Ban on game feeding might be the solution

Sir,—On the face of it, the idea that wild game must be tested before consumption seems ludicrous and poses the question how hunting man got this far if eating his prey was a killer.

However, despite the protestations of Struan Stevenson and Murdo Fraser, “wild” game is often not quite as it seems.

In view of the widespread rearing of game birds and distributing these in unnaturally large numbers, artificial feeding is commonplace in an attempt to keep the game in chosen locations.

Rat infestation around such feeding areas can be an unfortunate consequence.

If rats can be a health hazard when sharing a trough with pigs, as recently highlighted, imagine the problem if pigs could fly from intense rearing conditions and spread the health hazard as they seek to adopt natural distribution throughout the countryside.

To put this into perspective, at this time of year artificially reared pheasants and ducks can fly from farm to farm, often wandering into livestock buildings, in search of food.

Unlike the farm animals they visit, they carry no passport or record of where they’ve been, whom they last dined with and what was eaten.

If red tape and inspection is necessary for managed farm animals, surely it makes even more sense to apply similar controls on hand-reared species free to roam amongst them from potentially unhygienic feeding conditions?

And what of the rat population once game feeding stops?

A total ban, or strict control, on game feeding might be an obvious solution.

Plenty evidence, but lack of will

Sir,—I refer to “name and address supplied” (December 23). My opinions pale into insignificance alongside that correspondent’s personal tragedy.

Clearly there is a lot of understandable hurt in that letter and if my letter provided a vehicle to ease that by getting it off their chest, I wish them well and have no complaint. I do hope, however, I may still reply to the points raised.

The point I was making seems to have been missed. I was not trying to stigmatise Ian Huntley, I think he managed that all by himself. How many more facts do we need to know about this fiend?

He allegedly had sex while in his 20s with at least five under-age girls. There may be mitigating circumstances had he been of the girls’ age, but certainly not as a grown man.

I cannot understand a system that says it’s illegal for girls under 16 to have sex but then allows the girls to decide whether to press charges. A child shouldn’t be expected to make these decisions. The state must make that decision for them.

Had the state done so in Huntley’s case he would, at best, have been in jail or, at worst, his name would have been on the sex offenders’ register. Either way, those little girls in Soham would be with us today.

This wasn’t a case of false allegations. There was plenty evidence, but a lack of will.

The strange thing about cases like this is, the more accusations that are made against someone like Huntley the more guarded the police and prosecuting authorities become. They appear scared of their own shadows.

I hope the inquiry can do something to address the politically correct madness that this fear produces. It is this that makes it appear to the general public that the rights of the accused are better looked after than those of the victim. This also causes our failure to protect women and children.

To our politicians I say, it needs sorted—now!

Spoils harbour appearance

Sir,—It saddens me to have read in the article, Restaurant proves a real delight (December 18), that Fife Council is going to increase the pontoon facility at Anstruther Harbour.

The present facility totally spoils the appearance of the harbour area.

I accept that the council has to make money from properties it owns, but at what cost to the general appearance of the harbour?

Also why, when the council is allowing the pontoon in the harbour, did it not try to save the outdoor swimming pools that it had at Cellardyke and Anstruther beside the golf course etc, which would have been earning it revenue?

Credits as well as debits

Sir,—Donald Morrison (December 22) is perfectly entitled to list the policies he believes reflect badly on the 18 years of Tory government.

Any balanced analysis should, however, consider the credits as well as the debits.

For a start I’d list facing down the Soviet threat and winning the cold war.

Then there’s reforming the trades unions, which probably did more than any other policy to haul Britain back from the brink and make the country governable again.

Much of the wealth we see had its foundation in the de-nationalisation, pro- competition and free- market reforms of the 1980s.

I could go on, but suffice to say that if the Tory years were so bad, why did Tony Blair morph into a pale imitation of Margaret Thatcher?