However, he was told it had not breached site's 'community standards'

Facebook has refused to remove a video of a kitten allegedly being doused in petrol and set on fire because the footage does not breach any of the social network's rules.

In the shocking clip, two unidentified men can be seen apparently torturing a young kitten by stuffing it into a bucket, pouring flammable liquid over the animal and setting it on fire.

More than 14,000 users have commented on the clip - many expressing their disgust - but despite complaints, Facebook has not removed the two minute film.

Scroll down for video

Shocking: Facebook has refused to remove a video of a kitten being doused in petrol and set on fire because it says that the footage does not breach any of the social network's rules

When user Kieran Dunwel reported the footage for containing graphic violence, he was told that Facebook had reviewed the video before ruling it did not breach the site's 'community standards'.

'I was going through Facebook and I saw this video,' said the 23-year-old from Tilbury, Essex.

'I clicked on it, watched it and I was disgusted.

'I reported it to Facebook, it took five or six hours for them to get back to me, and they said it was perfectly fine to have it on there.

'It made me feel sick, I was angry, I tried to find a phone number to speak to them but I couldn't. I was outraged.'

The video shows liquid, understood to be petrol, being poured over the kitten as it lies in a bucket before the liquid is set alight.

Torture: In the shocking clip, two men can be seen apparently torturing a young kitten by stuffing it into a bucket, pouring flammable liquid over the animal and setting it on fire

The kitten manages to tip the bucket over and free itself, and attempts to run away in a ball of flames.

As the cat rolls on the floor to try to extinguish the fire, more liquid is poured over it, while the men stand and watch.

One then nudges the barely moving kitten with his foot, while the other tips the rest of the liquid over the animal.

Response: After reporting the video, which was not thought to have uploaded by either of the men in the video, and carries a warning message, Mr Dunwel was told the video would not be removed

After the flames are finally put out, the camera zooms in on the helpless animal as it gasps for air, before the clip ends with the sight of a plastic bag being put over it.

'My mum is a cat person and it would have killed her to see that,' said Mr Dunwel.

'I'm a cat person, I've got two cats. This is just a kitten, it must only be about five or six weeks old and it has been brutally murdered.'

After reporting the video, which was not thought to have been uploaded by either of the men seen in the film, and carries a warning message, Mr Dunwel was told the video would not be removed.

In the response to Mr Dunwel, Facebook said: 'Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards.

SO WHAT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM FACEBOOK? 'Graphic or violent content': Last month former soldier Andy Reid, 37, who lost both legs and an arm while serving in Afghanistan has called Facebook 'harsh and narrow-minded' after they removed a picture of one of his stumps because it was 'offensive'. The former Corporal from St Helens, Merseyside, posted the picture of his stump with the caption 'hard work on the legs today'. But it was taken down by the social media's site communities team after a user complained about it. Facebook removed this picture (right) posted by triple amputee Andy Reid (pictured with wife Claire and son William) of his stump, because a user complained it was 'offensive' Until October last year, beheading videos were removed by Facebook but the site changed its policy allowing them to stay online, as long as they were not glorifying the violence and used to raise awareness or condemn the action being shown. However, breaking these guidelines can lead to a lifetime ban. 'Nudity': In July, professional photographer Jill White was suspended from Facebook after she posted a photograph of her daughter Willa, two, on the beach - which the site labelled 'pornographic'. Mrs White, from North Carolina, said that she fell foul of Facebook's notoriously strict guidelines on posting nude pictures of children after they received a complaint about her innocent recreation of the famous 'Coppertone girl' pose from the 1950s ad campaign, which showed Willa's swimming costume being pulled down. She replaced that picture with a version that has a smiley face 'emoji' over her backside, which Facebook said meets their terms and conditions. Suspended: Professional photographer Jill White was suspended from Facebook after she posted a photograph of her daughter Willa, two, on the beach. She later added the emoji graphic. Facebook has a strict policy against sharing pornography, and any explicit sexual content including a child. Users who have posted pictures of their children naked or semi-clothed have been banned from the site. Facebook says it does 'aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance', including pictures of breast feeding, and lifted a blanket ban on such images in June following the high profile 'Free The Nipple' campaign. 'Users with false names': In the run up to the 2011 Royal Wedding, Facebook pages set up by anti-austerity protesters, including UK Uncut, were disabled. However, Facebook said the profiles were suspended not for political reasons, but because they had not been correctly registered. The Facebook community standards state that 'claiming to be another person, creating a false presence for an organisation, or creating multiple accounts undermines community and violates Facebook's terms.' Advertisement

'Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment.

'We reviewed the video you reported for containing graphic violence and found it doesn't violate our community standards.'

A Facebook spokesman told MailOnline that the clip had been reviewed and was deemed to have met the guidelines.

She said: 'People come to Facebook to share experiences of the world around them and on occasion this may result in the sharing of content that some may find upsetting.

'While we do not allow content that directly encourages violence, we try to create a safe environment that balances people's desire to express themselves and in some cases condemn what they see.'

Facebook's community standards say that graphic videos are shared on the site as a means of condemning the violence depicted, and raise awareness of instances of animal cruelty or atrocities committed worldwide.

They state: 'Facebook has long been a place where people turn to share their experiences and raise awareness about issues important to them. Sometimes, those experiences and issues involve graphic content that is of public interest or concern, such as human rights abuses or acts of terrorism. In many instances, when people share this type of content, it is to condemn it. However, graphic images shared for sadistic effect or to celebrate or glorify violence have no place on our site.

'When people share any content, we expect that they will share in a responsible manner. That includes choosing carefully the audience for the content. For graphic videos, people should warn their audience about the nature of the content in the video so that their audience can make an informed choice about whether to watch it.'

This video had been shared with a message posted first in Spanish, and then translated into English, reading: 'Sad, no one gives heart to see that pain comes to the cruelty of human.'