I KNOW that Colin Richey feels the same way as the rest of us about the wilful cruelty to Baby P. Whether he feels, as I do, that this kind of cruelty will not end while our welfare culture promotes the kind of family in which Baby P lived and died, I don't know.

It seems, however, that Colin makes the distinction between which creatures should be treated with cruelty, Daft hunting act must be repealed, Points of view, March 7. But where does he draw the line? Would he for example bring back bear-baiting, hare-coursing etc? Is wilful cruelty to domestic dogs and cats acceptable? Should we turn a blind eye to puppy farming?

Most of us are not lefties from the concrete jungle. I live on the edge of Exeter and I enjoy the countryside as much as anybody. Nothing gives me more pleasure than to see a fox gambling around in the early-morning air. Of course, the foxes I see would offer none of the morbid pleasure their country cousins offer the hunting fraternity. The fields in which they exist would not allow hunters to even get into their stride.

Colin is naive if he believes that the opposition to hunting has anything to do with toffs, as he calls them, riding around the countryside in pink pyjamas. None of that is illegal. The only part of the hunting tradition which has been banned is the wilful cruelty.

Of course, the police cannot be at every hunt. But it's comforting to know that, by and large, the hunts obey the law which is perhaps why hunting is becoming more popular. I notice that Colin doesn't offer any suggestions as to how the perceived loopholes can be closed.

No doubt Colin will agree with me that this country has never been in greater need of a change of government and yet our main opposition party has only one policy: to legalise wilful cruelty in our countryside. What hope is there for this country?

G R Holwill

Stoke Hill Crescent, Exeter

(by fax)