<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DC Oake</title>
	<link>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401</link>
	<description>Every day the Prime Minister's Spokesman meets a small coterie of political journalists known as 'the lobby' for a topical chat, or 'briefing'.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Zoe Oake</title>
		<link>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4125</link>
		<author>Zoe Oake</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4125</guid>
		<description>Hello my name is Zoe Oake from Australia and i am possibly related to DC Oake. Just wondering if anyone knows anything about DC Oake, if so can you please email me. Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello my name is Zoe Oake from Australia and i am possibly related to DC Oake. Just wondering if anyone knows anything about DC Oake, if so can you please email me. Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Unsworth</title>
		<link>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4123</link>
		<author>Chuck Unsworth</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4123</guid>
		<description>And perhaps Kelly should also remember that in his particular job it is not wise to antagonise journalists.  

But then again, we're witnessing the efforts of a man working at his extreme limits, so his behaviour is possibly understandable - if not excusable.

Plenty more annoyance to come, what with Berlusconi-Mills-Jowell (and her sister!), dead ducks, Beckett, Hewitt, etc etc......  Blair's bints eh?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And perhaps Kelly should also remember that in his particular job it is not wise to antagonise journalists.  </p>
<p>But then again, we&#8217;re witnessing the efforts of a man working at his extreme limits, so his behaviour is possibly understandable - if not excusable.</p>
<p>Plenty more annoyance to come, what with Berlusconi-Mills-Jowell (and her sister!), dead ducks, Beckett, Hewitt, etc etc&#8230;&#8230;  Blair&#8217;s bints eh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Linford</title>
		<link>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4120</link>
		<author>Paul Linford</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4120</guid>
		<description>It's also entirely wrong for the Downing Street transcript to single out the Daily Mail as having asked a particular question.  It doesn't generally do that so why single out this question just because Tom Kelly happened to object to the tenor of it?  Believe me, there are plenty of journalists besides the Daily Mail's lobby team who think that peerages have been handed out like confetti to New Labour donors!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s also entirely wrong for the Downing Street transcript to single out the Daily Mail as having asked a particular question.  It doesn&#8217;t generally do that so why single out this question just because Tom Kelly happened to object to the tenor of it?  Believe me, there are plenty of journalists besides the Daily Mail&#8217;s lobby team who think that peerages have been handed out like confetti to New Labour donors!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Unsworth</title>
		<link>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4113</link>
		<author>Chuck Unsworth</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:38:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4113</guid>
		<description>The comments by the PMOS about objectivity are crass and stunningly - childishly - petulant.

Why is it necessary for journalists to be 'objective', and would he care to define 'objectivity'?

We have laws of libel which the PMOS, the PM, indeed anyone, can invoke to resolve such disputes.  If journalists overstep the mark let them be sued!  I hope that the lady from the Daily Mail had enough sense to tell the PMOS to get stuffed.

The reality is that none of these apparatchiks have the nerve or nous to take the matter to law. But then again, maybe the journo's comment was just a little too close to the truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The comments by the PMOS about objectivity are crass and stunningly - childishly - petulant.</p>
<p>Why is it necessary for journalists to be &#8216;objective&#8217;, and would he care to define &#8216;objectivity&#8217;?</p>
<p>We have laws of libel which the PMOS, the PM, indeed anyone, can invoke to resolve such disputes.  If journalists overstep the mark let them be sued!  I hope that the lady from the Daily Mail had enough sense to tell the PMOS to get stuffed.</p>
<p>The reality is that none of these apparatchiks have the nerve or nous to take the matter to law. But then again, maybe the journo&#8217;s comment was just a little too close to the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Della Petch</title>
		<link>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4107</link>
		<author>Della Petch</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:31:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2006/02/16/2401#comment-4107</guid>
		<description>Sickening.  If he'd given a few thousand to the Scottish Labour Party, he'd have a statue created for him!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sickening.  If he&#8217;d given a few thousand to the Scottish Labour Party, he&#8217;d have a statue created for him!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
