THE radical sidestep in the Government's moves to deal with hunting will have caught most onlookers off balance.

Few people have anticipated a system which regards some areas as being in need of hounds to control foxes as pests, but others not.

Fewer still have raised the idea in the debate which has raged since Worcester MP Mike Foster's Private Members' Bill targeted the bloodsport in 1997.

When the Evening News came off the fence dividing the pro and anti-hunting factions, we said that none of the millions of words uttered had convinced us that one job or social event would be affected by hunters following a drag, rather than a live animal.

For us, the key question remains whether you're comfortable with the idea that an animal should die after being run into submission in the name of sport and being sociable.

While some may regard the proposals as a cop-out, others a travesty, and still more a class-based misunderstanding of rural heritage and tradition, by declaring that the cruelty associated with hunting will be banned, the Government has reinforced a vital moral.

However, if pomp and glory are allowed to accompany hunting in those areas deemed to be in need of hounds to control pests, that would be unacceptable to many people. And we're among them.

In such circumstances, we'd have no alternative to continuing to call for the fullest ban.

The world's too uncivilised as it is. Let's not pretend that adding stirrup cups, ceremony and a gallery to the killing makes it any more civilised.