SIR: Once again your headlines "Restaurant in hunt boycott storm" (BEN, September 28) highlight the intimidation that anti-field sports protesters will stoop to, to further their aims.

Any individual or group is entitled to book a restaurant or other public amenity for a social function, provided of course it does not interfere with anyone else.

However, just because these misguided people disagree with the ethics of hunting, they see fit to, not only disrupt and antagonise a popular public restaurant, but also blatantly to trespass on land belonging to and intimidate the family of a well-respected local businessman.

However, in this instance, we, the General Public, should probably count ourselves lucky that the protests did not escalate to violence and vandalism, as it often has in the past.

Readers would do well to be aware that inexcusable acts of terrorism have been perpetrated in the name of Animal Rights and that physical violence and intimidation are tried and tested weapons of the Animal Rights activist.

A J M Pilkington

Lancashire County

Chairman

British Field Sports Society

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.