Iraq, hunting, access and others

Blair simulates an apology over the Iraq war intelligence

Sir: So Mr Blair "apologised" for the flawed intelligence, but this is like apologising for the weather: "I'm sorry it's so bad, but really guys, you can't seriously think it's my fault." This was a simulation of an apology - a fake, alongside all the other illusions Tony Blair has woven around his appalling conduct over the criminal assault on Iraq; conduct which is unforgivable and for which, therefore, no apology is required.

PHILLIP COLE
Hitchin, Hertfordshire

Sir: Having listened to Hitchhiker this evening I now suspect I am from another planet. Tony apologises for information and advice he received (for which he had no need to apologise because it was right until he changed it) - and then refuses to apologise for his judgement on something he therefore knew to be wrong. I think one of us needs a psychotherapist or a pan-galactic gargleblaster.

DAVID WALKER
Glossop, Derbyshire

Sir: Tony Blair says: "The problem is I can apologise for the information being wrong, but I can never apologise ... for removing Saddam." Go on then, Mr Blair, publicly apologise "for the information being wrong". And while you're at it, you can publicly apologise to David Kelly's family and the BBC, can't you?

RICHARD W SYMONDS
Crawley, West Sussex

Sir: When will the anti-Blair, anti-war propaganda crowd realise that the world has been rid of a despot who was responsible for the deaths of millions and, however sad the deaths of a few thousand civilians has been, it was always going to be the only way to start the transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic one? In the meantime, maybe Kofi Annan would do better focusing on preventing genocide in Rwanda than posturing on whether or not the Iraq invasion was illegal. Or maybe that would involve the UN in action, not just empty words?

IAN MAUDE
Wherwell, Hampshire

Sir: If Tony Blair did indeed lie to us all (as leftist conspiracy theorists, determined to disbelieve four exhaustive inquiries, still vehemently contend), then this says far more about the "great British public" than it ever could about our Prime Minister - for Mr Blair will have invented and exaggerated selfish reasons for going to war (Saddam might blow us up), quite obviously aware that the altruistic reasons (ousting a genocidal dictator; spreading freedom and democracy) just wouldn't have appealed to us.

KEITH GILMOUR
Glasgow

Sir: Tony Blair again repeats that the "world is a better place" now that Saddam is in jail. Is it really? Iraq has become "the crucible of global terrorism". We now know that UN weapons inspections kept Iraq clean of WMDs. So what is preferable: a crucible of terrorism or an annoying, though ultimately harmless, game of cat and mouse between Saddam and the inspectors? Is the exchange of one for the other really worth the deaths of over 10,000 people?

PAUL WALTER
Newbury, Berkshire

Hunting people will be the new gypsies

Sir: I agree with Kate Baden Fuller's letter (27 September) that the attraction of hunting for many people is in having a good excuse to get up early and ride around the countryside.

It is sad that the ban on hunting has coincided with legislation which at great cost in mapping and bureaucracy has provided for increased access on foot to open country. Hunting provides freedom of access to most of the countryside for both foot and mounted followers at virtually no public cost and usually with minimum conflict with landowners and farmers. It is an effective system that has evolved over hundreds of years, which will be swept away to satisfy urban prejudice.

The future for hunters is likely to be similar (although still possibly less serious) to the long-standing persecution and harassment of gypsies. They too are subject to an inherent prejudice, against people with non-conforming traditions and customs, now regarded as alien.

There is no real consensus on what is right - opinions on hunting have divided people and families ever since it ceased to be essential for survival - there is no real evidence of a serious problem justifying this socially divisive legislation.

ROGER N CARTWRIGHT
Carnforth, Lancashire

Sir: David Mitchell (letter, 23 September) asks why hunting is so uniquely cruel. Quite simply, it is the only activity where animals are deliberately set upon another animal in the name of "sport" that is still permitted in this country.

Bear-baiting, badger-digging, cock- and dog-fighting were all banned long ago by a state keen to behave with moral dignity and in a civilised manner. Yet, as far back as the 18th century, legislation to abolish cock-fighting was described by its proponents as "oppressive and a gross infringement of our liberties" (Howlett, The Royal Pastime of Cock-fighting, 1709).

Recognise the increasingly tired argument?

JOHN ROLLS
RSPCA Director of Animal Welfare Promotion, Horsham, West Sussex

Sir: The fox-hunting question has put me on the horns of a dilemma. My liberal instincts tell me that it is wrong to ban things, and that the protection of minority interests is the hallmark of a civilised society. Therefore I should support hunting - but then I look at the people I would be lined up with, and think, "No, I can't."

My humanitarian instincts tell me that hunting is cruel and unnecessary, and I should therefore join the anti brigade - but then I look at the people I would be lined up with, and think, "No, I can't."

Should I run with the fox and hunt with the hounds? Or what?

IAN MACKRELL
Horley, Surrey

Sir: What an impressive demonstration we were treated to by the pro-hunting lobby! Topless bathing, bunny girls, mooning and the vile dumping of animal carcasses in the middle of Brighton; proof if any were needed that they are a bunch of inarticulate odious yobbos unworthy of the attention they so desperately crave.

ALISON STROAK
Glasgow

Sir: In response to Lowri Coulten (letter, 21 September), I'm afraid he won't rock the nation by hunting rabbits with dogs in 2006 because the Hunting Bill exempts both rabbits and rats from the new law, presumably on the basis that their reaction to dogs (scooting down holes) does not provide "good sport" so their welfare is not compromised in the same way as the fox, deer and hare.

G E PURSER.
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

Sir: The promise of lawbreaking by the hunters brings the prospect of real sport to the rural scene - Reynard, pursued by foxhounds and pink-coated toffs crying "Tally-Ho!" and being ridden down by alsatians and blue-coated coppers crying "Allo allo allo!"

MIKE PILKINGTON
Newton Abbot, Devon

Crowded island

Sir: Your leading article on immigration ("Mr Howard and another missed opportunity", 23 September) does seem to miss the point.

Immigration is no long-term answer to an ageing population; we have to address that problem and not put it aside. The economy can expand indefinitely, absorbing any amount of labour, but at what a price to our countryside and real well-being?

This country is the most overpopulated in Europe, with twice the population it should have environmentally and socially. We pollute with carbon at more than twice the rate per square mile as the USA.

Every person fewer there is will do far more for the environment than promoting green fuel in an expanding fuel market.

R W STANDING
East Preston, Sussex

Sir: How can we have an immigration policy or an energy, transport, housing, pensions or waste policy without first having a population policy? As usual, this is the missing element in all the recent policy statements of Blair, Kennedy and Howard, as in press comment.

No physical thing can grow indefinitely on a physically finite planet or country. Our population is growing by nearly three cities the size of Bath every year, all wanting more electricity, road space, homes, and care when old, and all making more waste. We know it cannot grow indefinitely, so it must stabilise at some number. What do we want that number to be - the physical maximum (bare survival for all), or the optimum (best quality of life for all)? What is the optimum? Would life in England be better or worse, for instance, with 100 million than with the current 60 million? Or with 30 million?

These are the questions that urgently need answering.

ROGER MARTIN
Optimum Population Trust
Wells, Somerset

Hard work

Sir: In his conference speech at Brighton, Tony Blair pledged 10 ways he would help "hard-working families". He and his colleagues have never defined what they mean by this phrase but it would appear in this context to mean two-income families. Are these the most needy people in Britain today?

I am a single pensioner, income £9,000 per annum, paying income tax. My council tax payment increased by 18 per cent in April. People like myself, and many much worse off, are expected to subsidise the life/work balance of these "hard-working families", many of whom are very well off.

This government certainly believes in redistribution.

DAVID SMITH
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

Unfair access law

Sir: Chris Othen writes (letter, 27 September) that if a parent is serious about contact with their children, they should stop complaining about the law and get a good solicitor.

He may consider the law fair to children and solicitors, but I would suggest it's not so fair towards parents caught in unpleasant contact disputes.

I would be interested to find out how Mr Othen envisages the average parent funds the services of the courts and a good solicitor? My family's experience has cost to date, over the last five years, in excess of £20,000 - and the case hasn't even finished yet. If we hadn't been able to pull together to raise this money, then we would have lost contact totally with my grandson, just because my ex daughter-in-law doesn't like my son any more.

Viewed from a father's standpoint, or a grandmother's, I cannot agree that today's legal system is fair to either the estranged parent or to the children involved.
Name and address supplied

Stage directions

Sir: Plans for a complete renewal of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon may have taken time (letter, 28 September) but unlike building a motor-racing circuit, creating a new theatre in an iconic listed building, in one of the country's most important historic towns, is a tricky proposition.

Theatres are complex beasts to build, especially given that we are preserving some of the key Art Deco heritage elements of Elisabeth Scott's 1932 theatre. Equally challenging is continuing to perform in Stratford throughout the build. Rather than "close for five years" as your correspondent suggests, the RSC will continue to perform in a temporary theatre for two years while we transform the current one.

Macbeth has a point when he says "if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly", but the most important thing is that we get the right theatre for Shakespeare in Stratford. Audiences may forgive delays, but not getting it wrong. Quite right.

VIKKI HEYWOOD
Executive Director
Royal Shakespeare Company
Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire

IN BRIEF...

Straw in the dark

Sir: Last week I noticed that Jack Straw has abandoned wearing his spectacles. This week I read that he shook President Mugabe's hand because it was dark and he did not recognise him. Are these two events connected?

MARGARET KYRLE
Eastleigh, Hampshire

Huffed in Derbyshire

Sir: All in a huff again (letters; 21, 24, 27 September). My father, who was born in Derbyshire, taught me to play draughts when I was a little boy. One of the rules was that if you failed to jump over an opponent's piece and take it when the opportunity arose he could huff you by claiming your piece. I have played draughts in other parts of the country if not the world but I have never come across the term to huff except from him. Strange that the Derbyshire tie-up should be there again.

H RICHARDSON
Skelmersdale, Lancashire

Too dumb to vote

Sir: I am offended by your slur on Floridian election officials ("Something rotten in the state of Florida", 29 September). I have been a liberal Democrat voter and activist for 35 years, but I'm not a poor loser. What happened in Florida during the 2000 elections was that lots of dumb people didn't have enough sense to cast their vote right ... and you're too much of a bad sport to handle it. Just because these morons were on my side doesn't mean I want idiots to determine who my president will be.

TOM COLTON
Arlington, Washington, USA

Cut to the quick

Sir: Did Jerome Burne ("The cruellest cut of all", 28 September) deliberately set out to spoil my day? Here am I, sixty-odd years down the line and convinced for all this time that my sex-life has been enhanced by circumcision, when along comes Jerome telling me that I lack 40,000 nerve endings. What on earth have I been missing? He really has got under my skin. Or would have done if I had any.

ROBERT WEST
Manchester