THE majority of the population, including myself, feel that fox hunting is a hideous and barbaric sport and the sooner that it is banned the better.

However, the fox hunters say that the majority should not walk over the wishes of the minority. What they are effectively saying is that the minority has the right to overturn the democratically-expressed will of the majority.

The fox hunters would no doubt bring out the argument that jobs would be lost and horses and dogs would have to be destroyed. Just as many jobs, horses, and dogs would be needed to practise drag hunting.

They would also say that fox hunting is traditional, but then so was badger baiting and cock fighting until they were banned.

Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it right.

The fox hunters would say that hunting is about pest control as foxes are vermin. However, there are more humane ways of controlling foxes than having them chased by a pack of dogs to exhaustion then ripped to pieces watched by people on horseback. - Martin Jones, Environment Spokesman, Liberal Democrats, Spennymoor Branch.

THERE is a lot of truth, and good sense in your editorial comment (Echo, Sept 24). But it should be noted that hunting is the one issue that has brought those with many other grievances together.

If the Government had not tried to ban hunting it would not have created the catalyst for over 400,000 people to be on the streets of London last Sunday, with over 65,000 signed up to 'Marching in Spirit' in addition.

The commentator is selective in stating opinion poll results, and could have added that, for many months, opinion polls have shown over 50 per cent against a ban on hunting.

Organised fox hunting is highly regulated. All registered hunts have been visited by independent inspectors for the last three years. If hunting were to be banned that regulation would stop, but I doubt that many of your readers would believe that foxes would not continue to be killed.

However humanely that killing is carried out, organised, scrutinised hunting, in the public eye, must be better than a free-for-all, and any "thinking" government should realise that. - Angela Vaux, Barton.

FIRE SERVICE

LISTENING to the firemen moan about their poor pay and dangerous jobs, we are led to believe that they are trapped in a blazing inferno each day of their lives when, in fact, some of them rarely attend a fire.

One of the perks of the job that they never mention is that they are provided with a bed when on night shift. Now firemen are demanding a wage of £600 per week so that they can sleep in peace when on night duty and where the only danger they are in is if they fall out of bed.

Talking about dangerous jobs, when I was working underground - actually the coal face was under the North Sea - it was commonplace for a miner to be injured at work. Death at work was not unusual and our wages were a pittance. - G Tucker Mordue, Easington Colliery.

WHY not increase the firemen's wages by 50 per cent instead of 40 per cent and arrange their working time to give them alternative weeks where they get four days off one week and three days off the next and it will not cost the taxpayers a penny.

All that is required is to revert to the two shifts system of some time ago. On duty for 24 hours and then off duty for 24 hours. Of course, it will never happen because there will only be half the number required for the £40,000pa jobs.

Doubling their pay will cost nothing and there will be other savings in less kit and uniforms and fewer pensions to be subsidised. - E Reynolds, Wheatley Hill.

FOR the most part, the letter from Councillor Tennant (HAS, Sept 17) is patronising and insulting.

It is my understanding there is a great deal of common ground between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union. Is he suggesting in principle his agreement with the union's demand of 40 per cent?

The assertion that the employers have made a request to the Government to undertake an inquiry into the fire service inclusive of pay and conditions is only justified on the basis that the citizen is being ripped off.

The offer of four per cent is simply an interim payment which would be subject to upgrading and backdating. The councillor should understand that the vast majority do not retire at 55 on a pension double that of the majority. We do not receive a golden handshake and the bit extra pension we do get is taken off us. Most of us consider £420 per week for 37 hours a figment of the imagination, yet alone £600 per week. - John Young, Crook.

DOES Mr Reynolds (HAS, Sept 20) realise that although the fire service have four days off between shifts they do work a 48-hour week. Most firemen have no choice but to try and find a second job to make ends meet.

I would like to see if Mr Reynolds could do a two eight-hour day shifts and two 16-hour night shifts off the belt and then do another job on what should be their days off.

Most stations are kept very busy through the night and the firefighters don't lie in bed all night like Mr Reynolds seems to think.

If a firefighter worked eight-hour shifts like most people they would work a six-day week with only one day off.

Our fire service does an excellent job and should be paid a decent wage. After all, it is all our lives, including the likes of Mr Reynolds, that they risk theirs for.

Would Mr Reynolds risk his life every day at work for £9 an hour. I very much doubt it? - Pauline Terrington, Trimdon Station.