Right, and was it before or after the public backlash that they finally backed down?
I agree that they were slightly slow in coming to grips with what was happening, but I'd put that down more to incompetence than malice.
Official UKIP reaction at the time:
UKIP spokesperson wrote:
He said: “The comments in Geoff Clark’s personal manifesto regarding abortion do not represent party policy. As in any party, our members have a range of views and opinions which may not always accord with party policy. Geoff makes clear that this is a personal manifesto, not a party document. Geoff is a hard-working local activist who would make an excellent councillor.”
So even immediately, his views were soundly rejected by UKIP.
It took them a day or two to suspend him. Big deal.
thomas81 wrote:
Either way, UKIP is having a hard time batting back a tirade of individuals with shady crudentials from the party.
Because they appeal to a wide range of people.
If a left-wing populist party was searing in the polls, they would have precisely the same problem. And it's not the vast bulk of candidates. Out of, what, 1,500+ candidates, the Conservatives managed to find six that might have been iffy. Hardly a show of massive bigotry within UKIP now, was it? And remember that the Tories had every reason to go for broke in trying to find dirt on these candidates. (In fact, I believe some local UKIP councillors have actually been smeared by Tories.)
thomas81 wrote:
No other 'moderate' party is having these issues.
Piss off. Labour allows former avowed neo-Nazis into their party, so I'll take no poxy lectures from a terrorist supporter like yourself.
thomas81 wrote:
If they truly were a legitimate, respectable party this wouldn't be an issue.
Or perhaps they're a rapidly growing party experiencing teething problems. As I have explained, UKIP are more threadbare organisationally than they look.
thomas81 wrote:
No smoke without fire, as they say.