THE concepts of livelihood and liberty have been raised by the Countryside Alliance in their pro-hunting campaign and for their cancelled march.

It would be nice if we could all have access to a livelihood. We all know too well how many manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 20 years, but these days many hard-working and loyal employees seem to be sent away with the reassurance that they can get another job in a call centre.

If we live and derive benefits from living in an organised society, we all forgo unconditional liberty to do as we please. If we want unconditional liberty, we must be prepared to go and live as hermits with the trade-off that we lose the benefits of living in an organised society.

The law and guidelines are there to protect the majority; it is perhaps unfortunate that the minority may lose out when the general public view of what is and what is no longer ethically acceptable works against them. This is no justification to break the law or to brag about it. Rights don't come out of nowhere; perhaps we earn them, perhaps we need permission for them, bloody buzzards and all. Notions of ethical behaviour change over time.

A hundred years ago, boys were sent to clean chimneys at great personal risk and many died. Law-abiding, churchgoing, respectable people, felt this service was reasonable and did not feel they were exploiting others. Similarly, those who believed and participated in the slave trade were not all unmitigated rogues or evil exploitative people; there were many church people and clerics amongst them. Contemporary thinking regarded it as the norm.

All the shouting about personal rights and alienated voters clouds the issue about responsible and ethical conduct. It would also be nice to generate a little more light than heat on the affair, more authentic self-questioning on all sides and a more honest use of language.

It's interesting how a campaigning interest in an issue of public concern can get described with a tweek of self-deception as activism or terrorism by those on the losing side of the debate.

WENDY HANDS, Upton-upon-Severn.