more Daily Mail absurdities

matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Today the mail shouts: Tate Modern display nude picture 10 year old Brooke Shields alongside giant pornographic images

Michele Elliott...said: 'This is the kind of excuse people make for showing soft kiddy porn and I can't think anyone would want their child portrayed this way and I think it is obscene to do so. She is not old enough at that age to give consent for this to be taken. This has been put in a pouty adult way, it sounds like, and to masquerade under the guise of edgy art is ridiculous. It is soft kiddy porn."

just to be sure- this is kiddy porn, ok?

"How far do things have to go before we eventually say enough is enough?'

The mail illustrates the story, not with a picture of the nude picture of 10 year old Brooke, because that would be kiddy porn, but with a picture of a nude picture of a 14 year old Brooke. Because that is fine.

article-1216924-06A1EE7F000005DC-680_224x423.jpg


"MailOnline has chosen not to show the portrait of naked 10-year-old Shields to be exhibited at Tate Modern"
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"has been put in a pouty adult way, it sounds like, and to masquerade under the guise of edgy art is ridiculous. It is soft kiddy porn"
Click to expand...
It sounds like he hasn't actually seen the pictures.
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
edit: i'm following the Tate and removing the offending image
 
Last edited:
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I think they're just making the point that Charlotte has reached the age of 15 quickly. Can't see any double meanings or other smuttiness there.

If she were 16, it would be different.


Can't see much wrong with this either, from Mikeyboy of Manchester:

"No matter what your political colour the simple fact of the matter is we cannot continue to support the parasites in this country who only take.

I put a large proportion of teenage single mothers in this category.

Simple solution is to remove the financial incentive completely and offer a one off tax free payment to get sterilised before they have had any children."


I particularly love this:

"The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline. "

The mind boggles to know the kind of views it would be keen to distance itself from.
 
Last edited:
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
A

alex

Do not read this.
The latest article from Jan Moir on S.Gately's death is dispicable. I am actually foaming at the mouth with anger toward this paper. I think it's a disgusting waste of paper & flesh for those who write for it.
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
alex said:
The latest article from Jan Moir on S.Gately's death is dispicable. I am actually foaming at the mouth with anger toward this paper. I think it's a disgusting waste of paper & flesh for those who write for it.
Click to expand...

"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again."

Oh really, Dr Moir?

"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.
Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened."


You hateful, snide, cheap, sneeky fucker, Moir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top