<?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: The Mail&#8217;s worrying obsession</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2009/10/14/the-mails-worrying-obsession/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2009/10/14/the-mails-worrying-obsession/</link>
	<description>Watching the Daily Mail</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:17:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: guv111</title>
		<link>http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2009/10/14/the-mails-worrying-obsession/comment-page-1/#comment-223395</link>
		<dc:creator>guv111</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/?p=4074#comment-223395</guid>
		<description>Not being a Mail reader, beyond having a very occasional look at stories highlighted for their barmy right wing lunacy, I was unaware of their stalking.  To say they have a creepy obsession with this girl is an understatement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not being a Mail reader, beyond having a very occasional look at stories highlighted for their barmy right wing lunacy, I was unaware of their stalking.  To say they have a creepy obsession with this girl is an understatement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2009/10/14/the-mails-worrying-obsession/comment-page-1/#comment-222085</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:07:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/?p=4074#comment-222085</guid>
		<description>Good post. I do wonder though about the interpretation of Clause 6 of the Code:
&#039;v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.&#039;

Surely this is exactly what is happening. I cannot imagine a child whose parents were not famous would get the attention. Have I missed something, here?

However, it is also clear following Moir&#039;s comments yesterday that the PCC would only act following a complaint from the family, i.e. Cruise or Holmes. Can&#039;t see them bothering, to be honest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post. I do wonder though about the interpretation of Clause 6 of the Code:<br />
&#8216;v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.&#8217;</p>
<p>Surely this is exactly what is happening. I cannot imagine a child whose parents were not famous would get the attention. Have I missed something, here?</p>
<p>However, it is also clear following Moir&#8217;s comments yesterday that the PCC would only act following a complaint from the family, i.e. Cruise or Holmes. Can&#8217;t see them bothering, to be honest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
