Policy or Policy Debate?
After the furore of one of their now ex members (Geoffrey Clarke) voicing opinions on which they have little knowledge and clearly less empathy, I thought I'd have a look at the policy that UKIP currently have on abortion, I suspect lots of people had the same thought, therefore I wasn't really surprised when I came across this,
404 Not Found
The page you requested could not be found.
It may have been removed, had its name changed, or been moved to a new location.
Go to homepage
Perhaps this is their policy now?
Their policy on health and the NHS is fairly vague and doesn't really seem to have any statements about social care so I was really at a loss to figure out if they agreed with him but realised they'd be vilified if they did so publicly, or whether they disagreed with him and just hoped he'd go away, or whether they really had no idea who this Geoffrey Clark chap was and why he was making their lives really difficult by talking rubbish???
So it appears that Geoffrey has a personal website on which he published his own manifesto in order to gain a Gravesend Rural Seat in Kent County Council (not Prime Minister or leader of UKIP). He's made it clear that the views are his own and not those of UKIP and as of today (19th December 2012) he's decided to run as an independent candidate. Politics is a fickle place and due to the secrecy of voting, and the media uproar, he may actually get elected purely on name recognition.
A short while ago I wrote an article with reference to Winterbourne View regarding the methodology for making abuse in care a likely outcome when poor standards of care existed. One of my setting conditions for this to occur was for people to see those in care as somehow less than themselves, less deserving, or a burden. I also presented this at a number of training courses. Some people were surprised that people would see people with Down Syndrome as being "less" than us. Step forward Mr Clark to prove my point. He certainly seems to see those who have life long conditions as being a burden and therefore by definition not as worthwile as the rest of us.
Let's be clear, Mr Clark was not saying this was going to happen, he was saying it was something that should be reviewed. Since his original manifesto (which surely must rate as a classic case that you should read something before you publish it online) he has since gone on to say;
In an interview with This is Kent yesterday,
Mr Clark said: “I would like to apologise to anyone who has taken offence - none of it was intended.
“UKIP’s policy is to reduce public expenditure. I am a layman; I do not know what should be cut. I wrote my website very, very quickly, it was so naive and foolish.”
Mr Clark, who appears to have taken down his website, added: “Some have been offended and I sincerely regret my choice of language. It was inappropriate language to express
something that is genuinely sincere – we need to review all expenditure.”
Geoffrey Clark does not deserve your anger or venom, he's the victim of lack of knowledge and understanding coupled with a large dose of being "naive and foolish". He may well truly believe that people who need life long care are a burden, but, if we educate rather than accuse, inform rather than abuse, create understanding rather than be disgusted by lack of understanding then maybe a very big step may have been taken in improving the image of people with lifelong disabilities.
It may have been removed, had its name changed, or been moved to a new location.
Go to homepage
Perhaps this is their policy now?
Their policy on health and the NHS is fairly vague and doesn't really seem to have any statements about social care so I was really at a loss to figure out if they agreed with him but realised they'd be vilified if they did so publicly, or whether they disagreed with him and just hoped he'd go away, or whether they really had no idea who this Geoffrey Clark chap was and why he was making their lives really difficult by talking rubbish???
Did he just say what I think he said?
So, what did this chap actually say? Not what did the press say he said or what do people on twitter say he said what the press said he may have said (you get my drift).So it appears that Geoffrey has a personal website on which he published his own manifesto in order to gain a Gravesend Rural Seat in Kent County Council (not Prime Minister or leader of UKIP). He's made it clear that the views are his own and not those of UKIP and as of today (19th December 2012) he's decided to run as an independent candidate. Politics is a fickle place and due to the secrecy of voting, and the media uproar, he may actually get elected purely on name recognition.
A short while ago I wrote an article with reference to Winterbourne View regarding the methodology for making abuse in care a likely outcome when poor standards of care existed. One of my setting conditions for this to occur was for people to see those in care as somehow less than themselves, less deserving, or a burden. I also presented this at a number of training courses. Some people were surprised that people would see people with Down Syndrome as being "less" than us. Step forward Mr Clark to prove my point. He certainly seems to see those who have life long conditions as being a burden and therefore by definition not as worthwile as the rest of us.
He said
“compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, 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.” Geoffrey Clark Personal Manifesto Statement.Let's be clear, Mr Clark was not saying this was going to happen, he was saying it was something that should be reviewed. Since his original manifesto (which surely must rate as a classic case that you should read something before you publish it online) he has since gone on to say;
In an interview with This is Kent yesterday,
Mr Clark said: “I would like to apologise to anyone who has taken offence - none of it was intended.
“UKIP’s policy is to reduce public expenditure. I am a layman; I do not know what should be cut. I wrote my website very, very quickly, it was so naive and foolish.”
Mr Clark, who appears to have taken down his website, added: “Some have been offended and I sincerely regret my choice of language. It was inappropriate language to express
something that is genuinely sincere – we need to review all expenditure.”What's the solution to people like Mr Clark?
Unlike many online observers, I'm not going to call for his head, but neither will I support him (as I don't like most of his policies), but I would suggest that rather than slam him as many charities have done, they should educate him, introduce him to people with Down Syndrome. Education and Learning are what will change his mind, abusing him publicly may only entrench his views, who knows, convert him to an educated viewpoint and you may have a huge positive impact on society. Because we all know, when he wrote that, some people agreed with him, change him and you'll change more.Geoffrey Clark does not deserve your anger or venom, he's the victim of lack of knowledge and understanding coupled with a large dose of being "naive and foolish". He may well truly believe that people who need life long care are a burden, but, if we educate rather than accuse, inform rather than abuse, create understanding rather than be disgusted by lack of understanding then maybe a very big step may have been taken in improving the image of people with lifelong disabilities.
