ANGRY MOB

Nothing is more amusing that the Daily Mail complaining about a celebrity displaying too much cleavage, arse, leg or more... when they then slap pictures of said celebrity and cleavage, arse, leg or more. Today it is Britney Spears who has wondered outside without a bra and has been caught by paparazzi smuggling peanuts (for want of a better phrase). Of course, if the Daily Mail was really disgusted with such a sight they would either a: not mention it at all; or b: talk about how disgusted they are with such a spectacle but not post any pictures of said offence - because that would surely defeat the purpose of being outraged by such a public display. How can they declare the top 'unsuitable', but it then becomes 'suitable' when they plaster pictures all over the article?

Of course, the Daily Mail plasters the photos across its website because they are determined to titillate their readers with a glimpse of cotton-nipple if they can't get their favoured topless shots. It always amuses me when they angrily state 'X wore such-in-such in public, how disgusting' when really, the idea of wearing something in public is normally to be seen by a limited amount of strangers. Surely it is far worse to broadcast on a popular website pictures of the person as this will inflict it upon far more members of the public. Still, anything for a extra few visitors.

Britney Spears nipples, Britney Spears cleavage, boobs!

Imagine solely writing stuff just to drive a few extra visitors to your site, it's sad, it really is.