I AGREE with George Brichieri about the hunters tramping through our city (April 16), but I am not as pessimistic when he says the lack of a counter demo is an indication of them winning the argument.

The anti-hunting majority is still holding up reasonably well while, admittedly, not being as impressive as after last year's General Election.

However, I sense that a large part of that majority is "soft" in the sense that few are committed enough to have a day off work and take to the streets as Mr Brichieri did.

I count myself in that category even though my views on the subject of hunting with hounds are perhaps stronger than most.

The pro-hunting lobby choose to do so simply because they are affected far more directly by the issue - a ban would, in extreme cases, mean some individuals being put out of work, while the upheaval in the social lives of most of the others would be significant.

This does not invalidate the moral argument against hunting but does begin to explain why a minority can make so much noise and commotion while the rest of us are obliged to tolerate their antics.

The irony is that the type of people in the Countryside Alliance are the first to make glib remarks about "rent-a-mobs" when people of an alternative viewpoint try to make themselves heard.

Ultimately, the argument will be won and lost in Parliament. That is where the problems start, with Tony Blair trying to find an illusory third way between two irreconcilable opinions. There can be no compromise on cruelty.

John Buckle,

Nunthorpe Grove,

South Bank, York.

Updated: 11:05 Thursday, April 25, 2002