<?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: My letter to Sir Roger Singleton, Independent Safeguarding Authority</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markpack.org.uk/sir-roger-singleton-isa/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markpack.org.uk/sir-roger-singleton-isa/</link>
	<description>Mark&#039;s blog about politics, technology and history</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:54:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dear Ed Balls&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.markpack.org.uk/sir-roger-singleton-isa/comment-page-1/#comment-7073</link>
		<dc:creator>Dear Ed Balls&#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markpack.org.uk/?p=4390#comment-7073</guid>
		<description>[...] I previsously wrote, I emailed Sir Roger Singleton [see letter here] on 14 September about my concerns with the way the Independent Safeguarding Authority’s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I previsously wrote, I emailed Sir Roger Singleton [see letter here] on 14 September about my concerns with the way the Independent Safeguarding Authority’s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sir Roger Singleton writes… &#124; Mark Pack</title>
		<link>http://www.markpack.org.uk/sir-roger-singleton-isa/comment-page-1/#comment-3533</link>
		<dc:creator>Sir Roger Singleton writes… &#124; Mark Pack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:40:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markpack.org.uk/?p=4390#comment-3533</guid>
		<description>[...]  Last month I recounted the Home Office&#8217;s repeated failures to reply to my letters, including one to Sir Roger Singleton of the Independent Safeguarding Authority which was passed on to them and was about the ISA&#8217;s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  Last month I recounted the Home Office&#8217;s repeated failures to reply to my letters, including one to Sir Roger Singleton of the Independent Safeguarding Authority which was passed on to them and was about the ISA&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Memo to Home Office: it would be terribly nice if you sometimes answered a letter</title>
		<link>http://www.markpack.org.uk/sir-roger-singleton-isa/comment-page-1/#comment-2748</link>
		<dc:creator>Memo to Home Office: it would be terribly nice if you sometimes answered a letter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markpack.org.uk/?p=4390#comment-2748</guid>
		<description>[...] a letter to my MP: I emailed Sir Roger Singleton [see letter here] on 14 September about my concerns with the way the Independent Safeguarding Authority’s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a letter to my MP: I emailed Sir Roger Singleton [see letter here] on 14 September about my concerns with the way the Independent Safeguarding Authority’s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Independent Safeguarding Authority: my letter to Ed Balls &#124; Mark Pack</title>
		<link>http://www.markpack.org.uk/sir-roger-singleton-isa/comment-page-1/#comment-2212</link>
		<dc:creator>The Independent Safeguarding Authority: my letter to Ed Balls &#124; Mark Pack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markpack.org.uk/?p=4390#comment-2212</guid>
		<description>[...] my letter to Sir Roger Singleton about the ISA&#039;s apparent reluctance to believe that a jury may acquit because it is sure someone is [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] my letter to Sir Roger Singleton about the ISA&#39;s apparent reluctance to believe that a jury may acquit because it is sure someone is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Independent Safeguarding Authority: kudos to Sarah Teather &#124; Mark Pack</title>
		<link>http://www.markpack.org.uk/sir-roger-singleton-isa/comment-page-1/#comment-2200</link>
		<dc:creator>Independent Safeguarding Authority: kudos to Sarah Teather &#124; Mark Pack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:41:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markpack.org.uk/?p=4390#comment-2200</guid>
		<description>[...] Authority (ISA) are very much to do with how they&#039;ve decided to go about doing their job (see my letter to Sir Roger Singleton for an example), some of the problems are to do with how the law has been [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Authority (ISA) are very much to do with how they&#39;ve decided to go about doing their job (see my letter to Sir Roger Singleton for an example), some of the problems are to do with how the law has been [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Foxsmith</title>
		<link>http://www.markpack.org.uk/sir-roger-singleton-isa/comment-page-1/#comment-2199</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg Foxsmith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.markpack.org.uk/?p=4390#comment-2199</guid>
		<description>I agree, I understand in Scotland juries can return a verdict of &quot;not proven&quot; as an alternative to not guilty. 
Singletons argument is little better than a head-shaking old woman saying &quot;there&#039;s no smoke without fire&quot;
Sadly it is part of a trend. Prosecutions regularly apply now to adduce &quot;bad character evidence&quot; to show &quot;propensity&quot;-and this evidence can include instances where the defendant was previously acquitted (or even arrested but not charged)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, I understand in Scotland juries can return a verdict of "not proven" as an alternative to not guilty.<br />
Singletons argument is little better than a head-shaking old woman saying "there's no smoke without fire"<br />
Sadly it is part of a trend. Prosecutions regularly apply now to adduce "bad character evidence" to show "propensity"-and this evidence can include instances where the defendant was previously acquitted (or even arrested but not charged)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
