<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The IMF gets Liechtenstein very wrong indeed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/</link>
	<description>Richard Murphy on tax and corporate accountability</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tax Research LLP</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/#comment-458102</link>
		<dc:creator>Tax Research LLP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/#comment-458102</guid>
		<description>Phil

I allow comments on this site.  I never set it up to encourage them.  I believe that every blog writer has a duty to edit the postings on their site to ensure that they are both acceptable in law and are acceptable to their readers. it is not censorship to delete those that do not meet that standard: it is normal editorial duty.

With respect, your comment is some indication of your inability to argue your case and to comprehend the media with which you have engaged.

Abuse is always unbecoming of the abuser.

Richard</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Phil</p>
<p>I allow comments on this site.  I never set it up to encourage them.  I believe that every blog writer has a duty to edit the postings on their site to ensure that they are both acceptable in law and are acceptable to their readers. it is not censorship to delete those that do not meet that standard: it is normal editorial duty.</p>
<p>With respect, your comment is some indication of your inability to argue your case and to comprehend the media with which you have engaged.</p>
<p>Abuse is always unbecoming of the abuser.</p>
<p>Richard</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Packer</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/#comment-457864</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Packer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:56:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/#comment-457864</guid>
		<description>Fine, reach for the censor's airbrush.  You can share your mad views with all the other people who are posting in reply (er none) in a sort of Tax Justice unreal Mugabe-esque world!  If you cannot argue, then delete, delete, delete.  Bye.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fine, reach for the censor&#8217;s airbrush.  You can share your mad views with all the other people who are posting in reply (er none) in a sort of Tax Justice unreal Mugabe-esque world!  If you cannot argue, then delete, delete, delete.  Bye.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tax Research LLP</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/#comment-456249</link>
		<dc:creator>Tax Research LLP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:39:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/#comment-456249</guid>
		<description>Phil

Your comment is quite simply absurd. the regulation to which you refer is designed to prevent money-laundering. the system cannot work in laundered funds are present in the system in significant amount.

Until your comments become credible I am giving you due notice that I will be blocking them because at present they are wasting my time and my readers time

Richard</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Phil</p>
<p>Your comment is quite simply absurd. the regulation to which you refer is designed to prevent money-laundering. the system cannot work in laundered funds are present in the system in significant amount.</p>
<p>Until your comments become credible I am giving you due notice that I will be blocking them because at present they are wasting my time and my readers time</p>
<p>Richard</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Packer</title>
		<link>http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/#comment-456235</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Packer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/26/the-imf-gets-liechtenstein-very-wrong-indeed/#comment-456235</guid>
		<description>Let's be honest.  If someone Liechtenstein was good for skiing, you would disagree.  Quite why that fact there are undeclared funds in Liechtenstein - although probably not as much as in the United States whom you never criticise of course - means that the financial services are not well regulated is a mystery to me.  Regulation has nothing to do with undeclared funds or tax evasion.  This saga proves actually that a well regulated jurisdiction like Liechtenstein has undeclared funds ... surprise, surprise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s be honest.  If someone Liechtenstein was good for skiing, you would disagree.  Quite why that fact there are undeclared funds in Liechtenstein - although probably not as much as in the United States whom you never criticise of course - means that the financial services are not well regulated is a mystery to me.  Regulation has nothing to do with undeclared funds or tax evasion.  This saga proves actually that a well regulated jurisdiction like Liechtenstein has undeclared funds &#8230; surprise, surprise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
