HomePage Economy Europe Crime Foreign Health Family Housing Green Education Government Transport Consumers Asylum Media

Babies: Stop destroying our Future Computers: for learning, not for meeting strangers
www.mainstream.org.uk
Here and all Europe, back to normal. Now.
Britain & Europe back to normal Give the CHILDREN back their CHILDHOOD
Babies: Stop destroying our Future Computers: for learning, not for meeting strangers
www.mainstream.org.uk
Here and all of Europe, back to normal. Now.
Britain & Europe back to normal Give the CHILDREN back their CHILDHOOD

In-school abuse: Blame the politicians, not the teachers! 

Since thousands of allegations of sex assaults involving schoolchildren surfaced on a website, there's been uproar. MPs, the media, Ofsted, Children's charities, all calling for blood; all blaming the schools. Hold on!  Our teachers' job is to teach. In the last few years we've already foisted enough non-teaching obligations on them. Filling forms in and reporting to the police, in a whole plethora of situations: They see bruises on children's legs and arms (they are obliged to look for them);  they hear five-year-olds using harmless racial insults in the playground. They're required to ask children what they had for breakfast in case their family isn't feeding them properly. If an Asian girl's going to Pakistan in the school hols, they must inform the police "in case she gets married". We're forcing our teachers to be social workers, doctors, nurses, dieticians, and police informers. It's a wonder they have time to do any teaching!

Let's consider these  new allegations. This is NOT teachers assaulting children. No adults involved. This is about children allegedly assaulting other children. Boy schoolchildren doing it,  or trying to do it, to unwilling girl schoolchildren. Well, it turns out that many of the alleged abuses, didn't actually take place at school at all - they were outside school: In the street, on the bus, in the evening at house parties.  How are they any concern of the schools?  Teachers' only responsibilities once they leave school, is marking homework. Now schools are being told to put "safeguarding policies" in place. Does this mean spying on the children all day long in the classrooms and corridors - watching for unwanted touching? CCTV in the classrooms and the toilet area? Boys have to obtain a girl's written consent to touch her shoulder? Pupils wearing body-cams? Where does it stop?  

 The media seem astonished by all this. Should we really be so surprised? Just like with Jimmy Savile, the word's been around for years and years that this was happening. What do we expect?  For over thirty years our schools have taught "sex education" in a way that encourages the children to experiment and "try it out". (This curriculum has been imposed by our political class).  Naturally boys - being boys - are very keen to do some "trying out". A boy is always going to say "Yes". Girls on the other hand, are not quite so keen to do any trying out. Being girls, they're more inclined to say "No".   Is this a wake-up call for the sex education industry in the UK?  Adults who incite sexual activity between two children are committing a crime; people have gone to prison for it. Has the time come, in 2021, for a fresh approach to this sensitive subject?  Many would say sex education doesn't belong in school at all - because school teaching is group teaching. Sex education, because it is so intimate and personal, is unsuited to a group setting, and needs one-to-one teaching.  And what about in Primary schools?  The notion of grown-ups talking about sex to other people's children is a bit unsettling, even pervy. Would it be better left to parents?  Something to think about.

  And there's the pornographic videos. These are widely available on line, regularly watched by millions of men on their phones. But finding out that these are being watched by boys as young as nine - in primary schools - is utterly shocking and disgusting. Why are they allowed on line? The same politicians who railed for years aganst the Sun's harmless Page Three girls, are quite happy for the most extreme and violent porno videos to pour in to our children's phones. Is it time now, perhaps, for a reset; maybe a ban on porn videos being streamed on phones?  Could we at least have the conversation

 

Voter fraud: Boris Johnson's photo-id is NOT the answer

   Is voter fraud commonplace? The Electoral Commission says it's very rare. That simply means that only a few fraudulent voters were caught,  not that the offence is rare. The easiest type of voting fraud is to use another person's poll card (as long as they're the same sex), and vote in person at their polling station - impersonation. There could be hundreds of people doing this; there could be thousands; there could be none. We don't know, because we don't do ANY checks for impersonation in this country. An easy check would be for a random sample (say one in a hundred voters), you photograph them holding their poll card (before they vote). Then at a later date, you visit the address on the poll card and confirm that (a) the photo matches the actual person and (b) this person did vote at the time and place they were supposed to have done. This will catch impersonaters and enable prosecution - but of course they've already cast their vote and nothing can be done about that.

   The Tories' plan to force carrying an id to vote has a big problem because it discriminates (NOT against ethnic minorities, who nearly all have UK passports they could show.)  It discriminates against older people; and especially older women. Old people are far less likely to have a passport because many of them have never been abroad. And among the elderly, driving licences are almost exclusively held by men; their womenfolk have simply never needed to drive.

  There's a far simpler solution which has the advantage of preventing impersonaters BEFORE they cast their vote. The Mainstream proposal is you take people's photo at the point of registering to vote, this could be done at the local Town Hall, or they could send their photo in. Local authorities then store these voter pics in the computer alongside their name and address; and date of birth (which they already record).  So for all voters, when they present their poll card at the station,  the official scans it, and up on his or her screen, pops the correct image of the elector, name and address, and their present age.  This makes voter fraud easy to spot and prevents the impersonater voting. No need for any voters to carry an id. SIMPLES.  

For the Majority,

not the minorities

Why can't there be a party that gets 60% of the electorate's vote? We all have different views but there are plenty of views shared in common by at least 60% of the people.

In opinion polls you include the 'dont knows' - or the poll is meaningless. So in analysing actual election results, you must include the 'no-shows' - those who stay at home instead of voting. They're just as important as the ones who turn out to vote. So percentages must be based on the whole electorate, not just those who vote. Non-voters are NOT lazy young people who can't be bothered to get off the sofa - they're people who would LIKE to vote - if only there was a party / candidate they could support! They in effect DID vote - for 'none of the above'.

In the 2017 snap election called by Theresa May to 'improve' her position, but which turned out a disaster for her, the Tories were marginally the most popular party but with just 29% of the electorate's votes. And Labour who came second, got 27% of the electorate. No party gets even half the electorate's support - nowhere near! This continues the trend for the last 40 years . Is it any surprise when you look at how out of touch ALL of Parliament's MPs are, with ordinary people?

 

       MAINSTREAM is a project to create a new, centrist political force in the country. To address the dissatisfaction with our current political parties, drawing like-minded people together, with the aim of a new democratic force which is unashamedly populist - so it can get a majority of people's votes. But also, a party open to new ideas and big changes - not stuck with the old political baggage of our existing establishment parties.  A popular party, a people's party, to represent the majority who don't identify as either 'right' or  'left'. A political force for the centre ground, for the political MAINSTREAM.

"NO to Ex-treme"

"YES to MAINSTREAM "  

 

Could Boris be gone BEFORE 2024?

After the surprise Christmas election tory win Boris Johnson crowed "we're in power for ten years now". (Working on some weird theory that an overall majority of 80, takes more than one election to be wiped out. Really? Could someone Explain ?)

At the Coronavirus outbreak, Johnson had a commanding lead in the polls, helped by his own hospitalisation and near-death experience, and becoming a father again. But his shambolic, chaotic "management" of the pandemic has totally lost the public trust. The final straw was to continue to back his non-elected number two, Dominic Cummings, saying he believed Cummings's 'eye-test' explanation when he knows, as do all the rest of us, this was a pack of lies.

Many tory MPs are furious, at least one having considered resigning the Conservative whip to become an independent - this after just four months in the job. Don't forget - for every one MP the tories lose, their majority gets cut by two. It only needs 40 MPs to defect as Independents, and Johnson would lose his majority and be, like Theresa May, leading a minority administration.

Could this actually happen? Back in January you'd have said "impossible". But now, with the economy totally wrecked for the foreseeable future and all the worst decisions and U-turns on Covid - added to the possibility that the current protests could turn into large-scale riots this summer - anything becomes possible. Johnson could be toppled as leader by his own party; or even - yes - another general election BEFORE the set date of December 2024.

 

 

EUChanging the EU from the inside was IMPOSSIBLE. Now we can put pressure on them from OUTSIDE, to return to the original Free-Trade, free movement zone, an assembly of sovereign states each with its own laws and parliament, WITHOUT the  EU 'directives' and 'Parliament' . ANOTHER EUROPE IS POSSIBLE.

Français Deutsch Polski Español

In-school abuse: Blame the politicians, not the teachers!

       Since thousands of allegations of sex assaults involving schoolchildren surfaced on a website, there's been uproar. MPs, the media, Ofsted, Children's charities, all calling for blood; all blaming the schools. Hold on!  Our teachers' job is to teach. In the last few years we've already foisted enough non-teaching obligations on them. Filling forms in and reporting to the police, in a whole plethora of situations: They see bruises on children's legs and arms (they are obliged to look for them);  they hear five-year-olds using harmless racial insults in the playground. They're required to ask children what they had for breakfast in case their family isn't feeding them properly. If an Asian girl's going to Pakistan in the school hols, they must inform the police "in case she gets married". We're forcing our teachers to be social workers, doctors, nurses, dieticians, and police informers. It's a wonder they have time to do any teaching!

Let's consider these  new allegations. This is NOT teachers assaulting children. No adults involved. This is about children allegedly assaulting other children. Boy schoolchildren doing it,  or trying to do it, to unwilling girl schoolchildren. Well, it turns out that many of the alleged abuses, didn't actually take place at school at all - they were outside school: In the street, on the bus, in the evening at house parties.  How are they any concern of the schools?  Teachers' only responsibilities once they leave school, is marking homework. Now schools are being told to put "safeguarding policies" in place. Does this mean spying on the children all day long in the classrooms and corridors - watching for unwanted touching? CCTV in the classrooms and the toilet area? Boys have to obtain a girl's written consent to touch her shoulder? Pupils wearing body-cams? Where does it stop?       

The media seem astonished by all this. Should we really be so surprised? Just like with Jimmy Savile, the word's been around for years and years that this was happening. What do we expect?  For over thirty years our schools have taught "sex education" in a way that encourages the children to experiment and "try it out". (This curriculum has been imposed by our political class).  Naturally boys - being boys - are very keen to do some "trying out". A boy is always going to say "Yes". Girls on the other hand, are not quite so keen to do any trying out. Being girls, they're more inclined to say "No".   Is this a wake-up call for the sex education industry in the UK?  Adults who incite sexual activity between two children are committing a crime; people have gone to prison for it. Has the time come, in 2021, for a fresh approach to this sensitive subject?  Many would say sex education doesn't belong in school at all - because school teaching is group teaching. Sex education, because it is so intimate and personal, is unsuited to a group setting, and needs one-to-one teaching.  And what about in Primary schools?  The notion of grown-ups talking about sex to other people's children is a bit unsettling, even pervy. Would it be better left to parents?  Something to think about.

  And there's the pornographic videos. These are widely available on line, regularly watched by millions of men on their phones. But finding out that these are being watched by boys as young as nine - in primary schools - is utterly shocking and disgusting. Why are they allowed on line? The same politicians who railed for years aganst the Sun's harmless Page Three girls, are quite happy for the most extreme and violent porno videos to pour in to our children's phones. Is it time now, perhaps, for a reset; maybe a ban on porn videos being streamed on phones?  Could we at least have the conversation

 

Voter fraud: Boris Johnson's photo-id is NOT the answer

   Is voter fraud commonplace? The Electoral Commission says it's very rare. That simply means that only a few fraudulent voters were caught,  not that the offence is rare. The easiest type of voting fraud is to use another person's poll card (as long as they're the same sex), and vote in person at their polling station - impersonation. There could be hundreds of people doing this; there could be thousands; there could be none. We don't know, because we don't do ANY checks for impersonation in this country. An easy check would be for a random sample (say one in a hundred voters), you photograph them holding their poll card (before they vote). Then at a later date, you visit the address on the poll card and confirm that (a) the photo matches the actual person and (b) this person did vote at the time and place they were supposed to have done. This will catch impersonaters and enable prosecution - but of course they've already cast their vote and nothing can be done about that.  

   The Tories' plan to force carrying an id to vote has a big problem because it discriminates (NOT against ethnic minorities, who nearly all have UK passports they could show.)  It discriminates against older people; and especially older women. Old people are far less likely to have a passport because many of them have never been abroad. And among the elderly, driving licences are almost exclusively held by men; their womenfolk have simply never needed to drive. 

  There's a far simpler solution which has the advantage of preventing impersonaters BEFORE they cast their vote. The Mainstream proposal is you take people's photo at the point of registering to vote, this could be done at the local Town Hall, or they could send their photo in. Local authorities then store these voter pics in the computer alongside their name and address; and date of birth (which they already record).  So for all voters, when they present their poll card at the station,  the official scans it, and up on his or her screen, pops the correct image of the elector, name and address, and their present age.  This makes voter fraud easy to spot and prevents the impersonater voting. No need for any voters to carry an id. Simples.  

For the Majority,

not the minorities

Why can't there be a party that gets 60% of the electorate's vote? We all have different views but there are plenty of views shared in common by at least 60% of the people.

In opinion polls you include the 'dont knows' - or the poll is meaningless. So in analysing actual election results, you must include the 'no-shows' - those who stay at home instead of voting. They're just as important as the ones who turn out to vote. So percentages must be based on the whole electorate, not just those who vote. Non-voters are NOT lazy young people who can't be bothered to get off the sofa - they're people who would LIKE to vote - if only there was a party / candidate they could support! They in effect DID vote - for 'none of the above'.

In the 2017 snap election called by Theresa May to 'improve' her position, but which turned out a disaster for her, the Tories were marginally the most popular party but with just 29% of the electorate's votes. And Labour who came second, got 27% of the electorate. No party gets even half the electorate's support - nowhere near! This continues the trend for the last 40 years . Is it any surprise when you look at how out of touch ALL of Parliament's MPs are, with ordinary people?  

       MAINSTREAM is a project to create a new, centrist political force in the country. To address the dissatisfaction with our current political parties, drawing like-minded people together, with the aim of a new democratic force which is unashamedly populist - so it can get a majority of people's votes. But also, a party open to new ideas and big changes - not stuck with the old political baggage of our existing establishment parties.  A popular party, a people's party, to represent the majority who don't identify as either 'right' or  'left'. A political force for the centre ground, for the political MAINSTREAM.

"NO to Ex-treme"

"YES to MAINSTREAM "

 

 

Could Boris be gone BEFORE 2024?

After the surprise Christmas election tory win Boris Johnson crowed "we're in power for ten years now". (Working on some weird theory that an overall majority of 80, takes more than one election to be wiped out. Really? Could someone Explain ?)

At the Coronavirus outbreak, Johnson had a commanding lead in the polls, helped by his own hospitalisation and near-death experience, and becoming a father again. But his shambolic, chaotic "management" of the pandemic has totally lost the public trust. The final straw was to continue to back his non-elected number two, Dominic Cummings, saying he believed Cummings's 'eye-test' explanation when he knows, as do all the rest of us, this was a pack of lies.

Many tory MPs are furious, at least one having considered resigning the Conservative whip to become an independent - this after just four months in the job. Don't forget - for every one MP the tories lose, their majority gets cut by two. It only needs 40 MPs to defect as Independents, and Johnson would lose his majority and be, like Theresa May, leading a minority administration.

Could this actually happen? Back in January you'd have said "impossible". But now, with the economy totally wrecked for the foreseeable future and all the worst decisions and U-turns on Covid - added to the possibility that the current protests could turn into large-scale riots this summer - anything becomes possible. Johnson could be toppled as leader by his own party; or even - yes - another general election BEFORE the set date of December 2024.

 

 

EUChanging the EU from the inside is IMPOSSIBLE. Now we can put pressure on them from OUTSIDE, to return to the original Free-Trade, free movement zone, an assembly of sovereign states each with its own laws and parliament, WITHOUT the  EU 'directives' and 'Parliament' . ANOTHER EUROPE IS POSSIBLE.

Français Deutsch Polski Español

 

 

2005-2021   Published by Mainstream

Imagery acknowledgments: All images published are taken from open-source material on the internet or scanned from magazines; political organisations are allowed to use these for instructional purposes or to make a point.

We regret we don't have the resources to put acknowledgments alongside every individual image.