IT IS something of an exaggeration to describe the public as having been misled (Oxford Mail, August 19) by the statistics provided by the Safer Roads Partnership.

The significance of the increase in speeding at the Woodstock site is somewhat clouded by the fact of a decrease, as yet unexplained, between 2008/9 and the first part of 2010. But an increase, there nevertheless was, when the camera was switched off.

It is particularly difficult to produce reliable comparisons at the Woodstock site.

The camera is situated in a central island, and could be turned periodically to face either direction.

It is entirely plausible that there is a difference in the tendency to speed between the two directions; vehicles coming from the rural area south of Woodstock are very likely to be travelling at greater speed than those leaving the built-up area of Woodstock.

The variation from year to year may reflect nothing more than the predominant direction in which the camera faced during those years.

The partnership would be well advised to select a different site if it wishes to make an accurate assessment of the increase in speed since the cameras were turned off.

Chris Robins, parish councillor, Foxdown Close, Kidlington The mendaciousness of Tony Blair was apparent to all us anti-hunt campaigners as long ago as 1998, when he sabotaged Michael Foster’s Private Member’s Bill, which would actually have banned hunting effectively – unlike the weak law that finally clawed its way on to the Statute Book in 2004.

Blair now admits in his book that he made it his business to weaken the Hunting Act, and ordered Hazel Blears, who was then in charge of the police, to instruct them not to enforce the law.

This morning I was tipped-off about a fox cub hunt near here, and I witnessed cub hunting conducted as it always has been. Blair would have been thrilled.

He has now shamelessly revealed that he feels no remorse for declaring war on Iraq, but he does feel remorse for banning hunting.

Clearly the carnage unleashed on human beings has not sated him, and he desires full rein on cruelty to defenceless animals as well. What a fine advert for Christianity he is.

Disgusted? That just doesn’t come near.

Penny Little, Cobb Hall Cottage, Back Way, Great Haseley IN MY previous letter (Medal Questions, Oxford Mail, August 13) three specific questions were itemised, none of which has produced an answer to, my knowledge.

I wonder if your correspondent John T Walker (letters, August 2) who was quick to vilify my original letter (July 27), is in a position to respond with the answers to these questions. It should make interesting reading for the other loyal ex-servicemen attending the repatriation ceremonies in Oxford who have gone unrewarded.

Michael R Rhymes, Warborough Court, Kidlington