Firstly, I just want to make it completely clear that I am definitely not criticising the publishing of the front page on privatising child abuse (as it is a superb piece and fully deserving of a front page) nor am I criticising its writer despite a small spat with him in the past.
However, a front page on Nelson Mandela was pulled some months back. One person (who may be connected to the privatising child abuse front page) suggested that it was pulled for being "shit", and went on to suggest that it was taken down for being "shit" and also "shit", which is fair enough, but the overwhelming number of complaints about it related to it being in bad taste.
Comments included that it was "sour snarky and vindictive", "some things just don't lend themselves to parody", "crass and pointless", "stupid and shameful", "a crass error of judgement" and "poor taste".
Despite this wave of judgment on that piece, a front page playing it for laughs with child abuse seems to get through without any negative comments or complaints at all and without anyone going on a big flounce about how outrageous it is that it was published (well, apart from Lenny Bee, who seemed to be taking the piss with his "negative" comments).
Any chance of a bit of consistency?
(and please don't say that the site is being consistent in pulling shit pieces and publishing good ones. You know the point I'm trying to make).