<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel> 

	<title>Comments on: Who leaked the Downing Street "smear scandal"?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/119351/Who-leaked-the-Downing-Street-smear-scandal/</link>
	<description>Comments on Ask MetaFilter post Who leaked the Downing Street "smear scandal"?</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:34:22 -0800</pubDate>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:34:22 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>

	<item>
		<title>Question: Who leaked the Downing Street &quot;smear scandal&quot;?</title>
		<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/119351/Who-leaked-the-Downing-Street-smear-scandal</link>	
		<description>Who leaked the Downing Street &quot;smear scandal&quot;? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; I seem to be missing something fundemental in the ongoing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/12/damien-mc-bride-labour-smear&quot;&gt;&quot;Downing Street Smear Scandal&quot;&lt;/a&gt;. Namely how did the offending email get leaked to the press? If the right-wing blogger &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.order-order.com/&quot;&gt;Guido Fawlkes&lt;/a&gt; got hold of them?</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">post:ask.metafilter.com,2009:site.119351</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:03:58 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MrMerlot</dc:creator>
		
			<category>politics</category>
		
			<category>labour</category>
		
			<category>smearscandal</category>
		
			<category>media</category>
		
			<category>blogs</category>
		
	</item> <item>
		<title>By: mediareport</title>
		<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/119351/Who-leaked-the-Downing-Street-smear-scandal#1708841</link>	
		<description>Staines/Guido says pretty clearly &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.order-order.com/2009/04/mcpoisons-going-is-good-for-political-standards/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that he gave the story to a couple of papers &quot;for pleasure not profit,&quot; but he&apos;s not telling how he got hold of the emails, if that&apos;s your question.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Staines implies &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.order-order.com/2009/04/maguire-missed-the-scoop-under-his-nose/&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; that the &quot;scoop&quot; was available to at least one Labour-friendly journalist for a while.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:ask.metafilter.com,2009:site.119351-1708841</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:34:22 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mediareport</dc:creator>
	</item><item>
		<title>By: punilux</title>
		<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/119351/Who-leaked-the-Downing-Street-smear-scandal#1709225</link>	
		<description>Speculation right at the end of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/13/email-smear-tactics-gordon-brown&quot;&gt;this &lt;/a&gt;Guardian article is one of Charlie Whelan&apos;s enemies in Unite.</description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">comment:ask.metafilter.com,2009:site.119351-1709225</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:48:22 -0800</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>punilux</dc:creator>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
