One of the lovely things the Mail does, which permeates right through the British media (though they're especially good at doing it with a straight face), is pretending to be shocked by something - and then repeating it so you can see just how shocking it is. The waffer-thin justification for doing so is to claim that you're merely informing your readers of the content so they can judge for themselves. By which kind of oroborous you could get someone else complaining about being offended by that article, then showing you what they were offended by, and then someone being offended by that, and so on and so on until the originator of the first article picked up on it again.
Anyway, here's a nice example from the regional press (and thanks to Seb for the tip): The Birmingham Mail has gone all pearl-clutchy over a student newspaper's Viz-style advertisement for crockery depicting famous British serial killers. And of course, despite saying there's 'fury' and saying it's 'sick', it obviously has to include every single example of the terrible business (gotta love those clicks for the web stats!) so you can see for yourself. But if it really is offensive and upsetting for people (I don't think it is), and if the Birmingham Mail really does give a shit about that, why is it then going on to repeat these offensive and upsetting things several times...? Surely just one example would be good enough, or a description...? It's all a bit cynical if you ask me. And besides:
But The Sanctuary editor Christopher Philip Bacon refused to apologise for the mock advert which he said was lampooning those selling “sentimental tat.”
He may well be called Christopher P Bacon for all I know. I guess it beats Hugh Jampton or Mary Hinge.