Sir, - According to Trevor Nicholson (D&S letters, Sept 27), "The people of Britain and the Parliament they elected are against fox hunting and that is enough to have this barbaric sport banned."

Mr Nicholson, that is nowhere near enough. If every non-hunting voter in the country were against it, that would still not be enough.

By definition, all government restricts individual freedom. That is why in a democracy it legislates only on matters of genuine general concern.

Hunting is subject to the law like everyone/everything else when it affects public safety, damages property and so on. It is not, though, subject to the law in itself, since in itself it is of no genuine concern to anyone else.

To give a simple instance of the distinction, if I drive a car with defective brakes, that is Mr Nicholson's and the law's business. If I drive a green one, that is no-one's business but my own.

JAMES LEIGH

Thornton Watlass,

Ripon.

Sir, - I refer to Mick White's letter (D&S, Sept 20). He claims that people who were going on the Liberty and Livelihood March were being tricked into a march to maintain the legality of hunting.

The march was about hunting but it was also about farming and the decline of the countryside and the plight of those living and working in it and receiving services in rural areas.

It was about Liberty, the right to choose to hunt, and Livelihood, the right to earn a living from country sports.

I have yet to have one call from anyone who was at the march who thought that it was about anything other than hunting and rural issues.

RICHARD DODD

Regional Director, Countryside

Alliance,

Belsay,

Northumberland.

Sir, - How sad to read in your leading article (D&S, Sept 27) of a march that was primarily organised and attended by those who wish to preserve the liberty to torture animals by pursuing them with dogs being described as magnificent.

If this "liberty" (the right to be cruel to animals) is extended to all people in all walks of life, there would be no point in the existence of the RSPCA. There were genuine concerns but, sadly, a demonstration would never have been mounted for any of these.

No, the really magnificent march was last Saturday when huge numbers of people from all walks of life, city and country, of all colours and beliefs, of all ages, felt sufficiently moved because of their concern for people who are currently suffering occupation, deprivation of liberty, trauma and death and those who may be killed in an unjust war to express those feelings publically.

How many of those who paraded so joyously to demand the liberty to kill foxes were there the following Saturday to express their opposition to sustained cruelty to people and to wars waged for the wrong reasons?

Very few I expect.

JOHN SEVERS

Hastings Avenue,

Durham City.

Sir, - Mr Benn's critique (D&S letters Sep 20) of the so-called "rural march" seems to have ruffled the feathers of Mr Trotter of Layton Hall and Ms Vaux of Brettanby Manor, ranging from blanket condemnation of the Labour Government for everything it has, or has not done, to a spurious claim that the marchers are propping up declining tourism in London.

To put a few of these misconceptions into perspective, the foot-and-mouth epidemic was spread by the irresponsible transporting of infected livestock from its focus in Northumberland to Cumbria and then to the South-West and East Anglia. The Government cannot be held responsible for the dissemination of FMD any more than for the spawning of the Real Countryside Alliance, which has publicly admitted (Channel 4 News, Sept.14) to committing and planning to commit illegal acts.

OLLY ANDRLA

Press officer,

Richmond Labour Party.

Dear 'news'

Sir, - With regard to Richmondshire District Council's most recent outpourings of propagandist codswallop, may I point out that The Curlew is neither a newspaper nor is it free to recipients.

In miniscule print at the foot of issue number nine (The Spring 2002 edition according to the front page and the Autumn 2001 edition according to the back page) it is stated that: "The cost of publication and distribution is 11p per resident." With a district population of some 50,000-plus The Curlew must take up a sizeable chunk of public funds to produce.

If by definition a newspaper is a weekly or daily publication containing articles of news and information on recent events and happenings, then it would seem that The Curlew adds up to little more than yet another costly ego booster for the council and staff being foisted onto an ever gullible and generally defenceless public.

RON F ASHBRIDGE

Lyons Road,

Richmond.