egafd.com

For one moment, I thought this referred to our Italian artist 'friend'.

The article is, of course, an example of the hypocrisy and ambition of the gutter press at its most gutter. A playing to the gallery of circuses as bread is thrown down to the people gullible enough to believe it.

For the record, anyone guilty of rape, incest, child abuse, taking photographic or other recordings of the same, or being in any way knowingly involved in the same should face exemplary sentencing. And Graham Coutts can rot in hell.

Oddly enough, Self found no space to talk about the top story here, for example:

Appology accepted... lol

What a silly person.

XXX

Self is in no position to pontificate to us about any aspect of morality when he is a self-confessed narcotic user.

Well said, Trumpy. Someone who helps finance (or did so in the past) the evil bastards involved in the drugs trade cannot claim the moral high ground. The nose candy so beloved of Self and the like doesn't come without a blood price. Perhaps he should do a column on the human cost of cocaine, heroin, and all the other recreational "party" drugs.

Quite simply Self, and he's ilk, are revolting hypocrites.

Doesnt it wind people up that this guy has to rope in adult sites when Chris Langham was specifically charged for downloading kiddie porn.

The two shouldnt even be mentioned in the same breath but htis guy wants to use pornography in general as an excuse for why kiddie fiddlers end up taking the dark path to peadophilia.

BGAFD Admin wrote:

> It seems that everyone who uses this site is no better than a
> child-molester.

Having seen the reactions here I had expected something a little more outrageous in Self's article. His attempt to claim the moral highground is admittedly somewhat sickening. And I do disagree with the reason he gives for the disproportionate condemnation given to download-offenders of Langham's ilk (compared to, say, your run-of-the-mill rapist), but I would struggle with an alternative explanation of my own.

Perhaps it is a Christian legacy: the idea that someone has an evil soul, where it is of secondary concern how much evil they have actually done.

I'm sure Will Self took every available measure to ensure his heroin was ethically sourced from local farmers using sustainable resources and that no child labour or mules were used in the process.

I'm also doubly sure that he made sure that it didn't fund the Taliban either (whom, at the height of Self's smackhead period, would have been the #1 poppy farmers in the world, no less).

Still, should we be criticising Self for this article, or the sub-editor who let it pass without taking him to task on the ridiculous supposition contained therein?