Letters: Reputations defended
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.CONTRARY TO Geoffrey Wheatcroft's assertion last Sunday ("What decency? What fair play?", 24 January), Joe Haines was right when he said that Lord Goodman "invariably opposed his clients suing for libel". I know because I was his partner at the time it was done in the Bevan, Crossman, Phillips case. He had strenuously sought an apology and, indeed, he gave evidence at the trial about the inadequacy, as he saw it, of Mr Carter Ruck's apology.
Of a more serious nature is the suggestion that Lord Goodman "knew his clients were committing perjury". I know of no foundation for this. The fact that Richard Crossman told Mr Wheatcroft 15 years later that Morgan Phillips was drunk cannot support the suggestion that Lord Goodman knew that at the time of the proceedings.
JOHN A BAKER
Richmond, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments