Latest News Views

Fairer Justice for victims? Not from the Tories

(6 Dec 2019) The Tories were quick to jump on the bandwagon, after the two appalling incidents of criminals released from prison early, who went on to commit several murders (Usnam Khan), and several rapes (Joseph McCann). The Tories now say they'll tighten up the rules on the early release of prisoners. If the Conservatives are so keen on making our justice system fairer to victims - then why wasn't this new policy in their election manifesto - published only last month? Johnson's party are quite simply inventing a new policy each week, to chime with the latest news story. Hang on - who's been in charge of the country for the past nine years? It wasn't Labour. The Conservative governments of Cameron, May, and Boris Johnson gave us this system of releasing dangerous prisoners only half-way through their sentence.

By coincidence also this week, an unrelated case came to court: Murder victim Ellie Gould's family were appealing against the pathetic prison sentence given to Thomas Griffiths, their daughter's murderer. He got only 12 years 6 months (which means he'll be back out on the streets after little more than 6 years inside) Ellie's mother appealed that this sentence was unduly lenient (an understatement). Here was a chance for the Tories to show they care about the victims of crime. The appeal went to the Attorney General, Tory MP Geoffrey Cox. - who sided with the murderer, against the victim's family. He ruled that Griffiths' sentence was NOT unduly lenient. How can this be? Most people think Griffiths should be put away for 56 years, not 6 years!

Mainstream's policy on this has never wavered: an end to all early release schemes, and the purpose of prison sentences defined in law as having the four aims of: punishment, deterrent, protecting the public and giving closure to victims - not as now, being some kind of rehabilitation program to benefit the offender and help them 'fit in' when they leave.

WPC Robyn Williams conviction: did the CPS get it wrong?

(19 Nov 2019) Police Superintendent Robyn Williams has been convicted of "possessing" a child abuse image which was sent to her phone. Is this correct? Possession of these types of images, is supposed to mean "wilful possession" - i.e. you downloaded the image yourself, or you asked someone else to send you it. If you just receive an image involuntarily, that's no different from if someone posts a pornographic picture through your front door letter-box: you couldn't be charged with possessing the picture, as it wasn't your fault that it came into your house. Is the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) now quietly changing the definition of "possession" to include whenever anyone gets such an image in their In-box - to improve their conviction statistics? The implications are alarming.

The only offence Suptd Williams should have been charged with, was trying to cover up the fact that one of her relations had distributed child abuse images. This is a completely different offence, perverting the course of justice and is a serious charge, but it's not a child sex offence and doesn't carry the associated terrible stigma; which this officer will now have to live with for the rest of her life. The CPS as usual, re-interprets how Parliament intended our laws to work, using its own yardstick of "in the public interest". Mainstream is the only political party in the UK which would abolish the useless Crown Prosecution Service.

At last! Mayor Sadiq Khan speaks up for Londoners.
Why has he waited so long?

Yesss ! Climate Change dickheads brought down to earth by the general public

(17 Oct 2019) Khan today finally spoke up for under-siege Londoners, condemning XR's attack on London's mass transit underground trains . But "Extinction Rebellion" have spent the whole summer with their flagship tactic to bring London to a standstill. Khan, like most of the political class and the media, has spent the whole summer giving his "total approval" to XR's actions. Back in April when XR members stopped a train on the DLR in Canary Wharf, Khan tweeted in their support . Mass transit trains are a good way to reduce CO2 and pollution in cities, as they reduce car journeys. Climate Change protesters should be encouraging mass transit, not stopping it.

But of course Extinction Rebellion members are all from the privileged classes, they don't know what it's like to have to go to work out of necessity to support a family. When you bring London's traffic to a standstill, you don't just stop ordinary Londoners (and the millions of foreign citizens who live there) from getting to work. You stop them getting to interviews, to funerals, to hospital appointments. Good to hear also, the ASLEF train driver's union speaking up at last, against Extinction Rebellion. What about the bus driver's union? Why don't they give some public support to bus drivers and lorry drivers, who are having to work beyond the safe number of hours because of the constant diversions.

Extinction Rebellion are no different from those wierd cults, like in Waco and Guyana. They predict the End of the World - their members are the only ones imbued with the knowledge (they call it "the science" ) to prevent the apocalypse, the other 99.99% of us are too ignorant to understand.

It's that cake again !

the court case that's about HATE, not "love"

(15 Aug 2019) It's back to court again! The so-called "homo-cake" complaint, rejected by the Supreme Court, now on it's way up to the ECHR in Brussels. Why? Gareth Lee was easily able to get his cake made, he knew there were plenty of bakeries in Belfast who would make it for him. So why did he order the cake at Asher's Bakery? He picked on them because he knew their managers are devout Christians. This cake is not personalised for Lee (Wedding cakes normally have the bride and groom's names on top). Lee's cake makes no mention of him or his "partner" - just a controversial political slogan. This legal case was never about getting a cake baked - it's about causing as much hurt and offence as possible, to shopkeepers who are Christians, because he hates their Christian views. This ridiculous court case has already cost hundreds of thousands. Now going to Brussels, it's MILLIONS in taxpayer's money - which is meant for spending on our schools and hospitals.

It's no different from, if you're someone who hates Islam, you look for a bacon sandwich on the high street; you don't go to Greggs (even though you can see them on display) - instead you deliberately go to Hussein's Halal sandwich shop and ask them to make you a bacon sandwich. When they refuse you complain to the police and take them to court. An even better example: You ask them to bake you a cake that says on top "Mohammed is NOT God's prophet". They refuse of course. In either case, if you went and complained to the police - the case would never even reach the CPS, let alone the magistrate's court, the Crown court, the Supreme court, the ECHR..... You'd be sent packing by the police. That's what should have happened to Gareth Lee.

TV adverts banned .....

in Tory Britain, politically correct always trumps democracy

(14 Aug 2019) The TV advert giving rise to the most ever complaints (several thousand) was MoneySupermarket's one with the camp super-heroes. The Oftel regulator let it stay - quite right! Just a bit of harmless fun. By contrast another harmless fun ad, for Philadelphia cheese has just been banned - after just ONE viewer complained. It's like the recent consultations, by the UK and Scottish governments, about allowing people to 'self-determine' as women. In both surveys, the majority of respondents were against self-determining. In both cases, the governments went AHEAD with this controversial legislation. They ticked the box "we put this out to consultation". Yes you did - but then you just ignored the majority opinions!.

You see, in today's twisted Tory administration, democracy doesn't count any more - just political correctness. It's infected every discussion and every decision. Green MP Caroline Lucas, (their party got just half a million votes at the 2017 Election), is trying to invalidate the 2016 People's Vote of 17 million. Good luck with that! But when she points out that women tend to be more co-operative, and less confrontational, then men - she's straightaway denounced for not being politically correct - even though everyone knows this is obviously true (that's why 97% of violent crimes are done by males, not females).

The warming climate here has some downsides - rising sea levels and floods, etc. There's a few upsides. One is, all the politically-correct snowflakes are gonna get melted. BRING IT ON.

PS (Updated 21 August): The tragic drowning of a six-year-old boy in a Kent river, is a sad reminder that the message in that banned Philadelphia cheese advert, is not just a laughing matter. The point is, if this little boy's mother had been with him in place of the father, she would have held him by both hands and lifted him from the jetty on to their boat. Yes mothers DO keep a closer watch on their little ones than fathers; the reason being, their children spent the first few months of their lives inside their mother; no children have ever spent part of their life inside their father. This difference means everything, it's an enormous difference, and it's one everybody in the world knows about. So why aren't we allowed to say a fact, which everybody in the world agrees is true, without being condemned as 'politically incorrect' or 'sexist' ? We should all be saying this out loud; we should be shouting it from the rooftops. And the politically-correct knobheads who want to censor our free speech, need to be removed from all positions of power and influence; that's the best way to silence them before they cause any more damage. This needs to happen NOW - not next year or next week.

Authorities snatch Bible from preacher's hand ...

(hasn't happened in London since 1546)

(28 July 2019) A new and terrifying 'First' in today's Britain. For the first time in over 450 years, a lay preacher gets the bible snatched from his hand, before being arrested. His name: Oluwole Ilesanmi. The last time this happened in London was 1546, Henry VIII's agents snatched lay preacher Anne Askew's bible from her hand, before dragging her from her pulpit under arrest, then burning her to death at the stake. You don't have to go back that far if you look across the channel - only back to 1945 in Nazi Germany. In all German concentration camps, posession of a bible was expressly forbidden and the punishment was execution on the spot; a sentence carried out many times . This regulation was made at the highest level - reflecting Hitler's and the top Nazis' hatred for Christian teachings.

Well, at least Mr Ilesanmi didn't get executed. But imagine the outcry from politicians and the media, if he'd been a moslem preacher and the police had snatched a Koran from his hand! It's not really the police's fault - they're tasked with trying to implement Parliament's vile 'hate speech' legislation, which says a crime has been committed , if anyone listening to the speaker thinks, or imagines, that their feelings have been hurt.

evil Carl Beech "an Abuse Survivor" - says NSPCC !

(22 July 2019) Carl Beech has, thank God, (and in spite of the Metropolitan Police's £2 million witch-hunt cock-up), been found out for what he is - an abuser himself; and more to the point, a very evil criminal who's been happy to invent appalling accusations against several totally innocent men. Some of his chosen victims were unable to defend themselves to the police, as they were already dead. Supertwat Beech did this in an attempt to get many hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation (paid by taxpayers).**

The NSPCC's comment on the Beech Guilty (yesssss!) verdict: "we hope Beech's actions don't prevent other abuse survivors getting justice" . Er - hello! You can't refer to "Other" abuse survivors, that's implying Beech himself IS an abuse survivor. No he isn't. He's not, and never has been, a victim - he's an offender and an abuser. Beech (a homosexual) had a collection of hundreds of indecent photos of young boys. The NSPCC should retract their statement immediately and (if they still wish to make a comment) - change it to "we hope Beech's actions don't prevent genuine abuse survivors getting justice".

The outcome of these events could have been very different; tragic miscarriages of justice with many totally innocent people going to prison. Even as things are, they've had their reputations dragged through the mud; theirs and their families' lives turned upside down - for nothing. It's only thanks to the intervention of a proper, professional police force (Northumbria Police), that we've got at least in part, a happy ending.

** Update ** the Guardian makes the same mistake as NSPCC, in their editorial of 7 October 2019. Using the words "other victims" to imply that Carl Beech himself is a victim. There were several victims of the dreadful Carl Beech affair. None of them was Beech. And none of them were victims of a sexual crime. They were victims of a False Accusation crime. Why is it that people in the Media and Charity sectors - like our political class - are the only ones in the country who still don't get this?

( ** see "Time to say the C-Word ?" in Mainstream's Crime policies.)

Tory Muslim says Boris Johnson "like Hitler"

(14 June 2019) Mohammed Amin, a spokesman on Muslim affairs for the Conservative party, has likened Boris Johnson to Hitler. Perhaps Amin's unaware that for many Arabs (who are, yes, Muslims) in the Middle East, Hitler and the Nazis were not villains but heros. After the war they welcomed with open arms, some of the top Nazis involved in the Holocaust. Such as Alois Brunner, Franz Stampl (Syria). And Aribert "Dr Death" Heim, Otto Skorzeny (Egypt).

This admiration for Hitler was not always so, when the Nazis started expelling Jews. From 1941, Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (their equivalent of an Archbishop) set up shop in a Berlin Hotel, to lobby the Nazis on behalf of Palestine's Arabs. Though he never met Hitler, he passed a furious message via the German Foreign Minister "Can you stop deporting the Jews, they will all come to Palestine. You need to kill them". Was it this intervention that led Hitler to end the deportations, in favour of his "Final Solution"? Most historians think not; we'll never know for certain. No records were kept, all just "word of mouth".

"Your opinion is illegal"

MP's accusation sinks to scary depths

(3 June 2019) Can someone's opinion be illegal ? (It was so, in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia). Labour MP Angela Rayner says her fellow MP, Tory Esther McVey's opinion (on same-sex relationship classes for 4-year-olds) is ILLEGAL. That's the terrifying reality of 2019 Britain, we've got lawmakers in parliament who want any opinions they don't agree with, to be a criminal offence. (Not their OWN opinions of course).

That's why we urgently need a written constitution, where (as in America), the freedom to hold and express ANY opinion (even if offensive to others) will be a constitutional right. That's one of Mainstream's policies. In the meantime, it needs men and women in public life to have the courage to stand up against the neo-Stalinists in the "LTSB" movement which has infected Parliament and the media.


Right to hold an opinion - your FAQs:

Q. These people keep adding new letters to their abbreviation, isn't there a Q on the end now?

A. Sorry, yes you're right, you are supposed to say 'LTSBQ' now

Q. Does the 'Q' stand for 'Queer' ?

A. No that's impossible! It's illegal to say 'Queer', you can be arrested and sent to prison for labelling them with that word.

Q. Oh. Then what does it stand for?

A. A good question, there's not many words starting with Q. Who knows? Does anybody care?

Parliament declares Climate 'emergency' - why?

(1 May 2019) In a new low, the Government of chaos which has spent two years unable to agree on Brexit, approved (without a vote) a "Climate Emergency". Surrendering to the 'Extinction Rebellion' demands. What does it mean? A few days beforehand a government minister when asked if she was in favour of declaring a climate emergency, replied 'I'm not really sure what that would entail'. Question: if you're not sure what it entails - why did you do it? We'll tell her what the 'emergency' declaration entails: NOTHING. It's totally meaningless, it brings no extra funds or powers of coercion (as in a disaster emergency). It's just words with no actions - which is all we've ever had from Theresa May's government. You couldn't make it up.

Extinction Rebellion - do they really have widespread support?

(23 Apr. 2019) The unedifying sight of elected politicians grovelling and fawning to get their selfie taken with Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg might get them a few teenagers' Facebook Likes, but to most voters it just makes them look even more pathetic and unfit for purpose than they already were. One party leader compared the law-breaking protestors to the Chartist movement. Very apt - Extinction Rebellion has the same aims as the Chartists - stop using machines, back to living on the land, make everything by hand, sewing our own clothes (but no wool or nylon); and growing our own food (vegetarian only).

Like Joan of Arc, this well meaning, but misguided, child has been sent on a mission with her Enlightened Few, preaching to the ignorant masses "the End of the World is nigh!" and leading us all back from the abyss. For thousands of years since the earliest Human societies, leadership comes from the older people. There's a reason for that: with age comes wisdom. The older you are - the more you know. It's supposed to be grown-ups telling children what to do - not children telling grown-ups what to do, thank you!

Miss Thunberg commendably came by train - even though that costs far more than flying and takes 26 hours.. She practises what she preaches. That's more than can be said for the snooty-head celebrities supporting this week's London action. Like actress Emma Thompson, who after jetting away on her "North Pole safari" - jetted across the Atlantic. To tell the rest of us we're not allowed to travel by air.

For Extinction Rebellion to achieve their target reduction in UK emissions, involves us all in huge sacrifices. It means seismic changes to our whole way of life - how we work, what we eat, how we travel. Would most voters support this? (We're a democracy after all.) Probably not. To most people the emergencies that matter are knife-crime, terrorist attacks, paying the monthly bills . If the Climate "Emergency" mattered that much, the Greens would have won the 2017 election instead of getting just 1.6% of the vote and winning one seat. But the Climate Change Nazis don't care about democracy - they want to impose these changes even without electoral support. They 'know better' than us. They've seen the light.

Urgent action NOW to protect Europe's cultural heritage

(17 Apr. 2019)  Europe's one thousand years' worth of cultural treasures had their worst losses in World War II. Nazi bombings and invasions, Allied bombs in return, destroyed countless priceless buildings (Coventry cathedral and Dresden Frauenkirche to mention just two). In the subsequent 70 peace years, the greatest threat has come from letting the builders in - that brings change, people and machinery going inside highly inflammable wooden structures. (Recent examples of fires caused by building work: Cutty Sark fire in 2007, Glasgow School of Art fires in 2014 and 2018). These fires are "accidents" only in the sense that people don't drop smouldering cigarettes deliberately.

The Notre Dame tragedy highlights the need to be proactive NOW to preserve the rest of our cultural treasures - not just here but in all of Europe. We should be using cutting-edge wireless monitors and cameras in all these buildings, especially the roof spaces most vulnerable to fire. This type of security is not expensive, is unobtrusive, needs no cables and can give real-time warning of a fire 24/7. Mainstream wants stricter oversight of renovation work such as all power tools having spark suppressors; all electric equipment switched off after use; and only non-smokers allowed in crucial areas. Building companies should be liable for enormous penalties if they fail to enforce these standards.

'No apology' for 1919 Amritsar massacre

(13 Apr. 2019)  It's 100 years since British troops shot dead about 400 unarmed civilians in the Punjab; our governent has declined to give an official 'apology'. QUITE RIGHT. This was a terrible atrocity, but the murderers and their commanders are long dead and gone. No government bears responsibility for even the worst acts done by a previous administration. That would be like making May's government apologise to the Iraqi people for Tony Blair's attack on their country in 2003: It's Blair and his cronies (and Tories like David Cameron who voted for the invasion) who are the ones who should apologise. Nobody would dream of asking today's government to apologise to Catholics, for Henry VIII burning down their monasteries; or to apologise to today's Jamaicans and Barbadians because British ships carried their slave forefathers from Africa in the 18th century. We don't have to apologise for the sins of our fathers - any more than Fred West's children need to apologise for all the murders done by their mum and dad.

India's government conveniently forgets a more recent Sikh massacre, in 1984. When the Indian army attacked the Sikh Golden Temple the 400-or-so Sikhs who were killed were armed combatants, but in the crackdown on Sikhs that followed, up to 3,000 civilian Sikhs are estimated to have been killed. If you do the maths, the number of Indians killed by the British during the entire period of colonial rule, is absolutely tiny in comparison to the number of Indians who've killed each other after independence. They only waited five minutes after British forces pulled out, before Hindu Indians and Muslim Indians turned on each other - leaving 2 million dead. Add all the inter-religious murders since then, and the Bangla Desh secession in 1971 - that's probably nearing 3 million inhabitants of former British India, killed by their fellow-Indians.

The Indian government is forever blaming British colonial rule for all their problems. Maybe it's time they looked in the mirror - then grow up and take ownership of their country's many problems.

100 experts to gather at Downing St today.

is Theresa May going for the Guinness World Record ?

(1 Apr. 2019)  No, it's not an April Fool. Theresa May, desperate to cap her legacy with one success after a year of disastrous failures, is trying to see how many experts she can fit into one room in 10 Downing Street. She's invited one hundred. This many 'experts', she thinks, are sure to solve the knife-crime catastrophe. Doesn't she realise that it's listening to 'experts' that's caused the knife-crime epidemic in the first place! The politicians need to STOP listening to experts - and START to listen to those who matter most: the murder victims' families. The mums and dads, brothers and sisters, the children and sweethearts, left mourning.

And guess what? The families don't want more stop and search. They don't want knife arches in schools. They don't want nurses and teachers to be made responsible for catching knifers. They don't want curfews. They don't want targeting 'potential offenders' before they offend. They don't want awareness courses. They want the one thing that always targets the guilty, never targets the innocent. Long fixed sentences in custody - for EVERY knifer - EVERY time. Will the 650 dispticks who populate our House of Commons ever realise this? Sadly, no.

Should online 'petitions' get debated in Parliament?

(Mar. 2019)  The 'Revoke Brexit' petition has reached 6 million signatures. Does that figure equate to six million UK voters? The problem is that unique e-mail addresses don't guarantee a unique identity - it's easy for one individual to get ten different e-mail addresses. More worrying, we don't know how many respondents are UK citizens at all - they could be non-citizens who live here, or are on holiday. There's a very easy fix: We rebrand the petitions as 'Citizen Petitions' , and require all respondents to supply online, their unique electoral roll indentity number. (People can get this on request from their local council). This would prove that petitioners are really UK citizens and entitled to vote here; this would give more credibility to online petitions, and justify them getting Parliamentary time.

STOP telling us what to eat!

(Mar. 2019)  Labour's Tom Watson wants to ban a McDonalds sales promotion, joining the nanny state Nazis who want to legislate on what us ordinary citizens are allowed to eat . This just a few weeks after London mayor Sadiq Khan used his laws to ban hamburger adverts on tube trains. What IS it that the metropolitan elite who rule us, have against fast-food outlets? McDonalds seems to be a particular target. Yes they're a big multinational corporation; but they do fulfill a need. McDonalds today sells a wide variety of food, not only burgers. All of it nourishing and tasty, and including vegetarian options. All at a price that families CAN AFFORD. That's why, for the family meal out while shopping on a Saturday - mum, dad and the children - McDonalds is the Number One choice of eatery. This is true in all parts of Britain, for families of all types and backgrounds. Do Tom Watson and Sadiq Khan even know this?

Sadly - probably not. These snooty-heads with their inflated public-funded salaries, probably take their families to posh places. Possibly those recommended to Guardian readers by 'food critic' Jay Rayner - with meals costing £50 PER HEAD. So for a family with three children - £250 for a meal. (Before tips). For some families this would pay their whole month's food bill. Why is it the political class seem to live on a different planet from the population? We've had 50 years of elitist governments. Time for a change. Time for a people's government - a populist government.

Christchurch massacre:

did the politicians here over-react?

(Mar. 2019)  The mass murder of Mosque worshippers in Christchurch was all the more shocking because it was in a place of prayer and also for, in a new terrorist low, being live-streamed.

But why so much hysteria among politicians over here? Do they really think Moslems in Britain are at risk, because of an event on the other side of the world? Sadiq Khan should have told Muslims the truth - they're safer here than almost anywhere. (In India, dozens of Muslims have been murdered in the past two years, by Hindu "cow vigilantes".) Here they might get stared at or shouted at in the street, for dressing differently - but they certainly won't get shot or bombed just for their religion. That's because we're used to Muslims here; anyone living in an urban area has Muslim neighbours, our children go to school with Muslim children. And because anti-Muslim groups here use lawful social media, not terrorist bombs and bullets. New Zealand by contrast has a tiny, socially conservative population, and the recent changes made to their society have been very sudden. Another difference, New Zealand has the most liberal gun laws in the world, you can legally own half-a-dozen Kalashnikovs. In the UK we're the opposite, our gun laws are by far the strictest in the world. So why did people think a gun massacre could never happen in New Zealand? That's what they said in Norway; like New Zealand, a tiny socially-conservative population and easy access to firearms. We all know what happened there in 2011.

True there are guns in London - and knives - thousands of them. Khan should be using his police to get these offenders arrested - not for 'guarding' mosques which don't need guarding. In 2018 in Central African Republic, 41 Christians were massacred in their cathedral. In January 2019 in Jolo in the Phillipines, the Catholic cathedral was bombed killing 22 and injuring 111 worshippers. These countries are a lot nearer than New Zealand - but hardly a mention in our media, no government calls for a minute's silence. And just two days prior to Christchurch, in a school massacre at Suzano in Brazil, five children were shot dead. No mention here, not even a show of solidarity from the Scottish Parliament. (Suzano took place on 13 March, the anniversary of the Dunblane murders.)

The political posturing here after Christchurch is not about security. It's politicians deflecting attention away from their own failures. Sadiq Khan for his disastrous tenure as London mayor; Theresa May for her disastrous and utterly, utterly incompetent Brexit change-of-date shambles.

PS update post-Columbo: our media at last admits, what the public had realised from the off: the Sri Lanka massacre was an Islamist terror attack, "justified" as "retribution for Christchurch." Justification? The Christchurch murderer B** T** is an Australian white supremacist loner - not a member of any terrorist group and certainly not a Catholic. Most of the hundreds murdered in Sri Lanka were dark brown Tamil-ethnic Catholics.

Michael Jackson new allegations:

a "Time's Up" moment on accusing dead celebrities?

(Mar. 2019)  Ten years after Michael Jackson's tragic death, allegations of him molesting children have surfaced this week. There are obvious comparisons with the Jimmy Savile case on ths side of the Atlantic - where literally hundreds of people - men as well as women - have been paid large amounts of compensation on the back of alleged assaults by Savile during his days as a famous TV personality. There was a certain amount of disquiet at the time, that people should be able to get compensation for actions that can never be proved to have actually happened - because by then, Savile was dead. He was never actually convicted in a court of law of any sexual offences. But people who felt some disquiet, didn't speak in public because it wasn't politically correct to do so. Now there's a similar situation (not here, in the USA) with Michael Jackson's accusers. But - hold on! There's one big difference between the Savile and Jackson accusations. Unlike Savile, Michael Jackson DID get the chance to face his accusers in a court of law. In a judicial process in a Santa Barbara court, Jackson was charged with 14 COUNTS of crime. And on 13 June 2005, he was found NOT GUILTY on every single count.

The so-called Westminster 'Child Abuse Inquiry' has already had several cases against dead polticians collapse - in some cases, the politicians involved had actually gone to their deaths BECAUSE OF false allegations. There are plenty of allegations against people still living - they can be taken to court, and the facts of their case proven or disproven in a due process. But accusations against those who have passed away? Should they REALLY be allowed? Could this week's re-surfacing of allegations against the 'Moonwalker' be a watershed moment - a "Time's Up" on making accusations against dead people - who cannot take the stand to face the accusers? Maybe these accusers need to 'let the dead lie in peace' as they say, and move on. And if they're short of money - they could get a job.

Parkfield Community School:

Be thankful for leadership shown by Muslem parents

(Mar. 2019)  Good to hear that at last, Parkfield School headteacher Andrew Moffat (above) has backed down and pulled his controversial 'No Outsiders' lessons on same-sex 'families' and children 'changing gender'. He says he's going to consult ALL parents of the 750 pupils. He'll soon find out that ALL the parents - not just the Moslem mums and dads who apparently made up most of the school-gate demonstrators - are against his proposed lessons. Is this the start of the fight-back against the so-called "LCPTGBH" campaigners, to get their sick, twisted agenda taught in ALL our schools?

Because make no mistake, this is not just an issue at Parkfield Community School, whose headmaster is a self-confessed homosexual. No-one's got any objection to him being head on those grounds, but he must not impose his values on the schools' pupils. The officials controlling our Education system want these perverse values taught in ALL our Primary and Secondary schools - and yes, even in our nurseries! The chair of OfSted, Amanda Spielman (above) has admitted this and supports headteacher Moffat. (With values like this, Spielman has no business working in the Education field at all - let alone as chair of Ofsted. Can't she find a job stacking shelves in a supermarket or something?)

Most terrifying is that our Parliament - instead of backing the UK's parents as you'd expect - has voted by 538 to 21 to SUPPORT the Spielman/Moffat/LGCHQ+ propaganda in primary schools. That means just 3% of our MPs are on the parents' side. Is any further proof needed that Parliament is TOTALLY out of touch with the public? Many believe that grown-ups who go into Primary Schools and nurseries, and tell little boys they might want to change into girls, and tell little girls they might really be little boys, deserve a more unpleasant fate. Many believe that those who abuse our children by filling their minds with these obscene, disgusting ideas, belong in mental hospitals or preferably, in prison - with a leaving-date a very, very long time in the future.

Has the fightback among the country's parents begun, at last? If so, how ironic - seeing how Moslems often get criticised - that it's Moslem parents giving the lead on all our behalf, in the fightback to return our school classes to normality.

Same-sex relation classes in primary schools - your FAQs:

Q. Supporters of these classes argue there might be a child in the school with two mums. What's your answer to this?

A. Tell them the truth - that's in the child's best interests. As with all humans who've ever lived, your mum is the woman in whose tummy you spent the first 9 months of your life - and that's only ONE woman, not two of them! The other woman is mum's friend.

Q. Is that what the teachers should tell these children?

A. YES. Not two mums - mum; and mummy's friend. Simples.

Q. What if a child were to say they had "two dads" ?

A. Same thing. Tell the little boy only one is really their dad, the other is "dad's friend". End of.


Parliament gives itself a 2.7% pay rise ?

You timed that just right guys ...nice one

(Feb. 2019)  Unbelievable that our 650 MPs have just awarded themselves a 2.7% pay rise - well above the inflation index ! What have they done in the past year to merit any salary at all - let alone an increase of £2000 a year? They've made a show of us to the whole world, failing to govern the country and instead exhibited an utter shambles, arguing among themselves about Brexit. Many workers in normal jobs, who have actually achieved something in their work, would love to be able to award themselves a rise. But couldn't the MPs have chosen a more timely moment for this? The many staff who work to keep Parliament running, are getting a much smaller pay-rise. They actually deserve sympathy: Even though Theresa May has had over TWO YEARS to plan for the 29 March leaving date, she literally cancelled their Parliamentary recess with just two weeks' notice. Many of Parliament's workers had half-term week holidays booked with their families - which they've had to cancel and lose.

MP David Lammy's "No more white saviours" rant -

would a black saviour be OK ?

(Feb. 2019)  David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, caused a stir objecting to celeb Stacey Dooley doing a TV charity show in Africa. But all the media - Sky News, BBC, ITV, the lot of them - failed to ask him the most important question: would he be OK if a 'black saviour' went instead?

WE'RE not too frightened to ask . Would Lammy be happy if, instead of Stacey Dooley, the Charity event had sent Idris Elba or Fleur East ? Lammy's justification is that British celebs take 'colonial baggage' wherever they go. But many suspect Lammy's anger is nothing to do with attitudes or opinions, but something more sinister - his real objection to Stacey is that she's got white skin. Lammy needs to understand that many millions, billions, of humans the world over, in every continent (including Africa), are - like Stacey Dooley - born with white skin. It's not a choice these people make - that's the way their genes have coloured them. Skin whiteness isn't some kind of a disease like leprosy.

Lammy is far from being the only racialist in politics - but he's by far the worst in the House of Commons. In 2017 he objected to Martin Moore-Bick as choice to chair the Grenfell fire inquiry. Lammy objected, not on Moore's ability (which would be understandable), but on the grounds that Moore is white; that he's male; and that he's old. Imagine the outcry if an employer refused an application on those grounds: "You've been rejected for this post because of your skin colour, your sex, and your age". The unsuccessful applicant would have grounds for unlawful discrimination under legislation we've had for the past 40 years - perhaps Lammy wasn't aware of this ? But he was speaking in Parliament, using his MP's privilege to say anything without fear of prosecution. Racialists like Lammy have no place in politics at all - let alone as a member of Parliament.

Labour's anti-semitism 'look and feel' :

NO HARM to their electoral prospects

(Feb. 2019)  It's about numbers. When Labour had their landmark win in 1945, many inner-city areas in London, Manchester, Leeds had large Jewish communities, especially in the cloth trade. Labour was careful not to upset these jews because it needed their votes. The Muslim population of Britain in 1945 was negligible. Fast-forward seventy years to 2019. Jews are a significant electoral force in just two constituencies, both in the North-West suburbs of London. By contrast, Muslems now are a major electoral force in at least 23 constituencies: in Lancashire, West Yorkshire especially Bradford; the Midlands and East London. ALL BUT ONE of these seats are held by Labour - they need to hang on to them, and cultivate the Moslem vote, if they want to get back into power. So if the party has a whiff of an anti-semitic 'smell' about them - this does Labour no harm at all among Muslim voters. It's called "Dog-whistle Politics" (because dog whistles can be heard only by dogs, not by other humans). Corbyn isn't stupid, he will never say this openly, but he knows it. He's happy not to take too harsh a line against his MPs who display anti-Jewish sentiment.


Your Anti-semitism FAQs:

Q. Isn't Jeremy Corbyn putting 'Party before Country' by taking this attitude to anti-semitism in his party?

A. Yes. But isn't that what all the party leaders at Westminster do all the time - that's why they constantly come out with phrases like "We need to keep our party united on this one!"

At last, an FGM conviction - but Tories have the wrong approach

(Feb. 2019)  At long last - more than 30 years after this practice was first brought to Britain, and 20 years since it was made a crime - we've got an FGM conviction. The judge told the perpetrator (a woman) to expect a prison sentence. The Tory minister concerned was soon crowing on social media 'a prison sentence will send a message to other perpetrators - Don't do this !'. Unfortunately, it's not going to send much of a message. For a punishment to deter others, the offender has to be identified. Being 'named and shamed' on conviction, getting their face shown - is key to deterring to others in the community. In Tory Britain, these serious offenders are allowed to remain anonymous. What happened to our centuries-old tradition of open justice - 'for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done?'. MAINSTREAM would end this anonymity for FGM offenders. The victims' identities would be protected by not revealing their relationship to the man or woman who did the 'cutting' - so we don't know whether the offender mutilated their own daughter, or somebody else's daughter. And to make an even stronger deterrent against others who may be thinking of committing this offence - why not automatic repatriation back home, for the offender on conviction, with no appeal? If they've obtained UK citizenship, this could be revoked, and they revert to their former nationality, which would make repatriation easier for legal reasons. This would be a real deterrent. Others tempted to mutilate a little girl - but who also want to make new lives here in the UK - would think twice; and decide not to do it, but instead to fit in and conform to OUR values, stay here, and be happy. No crime. No terrified, sobbing victim. Sorted.

Herts: a dangerous place to voice your opinion

(Feb 2019)  We hear that back in December, a 38-year-old nursing mother, Kate Scottow (above) was at home in Hitchin with the baby and her other child; when the police came round and arrested her. Not one - THREE policemen stormed in; they drove Mrs Scottow to the police station, took her DNA and fingerprints; and locked her in a cell for seven hours. They also confiscated her phone and laptop (and still won't give them back.) Mrs Scottow has not been charged with an offence.

Was she in the frame for some serious crime? An accomplice to the Hatton Garden heist, maybe? Or making a terrorist bomb? No, Kate Scottow's "crime" was just expressing her opinion - about Transgender surgery - on Social Media. An opinion shared by probably 99.99% of the world's population. It's disgusting enough that Free Speech is now a crime under UK law. What's worse is the way Hertfordshire Police dealt with the "offence". Couldn't they have just asked Mrs Scottow to come to the Police Station at a time convenient for her, for an interview? The Stalinist arrest in front of the family - is this the national guideline police response? There's plenty of real crime in Hertfordshire to keep their police occupied - burglaries, car crime, sex offences, knife crime, trafficking. There was no operational requirement for sending THREE officers in to Mrs Scottow's living room to arrest her, or for taking her DNA. So why was it done? This is the Tory government's threatening message to anyone who speaks their mind on social media: "say only what's politically correct - or this will happen to you". We must repeal the dreadful laws which have made free speech a "crime". And as for Herts Police, we should identify, and name and shame the senior officer who authorised this arrest - then sack him or her. Tell them there's a job vacancy that would suit them perfectly: in the North Korean police force.

Did you know the police can now instead of charging, "release" somebody "under investigation" - and keep their phone and laptop - for 50 years - FOR EVER if they want. There's no time limit - thanks to a Tory change to the Bail Act. Mainstream would end this slide towards a police state, and set a maximum of a month after an arrest, for someone to be either charged or released with no conditions.

'Detainment' - appropriate for UK viewing?

(Jan. 2019)  A film called 'Detainment' about Jamie Bulger's two killers, made by someone called Vincent Lambe (above), has unbelievably been nominated for an Oscar. It's bad enough that someone would even want to make this movie in the first place - utterly appalling that it gets recommended for an Oscar, which is supposed to be an award for quality films. This movie glorifies the two killers; making them almost into heroes, deserving sympathy. Get real: we're not talking about some murder case from back in Tudor or Victorian times. This is a recent, shocking, terrible crime. The victim's parents are still alive and as you would expect, very upset. Lambe didn't even have the courtesy to tell the murdered boy's parents that he was making the film. What a disgusting little sh*t this person is! It's not just the lack of respect for Jamie Bulger's family, and the affront to common decency. If this film is allowed to be shown - what about the effect on the two killers, both now living under false names? Seeing themselves as heroes, unsjustly treated by the law. Let's not forget these lads knew perfectly well what they did was evil - they were above the age of criminal responsibility. If you make a child pornography movie - would that get recommended for an Oscar? No of course not, and it would be refused a screening certificate. 'Detainment' is the same, the government has a DUTY to refuse any certificate for this film - whether or not it gets an Oscar - to ever be shown in the UK.


It's known as "Throwing the book at you"

(Jan. 2019)  Big Shock. A high-profile politician faces multiple accusations from an anonymous accuser. Ought we do read anything into the number of charges brought? MAINSTREAM accepts that it is ILLEGAL to comment on any specific court case which is live. But people ARE allowed to discuss relevant general points of law. In the past, if police felt there was evidence for multiple commissions of the same offence, they would press charges for one or two 'sample' offences. The idea was, this achieves the same justice for the victim, because one prison term has the same effect as several prison terms served concurrently. Going ahead with a selected sample of charges makes the trial come to court faster, and take less time. Since the Criminal Compensation scheme started a new factor has come into play. This is because if an anonymous accuser were to claim compensation after a conviction, they would get a separate compensation amount for each individual occurence of the offence. So courts now need to be very, very careful to ensure that accusers who allege multiple repetitions of the same offence, only have justice in mind - not the aim of maximising compensation payouts.


Male harrassment of females at work: when is this a CRIME? Mainstream would like YOUR opinion on this, please take a minute to do our short  Citizen Survey

Kevin Spacey "offences" would be LEGAL in Britain !

(Jan. 2019) Facing the first of several allegations (which the actor denies) in a US court, it's interesting to note this (alleged) offence would have been quite legal over here. Thanks to our 2001 "Blair's Law", which legalised homesexual acts by men into boys. MAINSTREAM policy is for the instant repeal of Blair's Law - and a further raft of long-overdue legal reforms which we need, to get our society back to normal. MAINSTREAM is the only party to make this reform a priority.

Piracy in the skies and at sea:

the week our government stopped governing

(Dec 2018) As soon as the criminal drone threat to Gatwick airport had closed the airport down - our government had a responsibility to act quickly and decisively, to counter the threat (whether criminal or terrorist) and get the UK's second busiest airport back to normal. The choice of our number one holiday airport, at the height of the Christmas getaway, pointed to an eco-terrorist rather than a Middle-Eastern terrorist. This twat must also be someone who hates families and children. At every level the authorities cocked this up - refusing to authorise a shoot-down in the first few hours; finally announcing to the world - after 36 hours - that they would use guns, thus tipping the drone pilot(s) off to stop flying. Then we have Jason Tingley from Sussex police announcing "there may not have been any drones". The police said this was just 'miscommunication' - hold on, this wasn't some junior PCSO in the force - this is the Chief Superintendent in charge of the Drones investigation, saying the drones were probably all in the imagination (rather like hate-crimes) . How can this knobhead still be in a job?

Sussex Police's Jason Tingley - how is he still in a job?

The government could have and should have fixed the drones in the first few hours. They reckon 140,000 passengers' holidays were ruined by the Gatwick shambles. Most of these 140,000 are UK citizens - and they won't be voting Tory in the next election, whenever that comes.

In the English Channel migrants seized control of a large merchant ship and forced it to sail round in circles till their demands were met. This could have caused a major maritime disaster in the world's most crowded waters. This is piracy, no different from pirates in Somalia or the old-day pirates in the Caribbean. The ship's crew would have been justified in pushing the four of them into the sea - but since UK special forces captured them alive - they should have been charged with piracy and extortion. Instead our hapless 'government' charges them with Affray. "Affray" is about the most lenient crime there is - what people get charged with if they're in a drunken brawl, but don't actually injure anyone. Under Theresa May we've got a 'government' that doesn't actually DO any governing. Roll on the day when we get ourselves a REAL government. That day can't come too soon.

Italy spending budget: Brussels puts the jackboot in

(Nov 2018) Italy's democratically-elected government planned an anti-austerity budget of spending to help the elderly and unemployed. The EU politburo wasn't having any of that - they waited till the rest of Europe was occupied with Brexit - then put the jackboot in & forced Renzi's government to backtrack and cut their spending. Brussels doesn't do democracy.

A break from Brexit?

When Parliament has time for something else -

trust the Tories to get their priorities right!

(Nov 2018) With Brexit taking up all the Parliamentary bandwidth - it's dificult to find time for MPs to talk about anything else - resulting in important issues being left in the Inbox for months on end. So, nice to see, when the Tories found time for debates on a couple of non-Brexit issues during 2018 - thay got their priorities right. They found time for several hours debate on two vitally important issues for the country. What were they? A debate on knife-crime maybe? As the streets of London and other cities flow every night with the blood of our young men, stabbed to death? On scooter muggings - happening hundreds of times every day, out of control? Maybe car-jacking crime, including taking them from young mothers with their babies in the car? Did we get any debate on the thousands of our citizens sleeping rough on the streets tonight? Was there a debate on the Asian grooming gangs in Northern cities? On the drugs supply epidemic, wrecking communities and fuelling other crime? NONE of these. This year there's been no parliamentary time allocated to any of the above. The most urgent non-Brexit issues for Parliament ? 'Upskirting' and 'Self-defining'. May's Tories created a new specific offence 'Upskirting' - even though this was covered already be legislation on voyerism and invasion of privacy. There's 195 countries on the planet - none of the other 194 have a specific law against 'Upskirting'. Did it never occur to Theresa May, that there might be a reason for this ? 'Self-defining' - MPs spent hours on proposals to amend existing Gender laws , to let mentally-unbalanced young men and boys, suddenly decide that officially, they're not males - they're females! With all the urgent and critical problems this country's got at the moment - nobody in the world should even be thinking about such absurd and disgusting subjects - let alone, MPs wasting hours of Parliamentary time, talking about them and passing legislation. YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP.


Vitally-important legislation debates - your FAQs:
Q.  Surely it's natural that a government led by a woman Prime Minister, should prioritize the 'Upskirting' law, as this is to protect women?
A. . Yes true, although this bizarre piece of legislation doesn't actually mention women! It defines the crime as 'taking a photo up a person's skirt, without their permission.' It's a crime to do it to men, as well as women.
Q. . Hold on - men don't wear skirts. Is this a misprint and they meant to say trousers ?
A. . Not a misprint. All our equality, inclusion and diversity laws, say every new law has to treat both sexes equally.
Q. Could it be so as not to offend Transgenders - they wear women's clothes ?
A. Yep you're right, that's it, to prevent taking 'upskirt' photos on a 'transgender man', the ones some people call 'Tranny boys'
Q. Might inquisitive people want to take upskirt photos , to check if these men have already had their.......
A.  STOP. Don't go there. END THIS CONVERSATION NOW - before we all puke.


For once an MP acts like a normal human being. And what happens?

The politically correct Neopuritan establishment tear him to pieces.

  (Nov 2018)  Clive Lewis, Labour MP for Norwich South, is one of the few MPs who had a normal job before entering Parliament. He wasn't a political party researcher; he wasn't a Human Rights lawyer; even better, he wasn't a lawyer at all. He was a soldier. A few weeks ago, listening to a government MP speaking he reacted by showing his opinion. Not in the accepted way of the Westminster establishment (by shouting 'Hear Hear', shouting 'Order', banging the seat with your fist, or falling asleep) - but in the way any normal person would, when a political opponent shoots themselves in the foot. You feel they're comitting political suicide - so you point a pretend gun in your mouth. That's it. All the media and political neopuritan establishment without exception, condemned him utterly as 'not politically correct'. Yet it's people of his non-legal background, that are precisely who we need MORE of in Parliament. Is it surprising so few young people are interested in politics as a career? Next time they have a "Parliament Jobs Fair", to get young people in, they need a couple of advisory notices:

Tories in Turmoil:

Theresa May puts a burqa on, in a show of opposition to Boris Johnson

"It's not our job to tell women what to wear".

(Aug 2018) In this photo taken near the Houses of Parliament, three very different MPs made the incredibly brave decision to wear a burqa in public, for just five minutes. Theresa May in the middle doesn't look too happy - but big smiles from her two political opponents, Labour's Jess Phillips on the left, and Naz Shah (right). All three women agreed to be photographed in support of Women's Rights to wear burkas, and united in their opposition against Boris Johnson's burka comments.

May asked that the photo be widely shared on social media "women are scared to leave home in burqas because of Boris Johnson. These women need to see their elected representatives in burqas, we can be, like, role models for them". How do YOU feel? Do YOU approve of the burqa as suitable attire for women and girls? Would you have the courage to 'go burqa' (or as Boris would put it, 'go letterbox') - just for a day? Or even a few minutes like Theresa May? Let us know, join the conversation

Q.   Would Mainstream ban the burqa ?
A.  NO an outright ban is out of the question. We only need restrictions in a few specific areas, where there are security or child-welfare issues. These rules must cover ALL forms of masking.
Are Burqas about RACE?