IT is indeed a pleasure to find out that Bea Bradley and I can resume our friendly and well reasoned discussion about hunting of a few months back, courtesy of the letters page of the Bucks Free Press.

Yes, you were nave to think the Blair government would give you what you wanted, in fact you were duped.

Having spent a large amount of parliamentary time (time that may have been better used on something else), we got a law that was vague, full of exceptions and conditions (or what you refer to as loopholes), and thus virtually unenforceable.

This Labour government is a past master at implementing such legislation.

Therefore you should have known what to expect on Boxing Day.

Under the new Hunting Bill, if I understand it correctly, it is still perfectly legal to ride with hounds and kill a fox, though the kill must be by one of several specific methods.

You may not like the hunting fraternity as people, but that is not the point.

I presume, in legal terms, these are the "loopholes" you allege hunts are exploiting and sometimes breaking.

I am sure the antis would exploit any loopholes that assisted their activities to further their cause as well.

I think you may be disappointed with the response on Hunt Crimewatch. Most members of the public probably have no idea what is or is not legal, and may not care anyway.

As far as the police are concerned, they already have enough to do without wasting a disproportionate amount of their time trying to enforce the unenforceable.

It looks as though the antis will have to go back to the drawing board to try and get a law that fully satisfies their desires.

I suspect the fanatical outpourings in Bea Bradley's letter are out of sheer frustration.

Is the law against hunting effective? Not in its current form. The antis have fallen into the old trap they have won the battle but lost the war.

Jim Danbury, Loudwater