to think we really dont need to see this in a daily newspaper

[squeakytoy]

yes, I know its the DM, but ffs....

the last photo in the article

You haven't said what it is.

Do I really want to give the Mail page hits just to see something that is described as "we really don't need to see this"?

How much of a twat does nick grimshaw look! that hair!

Bum sex Trillian. Maybe that'll get you clicking!

Agreed Trillian.

I am assuming what it is, which is fairly unpleasant.

Although it probably isn't.

so you've had your daily dm fix and now youre all indignant?
cant see what are you al worked up about. km et al all looking v photogenic
there is nothing much inflammatory in it

Is it in the paper version or just online?

For those that don't want to look I bravely did. It's a picture from the new Jake and Dinos Chapman exhibition www.whitecube.com/exhibitions/jdc-2011/

YAB a bit U OP, not as offensive as most things available in the Daily Mail.

Trillian et al - istyosty.com lets you look at DM links without increasing their hits; C&P the link into their home page.

So link above becomes: istyosty.com/tmp/cache/8c44301aa4e970183ec9ce7bdaee1db8363fde5d.html

Magic! [hgrin]

ah its Scottish Mummy.. so in your view, models of two men, in a compromising position, ie with trousers round their ankles, and one clearly shagging the other, in what are psuedo nazi uniforms is ok in a national daily paper... why does that not surprise me..

And it would be even more magic if I'd ticked the 'convert links automatically' box. Sigh.

istyosty.com/tmp/cache/8c44301aa4e970183ec9ce7bdaee1db8363fde5d.html

Okay. Bit strange. But why is it in an article about Kate Moss - and why were you reading said article in the first place

I was looking at the photos thinking that for one Kelly Osbourne looks quite pretty and well dressed... as well as looking at what the others were wearing.. I certainly wasnt expecting to see that image at the bottom.

Offensive! Someone should tell that woman that black tights and white trainers are only just ok on the commute, not at a gallery

why do read dm and then berate yourself
dont read it if it irks so.simple
rather than read it, and then have faux indignation at content
and yes i think kate et al looked really pretty

ps every time you link dm to mn its lucrative for dm

Your problem, Squeaky, is that you are a Daily Mail apologist. Take the shame!

SM, I read it because it is the easiest newspaper website to click through, and I do like a bit of salacious celebrity gossip. :)

What I dont want, or expect to see in an article about Kate Moss, is that sort of crude image.

clearly a dm reader who wants to share its content and her faux indignation

read what you want but then why get all oh my very gosh
not worse thing ive seem linked on mn.not by long way

Are these the same artists who did the children with penis noses? I don't find it shocking i find it easy and tired....

SM. I am so glad I have provided you with your thread for the day so that you can spend a good few hours repeating yourself again, and again, and again....

Clearly your phrase for today is "faux indignation"... well done

And that was "faux" congratulations btw...

yabu it made me giggle

I didnt notice they were shagging.

I am not very observant.

Anyway - why are they obessed with her settling down now she is married?

Oh yeah - DM.

That hair is hilarious! I think he wants to look like one of the cutie pies from Kings of Leon (swoon) but isnt really carrying it off like calebnathenjaredwhateverhisnameis does. (swoon again)

scottishmummy, you have misinterpreted the OP's outrage and are providing your standard response to those complaining about the DM

She's actually got her knickers in a twist over an installation in the latest Chapman exhibition, involving Nazi bum sex. The DM issue is neither here nor there; they have (bizarrely!) printed the photo without comment.