Sorry, didn't know you were a vet or an acknowledged expert in physiology. I apologise. As you indicate that you are, then, sure, you can sit beside me in the dentist's chair. I may wish to check you qualifications first, however!
And I questioned the validity of of the will of 'the mass of the people' because many who have posted here have claimed it as legitimacy for the Act. To quote: "the people had ignored the 'muddied waters' and had clearly spoken on this issue". And that's just from you, Roger.
My view is that the perceived view of the great mass of the people is not necessarily valid. That is why, quite rightly, we don't have a referendum on the death penalty, because we know that emotion, ignorance and venality would result in its reimposition.
The role of an MP is to represent the interests, not the opinions, of his or her constituents. As I see it, the hunting ban was instituted as a result of the cynical manipulation of prejudices, and had nothing to do with the interests of the British people, the welfare of our wildlife or the environment.