UKIP candid Geoffrey Clark calls for disabled foetuses to be aborted

[LeMaquis 10]

Democracy is OK as long as it doesn't conflict with your views.

 

Nothing to do with my views or democracy. I doubt very few people share his views that foetuses with certain disabilities be compulsory aborted so let him stand and get very few votes if he's stupid enough to air them. No one would get elected with open views like that so let him stand.

 

My objection is that the views are repulsive and shouldn't be tolerated by a party that claims to be mainstream and in the centre-ground but which tolerates those views until forced to do a u-turn. By expressing them he's only going to enrage a lot of people and embarrass his party. People with disabled children will rightly be upset. That's why expressing them is wrong.

[SevenRivers 10]

You defended his right to express those opinions. Anyone can hold any opinion they want. When public candidates express the views he did and get support from fellow UKIP members then that is wrong.

 

He demonstrably does not have the support of the party, they've dropped him.

[cressida 1,565]

He demonstrably does not have the support of the party, they've dropped him.

 

On his head again?

[LeMaquis 10]

He demonstrably does not have the support of the party, they've dropped him.

 

I know. UKIP supported him initially and then dropped him when the critcisms flooded in. On the other post I was the person who first pointed out that he'd been dropped and provided a link to the UKIP website.

[andygardener 10]

Nothing to do with my views or democracy. I doubt very few people share his views that foetuses with certain disabilities be compulsory aborted so let him stand and get very few votes if he's stupid enough to air them. No one would get elected with open views like that so let him stand.

 

My objection is that the views are repulsive and shouldn't be tolerated by a party that claims to be mainstream and in the centre-ground but which tolerates those views until forced to do a u-turn. By expressing them he's only going to enrage a lot of people and embarrass his party. People with disabled children will rightly be upset. That's why expressing them is wrong.

 

They haven't been tolerated, he's been deselected and they have said he will not be allowed to stand for UKIP in the future either.

[Bolster 10]

UKIP are the new up and coming party. People ARE taking an interest and voting for them. What will happen now is that the main parties and some of the press will attack them so that the "system" is not upset.

The establishment will attack them.

[LeMaquis 10]

They haven't been tolerated, he's been deselected and they have said he will not be allowed to stand for UKIP in the future either.

 

See above. His views were tolerated at first until Mencap and others laid into him. Then UKIP dropped him.

[mikem8634 10]

See above. His views were tolerated at first until Mencap and others laid into him. Then UKIP dropped him.

 

That's right, there was certainly a delay during which UKIP merely said they were not party views.

[rayggb 13]

Thats the trouble with ukip,too many rightious nutters on board,I know a couple of them myself.On paper they look great, in truth they are OTT.!

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Thats the trouble with ukip,too many rightious nutters on board,I know a couple of them myself.On paper they look great, in truth they are OTT.!

There's nothing wrong with being righteous- although there is with being [your definition of] a nutter- but, either way, UKIP is the only UK political party that is growing in size. None of that is related to the thread's topic. Mr Clark expressed an unpopular opinion lawfully but it's unsurprising that UKIP disowned it/him. Despite all the media kerfuffle, however, he came second in both polls.

 

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-20813977v

[LeMaquis 10]

Mr Clark expressed an unpopular opinion lawfully but it's unsurprising that UKIP disowned it/him.

 

It seemed to surprise you. You were supporting him till I pointed out UKIP had withdrawn their support for him.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

How disabled would the foetuse have to be before termination. Who would make the decision. What if the percieved information was wrong and the aborted foetus was not as disabled as suspected.

 

No, it could never be right in this day and age to abort a "disabled" baby, unless the disablement was proved to be catastrophic, no head, brain or the like.

 

Angel.