But still not a law.

What is so awful is that they seem to be concerned about a foreign power taking over the rabidly insane telegraph, yet Levedev hoovers up all the 'unbiased' papers.

Only thing which sates me a little is they're losing so much money.

I know but they did used to be kind of the same newspaper and sort of balanced but not for a long time...

(Metro also now a daily mail mouthpiece too but it could be easily bought meaning it looked like pro brexit when just advertisements back in 2016)

I is the Daily mail now. Independent is lebedevs so unrelated.

It's a marketing tagline not a law.

Them saying the quiet part out loud and expecting hilarity is the world we live in now.

We all know Fartrage is saying "Send them back", even Bad-Enoch is saying it and will be smiling right up until the van turns up at her door, with Patel in Braverman already in the back.

It's the National Front

That will give those quitterati a chance to tell us all those benefits to make up for that.

Finally.

...

Ok, I guess not found any yet.

Written by someone who will be dazed and confused standing at the bottom of some airplane steps in Rwanda a year after he helps Fartrage get elected.

I'm not really sure how you do dialogue but whatever.

To mention about what is happening out in the unemployment heavy "sticks" like Wolverhampton, outside groups are buying flats and charging insane (for the area) rents for them. Then hawking them out on airbnb.

Now we've got empty flats, filled at weekends, and a housing shortage as well.

So you're arguing over precision?

Ok, within rational sense, 2.5 times the average wage of the area. A bit higher in London.

In Wolverhampton, where you can still get a 100K terraced house (but buy to let is killing that), 2.5 times the average wage there is around 50K. So even that is overpriced.

Kind of.

And this is the crux of it all.

Buy to let should have not been subsidised via low interest rates and tax breaks over economic control all these years.

The idea that "house prices growth is good for all" is utter nonsense, and clearly we are at the sharp end of that.

I'm pricing houses based on normal people buying them to live in, and thus normal costs.

Not based on the overinflated prices they have from people buying them mortgaging them, buying more, paying them all off with rent, then repeating the process, all based on a evangelism of low interest rates.

100K is pretty much a 2 bedroom terrace house is worth. A bit more in popular areas.

You can easily pay a million for that in London.

Why? Because people own 15 of them. And I'm talking of every MP and all their friends.

Crash house prices.

The fundamental problem of this country is people living in a house priced at a million quid, worth about 100K max. Paying the rent based on its pricing.

And landlords owning 20 odd of these. Bought off the back of mortgages with low interest rates.

Destroy that.

Imagine when there's a vital detail wrong in its results masked by being 95% true.

Horrible crap. Not the future.

I was looking for a Jeep backpack (got one already, 10 years no zipper or other problems vs cheap shit lasting a day). Type in that to their search engine: 0 jeep backpacks. Type jeep bags and see a couple. It can't even do the basics correctly.