The unspeakable chasing the unchallengeable?

Two days ago a Home Office Spokesman answered a parliamentary question asked by David Ruffley, a Conservative MP.

Mr. Ruffly asked first, how many charges had been made, how many convictions, how many cautions and how many fines had been made since the 2004 Hunting with Dogs Act.

The answer was three prosecutions, one each by three constabularies in 2005, resulting in three fines and one caution. In 2006, there were 11 prosecutions unde taken by four different police forces, resulting in five convictions, five fines and no cautions.

With various anti-hunting groups still very active, the above seems a very low number of legal actions taken by the police at a time when the number of people hunting has risen and the number of supporters has risen even more.

Is this because the police have been occupied on other things, filling in forms and conducting Health & Safety investigations (- charging across open countryside may be dangerous), or they have insufficient staff or enthusiasm?

Is it because Hunts have become completely law-abiding and no longer chase foxes with dogs?

Is it because the Hunts have become more "canny" in exploiting various loopholes in some ill-thought-out and badly drafted legislation?

Or is it a mixture of all three?

Assuming that the "anti" groups are just as determined and committed, the implication is that the whole parliamentary process which produced the act was a profound waste of parliamentary time. To judge from the reported increased support for hunting, the process was counter-productive.

But then, many of us suspected that the whole point of the legislation was Labour Party unity.