www.mainstream.org.uk
Our News Comment of the Day ....  a past timeline

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

(10 May 2021)   Is voter fraud commonplace? The Electoral Commission says it's very rare. That simply means that only a few fraudulent voters were caught,  not that the offence is rare. The easiest type of voting fraud is to use another person's poll card (as long as they're the same sex), and vote in person at their polling station - impersonation. There could be hundreds of people doing this; there could be thousands; there could be none. We don't know, because we don't do ANY checks for impersonation in this country. An easy check would be for a random sample (say one in a hundred voters), you photograph them holding their poll card (before they vote). Then at a later date, you visit the address on the poll card and confirm that (a) the photo matches the actual person and (b) this person did vote at the time and place they were supposed to have done. This will catch impersonaters and enable prosecution - but of course they've already cast their vote and nothing can be done about that.

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

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


Must our establishment figures ALWAYS pander to the Woke Nazis?  

  Two London churches make the news this week

  (6  April 2021).  Keir Starmer has just apologised - for visiting a Christian church in North London. Why? Because the so-called LGCHQ+ faction took a dislike to this church, its Christian congregation (many of them Africans) agree with the normally-accepted view throughout the world, and by all religions, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Like the original Nazis or the STASI in East Germany,  The LTSBQ+ politburo have their own Gestapo which watches our politicians and celebrities 24/7. Everything they do, every tweet they make or have made in the past, is monitored and recorded in their notebooks for "later action".  The Labour leader could have shown a bit of courage - it's called leadership  -  and ignored their "Apologise!" dictat.  Instead, making his craven "apology" where none was called for, he's just succeded in insulting the church and their Christian worshippers. He's managed to upset a large part of London's electorate  - just prior to the Local Elections. Dooooh!!

  Starmer is a former lawyer - he should know that religious beliefs are a protected characteristic under Labour's own Equality Act.  It's not just Starmer though, it's all our politicians and celebs who make these grovelling apologies. Do they always HAVE to be so quick to drop to their knees, so utterly servile, to make such gushing admissions of guilt and shame? Like subjects of some medieval ruler, they prostrate themselves, pleading forgiveness for the great "hurt" they caused. Then crawl away backwards - heads down, tongues to the floor, not daring to look up or turn their backs to their master.    

    By coincidence also in London, another church is in the news this week, involving a show of disrespect for churches. The politically-correct Metropolitan police stormed in to the Good Friday service at a Polish Catholic church. An appalling and deeply offensive incursion into a church service, on one of the most sacred days of the year - something we haven't seen in this country, literally, since the 17th century. Imagine the uproar in the media, if these same police had stormed into a mosque on a Moslem holy day? 


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

(30 March 2021)   Since thousands of allegations of sex assaults involving schoolchildren surfaced on a website, there's been uproar. MPs, the media, Ofsted, Children's charities, all calling for blood; all blaming the schools. Hold on!  Our teachers' job is to teach. In the last few years we've already foisted enough non-teaching obligations on them. Filling forms in and reporting to the police, in a whole plethora of situations: They see bruises on children's legs and arms (they are obliged to look for them);  they hear five-year-olds using harmless racial insults in the playground. They're required to ask children what they had for breakfast in case their family isn't feeding them properly. If an Asian girl's going to Pakistan in the school hols, they must inform the police "in case she gets married". We're forcing our teachers to be social workers, doctors, nurses, dieticians, and police informers. It's a wonder they have time to do any teaching!

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

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

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


Greens to go for power -  without the men's votes!

 

(11 March 2021)   For the Green Party, 2021 is looking to be a fruitful year. The Greater London and Council elections, plus devolved elections in Scotland and Wales, will be  more favourable for electing Greens than Westminster. Add to this, the topical Climate change movement - the Greens should be on the verge of a record vote, and a record number of candidates elected.  So when the Green parliamentary spokeswoman in the Lords, Baroness Jenny Jones,  announced a new Green initiative today - what was it?  Something for the environment maybe?   A new Carbon tax?  No.  Baroness Jones wants an immediate 6pm curfew for all males in the country. Just when all of us - men and women - are getting ready for the end of a 12-month lockdown - looking forward to being allowed out, after being forced to stay  home for a year. Is this now official Green policy?  Their  leadership hasn't admonished Jones so we can assume it is.

     Do the Greens actually WANT to win seats?  They've just managed to get on the wrong side of half the population.  They obviously believe they can win power, on the female vote alone - a risky assumption, in Mainstream's opinion. They're going to set the party back 50 years, to being a fringe party like it used to be, with "monster raving loony" style policies. Apart from which the male curfew would be illegal under present discrimination law. Many years ago there used to be "women only" coaches on the railways. Recently an attempt was made to resurrect these, as a way to protect women travelling by rail. This was found to be illegal on exactly the same grounds of sexual discrmination. Interestingly, some women's groups also objected to the idea, they said it was infantilising to women, treating them like children, making it seem women were unable to cope with life unless they were in a man-free space.


They're at it again! 

Our millionaire celebrities lecture African countries on their internal affairs

   

(1  March 2021)   British rule no longer applies in Ghana. Ghana's an independent country, and has been for the past 63 years. (Prior to colonisation it was also independent, part of a country called Ashanti with different borders). Ghana's policies are now made by their own people, without having to be told what to do by outsiders any more. Why is it that some people in this country, find that so hard to accept?  Why after all these years, do they still tell African people "do as you're told, we know what's best for you" ?  There's a word for these people -  "neo-colonialists".

Like Naomi Campbell and Idris Elba.  This pair are ordering the Ghanaian government to change their own internal policies, in regard to homosexuals. Ghana's policies in this regard are overwhelmingly accepted by their own people; as well as by leaders of all the major religions in their country. But as with all celebs, their deep pockets give them loud voices - and that gives them the right to overrule what Ghana's own population of 32 million want. An old story - the rich and powerful Few, shouting down the not-so-rich Many.  (At least Elba can claim a connection with Ghana - one of his parents is Ghanaian. Naomi's roots are not in any African country, but in the Caribbean.)  

 


US Capitol siege chaos - could it happen here?  

(7 Jan  2021)   A noisy mob of thousands surround the seat of government to intimidate lawmakers; Politicians spending millions on hot-shot lawyers,  in endless legal actions - all to try and overturn the result of a national democratic vote. Couldn't happen here, could it?   Well guess what, it  HAS happened here.

   Have we forgotten the events following the June 2016 People's Vote for Brexit ?   Three years of street protests, endless legal challenges via obscure legal loopholes. Among those responsible, Gina Miller (above), and Jolyon Maugham  - remember him? (Likes nothing better than to club a fox before breakfast on his country estate.)  As in Washington this week, those trying to overturn the election result dug out the conspiracy theories: Brexit was driven by a right-wing elite, not by ordinary people; the Brexit vote was invalid because its proponents had painted lies on the side of their bus; the Brexit vote must be reversed because voters hadn't understood what they were voting for; and so on.   Don't forget - whether from the left or the right of the spectrum, trying to overturn a democratic People's Vote erodes democracy itself.

   The scenes from the US Capitol which shocked and appalled the world, would never have happened if there'd just been a proper security cordon in place. And maybe it's hypocritical of us to jump in and condemn America - there are anti-democratic forces here as well.


Does the BBC think our law still rules in the Caribbean?

(27 Dec  2020)   Feisty broadcaster Sara Pascoe goes to Cuba for the first of a new reality series, trying out  obscure occupations in far-off places. Enjoyable watching. When it comes to climbing a coconut tree,  Sara's obviously keen to try the local technique, using a short rope round the tree-trunk: the producers (the BBC) say NO. They quote UK Health and Safety laws, and force her to use a harness and safety rope.

   Hello!  Incredibly, the BBC seems to believe that our British laws also apply in Cuba. Our laws have never applied in Cuba, it's never been a British colony (well, we did occupy Havana for one week in 1762). The law in force in Cuba today is local Cuban law; visitors to the island, whether tourists or expatriate employees, must comply with it. 

    Sadly, the BBC's attitude is  the latest example of the UK establishment's patronising, colonialist view of the Third World. This  ranges from pressure-groups here, ordering African and Asian countries to change their laws to align with "Western" ideas; to politicians here literally trying to "enforce" UK laws in Vietnam, the Phillipines and Haiti, to name a few. Their motives may be well-meaning - that doesn't make it right.     

   Mainstream wants total respect for other countries' jurisdictions - and especially Third-World countries - set out in our constitution. The days when Britain ruled two thirds of the world, are long gone. It's the 21st century - time we accepted that our UK laws cease to apply, as soon as we step off our small island.


No, Eddie - you'll NEVER use THESE pronouns....

(21 Dec  2020)  Sorry to disappoint celebrity comedian Eddie Izzard - but the only pronouns he's ever going to use, all his life, to refer to himself are "I" and "Me" - the first-person pronouns.   That's because "She" and "Her" are third-person pronouns, so are used only by other people when they refer to Izzard. What he's trying to say, is not what pronouns HE'S going to use - he's telling all the rest of us, what pronouns WE have to use, from now on, when we talk or write about him.

    Does Izzard (or anyone else) actually have the right to COMMAND everybody in the world, to refer to them by a specific set of pronouns?  NO, of course not. The rest of us are allowed to refer to him, in whatever way we feel like. He needs to deal with it. End of.

   Are there no depths to which these people won't stoop?  Not content with forcing us to change the English definitions of "marriage,"  "woman", etc  - now they want us to change even the grammar of our beautiful and historic language - just to suit the warped agenda of this tiny LTSBQ+ minority.


 


Colston replacement statue: Sorted!

 Local hero scientist fits the bill perfectly

              

(22 Oct 2020)  In Bristol there's loads of arguments going on, about replacing the torn-down statue of Edward Colston.  Who should it be?  The two criteria for getting a statue erected in this country are, firstly that the person has achieved greatness in some field - science, medicine, the military, exploration, whatever.  Secondly, they've already passed away (so we can judge their entire life objectively).  Many names have been suggested for a replacement statue - but at least half the names suggested, fail at the second hurdle because they are people still very much alive. Sorry!

    Today, by coincidence, the ideal candidate has come to light: Bristol scientist Michael Drake.  The world is celebrating the successful NASA Osiris-Rex mission, whose spacecraft has just recovered rocks from an asteroid. This mission was conceived by a British scientist, Bristol-born Michael Drake, who sadly died in 2011 before seeing the fruits of his vision come to pass. Drake fulfills both the main requirements; and he's a local lad - the perfect candidate for a new statue. He ticks all the boxes. Drake was quiet, hard working, self-effacing. He didn't look for the limelight - a good role model for the younger generation to copy, in contrast to so many celebs who keep shouting out how fantastic they are and take selfies all the time.  

 


Sorry, your island's coastline is NOT a Human Right

David Kabua ordering Western governments to stop the Pacific Ocean rising,
is no different from King Canute ordering the tide to stay out

(21 Sept 2020) The President of the low-lying Marshall Islands in the Pacific, speaking at the UN claims keeping his island's coastline intact is a "human right". David Kabua is telling Britain and other industrialised countries, to pay compensation and to cut carbon emissions more urgently, to stop the Pacific Ocean rising any higher and flooding on to his islands. The Pacific Ocean covers one third of the planet. If it decides to rise a metre higher (or whatever) - there is no possible human intervention that's going to make the slightest difference; certainly not on any timescale within our lifetime. The forces involved at such a macro level are beyond man's power to control. Just like King Canute did when he commanded the tide to stop coming in, Kabua ordering that his island coastline stays intact is completely and utterly futile, against the forces of nature.

Coastlines constantly change all over the world. East Anglia is slowly eroding into the North Sea - and getting smaller. Regularly, people with homes by the sea have to leave and watch their houses drop off the cliff edge, they don't whine that they've got a "Human Right" to keep living there.

It would be more constructive for Pres. Kabua to start planning the relocation of his people to some alternative location on higher ground. There's plenty of precedent for the re-homing of island populations, when they are rendered uninhabitable by the forces of nature. In 1961 the entire population of Tristan da Cunha was evacuated and re-homed. In 1997, most of Montserrat's people were taken off and re-homed; both of these after volcanic eruptions.

  Of course, Mr. Kabua's ideas are fuelled by conspiracy theorists who teach that the Industrial Revolution (which started in Britain, France and Germany) was not a fantastic achievement (it was) - but some kind of international crime like the Holocaust, and we have to now make "reparations" to the Third World.


Companies use Covid-19 as cover to break the law -

Boris Johnson's Tories turn a blind eye

(2 Sept 2020) Businesses are using the pandemic as a cover, to get out of their contractual obligations - in some cases, involving serious breaches of financial law. In effect, they're stealing from their customers. Mainstream is aware this is widespread - here's two examples:

Uber Eats has partnered with MacDonalds, delivering fast food orders to people's doors. Well - the doorsteps, not the actual doors. Their drivers aren't allowed to wait while you check what's is in the paper bag - the second you open the door, they're off! If you call them back to wait a sec while you check - they refuse "Not allowed to wait - Covid !".

That's fine - if they deliver the correct order. Sometimes they don't. When this happens, you have the evidence in print - the delivery note that came with the food. You're supposed to phone up, or e-mail, within four hours of the food arriving. Uber Eats have devised a crafty way to get out of refunding the customer - they don't answer their phone, or e-mails, till the four hours has passed. Then when you finally get through, it's "Sorry! You're too late". You can prove digitally, that you emailed straight away - Uber Eats don't care. You won't get a refund. They sent you the wrong meal - they keep your money .

Now, something more serious. Sending money to family in the Third World has got more difficult in the pandemic - cowboy companies have stepped in. One of these is Sheffield Ventures - a partnership with a Spanish business called EnvioDinero. Our tough money-laundering regulations mean money-sending services have to make checks on the sender's identity. Only when you satisfy their checks, will they make the cash transfer abroad. The correct way to do this (as Western Union does) - is the bank does the security check first, then if you pass the checks, they take your payment.

Sheffield Ventures takes your money first. Then they hold your payment, while they go through verifications including sending a photo of your passport; and making a selfie video on your phone, which must be done in a fiendishly complicated way. You get one chance a day to get it right - if they don't like it, you have to try again next day. They take up to two weeks to verify the your identity - holding your payment all the while. Then, if you fail the verification - they refund your payment, MINUS a "foreign exchange commission" of about 6%. What this company is doing is illegal - a blatant breach of banking laws.

Is our "government" not aware this is happening? Or is it they just don't care?


Bristol Police CLOSE the Clifton Bridge -

then put the blame on Extinction Rebellion !

(28 August 2020) Police in Bristol have closed the iconic Clifton suspension bridge after "Extinction Rebellion" protestors earlier blocked the roadway. This bridge is used by vehicles but is also a major thoroughfare for walkers and cyclists - especially important in the Covid pandemic. You have to wonder: It's the police's job to uphold the law and keep this roadway open. Instead, they've caved in to fear of what the protestors might do - and shut the bridge. XR's ultimate aim was closing the bridge - Bristol Police have acheived that aim for them, instead of siding with the local community. They should have kept this bridge open - with a 24-hour police presence, to prevent any demonstrators entering; and with instructions to deal firmly and forcibly, with any who do. Surely they have enough resources to do that, for just one weekend?

Bridge protests, your FAQs:

Q. If protestors lock themselves to the bridge, it's impossible to remove them quickly, surely the police have no choice except to close the road.?

A. Not true, the police could keep a cutting-unit on standby, then remove the demonstrators very quickly with oxy-acetyline cutting equipment.

Q. Surely then people could get hurt?

A. No the only people to get hurt would be the protestors themselves, they'd get burn injuries on their ankles and wrists. The way around that problem is to give them a local anasthetic, like in the dentist's, they wouldn't feel any pain until later on after they have been removed from the bridge, and arrested.


CHRISTCHURCH MASSACRE SENTENCE

all about one man's crucial message to the world ...

Cameron Mander

(28 August 2020) This day in Christchurch High Court, New Zealand, will go down in history as being about one man.

NOT the twat who murdered 51 children, women and men in March 2019. But the judge, Cameron Mander, for imposing a whole-life sentence. Mander reminded us what our own politicians keep forgetting: Sentencing is ONLY about the crime's victims - NEVER about the offender. Prison is NOT about "reforming" offenders; making them "a better person". Prison is for deterring others from crime; for protecting the public from the offender; and most of all, it's about retribution: society's retribution against evil people. Terrible crimes warrant a terrible retribution. That means a very, very long prison term.

New Zealand's been lucky - this was their first ever terrorist massacre. (In Britain we've had nine of them in modern times - four done by Irish Nationalists, five by Islamic jihadists.)

Yet unbelievably, over here, many in our political and media establishment want to close our prisons down! At least twenty-five of our MPs hold these outdated views - even a party leader, newly-elected Ed Davey of the Liberals. These knobheads want to let Hashem Abedi, one of the Ariana Grande concert murderers, back out of jail - and give him instead, a community sentence and a tag round his ankle. And what about "Black Lives Matter", who also want prisons abolished? Have they got a branch in New Zealand? Possibly not, it's a long way from America, but if they do, presumably they'll modify their demands now to "close all the NZ prisons - except Paremoremo". (That's the high-security prison in Auckland where the Christchurch muderer is beginning his long stay-cation.)


Lib Dems new leader wants to STOP imprisoning knifers.

A worrying sign of things to come?

(27 August 2020) The Liberal Democrats may not have much of a profile with the public. Most people probably don't know they've just had a leadership election. Ed Davey, MP, was elected. This man on 15 October 2018, made a keynote policy speech on knife-crime, calling for an end to sending knife-carriers to prison, because "it hasn't stopped the knifings. Although "6,700 knifers were locked up", he stated, "fatal stabbings were up 43% and knife robbings up 67%".

What planet is this man on? Does he think the stabbings were done by the lads in prison? How can you stab somebody from inside a prison? Reach out through the bars and wait for a victim to walk past your window? Does this knobhead not understand, the men who did the knifings were the ones who DIDN'T go to prison - the other 13,400 offenders who were LET OFF prison, and instead got cautions, community work, suspended sentences or fines. (Yes - in 2017-18, some 21,000 people were arrested for knife-crime. Only 36% of them got locked up). Governments for the past 25 years - both Labour and Tory - told us they'd made prison mandatory for all knifers. They did no such thing - they left it to the discretion of judges and magistrates. Mandatory has to mean what it says - mandatory: The judge cannot choose a different option.

OK the Lib Dems have only got ten MPs - it's still scary that the leader of one of our major Parliamentary parties, supports a policy that spits in the face of all the thousands of knife victims' families.


"NO CHARGES" AFTER TUBE WORKER DEATH

Did the police investigate the WRONG CRIME ?

(7 August 2020) Tube ticket-office worker Belly Mujinga (above) died of Coronavirus on 5 April 2020. She died 17 days after being spat at by a customer, who'd verbally abused her and shouted that he had Covid-19. The police, after three months of investigation and talks with the CPS, have just announced there's "no evidence to support any charges that the spitting customer had caused her death - because this man tested Covid-negative". Hold on - why were the police even investigating such a ridiculous idea in the first place? Even supposing this man had the virus - no court of law anywhere in the world, could conclude that he was the individual responsible for infecting her. Thousands of people get infected every single day - not from being spat at. If the Covid transmission route was that simple, the pandemic would have been ended months ago. They're catching it from breathing the same air as an already-infected person.

Ms Mujinga's job, a key worker in London Underground, was a high-risk role given the huge numbers of people in close contact with her; back in March when almost nobody was wearing masks. She could have caught the virus from any one of thousands of customers or staff, and may have already been infected before the spitting assault..

It was precisely her vulnerability at work, that made spitting at her, and shouting "I've got Covid", such a disgusting and indefensible act. Spitting is a crime of assault; then telling the victim you're going to infect them is also a clear breach of the Coronavirus emergency measures. This incident didn't suddenly become a crime scene when Ms Mujinga died; it was already a crime on 21 March, when she was assaulted, long before she took ill. Why weren't the police notified - by her trade union or by London Transport - immediately? If that had been done, the police could have started the investigation, and downloaded the necessary CCTV images, back in March; instead of waiting till the 11th of May, when this assault was eventually reported. The inexcusable eight-week delay caused crucial evidence to be lost.

Now the police aren't going to charge "Spitting Man". MAINSTREAM wants to know - why can't the police make public their CCTV images? If we can't "Name and Shame" this disgusting person, at least we can "Frame and Shame" him.


THE CROC MAKING RIPPLES IN THE MEDIA POND 

 

(15 July 2020)    This amusing cartoon appeared in the Morning Star earlier this year.  Drawn by their cartoonist Stella Perrett, it visits the thorny subject of men self-certifying as women, so they can infiltrate women-only swimming pools. Some of these "Transformers" were offended and complained to the paper. Incredibly, the Morning Star management, instead of standing by their cartoonist, APOLOGISED to these snowflakes - then, worse, terminated Ms Perrett's contract on the spot, and incredibly, reported her to the police for drawing the cartoon (which they themselves had published)!  What for?

   No crime of any sort has been committed. But the police put Ms Perrett's name on file for a "Non-crime hate incident". It wasn't a crime - but it might become a crime in the future, after they investigate! This leaves the unfortunate cartoonist in a limbo, not knowing whether she's committed an offence, or if and when she might get charged.

    How did our police get such dracomian powers to do this?  They got them from the Tory government. This, and the similar "Released Under Investigation" category, where people are arrested, the police search their house and take all their phones and computers, and then make them wait months, or years, before any decision to charge them or not. 

   A MAINSTREAM government would make it a DAY ONE PRIORITY to abolish these disgusting, draconian police powers which the Tories gave them. If no crime's been committed - no action is taken against anybody. If the police and CPS believe a crime HAS been committed - you charge them within 24 hours of the arrest, and release them on bail.


SISTERS IN THE PARK MURDERS

Why are the two "selfie photos" detectives still in a job ?

(1 July 2020) You've probably never heard of Omega Mwaikambo. He was walking near his home on 14 June 2017; while passing a burning building, he saw a dead body on the ground. On an impulse without thinking, he took some photos on his phone; and sent them to a friend. He had no idea this was a criminal offence. Of course, ignorance of the law is never an excuse. And of course, the burning building was Grenfell Tower. The Police were on to Mwaikambo like a ton of bricks; within hours he was arrested. He got three months in prison.

Mwaikambo took his photos merely as newsworthy images; he wasn't making fun of the dead man; he didn't take a "selfie". Contrast the events after the "Sisters in the Park" murders in Edgware. The two Met officers sent to investigate, take and share online a "selfie" of themselves beside the two bodies - obviously a scene of appalling carnage. You couldn't imagine anything more disrespectful to the deceased, and more hurtful to their family. These weren't members of the public, passing by: they were policemen supposed to be upholding the law.

What happened to them? No charges, just bailed "for investigation at a later date pending further enquiries". We know what that means - the police investigating their own. We hear nothing for a year. Then it will be "two police officers have been strongly disciplined and moved to other duties". They won't be identified. Whitewash.

Why do we need to have "further enquiries" ? We already know what happened; we've got the evidence. This has no bearing on the murder trial, we don't have to wait till that's over.

MAINSTREAM wants these two Met police "officers" to be named, and shamed; and SACKED from the force. This needs to be done, not next month, not next week, TODAY. Under Police chief Cressida Dick, the Met force has had a terrible last few years; becoming a laughing stock in the UK policing community. Here's a chance for Dick to start making amends.


MURDER TRIAL BEGINS

on one-year anniversary of fatal Croydon stabbings

(29 June 2020) A sad anniversary for Kelly Mary Fauvrelle's family. A year ago today, she was stabbed to death in her home; her baby boy, still inside her womb, was fatally stabbed at the same time and died a week after his mum. The trial of her alleged murderer begins today.

In Court 1 of the Old Bailey, Aaron McKenzie is due to appear on three charges: The murder of Kelly Mary; the manslaughter of her baby boy Riley; and possession of a knife. (Strange making the trial date, the anniversary of the murders - a bit insensitive to the family's feelings?) Another odd thing, there seems to be no mention of today's trial start in the establishment media - press and TV. Why? It's a high profile murder case at the Old Bailey.

This could be a landmark case, there are rumours of the CPS being under pressure to DROP the manslaughter charge on baby Riley. Some activists argue that when the baby was stabbed, he was still inside Kelly Mary's womb and so was not an actual human being, just a 'foetus' as they call him, and so had no right to his life in law. For the moment, in Court 1, all three charges are going ahead. Possibly in the next few days, this could change. MAINSTREAM will be watching the events. Proceeding with both murder AND manslaughter charges sends a clear message that both the lives taken away were important "BOTH lives mattered"

 


Hampshire school re-opens its doors at last...

then forced to close the same day by travellers !

(29 June 2020) Ringwood school in Hampshire has only just re-opened after the Covid lockdown put their children's education on hold for three months. At last, they're able to re-open - then a "traveller" community smashes the locks and forces their way on to adjoining land. The choice for police: Tell the occupiers to move out, or tell the school to close again. Side with the school - or the travellers. Guess which side they choose? A kick in the face for all Ringwood's parents, children and teachers after all they've suffered in the pandemic. The same thing happened a couple of years ago at a school in Essex. You can be certain of one thing: None of this invasion group will ever be prosecuted; they will never have to compensate the school or the council, or pay for repairs to railings and locks they smashed. That's not how "Protected Groups" work. They're immune from arrest - and if you even criticise them, that's a "hate crime", YOU get arrested by the police.

Jump 150 miles away to Leicester in the East Midlands, our most diverse city. Their whole population must endure two extra weeks of total lockdown, all the shops closed. But on the city's northern edge at Mountsorrel, the annual traveller horse fair, attracting thousands from all over the country, is allowed by police to go ahead. How d'you think Leicester's people feel about this? Pissed off most likely. All the music festivals, Glastonbury and so on, cancelled for their young people. All spectator sports, wedding receptions, horse racing, church, temple and mosque services, farmers' markets, cancelled. But one privileged group CAN go ahead with their crowd event - right in their city.

It's the same as happened in all the Northern towns and cities with the Asian grooming gangs. Hundreds of young girls complained to the police about serious offences - they didn't act. "Not allowed to prosecute, ethnic, can't touch them." We're the only country in Europe that lets designated "protected groups" break the law as and when they want. We blame the police, of course it's not really their fault; it's our political class who made this sick legislation. This law could be changed in five minutes, if there was any will in Parliament to do it. But that would need to come from the top - a bit of courage instead of utter cowardice. It's called leadership. These problems started in 2010, since then we've had three prime ministers and four opposition leaders. The present lot, Johnson and Starmer, no different, totally lacking in leadership qualities.

Mainstream as ever, wants ONE LAW FOR EVERYBODY - ALL EQUAL UNDER THE LAW.

PS Wouldn't it be great if we could ALL be in a protected group! You can do anything you want, with no fear of consequences! LIke in that movie - what's it called? - "The Purge". Think about it, what laws would YOU break ?


Dog fouling matters - is this sign REALLY offensive?

or is the uproar just a load of DOGSH*TE ?

(25 June 2020) Devon council was forced to issue a grovelling apology, for putting up these dog-fouling warning posters, after a local BLM member in Devon - identified as Y.B. - was offended and traumatised by this notice, and reported Devon council to the police. The council are now taking the posters down, they'd forgotten the word "Matters" in the English language, is now allowed only in the BLM message.

Sad really, "Black Lives Matter" - a worthy and long-overdue initiative. Right now it's benefiting from massive goodwill among the silent majority of the population, who don't go on marches or take knees; now, by the actions of a tiny few of their members, it's being brought into disrepute, and losing support among the wider public. Here, Mainstream can reveal some more offensive racist notices which will now have to be changed to placate BLM.....


MPs on left vent their fury at Priti Patel

.. is it down to Idi Amin ?

(June 2020) Home Secretary Priti Patel has been a victim of racialism. NOT little children's harmless playground "Paki" taunts - actual harmful racism. In 1972, Ms Patel's family, along with 50,000 other Asians, were removed from their homes by Ugandan dictator and mass-murderer, Idi Amin. In a racialist act of ethnic cleansing, the entire Asian community - Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, the lot - were expelled from the country. Our politicians of the left were at the time, most reluctant to condemn Amin's actions.

Is this the real reason for the tirade of fury and hate-filled tweets directed at Priti Patel, when she speaks about racialism? For Labour's left, a sacred tenet is that all the world's racists are white. Ms Patel's storyline makes them uncomfortable - they might have to accept the idea that a racialist can, like Idi Amin, be black. Racialists can be any colour.


"No men need apply!" 

 Does Joe Biden's VP job spec speak to equality?

 

(11 June 2020)   Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, in an unprecedented restriction,  stipulates his Vice President running-mate "must be a woman". No men need apply. That's 50% of the population ruled out straight away. It's not for us to criticise what American politicians do - that's for their own people. But why have commentators over here been so slow to criticise this astonishing restriction? There's nothing to stop Biden selecting a woman if he wants - but surely the only stipulation should be the candidate's abililty and experience - not their sex.

     Joe Biden owes his own Vice-Presidential eight year term, to Barack Obama, who picked Biden in  2008. Suppose Obama had set the same "no men need apply" rule in 2008?  Biden would never have got the job.   Now fast-forward from 2008 to 2020.  Suppose Barack Obama was twelve years younger, now just 46,  the up-and-coming Senator from Illinois, looking to run for Vice President alongside Joe Biden.  He wouldn't even make the shortlist - ruled out by his sex, under Biden's  "No males need apply" rule.  The popular two-term President Obama, liked and respected all round the world, would never have got into the White House.


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 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 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.

To stamp out the appalling crime of child pornography, we need every published image to be reported to the police as soon as possible. But where's the incentive for the public to do that? Suppose you have the misfortune to find some of this stuff has been sent to your phone (Thankfully for most of us, this will never happen). As soon as you see it and realise what it is, you delete it. CORRECT. But our law requires that deleting it is not enough: you must now take your phone to the police station. They'll confiscate your phone, and keep it for six months to analyse. Because you viewed the image - even for two seconds - you've viewed pornography, you are implicated. You'll be cautioned and 'released under investigation'; the police will search your home and remove any other digital devices. Are you gonna go to the police? No, thank you.

The offence Suptd Williams should have been charged with, was trying to cover up the fact that one of her relations had distributed abusive 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 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". MAINSTREAM wants the NSPCC (a charity set up to protect children) to apologise to Carl Beech's child victims.

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.)


BOTH LIVES MATTERED

Trial set for murder of Croydon mum and her baby boy

(17 July 2019) Kelly Mary Fauvrelle, heavily pregnant with a baby boy, was stabbed to death on the 29th of June. Although the baby was stabbed too, he managed to hang on another week and, now named Riley, died on 3rd July. Kelly Mary's ex, Aaron McKenzie, has been charged with her murder and the baby's manslaughter. The full trial is probably going to be next summer; in the meantime we cannot comment on the events that took place.

However, MAINSTREAM is aware of pressure being put on the CPS to drop the manslaughter charge on the baby boy. Pro-abortion activists are saying that when the baby was stabbed, he was still inside Kelly Mary's womb and so was not an actual human being, just a 'foetus' as they call him, and so had no right to his life in law. We're normally critical of the CPS, who sometimes select cases to proceed with, not on grounds of justice but on political grounds. Will the CPS cave in to this pressure? Let's wait and see - Mainstream will keep you posted.

By proceeding with both charges, the CPS is sending a welcome message: "BOTH lives mattered".

 


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 "LGCHQ" 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:

  • Applications considered ONLY from choirboys, nuns, or goody-goodys.
  • ALL applicants must disclose every private e-mail, text and tweet they've sent in the past 20 years .

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.

Imagery acknowledgments: All images published are taken from open-source material on the internet or scanned from magazines; political organisations are allowed to use these for instructional purposes or to make a point. We regret we don't have the resources to put acknowledgments alongside every individual image.