Have you got a source for that claim ? You know for a fact that the RSPCA didn’t drop the case on their own volition ? Or that they were even seriously considering prosecution ?

Well, having listened to the clip, Humphrys asks the RSPCA bod about it, and he confirms that the CPS was behind the decision not to continue with an ongoing prosecution (summons had been issued). Not sure that’s particularly in contention, unlike the circumstances of the cat’s condition/despatch etc.

You can see the ‘story’ however you like, but others may listen to that and draw something different from it. I don’t have a narrative to pursue – just an unwillingness to accept one from either the Mail or a well-spoken PR man from a charity.

I my be wrong but im pretty sure that the guy on R4 this morning from the RSPCA was saying that it was the CPS that dropped it not them and that as far as i could tell that was the issue. The events leading up to the prosecution were that the cat could not be groomed as it reacted violently and had in the past been sedated which the vet was reluctant to do. The cats coat became very matted and the family were reported to the RSPCA. At this point the stories diverge between the families account and the RSPCA but suffice to say that the it was agreed by all to have the cat put down. The real story appears to be the prosecution of the family subsequently by the RSPCA via the CPS which rejected the case and the question of whether the RSPCA is increaseing its litigation and cost burden to the charity due to political motivations. Thats how i understood it anyway….

I don’t have a narrative to pursue

You seem to have :

martinhutch – Member

How the RSPCA can continue to have the power to launch prosecutions at public expense is quite beyond me. Hopefully it will be stripped of this fairly soon.

THe RSPCA have no more “power to launch prosecutions at public expense” than any other individual, but you want to “strip” them of their existing status. That suggests an agenda.

fair summation but WTF does politically motivated mean in this context?

I suspect it means they prosecute hunts for illegal hunts which is generally known as enforcing the law rather than being an overtly political act.

Its an agenda thing by those who like to hunt who dislikr the RSPCA who hold them to account.

The difference between narrative, agenda and opinion eludes you.

I think olddog summed it up fairly, but with that username, maybe he was just watching his back for the next time he needs a haircut.

The difference between narrative, agenda and opinion eludes you.

Excellent, we’ve move onto pedanticism 🙂

ernie_lynch – Member

They don’t have anymore powers than any other individual.

They can prosecute, at least lot more easily than any individual can.

Well maybe I’ve missed something and they do have more powers that I’m not aware of. Any proof/links that show that the RSPCA have anymore powers than any other individual ?

I don’t think there was any political relevance in this case per se but they certainly referenced the costs of litigation in fox hunting cases which was held up as being politically motivated. I’m guessing that the beeb were using this case as a segway into the broader activities of the RSPCA.

Hang on people, it’s a charity – shouldn’t you also be complaining that they pay wages to their staff and incur back office / administrative costs? That normally seems to vex people on here..

‘m guessing that the beeb were using this case as a segway into the broader activities of the RSPCA.

Such as?

Claude yesterday (The yesterday before he was dead…)

MoreCashThanDash – Member

I think olddog summed it up fairly, but with that username, maybe he was just watching his back for the next time he needs a haircut.

It’s ok I’m definitely a short hair breed – although I am half Staffordshire so I’m more worried about being tasered by the police… I blame my owners

ernie_lynch – Member

Well maybe I’ve missed something and they do have more powers that I’m not aware of. Any proof/links that show that the RSPCA have anymore powers than any other individual ?

http://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/prosecution/howwedecide

AFAIK individuals cannot prosecute, certainly not in this way.

AFAIK individuals cannot prosecute, certainly not in this way.

The power to prosecute

Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone who they believe has committed an offence.

Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/prosecution

Al, anyone can bring a private prosecution to court. the RSPCA probably have more resources than most individuals but they don’t have any extra regulatory powes to do so. In fact some groups (such as the country side alliance for instance) would like the RSPCA to stop bringing cases to court and act ( like the NSPCC and RSPB do) in a more “professional witness” role

Our approach to prosecution reflects the principles of The Code for Crown Prosecutors.

The Code is a public document issued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that sets out the general principles to be applied when making decisions about prosecutions.

Read the Code in full at: http://www.cps.gov.uk

A quick cursory glance at the code suggests that there are no references at all to the RSPCA and that it is a general code which applies to everyone, in other words the code that the RSPCA uses is the same as the one which applies to everyone else.

Fair enough – I’m schooled in Scots law, where it’s tougher/different IIRC to do this.

(and for all practical purposes it’s surely going to be more difficult for Joe Public to bring about a prosecution without a lawyer anyway).

There are other factors involved in the prosecution side of things, for example your average citizen does not have access to the police national computer, which the RSPCA do.