Simon Heffer, earlier this week, writing in the Daily Telegraph:
Most rational people would find it quite acceptable if he were to be taken out and shot in the back of the head, and will be regretting that he came through his three years in a Vietnamese jail in quite such good shape.
Really? Heffer believes that "most rational people" would applaud vigilante justice and summary executions?
You can almost hear the memo flying through the air from the Telegraph lawyers, worrying about a possible charge of incitement, in the next paragraph:
I am not for a moment suggesting that anyone outraged by the existence of Gadd, or who fears for their own children when this man is loose on British soil, should take the law into his own hands.
Because that would be unacceptable. Oh, but hang on, though: Heffer has said that "rational people" wouldn't think it unacceptable. So is Heffer saying that he doesn't consider himself to be rational? That would make sense, as a lack of rational thought would explain two such contradictory paragraphs.