I must say I found P Richardson's letter, "Bloodsports fanatics have no understanding of cruelty" (Your Say, December 29) most enlightening.

Here at last was an animal rights supporter who was willing to clear up any misconceptions and to openly state there is no difference between anti-hunt groups and animal rights supporters.

In fact, Mr Richardson not only links these two groups, but then broadens the list to include any group whose activities are in direct conflict with the legal pursuits of shooting and fishing and anyone involved in meat production.

A contentious argument when one recognises that 95 per cent of the UK population eat meat and are therefore corporately responsible for its production. And, of course, there is a darker flipside to Mr Richardson's admission, as is shown by the recent trial and conviction of four leading animal rights activists for their attacks on workers of companies indirectly linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

No matter how we might personally feel about this company's activities, the ends never justify the means in relation to direct action. If you need reminding of the kind of actions perpetrated by animal rights groups, these have included car bombs, intimidation and direct cruelty to horses and hounds at hunt meetings.

Surely this last act alone suggests they do not have total animal welfare at heart.

One has only to look in Roget's Thesaurus under "terrorist" to recognise that animal welfare groups are not freedom fighters, but thugs and terrorists and should be severely dealt with.

S Freke Gloucestershire