GILES Bradshaw,Police are failing to enforce hunt Act, Points of view, July 30, repeats, yet again, his belief that he has uncovered an unintended consequence of The Hunting Act.

The point he makes does not in any way undermine the underlying purpose of the Act.

Such purpose was upheld by the following October, 2007, House of Lords Judgement: “The legislative aim of the Hunting Act is a composite one of preventing or reducing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals, overlaid by a moral viewpoint that causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical and should, so far as is practical and proportionate, be stopped.”

Thus far there have been 29 convictions under this Act with a current backlog of many other cases awaiting a technical High Court judgment.

Mr Bradshaw should not be too upset that he has not yet been charged.

For a decision to be made to prosecute, two conditions must be satisfied.

Firstly, the evidence must be such that a conviction is more likely than not.

Secondly, any prosecution must be judged to be in the public interest.

Neither condition is likely to met by an individual intent on making a political point through the production of self-generated evidence.

I think it's time you gave it a rest, Mr Bradshaw.

Ivor Annetts

League Against Cruel Sports Tiverton

(by email)