Photo from PA
The leader on fox hunting that ran in Sunday's paper unleashed a pack of angry letters and emails. Fury at our apparent enthusiasm for blood sports and perceived softness on the hunting lobby has, our correspondents say, led to at least one Observer subscription being torn limb from limb.
The blog would like to reassure readers that the Observer does not condone law-breaking, nor does it seek thrills by dressing up in silly clothes and chasing after animals, especially not animals with a proverbial reputation for cunning. Although, we should add, opinion here is sharply divided as to whether or not it is a good idea to ban something that clearly gives people much pleasure and causes everyone else little harm. If parliament wants to legislate to protect animals there are more urgent cases than the hounding to death of a few foxes every year. But, of course, the ban was motivated by factors other than moist-eyed love of bushy-tailed mammals. (The government's unwillingness to go into an election having egregiously reneged on a 8-year-old manifesto pledge is one.)
As usual Andrew Rawnsley has the most succint analysis of the politics of the ban, as expressed in a column from November last year.
Our leader on Sunday was, as the blog sees it, making the point that factions in British society have for many years used each side of the fox hunting debate as a proxy for other issues of class and politics. The ridiculous sport is banned now - whether effectively or not time will tell. Meanwhile, let's move on and have real arguments about real issues, shall we?
.jpg?w=600)
