Britain a Baby-Safe Zone
|The first nine months of a child's life - inside the womb - is supposed to be the safest place for them; tucked up nice and warm. In today's Britain this is the most dangerous time of their lives - as every day, perfectly healthy babies are cut out or sucked out, as if they were ulcers or "aliens", from their mothers' bodies.||"Holocaust 2" - the cull of baby humans - has been going on for 35 years, not just in Britain, but all of Western Europe. It's not just a massacre of children and an abuse of women and teenage girls. It's also caused us a demographic disaster. Among our citizens, the number of young adults of working-age is now too small to support the ever-growing number of old people. (Old people are living for longer. Pensions are not financed from their own past contributions, but out of current taxes paid by the working population.)|
So just when we need a rise in the birth-rate (for British mothers), it's still falling.
Our current Law - incredibly - treats unborn children as part of their mothers' body. Of course they're certainly NOT (They often have a different blood-type from their mother and so are a biologically separate person.) They are full human beings in their own right. The baby and the mother, both have rights - we need to balance the rights of one against the other, to have a respect for all human life. We would bring in a new "Unborn Baby Protection Bill" to replace all previous legislation; allowing abortion only for genuine medical reasons. This allows the babies their Human Rights to KEEP THE LIFE THEY ALREADY HAVE.
How they use the F-Word to dehumanise Unborn Babies
The extremists in the Pro-Abortion-on-Demand lobby (and incredibly, this group includes a large number of MPs of all parties) - hold that a baby doesn't actually acquire the status of a full Human Being, until AFTER he / she pops out of the Mother's womb. They say that even one week before birth - yes, even one hour before birth - yes, even ten seconds before birth - this baby is not actually a real Human Baby - instead, he or she is "just a Foetus" .
So when you see people in the media or politicians, using the F-Word to describe unborn babies - you are dealing with people with serious issues - they don't understand what a Human Being is.
Her Right to Life (like yours and mine), was respected. But for thousands of other babies in Britain each year, the moment of opening their eyes will never come....
tax and benefits system
Mainstream would make both the Income Tax and Benefits rules, more family-friendly, so that a couple would always be better off financially, paying tax or claiming benefits, as a couple, than if they were treated as two singles. Tax returns (eg self-assessments) would treat the family as one unit for tax purposes; with one of the parents defined as the principal breadwinner (either the father or the mother, this would be for the family themselves to decide).
Outlaw Same-Sex "Adoption"
The previous New Labour administration quietly changed the law to let same-sex "couples" both adopt, and foster children. The Con-Dem Coalition, in fact the entire political establishment, the Hampstead elite who rule us, support these unnatural and grotesque adoptions. Even though the general public is overwhelmingly against this. How can this possibly be in the child's interests ? Everyone knows PERFECTLY WELL, that children need a Mum and a Dad - not two Dads; not two mums. This is even more important in the case of children who need adoptive parents - they may be emotionally disturbed and it's vital that they are placed in a traditional family setting, not with two same-sex "parents". Where male same-sex "partners" are allowed to adopt, why is it they nearly always ask for boys? If these people want to exprience the "fatherhood feeling" - they should be quite happy to take children of either sex.
We would ban ANY same-sex pair (even if they were just two normal men, or two normal women, living together) - from adopting or fostering. Mainstream would rescue all those children already farmed-out by local councils to same-sex "couples"; we'd place these vulnerable children, either back in their own families, or with another normal family.
Gendercide: Why did 85 female MPs vote NOT to protect baby girls?
There've been many reasons for mothers-to-be demanding abortions - health, financial worries, rape, career, whatever. But for the past 20 years unborn baby girls have faced a new threat to their lives which baby boys don't have. This is so-called "sex-selective" abortion, a misnomer because it means "girl baby selective abortion".
This hasn't come from our own society - we've got a tradition going back thousands of years, of giving our baby girls the same welcome we give baby boys. Even Henry VIII didn't kill off his baby girls! He didn't want them to be born. He was furious with their mothers when they were born; but he protected them and made sure they were well educated - unusual for girls in Tudor times. (In fact he did such a good job, that both his daughters succeeded him as monarchs - something he never imagined!)
No, baby-girl-selective abortion has been imported here - just like Modern Slavery and FGM - from outside; from the far East in fact. Some hospitals in cities with large Asian communities give their baby girls some protection by refusing to reveal the baby's sex, when the mother goes for her ultrasound scan.
Sex-selective abortion destroys the babies NOT because of any potential impact on the mother; not on her health, either physical or mental. The babies get destroyed for one reason only and that's because of something about them: they're GIRLS. They're FEMALE. Some would call that the ultimate sex descrimination: you lose your life - because you're a female. Hello !
Anyway, when this bill , to stop "Gendercide" - baby-girl abortion - came to a vote in the Commons on 23 February 2015 - a majority of MPs voted against it and the bill failed. Most of the MPs voting against were men - not surprising really, the birth-process is something very distant for all men. But incredibly, 85 were female MPs. What drove these 85 lady MPs to vote to betray their own sex, in a matter of life or death? I suppose we'll never know the answer.
To prove I haven't made this up - here's a list of their names (some may be trying to get back into Parliament in the imminent 2017 Election. )
Diane Abbott, Debbie Abrahams, Heidi Alexander, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Luciana Berger, Hazel Blears, Annette Brooke, Karen Buck, Lorely Burt, Jenny Chapman, Ann Coffey, Yvette Cooper, Mary Creagh, Stella Creasy, Tracey Crouch, Gloria De Piero, Angela Eagle, Maria Eagle, Julie Elliott, Jane Ellison, Louise Ellman, Lynne Featherstone, Caroline Flint, Yvonne Fovargue, Kate Green, Justine Greening, Lilian Greenwood, Nia Griffith, Harriet Harman, Rebecca Harris, Julie Hilling, Margaret Hodge, Sharon Hodgson, Glenda Jackson, Margot James, Diana Johnson, Tessa Jowell, Liz Kendall, Pauline Latham, Emma Lewell-Buck, Caroline Lucas, Fiona Mactaggart, Seema Malhotra, Kerry McCarthy, Siobhan McDonagh, Alison McGovern, Anne McGuire, Liz McInnes, Ann McKechin, Maria Miller, Madeleine Moon, Penny Mordaunt, Jessica Morden, Nicky Morgan, Meg Munn, Tessa Munt, Sheryll Murray, Lisa Nandy, Caroline Nokes, Fiona O'Donnell, Chi Onwurah, Sandra Osborne, Teresa Pearce, Claire Perry, Bridget Phillipson, Lucy Powell, Yasmin Qureshi, Emma Reynolds, Joan Ruddock, Laura Sandys, Alison Seabeck, Angela Smith, Chloe Smith, Anna Soubry, Gisela Stuart, Jo Swinson, Emily Thornberry, Valerie Vaz, Joan Walley, Angela Watkinson, Heather Wheeler, Eilidh Whiteford, Rosie Winterton, Sarah Wollaston.
NO to same-sex 'Marriage'
MAINSTREAM would get the institution of Marriage defined in the constitution, as possible only between one man and one woman.
Marriage by definition means a union between one woman and one man. That's the way it's been for the whole million years of human history. People need to accept that and deal with it, and move on. End of.
An end to "Tracey Beaker Britain"
Britain's got the highest number of children stuck in Children's 'homes', of any country in Europe. We've all seen, in the recent revelations concerning Jimmy Savile and other offenders against children, how vulnerable children are to predators when they're in residential homes - allowed out on the street, at all hours of day and night ; going missing for days on end, with the police and public not being informed; the list is endless and horrifying. Children in 'homes' are also much more likely to fall into crime, and take drugs. In the case of girls, they're more likely to fall into prostitution. Only a proper family - and parents - will give children the proper protection and discipline which they need, to have a happy childhood, and grow into well-balanced adults. MAINSTREAM would attempt to get as many of these children as possible, OUT of the "homes", and into families - either adopted, or at least fostered.
"LEAVE THE YOUNG LADS ALONE" - is it time we repealed "Blair's Law"?
Adoption the fast-track way: by-pass the local authority
Now it can take months - even years - go go through the adoption process. Prospective parents have to register with a Local Authority - they have to be 'screened' to see if they are 'suitable'. They have to be the same 'ethnic match' as the baby they want to adopt. (Even though, if they were able to have their own child, this could quite easily be a different colour from the parents).
In some cases, the children meet their adoptive parents when they are two or three years old - but by the time they finally get to join their adopting family, they are five years older ! This ignores the most important thing, which is that it is the Child's interest which should come first - not the Local authority's interest. These people forget that for young children, time passes more slowly than for the rest of us. One month to a small child, is like one year to a grown-up. So the priority with adopting children is not to get a colour-match! It's to get these babies adopted QUICKLY, QUICKLY, QUICKLY. MAINSTREAM would do that, removing the process from local authority control, allowing the couples to take the babies to an Adoptions registrar, who would be able to liase directly with the police and with Interpol. The couple would be interviewed in front of FOUR witnesses, and the interview recorded on video. They would be warned that the sentence for making a false statement, would be a ten-year prison sentence, with immediate effect, and no bail. They would be asked if they accepted this. The registrar would then check up if they were a genuine married couple, with no serious criminal record, and not on the sex-offenders register. The register would run a check, that the baby was not a missing child in Britain or in any other country. If all went well, they would be taking home the baby one month later, with a certificate of adoption, and that would be the end of the matter.
Get rid of the so-called 'Children's Commissioners'
The government uses taxpayers money to pay four people to do the job of 'Children's Commissioner'. (There's one each for England, Scotland , Wales and Nothern Ireland.) Their combined salaries come to nearly half a million pounds - and they get offices, staff , expenses etc. Right little empires they've got! So I guess their job must be really important! Let's have a look at their job spec:
'To be CHAMPIONS for our children, protecting them from harm, supporting their needs, fostering their healthy and safe development into the adults of the future'.
Well , Hello - doesn't that job spec sound familiar? When I look at that job description - isn't that just what we PARENTS do already? What we do, 24 / 7. So Britain already HAS several million Children's Commissioners - we are all the champions, for our own children. And our services don't cost the taxpayer anything. Worse, the appointment of these four creeps is an insult to all of us who are parents - saying in effect, that we are not doing our jobs properly.
So these four new posts are unnecessary - Mainstream will abolish these pretentious jobs, and use the millions of pounds saved, to pay for some of the outstanding repairs on our primary school classrooms.
Who can have thought up these four ridiculous posts? I wonder if this idea has come from the United Nations. This organisation has no right to tell us how to look after our children - many of its bosses are from countries in Africa and Asia, where child forced labour, and child slavery, are commonplace. Where children have to pay to go to school and hospital.
Give the CHILDREN back their CHILDHOOD !
MAINSTREAM would end the commercial exploitation of children
Childhood is supposed to be a time of innocence - without pressures, to be enjoyed before the worries and responsibilities of teenage and adulthood come along. In the last 20 years this innocence has been eroded, both by commercial interests (who want only to make money, and don't care if children are harmed) - and by a small minority of adults who work in the media and, for their own perverted agenda, want to "adultise" children. They are literally trying to turn children into adults at an earlier and earlier age - which keeps on going down. They do this through Television and by some things taught in the schools. MAINSTREAM would stop the commercial sexualisation of young girls which is taking place eg in some clothing stores.
MAINSTREAM would intervene in the controversial sale of children's football strip - for which the children (or rather their parents) have to fork out extortionate amounts of money every season. We would set a simple rule for sales of football shirts to children: If it's got an ADVERT on - then it can't be sold and has to be given away free. If children are going to walk round wearing adverts for Carling beer or O2 phones - they certainly shouldn't have to pay for the privelege .