www.mainstream.org.uk
Latest News Views

 

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:

is the hysteria from politicians over here justified?

(Mar. 2019)  The massacre of Muslim 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 these changes 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 it could never happen in New Zealand?

True there are guns here - 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 both 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.)

No, the political pronouncements here after Christchurch aren't 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.

 


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 deceased 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 LCPTGBH Nazis plans, 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?)

Many believe that adults who want to go in to Primary Schools and nurseries, telling little boys they might want to change into girls, and telling 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 get so much stick in the media and from politicians - that it's Moslem parents giving the lead on all our behalf, in the fightback to return our school classes to normality.


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, all of them - failed to ask him the most important question: would he be OK if a 'black saviour' went instead?

MAINSTREAM isn't afraid to ask him this . Would he be happy if, instead of Stacey Dooley, the Charity event's celeb for Africa was say, 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 most racist politician in our political life - but he's by far the worst one 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 reasonable), but on the grounds that Moore is white; that he's a 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, because of your sex, and because of 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 neeed their votes. The Muslim population of Britain in 1945 was a big fat zero.

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). Jeremy 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.


'Detainment' - not 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', the ones they 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 of course not. But we do need some restrictions in specific places, where there are security or child-welfare issues. These rules must cover ALL forms of masking, not just burkas.