Sir, - Two points on the hunting debate. Firstly, Trevor Nicholson in his letter (D&S, Feb 2) and in previous letters over the past years, has stated that he is willing to make a citizen's arrest to aid the policing of hunting when it is banned.
He must have studied the subject thoroughly to keep repeating his intention. Could he please enlighten us of the grounds on which he will make these arrests?
I understand, but I am no lawyer and I am willing to be corrected, that a citizen's arrest is an arrest made without warrant in specific areas of crime such as crimes against persons or property. Will fox hunting be a crime covered by citizen's arrest? Please advise us Mr Nicholson.
If you are correct, how do we carry out an arrest? What do we have to do with the alleged culprit, his horse (which I presume becomes the responsibility of the person making the arrest) and any hounds found to be with him or her? Please Mr Nicholson give us the benefit of your knowledge and the plans you have made, so that your volunteers, in supporting you, don't end up being taken to court for false arrest and assault.
Secondly, who is going to benefit from a law forbidding hunting with dogs? The fox certainly won't. It will still be hunted, although by men with rifles or shotguns and only a couple of dogs. The general public won't, because the act of hunting has never endangered their way of life as other criminal activities do. The taxpayer won't because there will be an increase in the cost to the exchequer in unemployment payments and other benefits. The police won't as they will be over stretched and find it difficult to enact the new law. The employees of the hunt and their families won't as they will lose their jobs and homes. The hounds won't as they will have to be killed. Farmers won't because they will have to pay to have fallen stock removed. So, who benefits? Mr Nicholson, I presume!
KEITH CARLEY
Orchard Lane,
Sowerby.
What a diatribe
Sir, - Surely I cannot be the only person to be bored to death by Trevor Nicholson (D&S letters, Feb 2) with his over-long diatribe against hunting, a subject of which he is woefully ignorant.
He described those who hunt as "yobs", a word accurately describing those often balaclava-clad people who attempt to disrupt proceedings during a hunt. To say that hunters get "pleasure from watching a pack tear a wild animal to pieces", is presumably to say that someone eating venison in a restaurant is enjoying tearing a wild animal to pieces.
The term "country sports" includes all properly conducted forms of hunting, shooting and fishing and not one of the long forgotten pastimes he includes under that heading.
CHRISTOPHER CURTIS
Carthorpe,
The stooges
Sir, - I have read Mr Nicholson's letter (D&S Feb 2), which I suspect is political.
The saga of hounds and foxes goes on and on with no truthful analysis for the electorate. The church and most politicians went into mediation as far as voting was concerned but Mr Blair being completely fed up, cleared off to Ireland.
In the meantime, he ordered his stooge troops, under a smoke screen, to go over the top on a covert strategy of casting dubious votes of conscience without permission from the electorate.
Anyway the question is, which is the most cruel, the hound or the fox? The hounds kill the fox but the fox kills lambs, rabbits, stoats, pheasants, hens and grouse.
Ah, says Mr Nicholson, we engaged a cameraman to take blood curdling scenes of devastation wreaked by hounds on foxes. Of course he didn't have photographs taken of lambs, rabbits, hens and all smaller birds and mammals with their entrails torn out. That wouldn't fit in with his political gambit.
MAURICE NEWBLE
Eggleston,
Not worth a stamp
Sir, - I fully concur with Mrs Yvonne Jackson's view (D&S letters, Feb 2), that she has been deprived by Thirsk Town Council of her democratic right to cast her vote in the December by-election.
It is deplorable that the Thirsk electorate was not thought worthy by the councillors to have a price of a postage stamp spent on them.
Once again, a question has to be posed whether the Thirsk councillors really are the servants of the public, or the public are merely considered as an entity providing them with public office. It would be right and proper for the councillors to offer a public apology to Mrs Jackson and the other 3,490 residents who voted for them.
OLLY ANDRLA
South Terrace,
Sowerby
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article