'Forced eugenics'

A UK Independence Party candidate has called for an NHS review to look at compulsory abortion if a foetus has Down's syndrome or spina bifida.

Learning disability charity Mencap said it was horrified at the manifesto of Geoffrey Clark, standing for election to Kent County Council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-20773800

scrat wrote:A UK Independence Party candidate has called for an NHS review to look at compulsory abortion if a foetus has Down's syndrome or spina bifida.

Learning disability charity Mencap said it was horrified at the manifesto of Geoffrey Clark, standing for election to Kent County Council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-20773800

"The review should look at "compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Down's, spina bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family".

He says the review should also look at medical treatment for those aged over 80, "which is disproportionately costly to the NHS" and might also include "legalising euthanasia and giving free euthanasia advice to all folk over 80"."



Sounds more like a candidate for the Nazi Party.

wyatt1 wrote:



"The review should look at "compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Down's, spina bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family".

He says the review should also look at medical treatment for those aged over 80, "which is disproportionately costly to the NHS" and might also include "legalising euthanasia and giving free euthanasia advice to all folk over 80"."



Sounds more like a candidate for the Nazi Party.

This is the worry!

scrat wrote:

This is the worry!

Certainly not doing themselves any favours with crap like that !!

"It is abhorrent that he sees disabled people solely as a burden, when people with a learning disability lead full lives, and make valuable contributions to their communities and families. We question if he is fit for public office."

He goes on to advocate that in any review, the NHS should consider "compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Down's, Spina
Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child
a burden on the state as well as on the family."

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend_messenger/news/2012/december/18/geoffrey_clark.aspx

Perhaps the chap should concern himself with vile tax evading parasities swanning off with £70bn in stolen swag!

What a fcuking cretin!

Christ! I hope UKIP expel him before the bye-election.

Tess wrote:Christ! I hope UKIP expel him before the bye-election.

"UKIP distanced itself from Mr Clark and said it had instigated disciplinary procedures against him.

A spokesman said he could not be barred from this week's by-election as his name was already on the ballot paper.

"We are as shocked as everybody else is. He will not be standing for us again and we have started disciplinary procedures. We have already apologized to Mencap. These views are not the party's views."



That's closing the door after the horse has bolted. They should have known sooner!!

PS: He sounds like a bloody 5th columnist.

wyatt1 wrote:





"UKIP distanced itself from Mr Clark and said it had instigated disciplinary procedures against him.

A spokesman said he could not be barred from this week's by-election as his name was already on the ballot paper.

"We are as shocked as everybody else is. He will not be standing for us again and we have started disciplinary procedures. We have already apologized to Mencap. These views are not the party's views."



That's closing the door after the horse has bolted. They should have known sooner!!

PS: He sounds like a bloody 5th columnist.

If UKIPpers are about to become a force in British politics they need to be ahead of the curve, with visionary policies!

One can only find contempt for the "nasty paedo party" but for the UKIPpers its a wake up and smell the coffee moment!

scrat wrote:

If UKIPpers are about to become a force in British politics they need to be ahead of the curve, with visionary policies!

One can only find contempt for the "nasty paedo party" but for the UKIPpers its a wake up and smell the coffee moment!

They will have to do a lot better than that or the other 2 will wipe the floor with them.

wyatt1 wrote:





"UKIP distanced itself from Mr Clark and said it had instigated disciplinary procedures against him.

A spokesman said he could not be barred from this week's by-election as his name was already on the ballot paper.

"We are as shocked as everybody else is. He will not be standing for us again and we have started disciplinary procedures. We have already apologized to Mencap. These views are not the party's views."



That's closing the door after the horse has bolted. They should have known sooner!!

PS: He sounds like a bloody 5th columnist.

His name should be on the toilet paper

scrat wrote:A UK Independence Party candidate has called for an NHS review to look at compulsory abortion if a foetus has Down's syndrome or spina bifida.

Learning disability charity Mencap said it was horrified at the manifesto of Geoffrey Clark, standing for election to Kent County Council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-20773800

A bit far. But parents (who knew they were pregnant with such a child before 22 weeks of pregnanacy) should sign a contract stating that any care costs for such children will be met privately and will not be a burden on the NHS.

They must also give an insurance deposit and pay monthly premiums for private healthcare for this child.

I don't see why their children should be my problem.

Zack AKA The Fuzz wrote:

A bit far. But parents (who knew they were pregnant with such a child before 22 weeks of pregnanacy) should sign a contract stating that any care costs for such children will be met privately and will not be a burden on the NHS.

They must also give an insurance deposit and pay monthly premiums for private healthcare for this child.

I don't see why their children should be my problem.

That is fair enough, but it almost looks like this candidate was trying to give the UKIP a bad press.

wyatt1 wrote:


That is fair enough, but it almost looks like this candidate was trying to give the UKIP a bad press.

It's one of those issues that clouds the logical half of your mind and makes you over emotional. Issues involving child health always do.

No matter what the UKiP guy said, he would have received a bad press. Which is why his political bosses didn't even attempt to clarify his position.

Zack AKA The Fuzz wrote:

It's one of those issues that clouds the logical half of your mind and makes you over emotional. Issues involving child health always do.

No matter what the UKiP guy said, he would have received a bad press. Which is why his political bosses didn't even attempt to clarify his position.

That is very true.

Zack AKA The Fuzz wrote:

A bit far. But parents (who knew they were pregnant with such a child before 22 weeks of pregnanacy) should sign a contract stating that any care costs for such children will be met privately and will not be a burden on the NHS.

They must also give an insurance deposit and pay monthly premiums for private healthcare for this child.

I don't see why their children should be my problem.

Listen to you Adolph! and oe the same apply to immigrants whocome to this country with diseases like TB, diabetes and other problems that are going to cost the NHS an awful lot of money to treat? Supposing someone turns up from Pakistan with TB and no money -do you put them on a plane back? If not, why should this sort of treatment apply to the parents of disabled children?

Zack AKA The Fuzz wrote:

A bit far. But parents (who knew they were pregnant with such a child before 22 weeks of pregnanacy) should sign a contract stating that any care costs for such children will be met privately and will not be a burden on the NHS.

They must also give an insurance deposit and pay monthly premiums for private healthcare for this child.

I don't see why their children should be my problem.

I think you will find that is again unfair to the parents and the child, as why should it not recieve the same benefits. You may feel it is a wasted life but I have seen handicapped children up close being that my youngest sister was one and every year she lived was a blessing. She had a hole in her heart as well as other problems and was told she would never smile, yet she laughed and smilled all the time. If anything logic dictates that the child should have a chance of life and in no way should they be made to pay because you do not except what they are doing is right.

Zack AKA The Fuzz wrote:

A bit far. But parents (who knew they were pregnant with such a child before 22 weeks of pregnanacy) should sign a contract stating that any care costs for such children will be met privately and will not be a burden on the NHS.

They must also give an insurance deposit and pay monthly premiums for private healthcare for this child.

I don't see why their children should be my problem.

A strange view to hold in one who pretends to be so pious!

In a year when the nation as a majority has grown in stature by supporting those with disabilities during the paralympics, you would choose eugenics over your god and greed over nature.

I suppose next you'll be advocating the sterilisation of Gypsies, Homosexuals and Jews, perhaps criminals and those who don't look right!

Didge wrote:



I think you will find that is again unfair to the parents and the child, as why should it not recieve the same benefits. You may feel it is a wasted life but I have seen handicapped children up close being that my youngest sister was one and every year she lived was a blessing. She had a hole in her heart as well as other problems and was told she would never smile, yet she laughed and smilled all the time. If anything logic dictates that the child should have a chance of life and in no way should they be made to pay because you do not except what they are doing is right.

Dude... a little bit of me is just being provocative. I tend to play devils advocate when I'm bored.

Having said that, I'm not sure your situation applies in my example.

I'm taking about choices after having certain knowledge that the child you (or your wife) are pregnant with has, say Downs Syndrome before 22 weeks (legal abortion time limit), should those parents not ensure that they can afford to financially maintain an enhanced standard of living (medical costs, etc)?

Tess wrote:

Listen to you Adolph! and oe the same apply to immigrants whocome to this country with diseases like TB, diabetes and other problems that are going to cost the NHS an awful lot of money to treat? Supposing someone turns up from Pakistan with TB and no money -do you put them on a plane back? If not, why should this sort of treatment apply to the parents of disabled children?

As I said above, it's about being responsible for your choices. Isn't it the responsible thing to do, to ensure you can provide for your child and not rely on state hand outs?

Now salute me as your new leader and start showing me some respect, for once.

Zack AKA The Fuzz wrote:

Dude... a little bit of me is just being provocative. I tend to play devils advocate when I'm bored.

Having said that, I'm not sure your situation applies in my example.

I'm taking about choices after having certain knowledge that the child you (or your wife) are pregnant with has, say Downs Syndrome before 22 weeks (legal abortion time limit), should those parents not ensure that they can afford to financially maintain an enhanced standard of living (medical costs, etc)?

Fair enough as you know I often do the same in playing devils advocate .

Didge wrote:



Fair enough as you know I often do the same in playing devils advocate .

Zack AKA The Fuzz wrote:

Dude... a little bit of me is just being provocative. I tend to play devils advocate when I'm bored.

Having said that, I'm not sure your situation applies in my example.

I'm taking about choices after having certain knowledge that the child you (or your wife) are pregnant with has, say Downs Syndrome before 22 weeks (legal abortion time limit), should those parents not ensure that they can afford to financially maintain an enhanced standard of living (medical costs, etc)?

"racist, devils advocate, association fallacy, expert"

ho ho ho

scrat wrote:

"racist, devils advocate, association fallacy, expert"

ho ho ho

Do you ever have anything valid to say, dumb ass?