The horrid woman who dumped the cat in the wheely bin has been fined £250, after pleading guilty. (just heard it on the radio news)

:clap:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/cat-bin-woman-pleads-guilty

A woman who was caught on security camera dumping a cat into its owners' wheelie bin has been fined £250 after pleading guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to the animal.

Bank worker Mary Bale, from Coventry, became an international hate figure in August after CCTV footage emerged of her stroking the four-year-old tabby before picking it up by the scruff of its neck and dropping it into the bin.

Bale, 45, was last month charged with two offences under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, for causing unnecessary suffering and for failing to provide the cat with a suitable environment.

Appearing at Coventry magistrates court this morning, she admitted to the first charge. The second charge was dropped.

she has also to pay costs, of £1,171 and banned from keeping or owning animals for the next five years.

Good.

Get in. There is no place in a civilised country for such disgusting behaviour. I was amazed by her blase attitude to it as if chucking a cat in a bin is normal. It was strangely refreshing to see a middle class middle aged woman guilty of anti social behaviour as opposed to the usual youths. It showed it's not always the usual suspects.
Sadly I do wonder if it inspired any copying behaviour.

Some will moan her punishment is too harsh, my suggestion in which case is no fine, just put her in a room with some animal rights activists for half an hour.

As a cat lover, I'd like to stick her in a bin for 15 hours.

Interesting that the court costs are several times higher than the fine... but that's another topic :)

x

Bearing in mind that no lasting damage to the cat was caused then I think that the punishment is in the right order of magnitude, even though I think that the media circus was possibly enough of a punishment even before this case came to court.

If she's got such a heartless attitude I wouldn't imagine she would want to own an animal anyway.

cats are srs bsns on the internets

What? :confused:

It's quite laughable.

... just put her in a room with some animal rights activists for half an hour.
Or the 4chan folk (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/08/24/internet-finds-cat-t.html); virtually,of course...

As a cat lover, I'd like to stick her in a bin for 15 hours.

As a non-cat lover, I'd rather see all cat's in bins:D.

I think it's disgusting what she done.







Everyone knows green bins are for garden waste...

I think it's disgusting what she done.

Not half as bad as the sentence above:D.

As a non-cat lover, I'd rather see all cat's in bins:D.

Yes, animal cruelty is hilarious, isn't it?

Yes, animal cruelty is hilarious, isn't it?

Go to Argos and buy a sense of humour, as you obviously do not have one (or the one you have got is faulty):rolleyes:.

come on it's only a cat. she didn't put a child in there or anything? or cause any actual damage tot he cat

and the owners cant actually prove it was in the for 16 hours, even though they have CCTV. it's all been blown up

There was a story on Radio 2 yesterday about an estate that wanted 10, I'll repeat that 10 Foxes killing because they were allegedly ripping up the lawn and pooing everywhere. A company was going to be paid to do this yet catwoman is fined for this. It's a seriously messed up world. I believe the rest of the neighbourhood has stepped in and saved the foxes for the time being.

I believe all animal cruelty should be punished. Not just the stuff caught on camera and sensationalised in the Meeja.

let's not forget that, as well as the fine, she has been banned from keeping a pet in a bin for 5 years.

No-one should do that to a pussy.

come on it's only a cat. she didn't put a child in there or anything? or cause any actual damage tot he cat

and the owners cant actually prove it was in the for 16 hours, even though they have CCTV. it's all been blown up


That attitude is why we have people in the world willing to hurt animals.
"It's only a cat, lets put it in a bin for 15hours and cause it unnecessary upset"
No, she didn't put a child in the bin, but if we start allowing people to treat animals like that it won't be long until more people are treating children in that way.

As a non-cat lover, I'd rather see all cat's in bins:D.

How NOT funny

"It's only a cat, lets put it in a bin for 15hours and cause it unnecessary upset"

There is no proof that the cat was in the bin for 15 hours.

Was she fined by the council too for putting the wrong waste in the wrong bin? :|

No, she didn't put a child in the bin, but if we start allowing people to treat animals like that it won't be long until more people are treating children in that way.

people ARE treating children in that way

people ARE treating children in that way

Yes I know that I said MORE people would treat children that way.

Yes I know that I said MORE people would treat children that way.

So you're saying that people can't tell the difference between a cat and a baby human?

Yes I know that I said MORE people would treat children that way.

People kill rats every day, does that not have the same effect, or does it have to be cruelty to a cute animal before it matters ?

People kill rats every day, does that not have the same effect, or does it have to be cruelty to a cute animal before it matters ?


Rats are vermin. This was somebody's pet.

I can't believe you think it's the same thing.

Rats are vermin. This was somebody's pet.

I can't believe you think it's the same thing.

Animals are animals to me, I don't differentiate and allow cruelty to one set but not another.

Animals are animals to me, I don't differentiate and allow cruelty to one set but not another.

You think people should be prosecuted if they kill a rat?

Back on topic please.

I opened my wheelie bin the other day and a wasp flew out..

Poor woman, £250, plus costs?!! Robbing sods.

You think people should be prosecuted if they kill a rat?

yes, if they do it with cruelty.

She got what she deserved. Hopefully she'll learn to control her frankly bizarre impulses in the future.

Rats are vermin.

I used to keep rats as pets when I was younger.

This was somebody's pet.

Cats are vermin in my opinion.


I can't believe you think it's the same thing.

Whyever not? I know I view them as the same.

I opened my wheelie bin the other day and a wasp flew out.

Should bill it for rent:D.

It's not cruel to kill a rat with poison or a trap. They carry disease and fleas. A domestic animal is completely different.

I can't believe how old the woman looks, she's only 45 but looks ten years older!

Internet nutjobs have ordered her pizza, funeral services, junk mail, cabs at 3am and death threats.

It's not cruel to kill a rat with poison

Do you know how it kills them, and how long it takes ?

It's not cruel to kill a rat with poison or a trap.

Welll, it's hardly humane now, is it?

They carry disease and fleas.

So do cats, dogs, horses, cows, pigs .....

A domestic animal is completely different.

In your opinion.

Internet nutjobs have ordered her ... death threats.

Where'd you order death threats from? PsychosRus?

It's not cruel to kill a rat with poison or a trap. They carry disease and fleas. A domestic animal is completely different.


Are you really arguing that there being a chance that something carries a disease is all the justification needed to kill it?

Because that kind of seems to be what you're saying here.

I just find it odd how so-called animal lovers can be so selective about what animals they love.

I just find it odd how so-called animal lovers can be so selective about what animals they love.

Yes it is odd but humans are not logical rational creatures or there would be no pollution or hunger. As it stands cats are seen as 'elite' creatures and kept as pets. Cruelty to any animal is wrong but people can be forgiven for having a greater emotional response to a cat's suffering.

As it happens the weirdo woman got all she deserved and I would advise people to film any other weirdo's they can to ensure they get punished too.

As it happens the weirdo woman got all she deserved .


Death threats?

I betcha the people who threatened her think nothing of buying factory chickens...

here's the real madness, two blokes go to prison for killing a dog and some birds:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23889143-pensioners-anger-at-wildlife-poisoners-who-killed-her-dog.do

A lorry driver with faulty mirrors and faulty eyesight runs into a cyclist from behind, kills her, and gets a £200 fine:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23886884-dead-cyclists-family-angered-by-pound-200-fine-for-lorry-driver.do

Death threats?

I betcha the people who threatened her think nothing of buying factory chickens...

I was referring to her court punishment though I won't be losing sleep over her other woes.

I was referring to her court punishment though I won't be losing sleep over her other woes.


neither did the court, they took into account the death threats when they punished her with almost £1500 worth of penalty.

Is what she did really 8 times worse than the lorry driver who killed the cyclist?

Bonkers.

neither did the court, they took into account the death threats when they punished her with almost £1500 worth of penalty.

Is what she did really 8 times worse than the lorry driver who killed the cyclist?

Bonkers.

Each case is judged individually according to the laws prevailing over that incident. I expect the judge believed the cyclist was partly to blame for the accident.

I expect the judge believed the cyclist was partly to blame for the accident.

The judge said nothing of the kind, Eilidh did nothing wrong.

From comments:

It's a shame that any potential witnesses to this accident were turned away by the police, without anyone's details being taken - no wonder the family and prosecutor still don't know how the accident took place. My colleague and I work in a shop outside of which the accident took place, and although we didn't witness the accident, we did witness the police handling of the matter and the way all motorists behind the truck were told to u-turn immediately. The police didn't come back to look for witnesses until 2 weeks later, by which time - of course - there weren't any!

I'm a cyclist myself and it sickens me to think that a human life is worth so little to our justice system. You get a worse penalty for theft. Why does a diamond robber get 10 years in jail and on the same day a tuck driver who kills a cyclist gets only a £200 fine? What kind of a society values possessions/protects business over human life?

even though they have CCTV. it's all been blown up

Someone blew up the CCTV :confused:

That's criminal damage :D

I guess there'll be another blown up media circus to encourage half the country to hate somebody for no real reason soon.

Bring it on!

I am not a great lover of cats but i wouldnt wish any harm to any animal, Im glad that she got the fine she deserved it.

Yes it is odd but humans are not logical rational creatures or there would be no pollution or hunger. As it stands cats are seen as 'elite' creatures and kept as pets. Cruelty to any animal is wrong but people can be forgiven for having a greater emotional response to a cat's suffering.

As it happens the weirdo woman got all she deserved and I would advise people to film any other weirdo's they can to ensure they get punished too.

Different thread, but yes there would. Pollution and hunger are very much products of our rational world view.

What statute makes being "weird" a crime?

The judge said nothing of the kind, Eilidh did nothing wrong.

From comments:

It's a shame that any potential witnesses to this accident were turned away by the police, without anyone's details being taken - no wonder the family and prosecutor still don't know how the accident took place. My colleague and I work in a shop outside of which the accident took place, and although we didn't witness the accident, we did witness the police handling of the matter and the way all motorists behind the truck were told to u-turn immediately. The police didn't come back to look for witnesses until 2 weeks later, by which time - of course - there weren't any!

I'm a cyclist myself and it sickens me to think that a human life is worth so little to our justice system. You get a worse penalty for theft. Why does a diamond robber get 10 years in jail and on the same day a tuck driver who kills a cyclist gets only a £200 fine? What kind of a society values possessions/protects business over human life?

A diamond robbery is a premeditated, planned and deliberate act. Knocking down a cyclist in this case was a tragic accident. Hence the difference.

Anyway, the lorry driver in the case you mention only had his eyes checked months after the incident and was found to fail by only a short margin, and the mirror adjustment issue is referred to as 'claims' i.e. unsubstantiated. Sounds like the right outcome in the case to me.

The poisoning of the birds (90!) and the dog was a cruel, premeditated attack. It will also have had other implications, for example to the dog's owner, visitors to the park, the council having to clear it up etc. This is obviously completely different to an unfortunate accident.

Knocking down a cyclist in this case was a tragic accident.


In broad daylight a cyclist is hit and killed from behind by a lorry with faulty mirrors being driven by a man with faulty eyesight. The police waved away potential witnesses and the driver didn't even lose his licence.

In another case, a lorry driver admitted checking his paperwork at the wheel when he ran down and killed a cyclist who was doing nothing wrong.

If you want an internet campaign and death threats stuff a cat in a bin on CCTV.

If you want to kill someone and get away scot free, use a vehicle.

In broad daylight a cyclist is hit and killed from behind by a lorry with faulty mirrors being driven by a man with faulty eyesight. The police waved away potential witnesses and the driver didn't even lose his licence.

In another case, a lorry driver admitted checking his paperwork at the wheel when he ran down and killed a cyclist who was doing nothing wrong.

If you want an internet campaign and death threats stuff a cat in a bin on CCTV.

If you want to kill someone and get away scot free, use a vehicle.

So, the cyclist was behind a reversing lorry why? The article mentions nothing about his reversing lights not working?

So, the cyclist was behind a reversing lorry why? The article mentions nothing about his reversing lights not working?

The cyclist was ahead of the lorry, read the link.



HGVs account for 45 per cent of all London cyclists' deaths, and one in five of cyclists' deaths in the UK, yet represent only five per cent. of road traffic.

The driver couldn't speak English, had mirrors that weren't adjusted correctly, was in a vehicle wider than the lane, failed to notice a cyclist ahead of him in broad daylight, and killed her by smashing into her from behind.

Verdict "Accidental Death".

Punishment £200.

Sickening.

If you want to kill someone and get away scot free, use a vehicle.

Thats been the case for years.

Thats been the case for years.


Sure, and it's not just cyclists, it's pedestrians as well.

The weird thing is, if the lorry driver had killed someone on a building site the HSE would crawl all over the place.

On the roads they mop up the blood and shrug.

Ok, so she put a cat in a bin. She didn't kill it, mutilate it or harm it. A few hours later the cat will have been treated to cream and tuna no doubt - it was still in one piece, just a bit hacked off for a few hours.

While she did deserve to be repremanded, the way people have over-reacted to this is utterly ridiculous. Parents who have abused their children will get off with a caution and the odd look-in from social services - do try to put that into perspective considering the hatred that has been targetted at this woman, the fine, the significant court costs and the effect it will have had on her life.

Different thread, but yes there would. Pollution and hunger are very much products of our rational world view.

What statute makes being "weird" a crime?

I don't see anything logical in letting people starve or spewing chemicals into the sea but that's just me.

I have not stated being weird is a crime. However when you think about it criminals are people who refuse to follow the same rules as ordinary people. Either because they think they are special which they aren't or that they can get away with it, which they can't. That is pretty weird.

Parents who have abused their children will get off with a caution

Which parents?

Ok, so she put a cat in a bin. She didn't kill it, mutilate it or harm it. A few hours later the cat will have been treated to cream and tuna no doubt - it was still in one piece, just a bit hacked off for a few hours.

While she did deserve to be repremanded, the way people have over-reacted to this is utterly ridiculous. Parents who have abused their children will get off with a caution and the odd look-in from social services - do try to put that into perspective considering the hatred that has been targetted at this woman, the fine, the significant court costs and the effect it will have had on her life.

This is because her crime was so simple. It is often a hotly contested argument as to what constitutes child abuse so cautions are inevitable. Let's not have revisionism over this woman, she is a disgrace.

Sure, and it's not just cyclists, it's pedestrians as well.

The weird thing is, if the lorry driver had killed someone on a building site the HSE would crawl all over the place.

On the roads they mop up the blood and shrug.

The strange thing is if he had run over a cat he would be getting death threats now.

Which parents?I guess the answer would be bad ones. Ones with kids on 'at risk' registers. Ones who have taken kids to hospital too many times with bruises. Ones who go out and leave young kids unsupervised. Ones who don't feed their kids properly because they spend their money on drugs. Ones who give their babies drugs to keep them from crying.

What argument are you looking for this time?

A diamond robbery is a premeditated, planned and deliberate act. Knocking down a cyclist in this case was a tragic accident. Hence the difference.

Anyway, the lorry driver in the case you mention only had his eyes checked months after the incident and was found to fail by only a short margin, and the mirror adjustment issue is referred to as 'claims' i.e. unsubstantiated. Sounds like the right outcome in the case to me.

The poisoning of the birds (90!) and the dog was a cruel, premeditated attack. It will also have had other implications, for example to the dog's owner, visitors to the park, the council having to clear it up etc. This is obviously completely different to an unfortunate accident.

I concur, I wish people would try thinking about all the factors judges have to take into account when sentencing. They also do so in an unemotional way as opposed to thinking "that poor cyclist did nothing wrong therefore the evil trucker must be jailed for years. The judge will have factored in the guilt he will feel for the rest of his life.

This is because her crime was so simple. It is often a hotly contested argument as to what constitutes child abuse so cautions are inevitable. Let's not have revisionism over this woman, she is a disgrace.I don't dispute that she did wrong. but this is totally out of perspective.

I don't dispute that she did wrong. but this is totally out of perspective.

Is it? It went to court and she paid a fine. She's not doing time or anything. An American judge I read about discovered a woman over there discarded a load of kittens in some woods in the middle of the night. That judge ruled that the woman had to spend a night in the woods by herself with no proper coat if I remember rightly. This was an elected equivalent of a magistrate. How do you think our nutter would have fared if left at the mercy of an elected community judge?

I don't dispute that she did wrong. but this is totally out of perspective.

I agree, to much media hype.

She was stupid, if she had kept quiet and not admitted guilt she would not have been prosecuted despite the CCT footage.

The strange thing is if he had run over a cat he would be getting death threats now.

I think there's rather a big difference in intent. It would be very hard to argue in court that the woman accidentally put the cat in the wheely bin.

What argument are you looking for this time?

I wondered if you had any actual examples of people who had abused children being dealt with by a caution. Otherwise your post is just silly.

the mirror adjustment issue is referred to as 'claims' i.e. unsubstantiated. Sounds like the right outcome in the case to me.
.


Now you're just making stuff up:

The inquest also found that if the driver had adjusted his mirrors correctly, he would have been able to see Eilidh clearly.

The point in the road at which the accident happened was just 2 metres wide – the driver’s vehicle was 2.5 metres, raising the question of why he was on that particular road in the first place. A verdict of accidental death was delivered.

Ms Cairns's sister Kate said

“The one thing we didn't want was an accidental verdict. We agree it was not intentional but we believed it was avoidable. People in power act as though these accidents just unfortunately happen to female cyclists and people have to deal with it. There is a huge problem with female cyclists being on the streets of London with HGVs and politicians are not doing enough to address that.

“These cyclists are not soldiers going into battle. They are just women going to work and nobody is doing anything to stop this needless slaughter.”


http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/2010/02/know-your-enemies-know-your-limits.html

Is it? It went to court and she paid a fine. She's not doing time or anything.An American judge I read about discovered a woman over there discarded a load of kittens in some woods in the middle of the night. That judge ruled that the woman had to spend a night in the woods by herself with no proper coat if I remember rightly. This was an elected equivalent of a magistrate. How do you think our nutter would have fared if left at the mercy of an elected community judge?

Of course it's an over-reaction. No one died (nor was anyone likely to). The rest of your post is irrelevant as this is the UK justice system, not the insanity that is the US version.

I think there's rather a big difference in intent. It would be very hard to argue in court that the woman accidentally put the cat in the wheely bin.

It'd be even harder to prove that someone had driven over a cat deliberately.

Of course it's an over-reaction. No one died (nor was anyone likely to). The rest of your post is irrelevant as this is the UK justice system, not the insanity that is the US version.



It'd be even harder to prove that someone had driven over a cat deliberately.

There you go again. To quote you let me say in your opinion in regard to whether it's an over reaction. It's a pity you do whatever job you do as you clearly know how to react with application of the law better than the judge.

If I want to contrast her treatment with the US and ask what would happen to her over here I will. That's the stimulus of debate. To you this is an argument to be won at any cost. Now you follow me around deciding what is and isn't irrelevant and crossing out my words. Again, in 5 years of forum activity I have never come across anyone like you.

Is it? It went to court and she paid a fine. She's not doing time or anything. An American judge I read about discovered a woman over there discarded a load of kittens in some woods in the middle of the night. That judge ruled that the woman had to spend a night in the woods by herself with no proper coat if I remember rightly. This was an elected equivalent of a magistrate. How do you think our nutter would have fared if left at the mercy of an elected community judge?

Thank God we are not like the USA and have the HRA and others to protect peoples rights.

Now you follow me around

Behave. I posted on this thread on the first page (quite a time before you).

Looks more like you're following me around (especially seeing as how you quoted me on the other BBC thread).

Now... Grow up.

Behave. I posted on this thread on the first page (quite a time before you).

Looks more like you're following me around (especially seeing as how you quoted me on the other BBC thread).

Now... Grow up.

Going around stating opinion as fact to the point of crossing out people's words is not something I recall seeing on here before.

Having lost the TV licence argument by resorting to nit picking over sentence meaning you now resort to crossing them out! Unbelievable, I thought I had seen some opinionated people on here but you take the biscuit.

Grow up? You're 44 and crossing out sentences because you absolutely must win the 'game'. :loopy: Amazing.

Going around stating opinion as fact to the point of crossing out people's words is not something I recall seeing on here before

Oh dear.

Once again (for the interlectually challenged):

The words you typed were/are irrelevant as this case was in the UK. You tried to "Americanise" it by bringing in non-questions/non-points. Which is why I struck them out, and if you've never seen it done on here before, then you need to look a little harder as it has been used many, many times by various users. Seems like you haven't read that many posts/threads on here during you time on SF:rolleyes:.

If you don't like what I'm saying, then don't respond (ie ignore me).

I don't see anything logical in letting people starve or spewing chemicals into the sea but that's just me.

That's because you're not trying to steal the natural resources in the country they live in, or trying to avoid paying proper disposal costs, as examples.

I have not stated being weird is a crime. However when you think about it criminals are people who refuse to follow the same rules as ordinary people. Either because they think they are special which they aren't or that they can get away with it, which they can't. That is pretty weird.You may not have said it's a crime, but you said the weird should be punished. Are you advocating a vigilante group now? ;)

I wondered if you had any actual examples of people who had abused children being dealt with by a caution. Otherwise your post is just silly.No, your attitude and needless argument is the silly bit.

I can hardly quote specifics, but I mentioned the following examples:

Kids on 'at risk' registers, kids taken to hospital too many times with bruises, young kids left unsupervised, kids not fed properly because parents spend their money on drugs, babies given drugs to keep them from crying.

All of which have been real and have been cases where kids have not been taken into care - or at least not quickly enough, and parents have not been prosecuted until far too late after too many incidents.

If you are suggesting none of this happens, it's pointless replying to any more of your posts.

I can hardly quote specifics

Yes, that's because people found guilty of abusing children don't get cautions.

That's because you're not trying to steal the natural resources in the country they live in, or trying to avoid paying proper disposal costs, as examples.

You may not have said it's a crime, but you said the weird should be punished. Are you advocating a vigilante group now? ;)

Definitely, all anoraks rounded up and put into camps where we can keep an eye on em. You never know what they're up to.

It's utterly bonkers this story has taken priority on the BBC site over the Islamic militants who have tried to blow up Chechnya's parliament.

I guess there'll be another blown up media circus to encourage half the country to hate somebody for no real reason soon.

Bring it on!

I agree, I cannot believe the furore over this. Granted, what she did was cruel but the media attention and public vilification are totally out of proportion.

I had an Irish boyfriend once, whose mother's endless diatribes included the following:

'the feckin' English, they love their pets more they do their chil'en.':hihi:

I agree, I cannot believe the furore over this. Granted, what she did was cruel but the media attention and public vilification are totally out of proportion.

I had an Irish boyfriend once, whose mother's endless diatribes included the following:

'the feckin' English, they love their pets more they do their chil'en.':hihi:

Seems she wasn't wrong!

So she was fined £250. Probably calculated by the judge to cancel out her "You've Been Framed" payment.

Poor woman can be left alone now.

Yes, that's because people found guilty of abusing children don't get cautions.For somebody with such a know-all attitude, you really should check your facts before spouting.

"Figures provided by 33 police forces show 8,043 people who committed sexual and physical abuse offences against children were charged in the year to April, while 2,764 were given a caution".

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Rapists-child-abusers-103-sex-offenders-given-police-cautions/article-2169104-detail/article.html

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-child-abusers-let-caution/article-1372521-detail/article.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215444/Quarter-child-abusers-escape-court-action-police-cautions-instead.html

I look forward to your attempts to deflect this one. Would you like some seasoning with the words you're eating at the moment?

Seems she wasn't wrong!

My Greek mate says that too. I always say it's posible to be good to both. Even if we stopped all prosecutions for animal cruelty it would not stop child cruelty one iota.

Yes, that's because people found guilty of abusing children don't get cautions.
For somebody with such a know-all attitude, you really should check your facts before spouting.

"Figures provided by 33 police forces show 8,043 people who committed sexual and physical abuse offences against children were charged in the year to April, while 2,764 were given a caution".

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Rapists-child-abusers-103-sex-offenders-given-police-cautions/article-2169104-detail/article.html

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-child-abusers-let-caution/article-1372521-detail/article.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215444/Quarter-child-abusers-escape-court-action-police-cautions-instead.html

I look forward to your attempts to deflect this one. Would you like some seasoning with the words you're eating at the moment?Are you still there, Spindrift?

They weren't found guilty.

Learn to read.

They were cautioned, no trial took place, so they weren't found guilty.

Please don't barge into threads you haven't bothered to read properly, makes you look silly.

They weren't found guilty.

Learn to read.

They were cautioned, no trial took place, so they weren't found guilty.

Please don't barge into threads you haven't bothered to read properly, makes you look silly.I can read, my dear friend. I can also remember things - can you?

Like these posts, for example:

. . . . Parents who have abused their children will get off with a caution . . . .
Which parents?
I wondered if you had any actual examples of people who had abused children being dealt with by a caution. Otherwise your post is just silly.
. . . I can hardly quote specifics, . .
Yes, that's because people found guilty of abusing children don't get cautions.
"Figures provided by 33 police forces show 8,043 people who committed sexual and physical abuse offences against children were charged in the year to April, while 2,764 were given a caution".

You see, I never said anything about guilt vs cautions - you added that later. My initial statement was that some abusers get off with cautions - which you challenged. I think we both know that a caution is an alternative to a charge and trial, so of course they would not be found guilty, but the fact that they were cautioned records the crime having taken place.

You know, some people have the good grace to admit when they've been spouting, while others, it would seem, just step their obnoxious attitude up a gear each time they are shown to be wrong. I put it down to a lack of emotional intelligence, but there may be other reasons.
I don't look silly, but even if I did, I'd prefer that to rude, obnoxious and arrogant, all the while being wrong. ;)

They weren't found guilty.

There was no trial.

So they weren't found guilty.

It's not a difficult point to grasp, if you fetch a blackboard I'll draw a diagram for you.

What was your previous user name?

Why is Spindrift obsessed with taking every thread off topic?

This thread is about a specific animal cruelty case not child abuse or some people bombing each other in Russia.

Why is Spindrift obsessed with taking every thread off topic?

This thread is about a specific animal cruelty case not child abuse or some people bombing each other in Russia.

the subject of child abuse was introduced by the new poster who seems to have a long-standing grudge about something or other.

They weren't found guilty.
There was no trial.
So they weren't found guilty.
It's not a difficult point to grasp, if you fetch a blackboard I'll draw a diagram for you.
What was your previous user name?Okay, I'll try again - let's use your blackboard. I'll use different coloured chalks to help you see the point here (I'm an understanding sort of chap).

You challenged people being let off with cautions:
"I wondered if you had any actual examples of people who had abused children being dealt with by a caution. Otherwise your post is just silly".

I cam back with links to demonstrate:
"Figures provided by 33 police forces show 8,043 people who committed sexual and physical abuse offences against children were charged in the year to April, while 2,764 were given a caution".


But you're trying to shift the focus onto an irrelevant guilty aspect that you later introduced when you realised you were wrong.

You just can't admit you lost this, can you? :P

Why is Spindrift obsessed with taking every thread off topic?

This thread is about a specific animal cruelty case not child abuse or some people bombing each other in Russia.The thread was diverted, I have contributed to this, becasue Spindrift accused me of making a 'silly' post when I said this case was a bit excessive when some people get off with cautions for child abuse. He's carried on twisting that argument (or trying to) since I proved him to be wrong.

the subject of child abuse was introduced by the new poster who seems to have a long-standing grudge about something or other.There is no grudge, but our dispute started at 1621 on October 19th when you accused me of making a silly post, and when I showed you to be wrong you just kept digging yourself a deeper hole.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nqnZJRUl4zU/THcgBEOpMlI/AAAAAAAAEuo/Vjstp59CZn4/s1600/Revenge+Of+The+Cat+Is+this+YouTube+video+the+last+ word+on+%27Cat+Woman%27+2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nqnZJRUl4zU/THcgBEOpMlI/AAAAAAAAEuo/Vjstp59CZn4/s1600/Revenge+Of+The+Cat+Is+this+YouTube+video+the+last+ word+on+%27Cat+Woman%27+2.jpgNice one - back on topic!

They weren't found guilty.

There was no trial.

So they weren't found guilty.

It's not a difficult point to grasp, if you fetch a blackboard I'll draw a diagram for you.

What was your previous user name?


In order for anyone to accept a caution the person must admit guilt. They may not be prosecuted but will have admitted guilt and that they have broken the law. One of the reasons that when given a caution the officer has first to read you your rights.

So to recap, a caution is an admission of guilt although no prosecution follows.

Before everybody feverishly jumps to conclusions, remember that a large proportion of these alleged offences are down to such things as a mum slapping her child in public - any form of physical assualt on a child is included in these figures..

Yes, not nice, not pretty but not really 'child abuse' in the way that most of us understand it.

So, for people to jump on the bandwagon and suggest that those guilty of child rape are getting away with a slap on the wrist is patently absurd.

Mod Note

Posts containing personal insults have been deleted along with every post that refered to or quoted them.

Any more and the thread will be closed and the perpetrators dealt with.

Terrence Grange, Acpo lead for sexual offences and Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police, said: "Every decision made to prosecute or issue a caution is reached after very careful thought and consideration.

"Every incident will be treated on its own merit, taking into account the circumstances of the incident and the people involved.

"A caution will only be given if it is agreed to be the most appropriate course of action. These decisions are usually taken after full consultation with our partners."

Admission of guilt

Acpo said the age, welfare, mental well-being and views of the victim would be taken into account as would the severity of an attack.

It said circumstances where a caution would be given for rape could include cases where the victim does not turn up to give evidence in court.


CAUTION FACTS
An admission of guilt is needed for a caution.
Admitting guilt means being put on the sex offenders register.
The caution will show up on a search of criminal records.
The CPS decides how to handle rape cases.
The CPS says cautions are only used in exceptional cases.
Rape carries a maximum life sentence.

How police cautions work

Acpo also said cautions were likely to be given in cases where, for example, a 16-year-old boy had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, who may be in the same class at school as him.

This would be a criminal offence - unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 - but would usually not be pursued through the courts.

But it said in any situation there would have to be a clear admission of guilt. It left the offender with a criminal record and - in the case of a sex offence - the need to go on the sex offenders register.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said:

"The government is committed to securing more convictions in rape cases and has commissioned the child sex offender review to ensure that children are better protected from paedophiles.

"There are very few circumstances indeed where a caution for rape or offences against children is the most appropriate sanction.

"Use of cautions is a matter for the police but in exceptional circumstances - for instance where the victim does not want to proceed with a prosecution.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm

She should be made to work for the RSPCA for 6 months,might learn her a lesson.

£250 is an absolute joke, its ridiculous. The women and anyone in fact who deliberately causes harm to an animal should have the same done to them. If they are so willing to hurt another living thing that cannot defend itself they should not be able to participate in normal society until they understand how wrong their actions are

I think the woman had a moment of extreme stupidity, it was wrong of her to put the cat in the bin, but I don't think the public reaction was entirely warranted, like the death threats she received.
There are a lot of worse individuals out there who abuse and neglect animals and other people in some terrible ways.

I think the woman had a moment of extreme stupidity, it was wrong of her to put the cat in the bin, but I don't think the public reaction was entirely warranted, like the death threats she received.
There are a lot of worse individuals out there who abuse and neglect animals and other people in some terrible ways.

That pretty well sums up my view too Emily.

but not really 'child abuse' in the way that most of us understand it.

Of course it is. Care to give your definition as to what constitutes abuse (remember, words can also count as abuse)?

CAUTION FACTS
An admission of guilt is needed for a caution.
Admitting guilt means being put on the sex offenders register.
The caution will show up on a search of criminal records.
The CPS decides how to handle rape cases.
The CPS says cautions are only used in exceptional cases.
Rape carries a maximum life sentence.

All of which proves your assertion that parents who abuse their children do not receive a caution when, clearly, they do.

Maybe not sexual abuse, but some do get a caution for abuse.