<story><title>Deleted Article by The Guardian</title><url>http://pastebin.com/NTJvUZdJ</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>grey-area</author><text>This is from the Observer (Sunday Paper), not the Guardian as the headline states, though I think they published it on the Guardian website - the two papers have separate editorial teams though they share the same online space. You can see the printed edition of the Observer article reproduced here:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://guardian.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;guardian.newspaperdirect.com&amp;#x2F;epaper&amp;#x2F;viewer.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;d be nice to see some verification of the claims, so I&amp;#x27;d be interested to see the article if it is ever republished after checking (I think they took it down as the source - Madsen - is seen as particularly unreliable).</text></comment>
<story><title>Deleted Article by The Guardian</title><url>http://pastebin.com/NTJvUZdJ</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>k-mcgrady</author><text>Can&amp;#x27;t see much value in posting this. If they deleted it it&amp;#x27;s probably factually incorrect or inaccurate and will probably return with corrections.</text></comment>