<?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: Poll: Is Paul Dacre right to criticise Justice Eady&#8217;s use of the privacy law?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/11/10/poll-is-paul-dacre-right-to-criticise-justice-eadys-use-of-the-privacy-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/11/10/poll-is-paul-dacre-right-to-criticise-justice-eadys-use-of-the-privacy-law/</link>
	<description>Online journalism news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:39:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Louise Bolotin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/11/10/poll-is-paul-dacre-right-to-criticise-justice-eadys-use-of-the-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-7755</link>
		<dc:creator>Louise Bolotin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=4936#comment-7755</guid>
		<description>Well basically it&#039;s a case of legitimate public interest. There was none in Mosley’s case. It might have been different if the alleged Nazi aspect had indeed existed or if Mosley had been found to be paying his professional dominatrixes out of F1 funds. But neither was the case. It was a purely private activity. And I&#039;m very sure that if Dacre suddenly had his and Mrs Dacre&#039;s sex life splashed all over the front page of a red-top, they&#039;d be crying &quot;breach of privacy&quot;. 

If Dacre and co want to see an end to privacy rulings made on a case by case basis they can do this: firstly stop confusing public interest with the interest of the public and secondly stop running salacious stories that by definition are going to trigger legal action. Eady’s rulings will not, in any case, prevent legitimate investigative journalism, only sleazy invasions of privacy. 

Now go read my blog and feel free to leave a comment!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well basically it&#8217;s a case of legitimate public interest. There was none in Mosley’s case. It might have been different if the alleged Nazi aspect had indeed existed or if Mosley had been found to be paying his professional dominatrixes out of F1 funds. But neither was the case. It was a purely private activity. And I&#8217;m very sure that if Dacre suddenly had his and Mrs Dacre&#8217;s sex life splashed all over the front page of a red-top, they&#8217;d be crying &#8220;breach of privacy&#8221;. </p>
<p>If Dacre and co want to see an end to privacy rulings made on a case by case basis they can do this: firstly stop confusing public interest with the interest of the public and secondly stop running salacious stories that by definition are going to trigger legal action. Eady’s rulings will not, in any case, prevent legitimate investigative journalism, only sleazy invasions of privacy. </p>
<p>Now go read my blog and feel free to leave a comment!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/11/10/poll-is-paul-dacre-right-to-criticise-justice-eadys-use-of-the-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-7754</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:19:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=4936#comment-7754</guid>
		<description>Come on, you can do better than that. Make us want to read your blog post. Better still, leave an actual comment!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Come on, you can do better than that. Make us want to read your blog post. Better still, leave an actual comment!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louise Bolotin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/11/10/poll-is-paul-dacre-right-to-criticise-justice-eadys-use-of-the-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-7748</link>
		<dc:creator>Louise Bolotin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=4936#comment-7748</guid>
		<description>http://tinyurl.com/6kkyaq for my blog on Dacre. This has been THE hot topic on the net today, especially on Twitter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/6kkyaq" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/6kkyaq</a> for my blog on Dacre. This has been THE hot topic on the net today, especially on Twitter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/11/10/poll-is-paul-dacre-right-to-criticise-justice-eadys-use-of-the-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-7746</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:22:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=4936#comment-7746</guid>
		<description>Hi Louise, do please tell us more...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Louise, do please tell us more&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louise Bolotin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/11/10/poll-is-paul-dacre-right-to-criticise-justice-eadys-use-of-the-privacy-law/comment-page-1/#comment-7744</link>
		<dc:creator>Louise Bolotin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/?p=4936#comment-7744</guid>
		<description>I blogged on this earlier today. My thoughts in full via link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I blogged on this earlier today. My thoughts in full via link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
