I do not understand how shooting can be sport
I AM writing in reply to William
Baker’s letter (WMN 18th September) asking why people like myself who dislike game shooting always reference animal cruelty or the breeding of an animal for the purpose of being shot. I have been married to a veterinary surgeon for over 30 years and our lives are dedicated to the care and welfare of animals so as far as I’m concerned going out into the countryside with a crowd of other shooters for the pure enjoyment of killing another animal bred solely for that purpose is total anathema. I cannot for the life of me understand this desire to slaughter an innocent animal for “sport”. The beaters are just as bad when they flush these poor frightened birds from the undergrowth so they fly to their death just so the shooters can test their gun skills. All shooting enthusiasts will vehemently disagree with me but I speak from the heart and it’s just my way of giving a voice to these poor creatures.
Elizabeth Gabriel Avonwick the UK and EU concerning certain conditions. A minister of the crown made it abundantly clear on TV that the detail of the Northern Ireland trade matter was to be decided by a working group set up for the purpose and which is currently engaged in so doing. Of course he could be lying! Mr Frampton goes on to state as a fact that it is the government’s intention to claw back powers from the devolved governments and thus increase the control exercised by Westminster. I presume he attends cabinet meetings and hears such plans being discussed, or maybe he has a mole. He appears to agree with the opinion that Mr Johnson’s “deal” is significantly inferior to that of Mrs May. This conveniently ignores the fact the Mrs May failed to get her plan agreed either by the EU or by our own parliament whereas that put forward by Mr Johnson was approved by both, albeit with certain reservations like the EU’s insistence that they be able to take fish from our national waters on the basis that they have been doing it for 40 years and see no reason to stop and they think the supreme court of the UK should be subject to the over-riding decision of the ECJ in certain matters. Of course there is also the little matter of “state aid” over which the EU do not wish us to have jurisdiction although they do not hold the same view regarding either France or Germany. If in your home and your private life there is a perceived threat from a less than sympathetic neighbour you might be minded to take steps as an insurance against any future aggressive act. Such a decision would not of itself be unlawful but it might be unlawful if you used violence against them.
THE very idea would make it illegal to maintain an army against the possibility that it could be asked to sort out the shambles created by incompetent politicians. Mr Frampton’s great mistake is that he makes assertions and claims as facts ideas which are entirely prejudice and opinion and as such are not worthy of much attention unless he can provide rock solid evidence to back up the twaddle.
CH White Tavistock