The mindset of the sick thug who "befriended" a cat then subjected it to a sick assault, swinging it about by its tail, is one that no right-thinking person would want to understand.

Anyone who would carry out such abuse on an innocent animal evidently has sick and amoral values which, quite rightly, have led to him being banned from keeping animals for five years, along with a two-month curfew.

Animal lovers horrified by James Gladwin's actions will no doubt consider that a stiffer sentence might have been in order for his crime, and his defence of "stupidity" will not cut much ice with most people.

And this type of cruelty could just be the tip of the iceberg in Bradford, where animal charities say the situation with neglected, abused and abandoned pets is "horrendous".

There might be people who consider cruelty against animals to be a lesser offence when compared to, say, violence against other people.

But we must question what kind of skewed moral compass the people who commit these offences direct their lives and actions with. Anyone who will go so far as to mistreat a pet such as a cat or dog must have little regard for others, and who is to say to what depths their sadistic and violent tendencies could plunge?

Pets are a responsibility, not toys or status symbols. No-one should take on an animal without the means to look after it, and they must be treated with care and respect.

Perhaps James Gladwin being exposed as a sick thug in the courts will act as a warning to others that animal cruelty will not be tolerated. We can only hope.