We can worry about Cecil AND the kids in Syria...
I eat meat. I like fishing. I've killed lobsters before cooking them. I went shooting once but it wasn't for me, although I've no problem with other people who like it.
In other words, I'm a standard carnivore - I have no problem killing for the pot, but think hunting for the sake of it is sick and probably a sign of a deeper psychological malaise.
I've been to Zimbabwe and seen the animals up close and they actually bring a lump to your throat, such is their beauty and the emotions they provoke.
But here's the but. Actually, there is no 'but'. Which will be unusual for any piece about this tawdry incident.
Since the particularly cowardly and badly executed hunt for Cecil the lion, we've been bombarded by usually asinine chin-strokers loftily intoning that, yes, the killing was a rum affair but -BUT! - we should be more concerned about the children of Syria, or the invasion of illegal immigrants along Europe's borders (although they won't say it quite like that, of course).
In fact, the last week has seen such an avalanche of cod profundity on this issue that it would be disappointing if it wasn't so predictable.
Every mention of Cecil seems to be a springboard for someone to bring the conversation back to their own hobby horse and it really has to stop.
Even worse is the usual, unthinking guff that anyone who hurts an animal might hurt a person. Isn't it bad enough that they're hurting the animal?
It is possible, although the bien pensants don't agree, that you can be concerned about two different things at the same time.
Honestly, it's like they think we're as daft as they are.