Police responsibilies regarding Seizures

Sorry Millie, yes I meant subsection 3 of section 18 relating to animals in distress...the section RSPCA use as a licence for taking animals.
I for one, even though I was a victim,  had not realised that the police remain the 'possessors' of any animal stolen. I notice you do not say 'owner', and quite right too; as I was paying insurance on the mare until her untimely murder, and as I was in possession of both her passports there is no way the police were her owners...possessors is a more apt description. Certainly in my case the only notice I received was written and left by the Gestapo officeress herself...I was not even aware that the police had been present until I was informed of this fact the following day when the Gestapo returned. It strikes me though that the police must keep an account/log of everything that an officer does during his/her shift and the fact that they were 'in attendance' when your mares were taken, two of them, must be noted somewhere so how can they say otherwise? And why?
Surely such an important fact should be clarified in the AWA 2006? If the police themselves are unaware that they are in temporary possession of someone's animal (in millie1's case they are denying that they had anything to do with the horses' removal - even though there were credible witnesses to the event) you can bet your life that RSPCA 'inspectors' and their vets are unaware of this fact too...as are all the unfortunate people whose animals have been stolen.[/i]

I think the RSPCA are fully aware.......they just choose not to tell anyone, then they can do what the hell they want.