B BATES (HAS, Sept 25) accused me of smugness but omits to state the grounds upon which he bases this allegation. Hardly surprising as his whole letter is a bundle of such irresponsible and unsubstantiated slurs and inaccuracies.

And while on the subject of smugness, if there’s anything more smug and self-satisfied than the words with which he concludes his letter “these are the facts, not hysteria, folks” – I don’t know what it is.

As for his lengthy quotation from the RSPB’s website, purporting to exonerate cats of doing significant harm to birds – I was an active member of the RSPB for 30 years, before having my eyes opened – and I would treat any pronouncement from that source with the utmost scepticism and circumspection.

As for my use of the word “hysterical” in an earlier letter, it referred specifically to the suggestion by Ruth Laycock that people of a different opinion to hers should be “culled” (ie killed).

I called her remarks “hysterical nonsense” and I stand by that description.

Tony Kelly, Crook