They’re not partying because Thatchers’ personal influence is dead either. That died years ago.

They are partying because an old woman is dead.

I also think there is a place for hatred in politics, otherwise you wouldn’t get people on antifascist demos, for example.

Maybe I just try to see the good in people too much.

I asked if the RSPCA requested the cost of the case not be disclosed.

They said no. The RSPCA did not ask for costs not to be disclosed. What case were you following, Eric? It sounds a little different to the one I’ve posted about.

I also asked them, if they had lost the case who would’ve born the cost? The RSPCA? The ‘taxpayer’? Some sort of insurance policy?

They said

we have to pay costs whether we win or lose so that’s one of the reasons we only take prosecutions if we are certain the evidence is strong enough.

That’ll be why I failed to mention the taxpayer would’ve picked up the bill if this, or any other prosecution, fails.

Anyway, besides all that yo still haven’t mentioned if you think the RSPCA is entitled to spend it’s money how it wants.

If you don’t think it is entitled, who should decide?

I am not contradicting myself. The RSPCA prosecute people that are cruel to animals. prosecutions are part of a deterrent and prevent people being cruel to animals they don’t like.
£160k is how much that part of one part of their operation cost. You could also say that about the vans they drive around in. People give them money to save animals, not to buy vans with.

“Don’t say that they had to pay that because that is what the law costs for an expert, because the QC in question specialises in murder and high profile terrorist and drug cases not animal cruelty.”

Well, the QC got the job done so it would seem he is an expert on animal cruelty law as well. The issue with costs also affects defendants, the vast majority of whom do not have the resources available to them that the people bringing the case have.

“It is purely the RSPCA making a political point and throwing their weight about , the judge was merely echoing the thoughts of many other people with common sense.”

Is that the job of the judge, though? To comment on who/how the case is financed?

“If you followed the actual case you will know that his comments were partly made as a result of the RSPCA asking for the costs not to be disclosed. WHY O WHY was that I wonder did they think some people might think twice about donating to save an animal, if that animal turned out to a human filling his wine cellar with some old age pensioners £1 that he or she thought would be feeding a stray dog somewhere.”

I don’t know why the RSPCA asked for the costs not to be discolsed. Maybe you’re right. I have asked them.

“I have read on many occasions where judges have criticised the cps for wasting money prosecuting people so it is only an intelligent person highlighting a failing not singling out the RSPCA.”

The CPS is funded directly from public money, so it is not quite the same thing. Besides, should the judge even be commenting about it in those cases? Shouldn’t that be raised with a ‘higher authority’ before/after a case?

“you will see there have been over 237 successful prosecutions of hunts predominantly by the CPS/ Police and none have cost any where near £330,000.”

Maybe the RSPCA does have a case to answer about whether they could’ve done it in a cheaper way. That still doesn’t change the fact that the RSPCA are *entitled* to spend their money how they want.

“You also fail to mention that invariably when the RSPCA bring a private prosecution and they lose the costs come out of the tax payers pocket because they are a charity.”

Oh? how’s that then? Does the govenrment underwrite all of the RSPCA’s prosecutions?

“Yesterday a young horse was shot here merely because it had escaped from somewhere and there was no where for it to go and the RSPCA “refused to come and get it as they don’t have the resources ” they were asked by the police and refused.”

That is sad and shouldn’t happen. I never said the RSPCA’s actions were the right ones though. Maybe they do need to look at their priorities, that is up to them. The point I was making was that the judge shouldn’t comment on the cost or who is bringing the case as it doesn’t give the impression of the judge being unbiased and taking the case on the *evidence*.

But that is not my point. The point is the judge commenting how the RSPCA is spending it’s money when he should be commenting on the accused and the accused only.

Don’t get angry at the RSPCA, get angry at the people breaking the law and the fact it costs so much to prosecute someone breaking the law.