When the NHS was created by the post-war Labour government it was the envy of the world. Funded from income tax and National Insurance, its role was limited to the core functions of nursing the sick, injured and dying; disease prevention campaigns; and Childbirth care. Since then politicians of all parties have messed around with the NHS for political reasons. They forced the NHS to do a whole lot of extra stuff, which is not really about health: Like cosmetic surgery, breast enlargements, liposuction. Now it's even worse with IVF and so-called 'sex-change' treatment available in some circumstances on the NHS. These are things which , if allowed at all, should not be done on the NHS as they are lifestyle choices, not like illnesses or accidents which are genuinely out of our control. MAINSTREAM would cut the NHS back to the original basic health functions.
Then another set of politicians frigged around with the original admin structure. There was nothing wrong with the old structure - with it's matrons, ward sisters, and so on; services such as catering and cleaning being done by in-house staff and it worked perfectly well. They 'modernised' the NHS, paying management companies lots of money to bring in the new buzzwords of trusts, targets, providers, stakeholders, and so on, outsourcing services to private agencies. It hasn't improved anything and it made it worse. The Target mentality distorts hospitals' priorities: They leave critically-ill patients out in ambulances - because while they are still outside the hospital, the clock doesn't start ticking for their treatment-time. This is a dangerous because it ties up ambulances, which can't then be sent to other incidents.
Then under Blair's New Labour, a third set of changes was PFI. This was a big scam to fund expensive projects (like new buildings), by letting private companies (such as the ill-fated Carillion) pay half the capital costs, in return for guaranteed repayments to include big interest, from FUTURE taxpayers .
Let's go back to the original structures, all services in-house again, no more PFI, no more stakeholders, no more targets. The only single target would be the welfare of the patients to come first at all times - and before the staff's own welfare. All doctors and nurses would have to sign a 'hippocratic oath' accepting this, or resign. Work in the health service is hard - but it's well-paid; and very secure with a more-or-less lifetime guarantee of employment. In return for this we expect all staff to have a professional 'vocational' attitude to their patients. It's not 'just another job'. We've recently seen strikes and works-to-rules in the NHS. That would have once been unthinkable. It needs to be 'outside the pale' again.
"the law in Britain treats unborn children as if they were a part of their mother's bodies"
* aknowledgements to Logan's parents for publishing these photos.
Remember the baby boy in these two pictures ? He's Logan Gomes who tragically died while still in his Mum's womb, as a result of trauma escaping from the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017. More than 70 other people died in the blaze, but this baby's death is a timely reminder to our politicians and media, in case they forgot, that baby girls and boys still inside waiting to be born, are ALREADY human beings and need some protection of Human Rights. They're certainly not going to get any protection from the "European Convention on Human Rights" or the "United Nations declaration of Human Rights" - both of which worthy bodies, say these babies are NOT human beings at all, but blobs of jelly or 'foetuses', with no independent Right to Life.
It's up to our Parliament to make laws which give this protection. Pregnant women have rights - but so do the children inside them. We have to reconcile both with sympathetic, but just, laws. Our laws at present treats these children as if they were just a part of their mothers' bodies - of course they're distinct humans with their own separate identity, often with a different blood type from their mum's. Remember the lines....
In the morning of my life
the minutes take so long to drift away
please be patient, with your life
it's only morning and you've still to live your day
(from the Bee Gees song 'Morning of my Life' **)
The existing laws are a mess and not fit for purpose. We need a new up-to-date law, the Unborn Babies Protection Act. This would replace all existing legislation on the subject, and give legal protection to baby girls and boys still unborn; while having safeguards for circumstances such if the mother is in poor health, if the mother is still a child herself, and so on.
Also we would OUTLAW the term 'foetus' from all official documentation from hospitals, clinics, medical, government and local government publications. They would have to use the word 'baby'. TIME'S UP on using the F-WORD to de-humanise babies.
Gendercide: Why did so many of our female MPs vote NO to protecting baby girls?
(** grateful acknowledgment to Bee Gees / Warner Music)
In recent years some people who feel they're in the "wrong body" and really "belong" in a woman's body, have undergone surgery to "change" their sex, the so-called "Gender re-arrangement operation". They then live as women, but obviously they're not really females in the true sense . When a farmer castrates a bull, it doesn't turn into a cow and suddenly start giving milk! It's a heifer and it's still a male.
Like in the old days in the Middle East, the 'sultans' (their kings) kept harems of women . To guard the women, they castrated male slaves to work as guards. This procedure didn't make them into new girls to go into the harem! They were still males called 'eunochs' . (Because they didn't fancy the girls any more, they could be trusted to stand guard with their spears, knowing they'd never be tempted to dip in and sample the forbidden fruits of the harem themselves. )
For someone to deliberately get this surgical procedure done on themselves is a grotesque mutilation, the opposite of what medical treatment is supposed to be, possibly these men have some personality disorder issues to start with, who knows. Many people who undergo this surgery, later regret and decide it's a terrible mistake; but the operation can't be reversed and some of them commit suicide.
Most of us think this kind of surgery is appalling - but if grown adults decide they want to go through with the re-arrangement - no-one is going to object to that, obviously as long as they pay for it and don't try to get it on the NHS.
But with children it's different . How can a child possibly understand the implications of this drastic, perverse, irreversible and life-changing surgery? The law needs to protect children from this madness. That's why we need to outlaw this operation on children - with a new criminal offence "Child Genital Mutilation". Like the existing law against FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), under the new law it would be NO DEFENCE for the doctor or surgeon doing the cutting, that the child, or their parents, had requested the operation . But unlike FGM which has a maximum of only 14 years jail, those convicted of CGM would get longer: minimum 13 years, maximum 19 years, and then after coming out of prison, a further 10 years struck off the BMA register.
No civililsed society can permit children to be mutilated in this way.
A MAINSTREAM government would outlaw all associated activities against children including giving any hormone drug treatment, giving information about, or encouraging requests for, these depraved clinical procedures. In particular we'd take a very hard line on these, the so-called "LCPTGB" pressure group, having any involvement in schools. This would include sending any 'educational' materials, or infiltrating their members into schools in the guise of 'mentors' or 'awareness trainers'. Schools would have a statutory obligation to report any such activity to the police within 12 hours. In the case of any of these people approaching school gates, or waiting outside schools to accost the pupils, schools would be required to photograph the intruders and send these photos to the police. The time has come to end, once and for all, the filthy poison these fascist groups are putting into our children's minds and bodies.
Your Child Genital Mutilation FAQs:
Q. Should we ban these operations also on adults ?
A. Many people think so, all self-mutilation and self-harm, including attempting suicide, are wrong because our bodies are not our property like a car or a handbag. Our body belongs to the one who designed us which is God. We would just put restrictions in place to try and reduce these self-harm procedures..
Q. What restrictions?
A. The 'patient' (the victim) would have to be adult, so 18 and over, Also there should be an enforced think-it-over period of three years, after they request the surgery. They'd have time to take professional advice and discuss the consequences of a non-reversible step. .
Q. Should people who've had 'Gender re-aligment' operations, then be able to put their sex as female when they fill forms in?
A. We need a common-sense approach to this. Take an example: Someone called Harold decides he wants to dress up as a woman and be known as Hayley. No-one has a problem with him doing that. Then he goes for the re-arrangement surgery and gets his private bits cut off. Obviously his sex is still really male. If you chop someone's knob and their nuts off, and dress them in women's clothes - they don't turn into a woman! Just a man with no knob and no nuts, in a dress. Even a three-year-old would know that. As they're pretending to live as a woman, they could put their sex down as 'female' on Facebook, or when booking a hotel, whatever. But you would think for important official documents like passports and licenses, possibly it would be safer if they put their correct sex down .
Q. Some 'trans-sexicals' get their birth certificates retrospectively changed from Male to Female. Does this cause a problem?
A. No that's impossible - a Birth Certificate is a witness statement by someone who saw the baby at birth. It's witness testimony and cannot be altered at a later date.
Q. No really, this does sometimes happen.
A. What! Altering a witness statement after the event, is falsifying a document, like the police did with Steven Lawrence and Hillsborough - altering witness statements. Look what happened to them - dismissal, then prison. If you falsify a birth certificate you're also calling the midwife a liar, and the maternity ward doctor ,a liar. These are criminal offences, best dealt with in court.
Q. Is it actually possible to really change someone's sex from male to female?
A. Our sex ( "Gender" as some call it), is set in our DNA at the moment of conception, to change it requires DNA replacement - the male DNA swapped for female DNA. Don't forget this has to be done for every cell in the body and brain, so a major surgical procedure.
Q. Will the technology to make this change, ever come along in the future ?
A. Maybe one day a long way off, we're talking at least 1000 years away so maybe by the year 3030, or even not until 4040. Mainstream's advice, don't bother trying to make an advance booking for this operation.
In all our inner-city areas, of cities and towns, the provision of GP surgeries and walk-in clinics is not enough for the amount of people. It should always be possible to get a GP appointment by the following day at the latest. Every GP is supposed to allocate time to do home visits for housebound and very ill patients. That's now impossible - in the Midlands we sometimes have to wait a week for an appointment. The staff in our local surgery are very good - but when you request a GP appointment, they first try to make you accept a telephone appointment instead!
What's more, they have a 'ten minute rule'. You're allocated only ten minutes for the appointment. Incredible! Like those restaurants where they only allow you an hour for your meal - then you have to vacate the table. What happens if my problem or symptoms are too long to explain in ten minutes? What happens if the doctor can't do a proper examination in ten minutes? What happens if the conversation is very slow because of language issues - where either the doctor or the patient, doesn't quite speak perfect English? (This does happen). And our local walk-in clinic now has a long queue outside before they even open in the morning. These services are being swamped with clients.
So what's changed? There used to be enough GPs and clinics. Are we getting sicker than before? Is there a mystery secret epidemic?
What's changed is two things. Politcians, to save money, did a re-organisation of urban services and 'rationalised' hospitals and clinics - closing down many smaller hospitals, making people in those places travel somewhere else. But the main change is the massive increase in the urban population. We're not getting sicker - there's just far more of us than there were.
Why didn't governments give us the extra resources? Because they use 'official' population statistics. These are from the Census 2011 results. First , that was seven years ago and there's been a big influx of new people since then - so, out of date. But even back in 2011 they weren't correct, as 1.600,000 census forms were not returned. Those 1,600,000 houses and flats aren't ALL empty - there are people living there - we just don't know how many or who they are. Our dickhead politicians really believe that all newcomers here, fill in their census forms trurhfully, and register for council tax! They should at least be honest and say they don't know what the inner-city population is. Or use one of the new, hi-tech methods like counting the number of mobile phones in use. And before the 2011 census, these same politicians lied and said the population hasn't increased, and anyone who thinks it has , is a racialist or imagining it. We must be the only country in Europe, whose government literally has no idea how many inhabitants there are.
We get the numbers right for how many of us there are. We pay up, and provide the clinics and surgeries to match.
And when the next census comes along - we enforce it properly, people who don't fill the form in, or make false statements - go to prison. That's what it says on the tin.
People confuse Fascists with Nazis, and sometimes equate them, The fascists of the 1930s were Franco and Mussolini. Hitler was Nazi (short for National Socialist - a cross between nationalism and socialism.) The Nazis were different (worse) - they believed in Eugenics. This is the evil and arrogant theory that the human race as created by God, with the endless variety of skin colours, facial shapes, sizes, talents and abilities - isn't good enough. The Nazis wanted to 'purify' mankind by breeding a special master-race who would all be tall, blond, blue-eyed, athletes with no hereditary diseases or deformities. (In Hitler's own words "tall and slim, fast as greyhounds, strong as steel").
Hitler, using the sick racial theories of Alfred Rosenberg, wanted to do improve on God's creation and create this 'perfect' master race, who would then rule the world; all other human colours and types to be killed, sterilised or made into a slave class. Hitler personally believed the normal sex act between a man and woman to be disgusting (that's probably why he never had children) - and commissioned his henchman Dr. Josef Mengels to research and experiment, to achieve the Nazi goal of 'babies without sex'. (What we today call IVF - that was the Nazi dream). (Nightmare more like.)
Until Mengele's evil experiments were successful, the Nazis would use human breeding farms, rather like we use for breeding horses and pigs. Thank God we crushed the Nazis before they discovered DNA editing and got to the IVF stage! Even though Mengele escaped from Germany in 1945 and carried on his Eugenics experiments in Paraguay into the 1980s, the same sick experiments using twins, trying to 'improve' the human race.
Fast-forward to 21st-century Britain: Now we're doing the same thing here! We're doing Eugenics - why is it legal? Our establishment politicians, Tory, Labour and Libdem, allow and encourage the 'cloning' of human babies, editing DNA, mixing DNA from different babies. There's supposed to be a watchdog the "Embryology and Fertility Authority (HFEA)", to judge if new experiments are ethical. But in practice, they just allow anything - they say 'Yes OK' to whatever perverse procedure comes along.
They don't even uphold Parliament's set rules. There's a restriction that a man's sperm can't be used for IVF without his permission. Sounds reasonable! But when a woman came and asked them if she could used her dead husband's sperm (for which he had NOT given permission before he died) - the HFEA said 'Yes that's OK - your husband hasn't given permission, but he can't refuse permission now as he's dead " . When a "scientist" asked to create cells with the DNA of two persons - the HFEA said 'Yes'. When someone asked to create cells with the DNA of three persons - they said 'Yes'. If someone were to request to mix DNA from ten humans, three pigs, a zebra, a gorilla and a great white shark - the HFEA would say 'Yes OK'.
Since this commission doesn't actually enforce ethical standards, just saying Yes to everything - they serve no purpose and should be abolished. Give their fat salaries (chairwoman Sally Cheshire gets £65 K salary and expenses) to create beds for rough sleepers.
MAINSTREAM wants to outlaw Eugenics - the whole bag - all the unnatural experiments with human cloning, DNA editing, IVF 'test-tube breeding' etc. These would be covered under a new criminal offence NAZI EUGENICS. We'd also outlaw 'surrogate motherhood' - womb-renting which treats babies as commodities to buy and sell - that would be an offence of Surrogacy.
Your Eugenics FAQs
Q. Was Eugenics developed in any other countries besides wartime Germany?
A. Yes sadly, in Europe and the USA, between 1850 and 1930. A notorious practitioner was Dr. Marion Sims in New York, who sterilised thousands of black women without their permission.
Q. If IVF becomes more difficult, isn't that unfair on infertile women who want a baby?
A. When couples are unable to have children, people always point the finger at the woman. It's just as likely to be the husband who has a problem. These couples could and should adopt. There are literally millions of babies stuck in orphanages round the world, crying in their cots, in need of a loving Mum and Dad. Our society puts great efforts into 're-homing' unwanted puppies - yet for these Human babies we do nothing.
Q. Adopting is a laborious process, it can sometimes take up to a year to complete the adoption process.
A. That's because our existing Adoption law isn't fit for purpose. MAINSTREAM would reform these laws, setting a ten-week limit after identifying a suitable child, in order to make checks on the adoptive parents' criminal records. And no necessity for 'colour matching' as we have now. Our biological children can turn out a completely different colour from both parents - so why do we enforce colour-matching for adoption?
Could IVF sperm donors increase the risk of incestuous marriage?
When couples use IVF treatment for the woman to get pregnant, the 'biological' father's name doesn't go on the birth certificate. He's a so-called 'sperm donor' , some of these men have now supplied their sperm to father hundreds of children. Could this risk future chance encounters between men and women, who inadvertently share the same fathers? They would be half-brother and half-sister, which increases the risk of hereditary health issues (the reason why incest is illegal).
This risk happens already in the case of children who are registered with 'father unknown', if their mum didn't know who the father was. But with IVF, we KNOW exactly who the father is - all sperm donors have to supply their id when they give their sample. Mainstream wants to ensure in the future, that instead of IVF babies having "Father unknown" on their birth certificate, the actual true father's name goes there. This allows these children knowledge of any hereditary conditions they need to know about; besides helping them to avoid accidental incestuous relationships with one of their sperm donor father's other children .
The so-called "Right to Die" lobby has already managed to make Euthanasia soclally acceptable, if not semi-legal. Most of our parliament now think it's OK. Sorry but we DON'T have the right to end our own lives. Our bodies are NOT our own property, like a handbag or a car. If our bodies belong to anyone, they belong to God as the One who designed them in the first place. The Nazi holocaust features strongly in our school history courses - but when I had a closer look at my children's course work, I see they're being taught that the holocaust began in 1942, with gassing the jews.
Why aren't they taught the TRUTH? Hitler's holocaust started four years before that. Long before the decision for the 'Final Solution', In 1938 Hitler set up "Merciful Killing" - the legalised killing by injection, of mental patients, the terminally-ill or very old, and new-born babies with abnormalities (such as Downs Syndrome) , anyone who fitted the Nazis criterion of a "Life unworthy of living". This was to be Hitler's testing ground for the more sinister future death factories. He wanted to see if public opninion in Germany would let him get away with this Euthanasia. They did. This happened only 80 years ago - why can't we learn from history? MAINSTREAM stands firmly against all such National Socialism - we'd make Euthanasia into a specific and serious criminal offence.
Legalising euthanasia is the slippery slope to National Socialism, Nazism, again. Imagine when your old grannie's already 90 and demented, but doesn't look like dying any time soon. You're going to inherit her valuable house when she pops off. All you have to do, to send her on the 'legal pathway' to a fatal injection, is tell a doctor 'grannie always said, if she ever gets to this stage, she wants it ended peacefully'. If Euthanasia is completely legal - the pressure is there to sign. The Right to Life is absolute and not dependent on anyone's opinion.
Cancer rates in Britain are at an all-time high - but cigarette smoking is at an all-time low. Ideally, it would be best if nobody smoked at all - better for their own health above all. But for the small minority of our people who still smoke - do we really need to make them into second-class citizens and even criminals? Why not loosen up the legislation on no smoking inside buildings (apart from your own home). Pubs are closing at a record rate and the main reason for this, is that smoking is banned in pubs. So smokers buy their beer in Tesco instead - and then drink (and smoke) at home, where the passive smoke is more of a hazard to their children.
Why not ease up the present draconian law, and let individual premises CHOOSE whether to allow customers to smoke or not? Pubs, clubs, offices and so on, could have a separate smoking room for their smoker employees / customers. There would be restrictions of course: This room would have to be well ventilated. And any cleaning staff employed to clean the room would have to be a smoker themselves.
This would be a win-win. Good news for smokers and good for trade in pubs. And also good news for us non-smokers: no more having to fight our way through crowds of folk out smoking on the pavement, every time we walk past a doorway of an office, pub, or club. All smokers know that their habit could bring them an early death; if they choose to carry on, that's their lifestyle choice, we can't force them to stop. We need to deal with that.
Mainstream would also amend the tax legislation around alchohol and tobacco: non-alchohol beers are now taxed at the high 'speciality beer' rate; there's no alchohol, there should be no alchohol tax!
The same with e-cigarettes, so-called 'vaping'. They don't contain tobacco, so cannot possibly be liable for tobacco tax. This mistake looks like possibly just an error by HMRC in both cases.
"Transgenders" - do people really know the facts ?
How much do YOU know about them? Is there an actual Transbender "community"? These people use long words to describe themselves - do you understand all their technical terms? What's the difference between a transsexal and a transvestite? Is a transformer the same as a transphobiac?
Can people "self-define" as women by wearing women's clothes and make-up - or d'you believe our sex is a matter of biology? Do you regard these people as normal, or a bunch of weird oddballs? (And talking of odd-balls - Nazi leader Joseph Goebbels was reputed to have "no balls" - should we see him today, as some kind of "Nazi tranny"? )
TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE now with our special QUIZ