Dear Editor,

I wanted to say so much more than in the letter you so kindly already published. If you think the following is worthy of publication, please do!

All during yesterday and overnight I’ve been reading more reports on male MPs behaving inappropriately, their heinous deeds going back to the beginning of this Millenium.
So in addition to my suspicions about the aim of these sudden allegations, i.e. the weakening of the Tory government in order to fabricate another GE which, as the pundits say, would see a Labour government with Corbyn in No 10, I now believe there’s something more sinister going on.

First of all, look at the time these alleged sex offenses took place – the early 2000s. That’s exactly the time during which the gang rapes and groomings of white underage girls took place, from Rotherham to too many other of our towns and cities to list.

Then remember that suddenly, while these actual rape cases were still being brushed under the authorities’ carpets, the CPS published a document “Sexual Offence Legislation 2003”, according to which ‘groping and fondling’ are = ‘sexual assault’ (see this article in the Guardian from January this year). In the UK, there is no Statute of Limitations for ‘serious sexual crimes’ (see here).

All well and good, but when ‘serious sexual crime’ now also means ‘fondling and groping without consent’, then we’re all in trouble – especially with actual rapes by grooming gangs not having been prosecuted for decades because of ‘cultural sensibilities’.

There are sickening articles by some 25-year old like this one, where the writer not only writes how ‘tough and ‘intimidating’ the HoC is (oh dear, I thought all these young ladies were fierce and feisty and fearless, and would never be intimidated?) but praises the ‘courage’ of those journalist ladies who came forward – two years or more after an ‘event’. In all those ‘outrage! Sex Pest!’ articles I found no thoughts for the thousands of victims of actual, physical rape – not ‘fondling’ or ‘groping’ but rape, gang rape! – who did actually go to the police and were treated like thrash.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that male MPs are now coming forward to accuse another one or to ‘out themselves of having made an inappropriate approach to another male eleven years ago. That’s called ‘virtue signalling’, I call it grassing up. But I’m no longer surprised.

We’ve seen how the feminists, from the director of the CPS to the current, ‘intimidated’ journalists, have changed the definition of what constitutes ‘sexual assault’ so that a hand-on-knee incident is as heinous as gang rape. These accusations are now used to smear opponents, like this accusation of an MP who ‘reported’ another because he ‘saw him’ put his hands up the skirt of someone, seven years ago … naming the MP, not the victim.

Apparently, he remonstrated privately, but since this disgusting behaviour now constitutes a serious sexual offense on which there is no statute of limitation, it’s a nice free-for-all to get rid of opponents. Of course, the poor victims in the HoC were too intimidated to come forward in a timely fashion themselves, they need a despised male to stand up for them …!

Steven Glover writes in the DM that it now looks as if our rule of presumption of innocence until proven guilty has been thrown away. It is as if the premise for reporting ‘hate crime’ (i.e. one person must feel that they’ve been offended) has now silently been extended to sex crimes (remember: hand-on-kee = sexual assault). If I feel I’ve been sexually assaulted then that’s it: I was. No more evidence needed, all I need to say is that at the time I didn’t give consent.

I’m writing all this because I am extremely angry about the hypocrisy displayed by our politicians and journalists. There have been more pixels wasted on this than on the real sex scandals – just google ‘Justice for Chelsea’! There have been more pixels wasted on this by our feminist, ‘intimidated’ journalists than they have ever produced on the victims of Rotherham etc etc.

All we got to hear from these feisty, intimidated female journalists on those real crimes were insinuations that perhaps the girls brought it on themselves … try asking if perhaps there’d not have been a hand on their knees if they had been wearing long skirts or trousers …!

I’m writing this because I can see a clear connecting line: our intimidated journalists and female MPs need to be made ‘safe’, they need their ‘safe spaces’ – just as all the SJW types have been clamouring for. And they demand harsh punishment (can there be anything more harsh than destroying the reputation and livelihood of someone by smears?) for the ‘criminals’ which are, surprise surprise, all white, sometimes old white males.

Of course it would be racist to insinuate that males-of-colour ever did such a thing (there are, as we all know, no MPs-of-colour in the HoC, right?), it would be a hate crime to insinuate that males are also victims (remember Keith Vaz?), and I don’t know what crime it would be to ponder if such heinous crimes were perhaps also committed by lesbian MPs: crime against feminism and gender diversity perhaps?

So while I did think this might be an attempt to topple Ms May, her cabinet, her government and demand another GE to scrap Brexit, I think what we actually see is a battle to make us receptive to the demands of feminists who are working, unwittingly or not, towards sharia law.

After all, if females now better have ‘chaperones’ to feel ‘safe’, if they should not be alone anywhere with a man, if they better abandon dressing sexily: isn’t that just what sharia demands? Do these feminists not realise that in such a world, they may feel ‘safe’ but have given up their rights to males? Is this what we are being prepared for?

I am now just waiting for some imam to come forward and tell us that such things would never happen under sharia law …

Sincerely, Felicia Catto

Print Friendly, PDF & Email