Tokens: 14
.
In
the
particular
case
of
Golder
it
is
imppossible
to
see
how
a
refusal
so
based
could
be
justified
as
necessary
on
any
of
the
grounds
specified
in
paragraph
2
of
Article
8
(
art
.
8
-
2
)
,
even
if
it
was
in
accordance
with
normal
prison
practice
,
as
doubtless
it
was
,
-
because
then
it
would
be
the
practice
as
such
that
was
at
fault
.
Even
if
the
matter
is
looked
at
from
the
standpoint
of
the
United
Kingdom
contention
that
the
practice
is
justified
because
prisoners
are
,
by
definition
as
it
were
,
litigious
,
and
only
too
ready
to
start
up
frivolous
,
vexatious
or
unfounded
actions
if
not
prevented
,
the
point
remains
that
,
however
inconvenient
this
may
be
for
the
prison
authorities
,
it
is
still
difficult
to
see
how
many
necessity
in
the
interests
of
public
safety
or
the
prevention
of
disorder
or
crime
can
be
involved
.
But
even
if
,
theoretically
,
it
could
be
,
none
seems
to
have
been
satisfactorily
established
in
Golder
’s
case
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O