THE recent announcement that the appeal by the Badger Trust against the badger ‘cull’ (I hate euphemisms) has been rejected by the High Court should come as no surprise, despite the fact that their appeal was accepted by the Welsh court in 2010 on all three counts.

Why therefore was it necessary to have another hearing?

The question is rhetorical, since the answer is obvious. The politicians, media and even the judicial system can be manipulated by powerful interest groups to serve their own agenda.

The verdict has also been timed to coincide with the Olympic hysteria and the media have dutifully obliged by giving it minimal publicity.

TB in cattle arose because of the way farmers treat their livestock.

Cows are impregnated annually, leaving them no time to recover, and are subjected to routine doses of antibiotics and drugs in order to combat their inevitable susceptibility to disease.

The cattle have long ago transmitted TB to various forms of wildlife, including the badgers.

Eighty-per cent of transmission is from cow to cow, caused by farmers moving their animals over large distances and farmers have also been shown to be swapping name tags from sick animals to less valuable healthy animals, while it is suspected that some are deliberately infecting their herds in order to gain compensation.

Lord Krebs conducted a 10-year trial and concluded that culling would only effect a small reduction in TB and could make matters worse by the so-called ‘perturbation effect’, where surviving badgers move to other areas.

It is obvious that this massacre will involve wiping out the badgers completely, over a period of several years but it will still only mean a small reduction in disease.

As with most issues, this Government rarely reflects the will of the electorate. David Cameron carefully selected fellow members of the Countryside Alliance to his Cabinet, so they can be guaranteed to support abuse of wild or domestic animals.

PETER LANGLEY Windmill Road Headington Oxford