Is there a point being made here? I know we’ve had a fair few recent cases of freedom of speech infringements involving Facebook, but this ain’t one of them. This would be animal cruelty.

@ Chaise Guevara

I hope this is about animal cruelty and not censorship.

However it is a great shame that animal loving domestic cat owners allow their pets the freedom to kill an estimated 55 million birds a year in the UK alone.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx

@ 2 Bitethehand

But what else to do? Locking the cat indoors is not ideal for the cat, putting a bell on it is unsafe, and cats are fairly independent agents anyway. It’s not like they wouldn’t hunt birds in the wild. I don’t think we should get too het up about predators killing prey.

A one year ban on keeping animals isn’t very long – how can these two ever be regarding as responsible pet owners?

the expression, “theres not enough room in here to swing a cat” was not just some random statement.

it has been the accepted method for ages now in determining if in fact a space is small, or otherwise.

its not like theres a shortage of cats in the world, and yet people are starving in africa.

btw, in case youre curious… kittens DO blend.

However it is a great shame that animal loving domestic cat owners allow their pets the freedom to kill an estimated 55 million birds a year in the UK alone.

They’re cats – they are not moral agents and cat owners are not responsible for their feeding habits. You might as well argue that those who prevent their cats from hunting are responsible for the deaths of the worms that are eaten by birds not killed by cats.

Animal abuse is an early indicator of dissocial personality disorder.

I don’t understand this bit:

The video showed the two flinging an eight-week-old kitten at each other several times. Near the end of the video one of the girls throws the kitten at the other.

How is flinging a cat at each other different from throwing a cat at each other?

@ Richard

“A one year ban on keeping animals isn’t very long – how can these two ever be regarding as responsible pet owners?”

They’re teenagers. Teenagers grow up. If I were judged by my actions as a 15-year-old I would be considered quite the pillock.

[Awaits comments assuring me that I am in fact a pillock etc.]

@ 5 catweazle

“btw, in case youre curious… kittens DO blend”

Brought to you by the Adorable Kitten Smoothie Company.

@7

Most teenagers know not to torture a cat.

Perhaps they will “grow up” and realise abusing animals is wrong, but why risk the safety of further animals.

Looking after an animal is a privilege, not a right.

@ 9 Richard

“Most teenagers know not to torture a cat.”

Sure. They’re unusually irresponsible teenagers, then.

“Perhaps they will “grow up” and realise abusing animals is wrong, but why risk the safety of further animals.”

Because people generally shouldn’t have to pay for their mistakes for their whole life, especially when you’re talking about stuff they did as children. I do agree that one year seems strangely lenient, though. Maybe it’s because it effectively applies to the whole household, and the court didn’t want to punish the families.

Down Right Disgusting!

These three teenagers should be given a much more harsh penalty.

I totally agree with Richard – Looking after an animal is a privilege, not a right.

With regards to what Bitethehand put about our wildlife many owners in the UK have cats that do not roam. Myself and many of my friends have their cats as house cats with cat proofed gardens and the birds quickly work out that they should not enter! My cats have never caught birds and I provide entertainment with toys and cat furniture to satisfy their needs for hunting and climbing etc so please do not tar all domestic cat loving owners are the same as I love all animals.

I agree that many of us do things as teenagers we are not proud of but animal cruelty is one step beyond and needs a penalty greater than what has been issued.
They havent just hurt and scarred a poor defenceless kitten but all of the animal lovers out there.
Anger doesnt even come close to how this makes me feel.

Being cruel to a cat and posting the video online? Haven’t they heard of /b/?
http://ohinternet.com/Kenny_Glenn

@1: Is there a point being made here? I know we’ve had a fair few recent cases of freedom of speech infringements involving Facebook, but this ain’t one of them.

Indeed not. Personally I’m in favour of criminal posting evidence of their crimes online, because it makes it easier to catch them.

This would be animal cruelty.

And an £85 fine is rediculous. They should have been banged up for 6 months.

@ 13 Phil Hunt

“And an £85 fine is rediculous. They should have been banged up for 6 months.”

To be honest, it seems odd to be locking up teenagers for hurting cats when it’s legal to basically torture farm animals for profit.