Letter: I'm no blimp
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In your article entitled"Lords to rule if babies are a burden" (21 June), you quote me as saying in a judgment issued in the Court of Session, "Every baby has a belly to fill and a body to be clothed".
I said no such thing. I should not dream of expressing myself in such a coarse and inelegant way. You will find a full report of my opinion/judgment in 1998 Session Cases, pp389 et seq. I do not wish to be cast as some kind of insensitive blimp - which is what your misquotation does.
I did say, as you also report, "To treat parenthood as a wholly unblemished blessing to the parents is to ignore the realities of experience. I see no reason for our law to do that." In so saying, I was just expressing my disagreement with the contrary opinion of the judge of first instance. The underlying issue - an important one in the law relating to damages - is for the House of Lords to decide.
JOHN McCLUSKEY
(Lord McCluskey)
Parliament House,
Edinburgh
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments