Mr Newman (Oxford Mail, May 15) clearly has an axe to grind in attacking the RSPCA but, while I have reservations about the organisation, I applaud its prosecution of those accused of animal cruelty.

Mr May states that if a breach of the Hunting Act had occurred, then “it would be a criminal offence which the police could have prosecuted. The fact they have not must be because of lack of viable evidence.”

I suspect Mr May is aware that the state virtually never prosecutes any cases of animal cruelty, preferring the RSPCA to do it for them. Because of the enormous costs involved, our political establishment hopes that such cases will rarely be brought.

If the state does take over these prosecutions, they are invariably dropped at the earliest opportunity. The laws relating to animal cruelty are merely cosmetic and designed purely to allay public concern.

Mr Newman has no right to express his opinion on the prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt and the quality of the evidence, as it is still sub-judice.

Many people question Cameron’s appointment of Nick Herbert as Policing Minister (a former political director of the British Field Sports Society) who described the Hunting Act as “an offence to civil liberties”. It is little wonder the hunting lobby feel the law of the land does not apply to them, and it explains why so many hunt monitors are verbally and physically abused with impunity.

Equally cynical was the appointment of the pro-hunting, pro-shooting, pro-intensive farming, Jim Paice, as Minister for Animal Welfare.

My main criticism of the RSPCA is that it should renounce its royal charter in view of the heavy involvement of the royal family in blood sports.

PETER LANGLEY Windmill Road Headington