Before the ban on hunting with hounds, we were told the law was illiberal because it would destroy hunts, put people out of work and take away the liberty of people to enjoy hunting.
Now we are told that the law has failed because it has not destroyed hunts, not put people out of work and has not taken away the liberty of people to enjoy hunting.
Huh?! Have I missed something?!
Could it be that the law is actually successful because it has precisely excised the one practice which was objectionable - specifically the tearing apart of foxes by hounds - while leaving untouched the unobjectionable elements such as riding out with hounds, following scents etc etc?
So all those people who said that the campaign for a ban was a class prejudice thing, are actually left with rather a denuded argument, are they not? The social activity of hunting has been left untouched, save for the actual tearing apart of the fox by hounds.
All those who said that the ban would allow a conversion of hunts to drag or trail hunting have been proved right.