The futility of the anti-hunting bill can be seen in its own hypocrisy and inconsistency.

If a ban is based purely on cruelty, and cruelty is defined as unnecessary suffering, you have no option but to exterminate all cats in this country.

They cause far more suffering than any other predator, playing with their prey for up to 30 minutes before killing it. And, on the principle of utility, what use do cats have?

How about halal and kosher butchery? Does not the animal suffer from having its throat slit - bleeding to death over a period of several minutes?

Is this not cruelty worse than hunting?

How about deep sea fishing? When the trawler nets are hauled in, the fish are left to suffocate on the deck or in its holds, often taking 30 minutes to die.

Are they suffering in the same way as the fox which is killed instantly as soon as it is caught? So we have to ban fishing, too.

A huge number of animals of all sorts are injured on the roads every year after being hit by cars and lorries. Do you therefore ban motor vehicles?

These are the ultimate extensions of the cruelty argument. None of the above activities is necessary.

We used to survive without cars. We used to catch fish and bump them on the head for our own consumption.

There is no scientific evidence to support a ban on hunting. Indeed, the more evidence that is published, the stronger the case to keep hunting.

It is the least cruel method of fox control and is the only method to cause no injury.

The anti-hunting bill shows an absolute intolerance of a minority activity and is the first step towards a fascist state.

It is a hypocritical statement from a government that in all other areas preaches tolerance and shuns prejudice.

The British public should be wary of such intolerance and should value the freedom of individual choice.

-Graerne Worsley, Copthorne