I rarely, if ever, cross over from my column (I.M. Beck for the few who don't know) but sometimes I have to, as in this instance. This time I'm going to try to explain why I took the position that seems to have irked so many people, quite some of whom apparently read only a few words out of every sentence.

In the column, I was not advocating killing animals, especially not with any hint of cruelty, thinking or unthinking. The fact remains, however, that the mere act of killing an animal that is not the property of another, absent cruelty, is not necessarily - or even probably - a crime. For many, the act of killing in and of itself is cruel, but if it were a crime, killing rats would be a crime, killing lambs would be a crime, killing pigeons would be a crime and killing fish would be a crime.

Now, you may think these acts should be criminalised and you have every right to think so, but the state of the law at this time is what it is and I believe it was right to point this out, even brutally, as I did, because there's every chance that the guy who killed the dog later known as Star will get off if the Court of Appeal thinks he had no criminal intent.

This does not mean, as you would think if you read the comments section of my Beck column, that I am going around with a club bashing every cute fluffy pet I see into the middle of next week, cackling evilly as I do so.

As for Sliema and the rape thereof, well purely by coincidence I was there the evening after I wrote the piece and believe me, it was not fun. The restaurants at the Ferries seem to rely on one of the maxims of the hospitality industry, the one that repeats "Location" a number of times, while ignoring all the rest. Frankly, I despair of the place.

Just to sum up, your Honours: in an ideal world, all animals would be protected by everyone and Sliema would be heaven on earth. Both are not the case, but you can stop blaming me for it.