SIR – Simon McCullough has now actually started to disagree with himself over the hunting debate.

His latest letter (Worcester News, April 22) criticises the use of any facts, statistics or science to argue the case for hunting after he has employed the most dubious figures to support a ban.

He then questions my absolute commitment to free speech after demanding the Worcester News cease reporting any hunting over Christmas last year.

Mr McCullough asks why I’ve gone “political”

over our exchange of views on this subject.

He should recall it was Mike Foster and New Labour who took hunting into the political arena and left us with a £30 million bill.

Mr McCullough believes this huge sum of money and the doctors and nurses it would have payed for has no “relevance” to ordinary people. Anyone waiting for a hospitable bed might just disagree with him.

Mr McCullough asks, “is fox hunting cruel?”

There is no evidence or peer reviewed science which demonstrates that hunting is cruel.

It certainly offers the best method of control regarding animal welfare and conservation. He then questions if hunting is pest control or sport.

In simple terms it was originally pest control, later this combined with an equestrian side giving us the hunting we know today, where the intention is to humanely control the species rather than wipe it out.