Miss Mary Bale (above) arriving at court today. Today, Miss Mary Bale faced up to the consequences of her actions – an act of animal cruelty in animal rights obsessed secular and irreligious Britain of the early 21st century – in Coventry Magistrate’s Court.
Miss Bale had at least one thing to be thankful for. District Judge Caroline Goulbourn. Things could have been worse: she could have faced a bench of lay magistrates. Given the makeup of the lay bench these days, a professional judge on a case like this is a blessing in disguise.
The British Gazette has covered this case from the start. “A woman, a cat and a wheelie bin.” on 25th August. “Miss Mary Bale and the baying mob.” on 26th August and “RSPCA – versus – Miss Mary Bale.” on the 21st September.
In our last report, the British Gazette speculated upon Miss Bale’s fate.
We predicted that she would plead guilty. CORRECT
The Magistrates will then impose their punishment. INCORRECT: it was a District Judge.
That this would likely be:
- a community service order at the low end of the scale (possibly 30 hours) INCORRECT: it was a £250 fine.
- costs of over £1,000 payable to the prosecutor, the RSPCA. CORRECT: She was ordered to pay the RSPCA’s legal costs of £1,171.40 pence.
- a sum in compensation to the cat’s owner (possibly £100). INCORRECT: She was ordered to pay the £15 victim surcharge.
In addition Miss Bale was banned from keeping or owning animals for five years.
Miss Bale, whose father died last Thursday, left the court without comment. She had resigned from her job at the Royal Bank of Scotland as a result of the incident and has been suffering from depression.
Commenting upon the case, RSPCA Inspector Nicola Foster said she hoped the case would act as a deterrent to anyone who feels it is acceptable to mistreat animals. She stated: “This was a deliberate act and could have had far worse consequences as the defendant had no way of knowing if there was anything like broken glass in the bin, nor how long the cat would be there before she was found, nor if the bin was due to be emptied. We are pleased that the Court agreed that a complete disregard was shown for the cat’s welfare and that the cat suffered/cat’s needs were not met as a result of being stuck inside the bin for so many hours.”
The British Gazette asked the RBS to comment and received this reply from Phillippa Vermoter, Deputy Head, UK Media Centre: “There is no comment on the Mary Bale court case from RBS.”
British Gazette Comment: Whilst we do not disagree with the RSPCA Inspector’s comments we are firmly of the opinion that Miss Bale has been harshly treated and that the PUNISHMENTS (note the plural) constitute an excess.
Of course, the British Gazette is in no way surprised at this. Indeed, had Miss Bale received a fair punishment it would have been very much a red letter day. Such it seems will not happen in modern Britain with a secular, irreligious and overly sentimental public obsessed with “animal rights” and a Beatrix Potter mentality towards animals.
What then would have constituted in the British Gazette’s opinion a FAIR punishment?
- An order to pay compensation of £100 to the cat’s owner.
In the British Gazette’s opinion there is no need for any other punishment. This lady has suffered enough with the public vilification, the death threats, the hate mail and the loss of her job. Given that this woman will find obtaining new employment very difficult, any greater punishment than this is sheer vindictiveness. So far as forcing Miss Bale to pay the RSPCA’s costs of £1,171.40 pence is concerned, this too is excessive as the RSPCA is one of the richest charities in the world and can easily afford this. Furthermore, it is to be noted that Miss Bale will find the cost of insuring her home and car will have multiplied.
British Gazette readers will be aware that the main “High Street” insurers refuse to insure anyone with a criminal record (excludes minor motoring offences) forcing such as Miss Bale into the arms of specialist insurers who will underwrite the risk but at premiums which can be three or four times as much. In certain cases however – where the offender has been convicted of a offence that has incurred the wrath of the public – this will be even more. If Miss Bale’s home and contents was in the region of £300 per annum she is likely to have to pay around £2,100 per annum. Her car insurance premiums will similarly be multiplied. Since this lady is now unemployed this will be a severe financial strain for one who is already suffering from depression.
The District Judge of course (who do not forget is a professional) will be fully aware of Miss Bale’s situation and the difficulties she now faces. Notwithstanding this, the judge imposed the punishments she did presumably as she did not want to face the mob that is the vengeful British public.
British Gazette readers will note that yesterday’s article (EuroMillions draw number 348 and £113,019,926: The Frenzy Begins.) indicated that the Spa Store on Daventry Road, Coventry may be the store from which the winning ticket was purchased. The British Gazette therefore hopes that the reason for the delay in the winner coming forward is this: That Miss Mary Bale is that winner!!!
This will be a glorious “one in the eye” for the Britain of the early 21st century and all those vindictive animal rights fanatics and those petty unforgiving RBS customers who have hounded this woman out of her job.
The British Gazette will leave the last word to Lucius Annaeus Seneca (c. 3 BC – 65 AD) Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman and dramatist: “It is the proof of a bad cause [calls for Miss Bale to be harshly punished] when it is applauded by the mob.”