Friday, 11 November 2011


I see that CCTV footage on Kent Online of the Ramsgate wastrel who was caught swinging a cat around by its tail has gone viral. Now, it seems, the national press have joined the chorus of outrage. The story has since been picked up by BBC News, Sky News, The Sun, Daily Mirror, The Independent and The Telegraph in the same sort of hysterical coverage that accompanied CCTV footage of a woman who dumped a cat in a wheelie bin last year.

The RSPCA has appealed for help to trace a man caught on CCTV in Kent swinging a cat by its tail.

This sort of sickening behaviour is appalling. The man deserves to be prosecuted, so I fully support the efforts of the RSPCA to catch him, bring him to justice and make him answerable for his actions. However, as much as I detest violence towards animals, isn't it odd how people who complain about animal cruelty to cats in this particular instance weren't so kind about Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi when he was being swung around by rebels, kicked in the head until his hair dripped with blood and allegedly sodomized with an iron rod before being shot in the head?

As evil as Gaddafi's regime undoubtedly was, isn't it peculiar how some people seem to think it's OK to condone the abuse and near-torture of a human being – even if he was a despot – yet to swing a cat by its tail is suddenly beyond the pale? Has the world lost its sense of perspective? Surely if you agree that swinging a cat by its tail is morally deplorable, then the similar treatment of another human being should be treated as cruel in equal measure, no matter what level of wrongdoing Gaddafi was guilty of?

Needless to say, I feel that swinging a cat by its tail is a disgustingly heartless thing to do, but my point is cruelty to humans should be equally reviled. However, looking at some of the vile comments on Kent Online, it seems people are happy to embrace the same punitive braying mob mentality that the Libyan rebels were guilty of when they got hold of Gaddafi and beat him up, arguably making them morally no better than he was. "I would personally like to see the thug swung round by his neck!" says Ferry Tuckwit. "Absolutely disgusting," says JaneAnne. "What a vile little chav. He deserves to be locked up and tortured."

Be careful, folks. You might love cats, but I think you're getting a bit hysterical here. This isn't Libya, this is Britain. Civilised behaviour can't be taught to thugs by tit-for-tat violence. And why? Because in resorting to violence you become uncivilised and thus destroy the whole basis of civil obedience in the first place. We should remember that justice should not be vengeful. Don't form a vigilante group and bugger people with iron rods, OK? That won't solve anything! Just show a bit of bloody decorum, will you?!


  1. Difference between Gaddafi and the cat is that to the best of my knowledge the cat didn't kill any innocent people (just don't mention the birds).

  2. True, but hopefully you see my point. Even if somebody put a murderer in front of me and told me to beat him up, I still wouldn't be able to do it. Cruelty is cruelty, after all. Even if a dog mauled another dog to death, I wouldn't be able to kill that dog as a punishment. Two wrongs don't make a right.

  3. So what do you think would be an appropriate punishment Luke? Community service? A fine? Prison?

  4. Prison is a bit too drastic. Either a fine or community service seems befitting the crime. Margate's former mayor Ted Watt-Ruffel was given a 12-month community order after the kitten fiasco and had to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work so I'd expect a similar punishment to that.

  5. The cat may well have got a buzz from the experience, I imagine I would have. He certainly was not physically any worse off for the ordeal, although if a lamp post had gotten in the way... ?

    More a case of the corporate media diverting the sheep-like public's attention away from more prescient matters.

    Gaddafi was a popular leader, his people loved him, he took good care of them and the welfare of the country. Free and proper health care, free universities, a share of the oil revenue. Unfortunately for them, the poor Libyans are now finding out what the world is really all about.

    I think you'll find your average Libyan are a lot better educated and more genteel than your average Brit.

  6. I disagree, Land Destroyer, the point of my post was to point out the irony in how the UK public was so quick to defend a defenceless cat when it was subjected to violence, but when the same level of violence was directed towards Gaddafi (who despite his tyrannical transgressions was still a human being at the end of the day) people weren't so sympathetic. It's a shame people aren't as defensive about human life as they are about animals, that's my point, irrespective of considerations about Gaddafi's moral or immoral conduct.

    I certainly don't want my piece to be construed as pro-Gaddafi, because Gaddafi was a despicable leader with ruinously belligerent impulses who deserves to be regarded with contempt. Libya is a much better place without him, but I do feel Gaddafi deserved to answer for his crimes in an International Criminal Court rather than be treated like a rag doll in front of millions on YouTube. That sort of rampant mob mentality certainly doesn't endear me to the Libyan rebel cause and makes them look no better than Gaddafi's supporters themselves. A leaf out of Gandhi's book wouldn't have gone amiss.

    Contrary to what you claim, Gaddafi spent much of Libya's oil revenue on arms purchases, sponsoring paramilitaries and terrorist organisations around the world and paying for his family to dress in designer clobber and bask in luxury in mansions and seafront villas. The Libyan rebels would've done better to assume the moral high ground by keeping the regime change as bloodless a coup as it was in 1969 when Gaddafi took control rather than being thuggish and barbaric in the heat of the moment.