Sir, - I enjoyed reading the letter from your correspondent Mr W R Jessop (D&S letters, Dec 15)on the subject of foxhunting, and thought that he made some significant points, most particularly with reference to the contribution that foxhunting undoubtedly makes to the beauty of the countryside.

However, I think the argument over foxhunting is purely a moral one; is it so barbaric that it cannot be permitted in civilised society? I think not! My late mother was a regular and courageous rider to hounds with both the Bedale and Hurworth hunts.

She enjoyed the thrill of the chase and regularly came home much battered and bruised and, on more than one occasion, she required hospital treatment for her injuries. She was a most compassionate woman who loved to see foxes in the countryside, and the pleasure she enjoyed from hunting was certainly not borne out of any sense of blood lust.

She did, however, recognise that the fox population needed to be kept under control and that the alternatives, such as shooting and gassing, involved far more cruelty. Certainly the prohibition of foxhunting will not result in any reduction in cruelty to foxes!

Much space has been given in the media recently to the life-threatening brain injuries inflicted upon a professional boxer by a fellow competitor in the ring. In my view, to set two men upon each other to knock the living daylights out of each other for public entertainment is morally indefensible, and I'm always disgusted to observe that the degree of pleasure derived by the spectators is directly proportional to the extent to which one of the participants is being smashed to a pulp by the other! Clearly this 'sport' caters for a base, sadistic, instinct in the human race.

I am not opposed to sports involving the threat of injury, and I greatly enjoy watching rugby, cricket and motor racing, all of which can cause serious injury to the participants. The difference is that injuries from these sports are a consequence of the activity and not the main objective. If boxing did not take place under the auspices of a recognised sporting body, a competitor inflicting injuries upon another, even in accordance with the rules of boxing, would find himself facing the criminal courts, charged with causing grievous bodily harm and, in the event of fatal injuries, the charge would be one of murder. This consideration does not apply to any other sport.

As I write, the former sports minister in the government, Tony Banks, said in the House of Commons, during the debate on foxhunting, that he would like to see the sport banned in the same way in which cockfighting and bull baiting have been banned.

I immediately thought that if he wishes to extend his moral argument further, as a good European, he could call for the end of bull-fighting in Spain, although I soon think that his socialist comrades in that country would soon tell him where to go In the meantime, he might like to reflect on which sport is the most barbaric: foxhunting or boxing.

A D HILL

Boroughbridge Road,

Northallerton.

Move forward

Sir, - Fox-hunting would have been banned already if the House of Lords had not stopped the Parliamentary Bill that had a majority in the elected House of Commons. The time taken up by parliament debating it again would not have been necessary if it was not for the obstruction of men and women who have no constituency to answer to.

Mr W R Jessop (D&S letters, Dec 15) must find it vexing, but the idea of democracy is that the will of the majority prevails. It often has expressed itself in ways I disagree with, but I have learned to accept the consequences. It gives us the humility we need.

The worst argument in the world is used by Mr Jessop. He wants fox-hunting to continue because it has been a pastime for generations. It is as if tradition has a special magic. I am proud of the radical and non-conformist traditions of the past, but I have to live in the present and prepare for the future. The fox-hunting fraternity may have to learn to do the same.

There will be a free vote on fox-hunting and it follows an inquiry where all points of view were weighed and considered. What is important now is that the will of the majority cannot for ever be frustrated by the arrogance of the minority.

JENNI STRICKLAND

Marlborough Drive,

Darlington.

Sir, - With reference to W R Jessop's question of whether the Government has nothing better to do in Parliament than to try to ban hunting with dogs (D&S letters, Dec 15), if hunting is not a "real issue" why do so many people get worked up about it?

Why is the Bedale Hunt intending to send 13 bus-loads of protesters to London on 18 March? Why is the annual meet of Bedale Hunt at Aysgarth School "under threat" (page 9, same edition). Why are so many people concerned about the "tradition" of hunting with dogs being banned?

The answer is the same as the reason why so many people in previous centuries were concerned about other "traditions" that were, eventually, made illegal - wife-beating, witch-burning, slavery, child prostitution, putting little boys up chimneys, bull-baiting, badger-baiting, dog-fighting, voting rights limited to male property-owners. Need I go on?

PATRICIA TRICKER

Arrathorne,

Bedale.

BBC orders

Sir, - One day in London recently two rallies took place, both attended by BBC camera crews.

The rally of 100 black activists was duly screened, that of 10,000 supporters of the Democracy Movement was not: the BBC explained that it only reports rallies when an incident occurs. Yet in the Northern Ireland "marching season", peaceful marches are regularly screened.

One has to assume that the BBC takes its orders from government, to whom words like "democracy" and "countryside" are unacceptable.

Dr W A FORSTER

Wellington Mews,

Ripon.

Unseen crime

Sir, - I was, unfortunately, in hospital when Mr Kenworthy, the chief constable of North Yorkshire, was talking on BBC Radio York about disorder in our towns. Otherwise I would have challenged him about the performance of the county police

In Thirsk, shop windows are broken quite regularly on Saturday nights. A most recent example was the TAVEA electrical shop next to the Black Lion

Opposite the shop is a CCTV camera, but it was not able to be used to apprehend the cuplprits. What is the point of paying for these cameras if the operators are not looking at the monitors?

If they do not have the manpower to operate the cameras, why not use the civilian population to man them and pass the required incidents to the uniformed police.

J R IRVING

Gillings Court,

Thirsk