- and I didn’t ‘miss’ the points you are making, I just disagree with most of them. It IS possible for people to disagree with your points, you know?.. doesn’t mean they’ve missed them.

The point I agree with?.. Yes the image IS sensationalist. It was most likely intended to be. I still very much doubt however (mis-)interpretation by some people that this was an image of a child being forced to give head was any way intended by the site’s publishers.

And frankly, I’d spend more time responding, but after the remarks in the last line of your reply, feel free to go fuck yourself.

Provocative and evocative me hole.

I just think the image used – which looks like a girl being forced to give head – is insensitive and crass. We don’t need to be explicitly shown what child abuse looks like.

As it turns out the big image is nothing of the sort so the way it was cropped and presented was deliberate and sensational. It’s the worst kind of tabloid fodder. I’m not saying heads should roll, but you should expect a modicum of decency and respect for the people who have suffered when reporting on something like this.

As for the FM – who cares?!

When you look at the full picture what appear to be a slender neck was actually an arm.

I wouldn’t consider myself easily offended at all, in fact the picture doesn’t offend me, but i suspect it would offend someone who had been raped by a priest.

As for jumping on the berating bandwagon easily. Guilty as charged.