I was struck though by a mention in the radio coverage earlier this week, of "a lengthy passage in which he expresses his regrets over the hunting ban, which he never really supported but which he found himself “trapped” into accepting. Most controversially, he says that he did his best to ensure that the ban was never properly policed." (The Times, Sept 01, 2010).
Oddly, this does not make me think what a decent chap TB, must, after all, be. If something is a free vote, as the vote on hunting was supposed to be, why not express one's opinion at the time, freely? And where on earth is the merit, the pat on the back, for enmeshing the judiciary and the police in an unworkable law?