Wolfgang criticises my use of the term "grotesque judgement". True enough, I telescoped two issues when I called it that.   

The first was that, if the law is as the judge ruled it is, then in Mary Warnock's words "It's a bad law", and does not reflect the intentions of the people who drafted it.

And the other was that I find myself in agreement with what Jenni Murray wrote, in that article I linked to earlier concerning the views expressed by the judge in court: "He was wrong to say any criticism of the men's motives in wanting the embryos to be destroyed was unfair. I doubt the putative 'fathers' have a heart between them".

The law may have been explicit, but that is never the end of the story, since all laws have to be looked at in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights. I was surprised that, when viewed in this light, it wasn't decided that the explicit words of the law need some modification, and I still hope it may turn out that, if it goes to a higher court, that will determine this to be the case.

As for the business of the Child Support Agency, I would assume that any set of administrative guidelines drawn up for this agency will explicitly or implicitly have provision for exempting people from being required to make payments in a case where it would clearly be inequitable to pursue them for payment.

Laws may not be made for single cases (though they can be), but single cases very often show when it is necessary for a law to be changed. And once again I agree with what Mary Warnock wrote: "If the law says the man has the right to prevent even the attempt at having a baby, it's a bad law and should be changed."

And I think there speaks someone who would not allow emotion to prevent her from "thinking about the consequences". The change Baroness Warnock calls for would have the object of amending the law so that it was consistent with the aims of the people who drafted it, who thought about it for very long time.