Sir, Having previously lived in a rural farming community, I enjoy reading Meyrick Brown's column, 'Straws in the Wind'. However, I was surprised by his hostility to the Animal Welfare Bill which is currently awaiting consideration by the House of Lords. The Bill seeks to update legislation which has remained largely unchanged for approximately the last 100 years and, if passed, will be one of the few things for which I'll happily cheer our present government. (I understand that farm stock are now more protected in law than domestic animals.) In implying that we will be invaded in our homes and our animals removed at the whim of 'pet police', Mr. Brown is spectacularly inaccurate and/ or ill-informed. I suggest that he might usefully spend a few days with an RSPCA inspector. If this is not possible, local animal rescue charities will be willing to tell him of the many consequences of abuse and neglect which they encounter weekly. The RSPCA has long complained that it has no right to intervene until evidence of cruelty is so blatant as to be life-threatening. Once this point has arrived, staff must have police accompaniment when seeking to remove an animal. This must be a frustrating process for the RSPCA and a sickening one for decent police officers. Meyrick Brown almost correctly cites the aims of the Bill: appropriate diet; suitable living conditions; awareness of abnormal behaviour; protection from injury and suffering; companionship or solitude as appropriate. Perhaps Mr. Brown could devote part of his next column to explaining what is wrong with any or all parts of this proposition. (I was also disappointed that our rural correspondent chose to quote a piece of polemic from The Scotsman to end his article rather than to express the same vehement opinions for himself). In conclusion, I'd like to say that I'm not a 'Fluffy- Soppy'. I do, though, believe in compassion and decency whether it relates to human beings or to animals. J. Bailey-Dering, Saundersfoot.
