<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2007/03/27/mail-89/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2007/03/27/mail-89/</link>
	<description>Watching the Daily Mail</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:38:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daily Mail readers ‘misunderstood’</title>
		<link>http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2007/03/27/mail-89/comment-page-1/#comment-138458</link>
		<dc:creator>Daily Mail readers ‘misunderstood’</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 13:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bigdaddymerk.co.uk/mailwatchnew/?p=1662#comment-138458</guid>
		<description>[...] The Daily Mail is so fed up with people poking fun at its readers, it’s touring the UK’s public relations agencies in the hope they’ll put more advertorials (that is paid ‘editorial’ that proper PR people don’t dirty their hands with*) their way. The problem is that the advertising industry is beginning to question the quality of the Daily Mail’s readership, concerned that those who take its editorial seriously aren’t really the kind of people on which a marketing budget should be spent. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Daily Mail is so fed up with people poking fun at its readers, it’s touring the UK’s public relations agencies in the hope they’ll put more advertorials (that is paid ‘editorial’ that proper PR people don’t dirty their hands with*) their way. The problem is that the advertising industry is beginning to question the quality of the Daily Mail’s readership, concerned that those who take its editorial seriously aren’t really the kind of people on which a marketing budget should be spent. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnD</title>
		<link>http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2007/03/27/mail-89/comment-page-1/#comment-137162</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bigdaddymerk.co.uk/mailwatchnew/?p=1662#comment-137162</guid>
		<description>One of The Fail&#039;s more sensible comments had to come all the way from New York!

If a woman cannot give consent because she is too drunk, she cannot and does not give consent. That means NO in my book, and for a man to have sex with her at that point is wrong, and is sexual assault, i.e. rape.

I&#039;m glad I don&#039;t live in Britain. Shame on this judge!

- Marie, New York

Nice one, Marie.  Pity you had to share your thoughts with irrational Fail readers who will probably resent and reject them.  As I always say: feck &#039;em.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of The Fail&#8217;s more sensible comments had to come all the way from New York!</p>
<p>If a woman cannot give consent because she is too drunk, she cannot and does not give consent. That means NO in my book, and for a man to have sex with her at that point is wrong, and is sexual assault, i.e. rape.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad I don&#8217;t live in Britain. Shame on this judge!</p>
<p>- Marie, New York</p>
<p>Nice one, Marie.  Pity you had to share your thoughts with irrational Fail readers who will probably resent and reject them.  As I always say: feck &#8216;em.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

