It is a fundamentally illiberal attitude to want to ban activities that you disapprove of. How strange that such attitudes should be so evident in the political parties that pride themselves on being liberal (and even, in Britain, include the word in their name!).

On the subject of this thread, my own views are not entirely self-consistent but are not, I hope, quite so nauseatingly hypocritical as those of the Labour MP (an angler! "Fish have different nervous systems and don't feel pain") who introduced the bill to ban hunting early in the last parliament. I have never been nearer to a hunt than having been taken to a meet as a small child, and have absolutely no desire to ride to hounds or even follow them on foot. So I am not so much a supporter of hunting as against those advocating a ban on hunting (how could a reactionary like me be otherwise?). Just a few points:

The word "sportsman" was applied to followers of the hounds long before ball-games were invented. Sportsmen, arouse! The morning is fair wasn't an appeal to footballers, you know.

Hunting has provided the subject of some of the finest songs in the English language (eg the one whose first line I quote above).

If foxes need to be controlled (and I believe they do), is it not better that people should enjoy themselves exercising this control than not?

It seems unfair to me (not in the best sporting tradition!) that hunt servants should stop foxes' earths before the hunt and that foxes which do manage to go to ground should be dug out and killed anyway. But I can see that it's consistent with hunters' claim to have controlling foxes as a primary aim.

So, to answer John's question: No.