contempt of court

[Peter Fairbrother]

Graham wrote:

> On Friday 23 Aug 2002 4:58 pm, MS wrote:
> 
>> I would agree with you given -this- example, Graham.
>> 
>> 
>> BUT:  
>> there is a clear difference between being ordered -NOT- to do
>> something then choosing to do it and
>> being ordered -TO- do something that may well be impossible
>> (forgotten keys)
>> 
>> 
>> Now, where did I put that t'pence h'penny...?
>> 
>> 
>> M.
> 
> I totally agree with you.  Maybe contempt of court should NOT cover this
> eventuality, but the original poster seemed to suggest the the Contempt
> of Court system was basically wrong.
> 
> I don't think so.
> - -- 

I agree too, but not as far as to letting judges imprison people in order to
force them to do something.

That's torture, demanding information by threat. That the threat is being
"banged up" in a cell with a chamber pot and a murderer unless you tell them
rather than being "banged up" by fists from behind while handcuffed to a
chair unless you tell them makes no difference.

I know. In younger days I've suffered both at the hands of our wonderful
Police. The cell is actually worse, though it didn't seem so at the time.

The ECHR may have decided that forced evidence is inconsomethingpatible with
the right to a fair trial, but they missed the torture.

GAK, anyone?


-- Peter