There is no more deserving target for a come-uppance campaign than Hattie Hateperson, who is the most disgustingly man-hating PC-fascist in Parliament, and that's saying something.
She is more than fair game here, being prurient in extremis when it comes to men and sex, having long proposed and continues to propose measures, no matter how absurd and extreme, to attack males (minors as well as adults) and male sexuality. She now wishes to criminalise the male party (but not the female) to consensual sex if a money transaction is involved, and she was prominent in raising the legal age-of-consent from the already absurdly high age 16 to age 18 for some categories of consensual sex. There is nothing the nasty witch wouldn't propose on these lines. Witness her astonishing attempt to trash even the most basic sense of actual equality in her campaign to criminalise the purchase of sex but not its sale!
She is getting what's long been coming to her, and may this continue until she's rotting beneath her gravestone -- when I'll be there to deface it
The delicious irony is that her position in some respects back then actually was in line with objective evidence. There is a very strong case to reduce the age-of-consent from being, ludicrously, over half a decade over the average age of puberty. There is also a very strong case to prick the hysteria over child sex abuse when meta-studies have revealed little impact in terms of psychological sequelae, and what there is seems to stem from what may surround the abuse than the abuse per se (most notably censoriousness about sex). Then, of course, there's the daft criminalisation of those who, instead of acting out, sublimate their paedophilia in viewing erotica, irrespective of whether they in any way supported the creation or dissemination through any payment; and whether or not any abuse was indirectly entailed in creating any image they viewed, as in montage or cartoon depiction -- though this last is an issue nowadays rather than in Hattie-Hate's NCCL pre-computer-image-high-tech days.
Hapless Hattie makes herself still more ridiculous in her marvellously lame riposte to The Daily Mail of censure for printing pictures of 'very young girls in bikinis', when these cannot be less than eighteen years old and don't bare so much as a nipple or buttock!
Is she now attempting to up the age of what constitutes a child to ... what? ... a decade post-puberty? And how does this supposed abuse by The Daily Mail compare with supporting sex with pre-pubertal individuals – 'children' in all senses of the term?!
As for the newspaper here: albeit that it has long been in bed with the PC-fascist Left on the anti-male / anti-sex bandwagon – not least re the bogus notions of 'paedophilia' (surely set soon to be defined as sex with anyone under 35) as sex with post-pubertal individuals -- The Daily Mail does also take the line that there's a witch-hunt afoot. The paper has long highlighted the epidemic of 'false rape' allegations, when most of the media has been unswerving in its stupid mantra of "we must believe the 'victim'".