Thats because although they are a branch of the RSPCA, Bath Cats and Dogs Home are not funded by the RSPCA in any way but are totally self-supporting, HonestyBox. And, as an self-funding organisation, they could and did choose to reject the RSPCAs policy of not taking in any more unwanted pets.
And may their God bless 'em for it!
I think that it's worth saying here that there are no-kill policies and there are no-kill policies. You often hear the term, "We never put a healthy animal down" bandied about, and it sounds marvellous.
But I've known healthy animals PTS by so called no-kill organisations (both rescues and those rare pounds which can boast even this meagre policy), because they are considered aggressive... so their mental health is called into question and used as an excuse to PTS a dog which might otherwise be in rescue and costing money for a considerable time while he has costly behaviouralist treatment.
Likewise the dog which has kennel cough, a condition which spreads like buggery but is easily treated by antibiotics. It's far cheaper to kill him than to treat him and face the prospect of potentially treating all the other dogs in the rescue, isn't it? And the PTS would be justified on paper as kennel cough is after all an illness. No-one said anything about incurable illness, where the animal's suffering couldn't be relieved, did they?
This happens at RSPCA centrea all the time - they, and sadly many rescues, are no better than the scummiest of pounds for this.
My own morals are these: "No kill, no excuses, no limits, no fear". That motto and the true meaning of "no-kill" are close to the heart of the independent rescue I volunteer for too. They're in the minority, sadly.