<?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: Link between child porn and Muslim terrorists discovered in police raids</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/10/17/link-between-child-porn-and-muslim-terrorists-discovered-in-police-raids/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/10/17/link-between-child-porn-and-muslim-terrorists-discovered-in-police-raids/</link>
	<description>A news resource for CyberLaw and Cyber-Rights issues from around the globe</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:29:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Gerard</title>
		<link>http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/10/17/link-between-child-porn-and-muslim-terrorists-discovered-in-police-raids/comment-page-1/#comment-2595</link>
		<dc:creator>David Gerard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:13:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cyberlaw.org.uk/?p=919#comment-2595</guid>
		<description>This is transparently ludicrous rubbish - why use illegal images when they could use wedding photos or LOLcats? - and it defies rational thought that the Home Office spinmeisters could think this one would pass uncommented.

See the reader comments on the original Times story - they all think it&#039;s idiocy too.

I wrote a blog rant on it - http://tiny.cc/QAm8c - but I&#039;m not sure it&#039;s clear it&#039;s a parody of an actual ridiculous assertion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is transparently ludicrous rubbish &#8211; why use illegal images when they could use wedding photos or LOLcats? &#8211; and it defies rational thought that the Home Office spinmeisters could think this one would pass uncommented.</p>
<p>See the reader comments on the original Times story &#8211; they all think it&#8217;s idiocy too.</p>
<p>I wrote a blog rant on it &#8211; <a href="http://tiny.cc/QAm8c" rel="nofollow">http://tiny.cc/QAm8c</a> &#8211; but I&#8217;m not sure it&#8217;s clear it&#8217;s a parody of an actual ridiculous assertion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

