UKIP confusion
 

Can someone help me out here as there's something I'm having trouble grasping...

'Ukip has said it will not discipline a local councillor and deputy mayor of Ramsgate who said that London should elect “anyone but a Muslim” to be mayor.

A spokesperson for the party said that Councillor Sarah Larkins had a “specific perspective” on the issue “as a transgender woman”.'

How is a transgender person making that statement any different than anyone else?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6957136.html

It is no different than anyone else, perhaps UKIP didn't discipline her because they agree with her simple as that.

The transgender issue is just a smokescreen.

You think they're all bigots?...

Define a Bigot ?

Yeah they really need to explain that. Makes no sense at all to me.

I feel torn on this because as bad as this sounds I do feel terrified of having anyone involved with Islam being in any sort of power in how this country is run, however I also think that everyone should be able to have the chance to run for Mayor.

Also are they saying that Muslims are the most transphobic?:think:

I would suggest UKIP's views are not unreasonable and so the term Bigot cannot be applied to them.

In fact the word Bigot is very subjective in itself and is open to misinterpretation and misuse.

Surely it means that she would not want a Muslim religionist being mayor, neither would probably millions of Londoners?

I think anyone seeking election in a democratic election should not be put down in any way as to race or religion.
It is for voters to decide who they want to elect.

The sad thing with UKIP, as happens with every party who attain success and get more of their own numbers elected to councils or govt, the problems appear as to some of those people elected of their real thinking.

Hopefully the more voters at large learn about UKIP, the more they will be turned off from voting for them.
Which I actually think is becoming the case now too.

All parties however do also have the less than acceptable people as to their views in them.

the current LOndon mayor is Boris Johnston

"Johnson is a controversial figure in British politics and journalism.[1][2] Supporters have praised him as an entertaining, humorous, and popular figure with appeal beyond traditional Conservative voters. Critics have accused him of laziness and dishonesty, using racist and homophobic language, and elitism. "

"In 2009 Johnson fathered an illegitimate daughter with Helen MacIntyre, an arts consultant"

Writing in The Guardian, journalist Polly Toynbee for instance referred to him as "Jester, toff, self-absorbed sociopath and serial liar", while Labour politician Hazel Blears called him "a nasty right-wing elitist, with odious views and criminal friends".

source wiki

If he was elected then wouldn't it show that is what Londoners want?..

Then what is the 'specific perception' if anyone else were to suggest that they would be accused of being a bigot why not her?