HomePage Economy Europe Crime Environment Foreign Health Family Housing Education Government Transport Consumers Asylum Media
Crime & Justice


"to Crush the Crime, you Crush the Criminals"

We've got an epidemic of serious crime - and our government and justice system does nothing about it. How many times do you see a career criminal, finally getting locked up for a long time when he's in his forties or fifties, and usually when finally he commits a particularly nasty murder. Then we see his litany of 'previous' - sometimes HUNDREDS of serious crimes, burglaries, robberies, assaults, even previous murders - and yet he's never been given a proper term in prison. Always cautions, fines, community service - and SHORT prison sentences. Can't anybody understand that SHORT prison sentences don't work. As soon as they get out after their six months jail - they re-offend again within days; more victims' lives ruined.

The so-called 'Plan B' justice - devised by liberals 40 years ago - doesn't work. We need to go back to plan A - long, mandatory minimum sentences for all serious crime. There has to be ZERO TOLERANCE - this means the long sentences start with the first crime; we don't wait till the offender's on his 50th crime. Why can't our politicians see that if you only give mickey-mouse sentences for home burglary, stealing cars, street robbery - you are LEGITIMISING these crimes: you're putting out the message that they don't matter, that it's OK to break into people's homes, steal their cars at traffic lights (sometimes with the babies and children inside), OK to throw acid in a young woman's face to steal her I-phone.

MAINSTREAM would implement this zero-tolerance approach with tough new rules:

  • for Acid-throwers a new offence 'Face Destruction' - MINIMUM term 14 years.
  • End Police cuts to ensure more police in the high-crime hot spots
  • Historic allegations of crime where it's one person's word against another, recorded as "crime allegations" not crimes, and allocated to the year the event was alleged to have happened, not the year the police are informed as now.
  • Set a minimum percentage of officers who must be out 'on the beat' at any given time, day or night
  • If a police force becomes overstretched on any day, officers working on 'Historic' crime allegations, will have to drop their work and go and help their colleagues dealing with 'Live' Crime. Historic crimes may have already waited 50 years, another few weeks is not going to make any difference. Live Crime can't wait.
  • Cut down some of the red-tape crippling police work, such as the 10-page form 'using force on a suspect', having to record every time they stop someone in the street, or 'diversity' training, etc
  • Police would never be held responsible for injuries suffered by suspects who fail to stop when ordered to do so, by either a uniformed officer or a marked police car. The suspect would be liable for all injuries to themselves or to innocent passers-by.

** A family friend in the Midlands was recently burgled and I phoned the police up for her - they took two-and-a-half hours to get there, and then told me I shouldn't have dialled 999 'because the intruders had already left'  (We didn't actually know that for sure). Our next-door neighbours were also burgled when they were out at work - they were so traumatised after that, they literally had to move to another house a few weeks later. Burglary in your home is life-changing.

Time for the criminals to make their minds up: Behave - or be Hammered. Your choice.

Amid a tsunami of violent crime in London, police commisioner Cressida Dick (below) is under fire for letting political correctness get in the way of fighting crime.

Dick’s force seems to have a big problem distinguishing offenders from victims …..

WE PRESENT MAINSTREAM'S GUIDANCE FOR THE 'MET': How to tell an Offender from a Victim….


Do the police have a secret politically-correct agenda to make real crime like burglary, a lower priority than imaginary so-called 'hate' crime like calling people names? Well - it's no secret! Mark Simmons (below), Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Met, described their 'screening' policy which no longer investigates most domestic burglaries in London, but concentrates on the 'more serious offences such as hate crimes'. (His words)


Sentencing: what do the VICTIMS want? Acid attack victim Katie Piper (before and after being attacked) calls NOT for compensation, but proper sentences for the offenders. That's the one thing she'll NEVER get while any of Tories, Labour or Lib Dems are in power


  Longer Sentences - your FAQs

Q.  Surely keeping more criminals in prison will cost a lot more money. Can we afford it?

A.  It will cost more, but the cost of high crime is MUCH more.  We can also cut a lot of prison costs - eg by having one fixed menu each day, instead of giving them a choice of meals like a hotel menu

Q. If we lock up knifers and muggers for every offence - where are we going to put them?  Our prisons are already full to bursting. 

A. Yes there will be a big increase in prison numbers - but this will only be temporary. Because of the deterrent effect of prison, crime will come down, and we will actually  be able to close a few prisons. 

Q.  Would a MAINSTREAM government be able to build enough extra prison space for the short-term increase in prisoners ? 

A.  No need, we would change the law so that convicted offenders who deserve prison, MUST be put in prison whether there are enough suitable places or not. It would only be temporary hopefully.

Q. Most prison cells were built to take two inmates. Would  you squash more in if necessary?

A. Yes it makes sense really. The rights of the innocent must ALWAYS trump the rights of the guilty. The public right to be protected from dangerous convicts, matters more than how uncomfortable their prison cells are.

Q. It is said that prison, particularly for youngsters, causes more re-offending.

A. Impossible. How can anyone re-offend in prison? There are no houses to burgle, no cars to steal, and in a men's prison, no women to attack. As long as an offender is behind bars you KNOW you are safe from them re-offending.


       After every knife-murder (usually of a young man) - the politicians promise that from now on, everyone caught carrying a knife will go to prison. They've been promising this for the last 20 years. That's what they promised in the 2005 election and the 2010, 2015 and 2017 elections. In reality this never gets done, because these politicians don't really mean what they say: just slick words to get your vote.

MAINSTREAM would keep this promise and make a mandatory, minimum FIVE YEARS for carrying a knife or blade in public. Even for the first offence. No exceptions, no fines, no warnings, no community service, no cautions - always five years behind bars.

If we'd had this rule in place already, victims like schoolgirl Christina Edkins in Birmingham (stabbed to death on her bus to school), or teacher Ann Maguire in Leeds (stabbed to death in her classroom),  would be alive today with their families; instead of in their graves.   The politicians and media come up with their surveys which justify young men carrying knives in the street, it's down to rap culture, austerity, for self defence, whatever, all total sh*te.

Parts of London are overwhelmed by knife and gun crime. Do we hear London mayor Sadiq Khan, or any of the local establishment politicians, call for tougher sentences? No, these dipsticks instead call for more Stop and Search (of mostly innocent people), and metal-detector arches at school gates (hitting innocent schoolchildren). Why can't they concentrate on hitting the GUILTY not the innocent?

"Fives for Knives" - saves Young Lives

London Mayor Sadiq Khan 'will fix things in 10 years'


Bolt-ons are time added on to existing sentences, as an extra deterrent where this is called for by the circumstances of the offence. What makes bolt-ons special, is the extra time has to be served after the existing sentence - not concurrently. We'd use bolt-ons in two situations. For protecting emergency workers from assaults at work, and for drivers who kill or injure and then fail to stop. Let's take some real-life crimes and we see why bolt-ons are so good.

In a recent attack on a nurse and a security guard in A & E in Birmingham, a young man got 18 months for two counts of GBH (greivous bodily harm). That was 18 months for each assault - but they get run concurrently - so only 18 months altogether. Now if - because the victims were emergency workers at work - we have a 3-year bolt-on - this gets ADDED to the 18 months; so they would have got a four and a half year total term: a much better deterrent to protect nurses and security staff in hospitals.

In the West Midlands on 22 February 2018, Robert Brown ran over and killed two little boys crossing the road with their family. Although convicted of two counts of death by dangerous driving, and three other driving offences, a total of five offences - he only got 9 years jail. That's because the five sentences are served concurrently - at the same time. If we had a 19-year Bolt-on for drivers who fail to stop after killing someone - this would get added on to the 9 years for his other five offences. A total of 20 years in prison - more appropriate for the amount of grief and harm Robert Brown's terrible crimes have caused, and a better incentive to drivers who run over somebody, to STOP.

Ideally the existing offence "failing to stop" should be kept for damage-only accidents. When a person gets knocked down or run over and the driver fails to stop, the police should assume this may have been deliberate, and initially record the offence as Murder (if the pedestrian was killed), or Attempted Murder if they were injured. If the driver gets caught, combine this with the new offence "Hit and Run" with a mandatory 19 years bolt-on sentence as above; to be applied, regardless of whatever else they get charged with.

Bolt-ons: what's NOT to like about them?



When new crimes come along, they often require a new criminal offence . Acid throwing is like this: throwing acid in someone's face with the intention of seriously disfiguring them. These are acts of hate - REAL hate crimes. Often it's done by men against ex-girlfriends after the relationship breaks down, they now hate the woman so they try to destroy her looks .The offender just gets charged with "causing actual bodily harm" or GBH (only 4 years maximum) , which doesn't reflect the seriousness of the attacks.

Acid-throwing, trying to destroy someone's face, is an attack on their identity, on their personality; on their self-confidence. This is apart from the pain caused, permanent damage including often blindness, necessity of length surgery . Acid throwing is a monstrous crime. Monstrous crimes merit monster punishments. Under MAINSTREAM the new offence "Face Destruction" would carry a mandatory 14 year minimum sentence.


 It used to be said that "Fast Justice is Bad justice". We've got the opposite: Justice so slow, that important cases don't come to trial till a year (sometimes two years) after the defendant is charged. During all this time, they are brought back to court, week after week, for further remands. Meanwhile, the media are not allowed to talk about the case.    How can we expect witnesses - especially children - to remember and describe, something that happened YEARS ago ? This is a recipe for INjustice.

     Why all the delays? Crucial participants not turning up - so everyone has to go home. The amount of pre-trial 'reports', delays in jury selection; old-fashioned court hours. MAINSTREAM would streamline the court and trial system with comprehensive reform, giving a much shorter wait for trial (fairer for innocent defendants); and shorter trials.


Time to repeal "Blair's Law" ?

The technical term for homosexuals' practice - "anal penetration" - in plain language "going up someone's bum-crack" - is Buggery. This was legalised in 1967 but they were restricted to doing their practice to other adult men. In 2001 Blair's New Labour government was under pressure from the self-styled "LGCHQ+" people to allow them to do these acts with teenage boys. (This is a tiny but very noisy minority of mostly very rich celebrities .) Blair knew that not only were most MPs against this change, but the public was overwhelmingly opposed to allowing this.

So what did he do? He waited till the middle of the night on 8th January 2001, when there were only a few MPs in the house (and most of them asleep - as per normal). Then he sneaked this change to the law in, legalising doing this practice to 16 and 17 year old boys. (Who are legally minors, adulthood in this country starts at 18).

Is now the time to repeal "Blair's Law"? This would have huge support from our voters, as nearly all of us, in fact nearly everyone in the world, is opposed to doing these type of acts to children. MAINSTREAM's opinion is YES, now it's high time we changed this law.

It's NOT a policy for 'Straight Britain'

We're NOT asking for this practice between consenting adult men, to be re-criminalised, as it was before 1967. Nobody wants a return to "Straight Britain" - only asking that their kind only do their practice to adult men, not to children. If they want to do it to boys - at least wait till they're men. Leave the young Lads alone.

Blair's Law: Your FAQs

Q. Since 1967, "Buggery" has been legal, does Mainstream want to put the clock back and criminalise homosexals?

A. NO, we DON'T want to criminalise these men again, no going back to the bad old days when police forced their way into toilet cubicles to arrest pairs of men, (they did their practice in toilets in those days, rather than in their own flat as nowadays).

Q. Where did the idea of doing these acts to boys start?

A. From the ancient Greeks. Their custom was, before young men got married they would relieve their pent-up desires by doing these acts with young boys - the ancient greeks considered this to be quite normal (!) and harmless activity.

Q. Why did they think this practice was "safe and harmless"?

A. They thought it was "safe", as this activity, being an unnatural position, can't possibly result in babies being born.

Q. Is it really safe to do this position to boys?

A. NO - nowadays we know this activity is dangerous as it is can infect them with their viruses, one of which causes a life-changing disease, we don't really want these people injecting their viruses into children, that can't be a good thing.

Q. Some people say these kind of preferences are inherited, it's caused by a gene, is that really true?

A. No obviously not. A gene that causes males (of any species - not just humans) to 'mate' with other males, instead of with females - could never be passed on to the next generation, as sex between two males cannot result in babies being born. A 'gene' which can't be passed on, cannot therefore be inherited. If it did exist - the so-called "homo-gene" would be an extinction gene!

Q. I thought scientists have proved the "homo-gene" exists?

A. Fake Science. This "scientific" research took place in California, USA, I believe in San Francisco. Say no more.

Q. What if a homosexual was also one of identical twins? Has this ever happened?

A. Yes there HAVE been a few examples since 1993 (all in the USA), in every case, the other twin had a perfectly normal orientation. Identical twins, identical DNA, same genes. But different behaviour. Right here in the UK, the Kray twins were both murderers - but only Ronnie was a homesexual; Reggie was normal. So NOT biological. This condition is a behaviour people choose to do - not a preference that's inborn.

Q. Have there been times when other forms of behaviour were thought to be inherited ?

A. Yes! In Victorian times, there was a fashionable belief that criminalty was inherited! That a "criminal gene" was passed from fathers to sons! Now we all accept that such deviant behavior is made out of choice, NOT inherited from parents.


W'd have a zero tolerance policy to all hard drugs, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin and so on. We'd stop the drugs coming in here by making the penalty for dealing, the toughest in Europe. That way, all these drugs would stop coming here, and go to other European countries. You do this by asking all the other European countries, what their minimum sentence is for hard drug dealing: how many years in prison. Whichever of these countries has the LONGEST minimum sentence - you take that and then DOUBLE it. Sorted.

Drug-free zone FAQ's

Q. This policy would reduce hard drugs coming in here, yes, but isn't it going to cause a big increase in drugs entering our European neighbours - France, Netherlands, Ireland and so on ?

A. YES. That's not our problem. It's their problem.


The Crown Prosecution service was the brainchild of one of the worst Home Secretaries, tory Leon Brittan. Prior to this, police forces employed lawyers who would explain to them, whether there was enough evidence to take a case to court.  What kind of country are we, where the relatives of murder-victims (such as Stephen Lawrence), have to bring their own private prosecutions, because the CPS refused to do so ? It should be up to a jury to decide if someone is guilty or not, not a civil servant!   

Today's CPS, under the direction of first Keith Starmer, now Alison Saunders,   has a  sinister function. It exists  to dispense justice in a political way  - outside Parliament's control.  It does this by filtering all pending prosecutions,  and only letting some of these go on to court. The decision is NOT made by the quality of the evidence - but by what they call the "Public Interest"   which in effect means the political interests of a small group,  Starmer and Saunders and their cronies.  Every day, perfectly good cases with good evidence, are stopped from  going to court by the CPS.  They never have to tell us what the "Public Interest" was in any particular case - this is kept secret. In effect the CPS is a secretive super-court  with no accountability to Parliament or the Public.   WE'LL ABOLISH THE CPS.


'Travellers' smash into a school grounds with a digger in Essex - while frightened children are confined to the classrooms. Like all 'protected groups', they're above the law and can do anything they want. A 'no-go' area for police.

This particular traveller group was eventually removed by police - but of course, no charges were made against anybody; and they weren't asked to pay for the damage made in forcing entry.  If you or I drove our car through a school gate during school hours, terrifying the schoolchildren and leaving a trail of destruction - we'd be arrested and taken to court. But these are Travellers; defined in New Labour's 'equality' act of 2010, as a protected ethnic group, which means no-one's allowed to offend them and they're protected from arrest. Their 'equality' is to be more equal than the rest of us. They can break the law and get away with it. We can't.

It's the same with the Asian grooming gangs in Rotherham, in fact all the North of England. (Remember the "Three Girls" in Rochdale ?). Why did it  take so long to bring them to justice?  Same again, "ethnic protected group" - protected from prosecution, even for the most monstrous crimes. Council officials and Police were all told   "Ethnic. Leave them alone,  they can't be touched". All this is the result of New Labour's 2010 Equality Act. 

MAINSTREAM would bin this disgusting 2010 legislation and make ALL OF US EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. No special 'immunity from prosecution' for any ethnic / other grouping . We're all equal under the law. It's called Equality. Deal with it. END OF.


    Protected Groups - your FAQs

Q.  I thought we're all equal under the law?

A. We were before 2010.  New  Labour's Equality act established "protected groups" by ethnic origin, religion, colour and so on. If you're in one of these lucky groups you're more equal than every one else - you have special rights not to be offended or upset or prosecuted for a crime.

Q. So this is a Labour law - hold on,  New Labour LOST in 2010, 2015 and 2017 elections. If this law is so bad, why is it still in place?

A. Because ALL the establishment politicians - Tory, Liberal, Labour, Greens, Nationalists and so on - SUPPORT protected groups . They won't repeal this evil law - they all love it !


to remove any incentive for false accusing

   Britain's Crime Compensation scheme is by far the most generous in the world. It's paid for , not by the offenders who commit the crimes, but by you and me, the  taxpayers. It pays out to alleged victims even where no-one has ever been convicted of the crime. The amounts paid out are very high and are tax-free - equating in some cases to several years' earnings.

Many believe the system has gone too far and is driving a surge in false accusations - especially for "historic"  offences which are often very difficult to prove, as often they are just one person's word against another; but this scheme will even pay out even when the alleged "offender"  has never been convicted; even when they have not been identified, and even when they are dead.  The compensation  body CICA make their decision not on "Innocent until proved guilty" but on what they term the "balance of probabilities". 

Most important of all in many compensation claims, the identitiy of the alleged victim claiming, is kept secret. 

MAINSTREAM would reform this system to remove even the slightest incentive to make false accusations. This would give us a more open, visible, transparent justice.

                  is it time we talked about the C-WORD?


     There's been a series of scandals recently at our prisons and remand centres - riots which the staff are unable to control;  prisoners walking out from "Open" prisons nearly every week; and so on.  Recently when two murderers just walked out of prison, the governor told the media "We know our number One duty is the safety of the public". But since the prison service was privatised by Margaret Thatcher, it seems like the number one duty of prison staff has been the well-being of the inmates: Prisons have become more like holiday camps - prisoners walking round in designer clothes, having mobile phones, a choice of meals on the menu, day trips out to the shops - come on! Re-nationalise the service and associated prisoner transport (now done by private security firms like G4S).

In return for  secure jobs in the public service, prison staff will have to accept that if they don't do their job, they'll be sacked. This applies particularly to prison governors - the bosses.  If they allow inmates to escape - they need to be sacked and replaced by someone who will do their job properly. And the same goes for prison governors who fail to fulfill their suicide-watch obligations on high-risk prisoners such as mass murderer Fred West.  He was known to be a suicide risk because of the appalling nature of his crimes, and because of the split between himself and his accomplice Rose West. But the prison officers who should have been observing him 24/7, were instead partying for Christmas or New Year celebrations. Yet no prison officers lost their job. Under a Mainstream government any staff guilty of such incompetence, would be out on their ear. 


  You wouldn't knowingly let a murderer into your house - why should we let them into our country if they don't belong here? We are allowed to set some minimum standards as to who can come in. All the recent governments have been letting overseas murderers - both from EU countries and non-EU countries - come and live here - without any checks on their  criminal records or past history.  As you would expect, some of these have committed more murders over here. Even war criminals who comitted genocide in Africa have been allowed to come and make asylum claims here . That's like, you let Himmler or Goebbels come and make an asylum claim!

Remember young Alice Gross - murdered in October 2014?  Don't you think her grieving family would have liked to have been warned, that a Latvian murderer called Arnis Zalkains was living nearby, who  often rode his bike along the same canal path used by their teenage daughter?   (He committed suicide so we will never be able to prove that it was him who murdered Alice.)   You could have one of these murderers living right next door - and you would never know about it, to be able to protect your family and children. Even worse - many of these twats have been handed British citizenships by the establishment .  MAINSTREAM would REPATRIATE  immediately , ALL OVERSEAS MURDERERS back to their homelands, AND in the case of murderers who' ve been handed a British passport - we'd REVERT them to their original nationality.  They would get ' R & R'.  Reversion & Repatriation. There'd be no right of appeal.  


The innocent Brazilian was shot in the head 7 times after Met operation botched from start to finish

Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead by the metropolitan police in July 2005

In 2005 a completely innocent Brazilian who lived in South London, and was on his way to work by bus and tube, was tailed by police into a tube train and then, while sitting down & under restraint, was shot in the head seven times. He wasn't given any verbal warning, or any chance to speak & tell police his true identity. They thought he was suspected arab terrorist Yasin Omar. In all the inquiries and inquest which followed, there emerged a pattern of botched policing from start to finish: no communication between the different officers in the chain of command; a series of lies told to the media; the police who fired the fatal shots, believing they'd been given the '007' shoot-to-kill authorisation - but their superiors deny this! And finally no-one's answered. or even asked - why the killer needed to put seven dum-dum bullets into de Menezes' head , from a few inches away. Is this professional behaviour for an armed police officer?

Disgracefully, they even brought up the question of whether de Menezes had overstayed his visa (he hadn't) - as if that would have made it OK to kill him.

MAINSTREAM wants a new, independent public enquiry with the possibility of criminal charges against individual poilice if necessary; and for any officers who botched their job on that fateful day 22 July 2005, to be identified and demoted or sacked.


MAINSTREAM would NOT ban the burqa as in France, Denmark and other countries. This is discriminatory as there are other forms of masking which are just as controversial for children or security . Burqas would be covered in a general anti-masking law, applying ONLY in specific and well-defined scenarios. It would apply only to adults - both men and women; not to children. The eight situations with restrictions are:

Masking - your FAQs

Q. How would your anti-masking legislation be enforced?

A. That would depend on the situation, each situation would have special requirements which would be written into the laws.

Q. What about masks in carnivals, etc?

A. Obviously the law would not apply for masks in carnivals, fancy-dress parades or children's clowns, etc. But wearing a clown mask or monkey mask while driving a car, for example, would be illegal .

Q. Would there be signs in some places to warn people not to mask?

A. Yes - here's an example of the possible sign for displaying in children's playgrounds, etc:


"In a Children's place ... Show your Face"


If you mask here we'll call the police

You may be arrested.


Nearly every week another one of our listed buildings on private land - which is empty or unoccupied, like at night - gets burnt down in an arson attack. Then nine times out of ten, instead of restoring the original building, the owner of the land takes the insurance money, and sells the land for development. In no time what was a beautiful historic building becomes a car-park or a LIDL supermarket. These fires are nearly always deliberate - the Fire Brigade know that from the way they are lit in several places at the same time, fire alarms disabled, and the fires timed when nobody is about. Obviously the arsonists are never caught. We would restrict the sale of private land in these circumstances, so no development would be allowed. The landowner would have to either leave the plot empty, or get the original building restored. After all - they've collected the insurance money - so they haven't lost out financially. Doing this would NOT be making the presumption that the land's owner initiated the arson, just acknowledging that he / she is placed to make a huge financial gain from it, if redevelopment is permitted.

Mainstream Crime Policy - your FAQs

Q. Mainstream wants to create a large number of new crimes, isn't this going to make our legal system even more complex than it already is?

A. You're correct, Mainstream would be creating about 25 new criminal offences. But on the plus side - we'd be removing all legislation passed by the Blair regime (He created 27,000 new laws and 3,000 new criminal offences!)  AND with 'Project Tippex', we'd be clearing out all the 950 new laws imposed on us by the EU, as we're set to escape Brussels control. So, a definite net REDUCTION in the amount of laws. How good is that?

Longer Sentences - the Last Word ....

Let's leave the last word on the subject, to Bob Dylan, folk/rock singer & poet.

His ballad "Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" is the true tale of a white man in the American south, who kills a black woman - and only gets six months in prison. "The time for weeping" , as the song goes, "is not when the victim's murdered - it's when the murderer gets a trivial sentence". In the US pre-1950 South, if whites killed blacks, they only got a light sentence (But not the other way round, of course). **

This was because black people were considered to be worth less than whites - it legitimised killing blacks as unimportant.

We do excactly the same today in the UK - when we give mickey-mouse sentences for serious crimes such as home burglary, stabbing or street robbery - we're saying these victims are not important, these crimes don't matter.

(** grateful acknowledgement to CBS Music / Bob Dylan)

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