Yes I wondered about that too. I'd have said she was A LOT closer to 55.

According to Eamon Holmes on Sky News it's not an offence but he's a muppet in my opinion anyway.

As you say there is now a law which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering and IIRC this suffering does not have to actually occur i.e. any action which might cause an animal to suffer unnecessarily is a prosecutable offence.

Wonder what action the RSPCA will take, I think this would be a good 'test case' for them to highlight the recent change in the law. (When I say 'recent' it's actually over a year since it came in.)

Together with that apology for a human in Blackpool (Wendy Lewis, drug addict who urinated on a war memorial) seems there really are some nasty people out there, but then we knew that all along didn't we

I thought the RSPCA were only just trying to bring that law in which states intent to cause suffering to an animal? I thought it was only at a stage of being processed though rather than actually in working order? And the current law is still if they cause actual unnecessary harm - which in this case (although I disagree) it seems she did not...there was no physical harm found and the psychological harm has said to be nil by the owners (they have openly said she seems fine and back to herself which would be highlighted in a case).

Maybe I am wrong but I dont think intent has been brought in yet - the law is slow to sort anything out, and honestly animal related issues such as these are bottom priority most the time =/

Well perhaps I am the one who got it wrong, there was some media coverage last year and I'm sure I saw an interview with an RSPCA spokesperson saying that 'intent' or 'ignorance' which might have caused suffering could be prosecuted, mind you I've not seen any successful cases but have not had access to the records.

I'm sure someone on here will know one way or the other.

Seems the bank customers are making there feelings known about all this now:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...Mary-Bale.html

This is getting a bit out of hand. Losing her job seems a little extreme. There are some seriously evil people out there who don't get this level of publicity. Perhaps the bank can put her in a back room counting paperclips for a while until the dust settles.

Theres also alot of people out there who deserve sympathy which I cant begin to waste on her - she took actions which are disgusting IMO and therefore deserves everything she gets including losing her job. I havent got the time or energy to spare her a second thought of pity.

I don't feel sorry for her, I think people are wasting a lot of energy getting riled up about someone who is not worth the effort. What she did was stupid and cruel and she should be prosecuted. Hopefully she will get unpaid work for at least 200 hours with some vile little yoblets. But boycotting RBS? Is that proportionate?

Your going to get unproportionate reactions when the police fail to do anything about it (i'm not blaming the police, they arent at fault, the law itself is). Thats why there has been so much vigilant talk of her because noone can actually see this woman being brought to justice.