was an even more unpleasant experience for that fish than what happened to the ones mentioned in this court case. What's the difference?

Food is food. If this gentleman wishes to eat live fish, or live oysters for that matter (which is perfectly acceptable to many people), what business is it of the RSPCA?

The RSPCA waste millions of £s every year that should be spent on animal welfare but which instead is squandered pursuing ridiculous prosecutions like this one. It's about time those in charge of the organisation had a reality check!
For lunch today I ate a fish that had been trapped in a huge net, dragged to the surface with tens of thousands of other fish, sucked out of the net by a giant vacuum then pumped into a giant holding tank where it and its companions suffocated to death. It was then unloaded at a fish factory, put through a machine to be automatically filleted then deposited in a can in which it was cooked. I expect that was an even more unpleasant experience for that fish than what happened to the ones mentioned in this court case. What's the difference? Food is food. If this gentleman wishes to eat live fish, or live oysters for that matter (which is perfectly acceptable to many people), what business is it of the RSPCA? The RSPCA waste millions of £s every year that should be spent on animal welfare but which instead is squandered pursuing ridiculous prosecutions like this one. It's about time those in charge of the organisation had a reality check! voledog
  • Score: 8

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree