Interesting comments in the press article though, it raises some interesting points.
How can the two "experts" agree that Mr holder was indeed suffering from schizophrenia but say he was "fit to plead" this to me again exposes the duplicitous nature of the way that the authorities deal with the disabled and the mentally ill.
In other words how can someone who has a disordered mind and is declared unfit to drive a taxi/ph vehicle be fit enough to plead one way or the other.
Why could they not have used the diversion from the criminal justice system route, there are clear guidelines there for those that understand them.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that they should have brought Mr Holder before the court to answer the serious complaints made by the four women, but it also states that there was nothing sexual or sinister behind his behaviour.
In proceeding in this manner did the authorities breach Mr Holders right to a fair trial, remember they knew he was schizophrenic, what purpose did this serve, they say it was in the public interest, and thats fair enough, but was it in Mr Holders interest to have the world made aware of his illness, just to add to his problems.
Interestingly if we were to breach the DDA we would be penalised severely, and yet when it's one of our own who could have benefited from it, he is still penalised, I await the new Mental Health Act with trepidation!
P.S had to laugh at the newspaper contacting someone who does not speak to anyone for a comment only to be told, guess what, that he does not speak to anyone
Login
Register
FAQ
