<?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 for read write play</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.readwriteplay.co.uk/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.readwriteplay.co.uk</link>
	<description>an occasional blog by steve greer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:16:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The losing side by Phillip Dawson</title>
		<link>http://www.readwriteplay.co.uk/2012/01/17/the-losing-side/comment-page-1/#comment-1073</link>
		<dc:creator>Phillip Dawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.readwriteplay.co.uk/?p=1603#comment-1073</guid>
		<description>Thank you for writing this blog post Steve, which I agree with wholeheartedly. 

I think he is entitled to his own personal view but I feel strongly that he has not appropriately justified his position, even in his supplementary public statement. 

By saying that it isn&#039;t a debate that needs to be had at this time because people aren&#039;t &quot;banging on his door&quot; about it suggests that he perceives there to be a correlation between the number of people who contact their MP about an issue and the validity of entering into a public debate on the same. That notion is hogwash. 

To show him that there are people who care about this issue - whether or not they have written to their MP about it before, we have made a facebook group, which I hope you would consider joining : http://www.facebook.com/groups/324162870957149/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for writing this blog post Steve, which I agree with wholeheartedly. </p>
<p>I think he is entitled to his own personal view but I feel strongly that he has not appropriately justified his position, even in his supplementary public statement. </p>
<p>By saying that it isn&#8217;t a debate that needs to be had at this time because people aren&#8217;t &#8220;banging on his door&#8221; about it suggests that he perceives there to be a correlation between the number of people who contact their MP about an issue and the validity of entering into a public debate on the same. That notion is hogwash. </p>
<p>To show him that there are people who care about this issue &#8211; whether or not they have written to their MP about it before, we have made a facebook group, which I hope you would consider joining : <a href="http://www.facebook.com/groups/324162870957149/" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/groups/324162870957149/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on the chaperone system by further explanation &#171; read write play</title>
		<link>http://www.readwriteplay.co.uk/2011/02/05/the-chaperone-system/comment-page-1/#comment-990</link>
		<dc:creator>further explanation &#171; read write play</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.readwriteplay.co.uk/?p=1466#comment-990</guid>
		<description>[...] a minor follow-up to my earlier post on women in comedy, ITV&#8217;s Comedy Juice managed to break the chaperone1 rule by featuring no less than four women [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a minor follow-up to my earlier post on women in comedy, ITV&#8217;s Comedy Juice managed to break the chaperone1 rule by featuring no less than four women [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

