If I needed any reason to vote "no" and do my bit to kick Spring hunting into history, the Federation of Conservationist Bird-Killers' reaction to a statement made by two Attard Local Councillors was more than enough.

To be sure, I have many reasons to want to eradicate hunting, first in Spring and then all the time.

Some are objective, such as a leaning towards conservationism (the genuine kind, not the 1984-Speak version the bird killers use) and a general belief that not killing is better than killing, while some are subjective, in that I find that too many hunters are objectionable, arrogant and supericillious individuals who think the world revolves around their violent pursuit.

And before anyone points out that I have no hesitation in eating meat and where do I think it comes from if not from dead animals, allow me to invite people like this to stick their argument into the same place they invite me to stick mine.

The latest public utterance, on Saturday morning, by the Federated League of Bird Slaughtering Deluders, was that a couple of local councillors had behaved unethically when they made the public aware that they would be voting against hunting in Spring.

Do these people think that the whole world is as stupid as what seems to be the majority of people they purport to represent? When the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, for different reasons, came out with their "we're voting YES" dictum, the hunters' leaders (what an honour, to lead that bunch) said not a dickey-bird about this being unethical or anything of the sort.

When a bunch of other politicians felt, for reasons known only to them, that they should come out in favour of hunting, again the elite amongst the hunting elite said nothing.

Incidentally, insofar as the PM just had to appease the hunters and insofar as the Leader of the Opposition then had to move to de-politiicise the thing, I suppose it was inevitable that politicians would get their oar in, but why did quite a few minor politicians have to pipe up and make their inconsequential views known?

Get this into your heads, why don't you, this is a decision for us, the people, now.

But getting back to the federated twerps, just who do you think you are?

If I am against hunting and I want to say it, you're not going to shut me up, however hard you try and however many statements and strong arguments you make.

Or worse.

And if others want to say the same thing, including local councillors, then you, and the semi-literate thugs spewing their rubbish on Facebook or writing to Parliamentary Secretaries, aren't going to stop us.

You know what's unethical?

Going about spreading moronic arguments about other people's hobbies and foreign interference and similar claptrap, that's what's unethical.