<?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: Quite</title>
	<atom:link href="http://timworstall.com/2009/03/29/quite-30/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://timworstall.com/2009/03/29/quite-30/</link>
	<description>It is all obvious or trivial except...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:52:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Wood</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2009/03/29/quite-30/comment-page-1/#comment-28956</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Wood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/?p=6977#comment-28956</guid>
		<description>I imagine there is a fair-sized mole hunt under way. I hope the whistleblower has covered his or her tracks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I imagine there is a fair-sized mole hunt under way. I hope the whistleblower has covered his or her tracks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Serf</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2009/03/29/quite-30/comment-page-1/#comment-28946</link>
		<dc:creator>Serf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:28:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/?p=6977#comment-28946</guid>
		<description>What a great moment, Ms &quot;Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear&quot; Smith apparently did have something to hide.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a great moment, Ms &#8220;Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear&#8221; Smith apparently did have something to hide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JuliaM</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2009/03/29/quite-30/comment-page-1/#comment-28932</link>
		<dc:creator>JuliaM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/?p=6977#comment-28932</guid>
		<description>Didn&#039;t they understand the film the first time...?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t they understand the film the first time&#8230;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr Potarto</title>
		<link>http://timworstall.com/2009/03/29/quite-30/comment-page-1/#comment-28927</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr Potarto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:38:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timworstall.com/?p=6977#comment-28927</guid>
		<description>So much wrong with this story...

&quot;Ms Smith said she &#039;mistakenly&#039; claimed for the TV package while billing for a web connection...&quot;

Either she thinks cable television is free, or she is  so torpid that even after the second house embarrassment it hasn&#039;t occurred to her to think about her other claims.  Always assuming she isn&#039;t lying to us, of course.

&quot;Downing Street said she had done the &#039;right thing&#039; by quickly rectifying the &#039;inadvertent mistake&#039;.&quot;

You know, like other people are allowed to when they  take money that isn&#039;t theirs.

&quot;Ms Smith had not been at home when they were viewed and said she had no intention of resigning over the matter.&quot;

Not when there are so many other things she could resign over.

Mr O&#039;Donoghue said he was told Ms Smith had given her husband a &#039;real ear-bashing&#039;.

Why?  He wasn&#039;t claiming for his porn.  Or is it because he watched porn and she disapproves, in which case, why is it our business?

&quot;The claim was also said to include two viewings of the film Ocean&#039;s 13 - at £3.75 each...&quot;

Watching Ocean&#039;s 13 twice is a sackable offence in itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So much wrong with this story&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;Ms Smith said she &#8216;mistakenly&#8217; claimed for the TV package while billing for a web connection&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Either she thinks cable television is free, or she is  so torpid that even after the second house embarrassment it hasn&#8217;t occurred to her to think about her other claims.  Always assuming she isn&#8217;t lying to us, of course.</p>
<p>&#8220;Downing Street said she had done the &#8216;right thing&#8217; by quickly rectifying the &#8216;inadvertent mistake&#8217;.&#8221;</p>
<p>You know, like other people are allowed to when they  take money that isn&#8217;t theirs.</p>
<p>&#8220;Ms Smith had not been at home when they were viewed and said she had no intention of resigning over the matter.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not when there are so many other things she could resign over.</p>
<p>Mr O&#8217;Donoghue said he was told Ms Smith had given her husband a &#8216;real ear-bashing&#8217;.</p>
<p>Why?  He wasn&#8217;t claiming for his porn.  Or is it because he watched porn and she disapproves, in which case, why is it our business?</p>
<p>&#8220;The claim was also said to include two viewings of the film Ocean&#8217;s 13 &#8211; at £3.75 each&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Watching Ocean&#8217;s 13 twice is a sackable offence in itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
