The thing I find most disturbing about EJ is not his olive oil paddling pool antics with Furnish (to each their greasy, sticky own), but rather his purchase of a very dodgy photograph that got him pulled in a while back. For some reason, it was decided the piece of art (a monochromeRe Elton John: when all those super injections came out, rumour had it EJ had a super injunction to cover David Furnish who enjoys all sorts of things (but not EJ)
candid by Nan Goldin in which a very young as in pre-pubescent girl playing with a friend is photographed seated with her legs spread, displaying her genitals) fell on the side of the line that made it not an offence. I don't really see how a child of that age can ever consent to have their genitals displayed for 'art' in a gallery but I am not a judge. Anyway, Elton bought it. God knows why. Not sure why anyone would want to own such a dodgy piece.
Elton John defends photograph seized in 'child porn' art raid | London Evening Standard | Evening Standard