Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "23/06/2017 - 17:40":

I notice you are comparing the quality of work by Dorling with that of the LSE. These should not be in the same sentence. It was clear in the correspondence conducted between myself and 'Professor' Dorling (I cannot take seriously the idea that he is a professor as it is frankly a joke), that he was incapable of coherent thought. The work by the housing experts at the LSE has been vastly superior and very balanced. They have no reason to support landlords ideologically and we like to quote them because they ARE impartial and do not try and flaunt a status in lieu of a rational argument.

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "23/06/2017 - 17:40":
to be equated to one of those tin-hatted loons was bizarre. I have a lot of properties being built/converted and am rather unkeen on a HPC

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "23/06/2017 - 17:40":

The original question was whether foreigners buy properties in the UK to leave them empty.
A summary of the LSE report was posted as a blog by the authors: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/06/17/the-role-of-foreign-investors-in-the-london-residential-market/
It read:
“Significant proportions of new units are bought by overseas residents. The percentage is highest in central London but the total number there is small;
A clear majority of units bought by overseas investors are let out to Londoners;
Others are used by owners’ family members, children in education or returning expats, and are fully occupied;
A small but highly visible subset is lived in only occasionally. However, there was almost no evidence of homes being left permanently empty;”

The Telegraph headline was “Almost no evidence' of London homes owned by foreign buyers being left empty”.

By endorsing the question that had been posted under the Telegraph article “Why is there no link to the LSE Report to see what they actually said as opposed to what the Telegraph would like us believe what they said? ” you implied that the Telegraph was lying. But, as even you cannot deny, the headline is a faithful summary of the LSE blog.

The also latter stated
“Occupancy rates There was almost no evidence of ‘buy to leave’– certainly less than 1% of new homes bought by overseas buyers were left entirely empty”

The first two sentences of the Telegraph article read:
“The "buy-to-leave" phenomenon in housing has come into question after a report commissioned by the Mayor of London found that almost no homes in London owned by overseas buyers are being left empty.
The research, by the London School of Economics, found that "there was almost no evidence of [new-build] units being left entirely empty - certainly less than 1pc""

These sentences are an accurate reflection of the LSE summary.

There is space at the bottom of the LSE summary blog for comments . This gives you an opportunity to tell them how “their methodology was so deeply flawed” as you put it I am sure they will be honoured to learn from someone as clever as you.

The LSE’s summary blog continued:
“Pre-sales to overseas buyers enable developers to build faster and thus make more market and affordable housing available than would otherwise have been the case;
International investment and finance have helped bring stalled sites into use and speed up development on larger sites. They have also been key to creating our Build to Rent sector.”

I agree that the Guardian article by Robert Booth is an alternative precis, but one intended to whip up anti-foreigner sentiment. Its big flaw is that it does not acknowledge the fact that FTBs do not want to buy off-plan. And without off-plan sales, development will not occur.

It does however include a quote from the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan “However, he also stressed that “international investment plays a vital role in providing developers with the certainty and finance they need to increase the supply of homes and infrastructure for Londoners””.

In other words, if it hadn’t been for these foreign devils there would now be fewer dwellings in London.

And, in his penultimate paragraph, Robert Booth gets to the crux of the matter as far as occupancy is concerned:
“Homes owned by foreign buyers are more likely to be under-occupied, according to the research, although there was almost no evidence of units being left entirely empty.”

So he finally arrives at the Telegraph’s headline - or slant, as you put it.

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "23/06/2017 - 17:40":

It is you who quoted selectively, and I pointed this out. I did not quote selectively, I added the bits that you had left out in order to mislead us. There are no non-sequiturs in what I wrote.

I have indeed read your posts. You fail to provide evidence for any of your claims. This is typical of trolls.

I have never mentioned an Oxford professor, let alone connected him with excrement. I looked up “at bronze” in the urban dictionary but still don’t get your joke. And the question you posit is a non-sequitur.

You pretended to answer my question about the car by answering a different one. I did not ask if you would lend me one of your cars. Lending a car is one thing - I’ve done that myself. But giving one away - or having it seized - is a different matter altogether.

If you think like a troll and post like a troll you are a troll.

Reply to the comment left by "Appalled Landlord" at "23/06/2017 - 21:41":

Yes, AL. If this person who calls himself 'Luk Udav' and who claims to be a professor, is not a troll then he might like to declare who he in fact is. When I suspected his motives some time ago (he clearly is no friend of landlords and I doubt very much if he is one) and did a search on him it came up blank.

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "23/06/2017 - 21:55":

A portmanteau answer.

"Bronze" - see recent university classification. Perhaps obscure.

"Requisitioning" is not the same as "expropriation". I believe Corbyn used the former word and the right wing press deliberately misconstrued it.

"Professor" - indeed I am not now. Simple arithmetic (I went up in 1965) would make me at minimum 69, and retiring age is, I believe, a maximum of 68. I took early retirement aged 50, 19 years ago. I am Emeritus but never use the title.

Wrong Dr Beck: I am a very reluctant landlord as it's damn hard work compared with property development. The ROI is pathetic too. As I have said I have no mortgages - I have bank loans to do developments - but I do support the campaign against S24. I happen to think that placing one's real name on social media is foolish though I do understand that writing your admirable report meant anonymity wasn't an option for you.

If pointing out the full facts to an audience that only wants to hear factoids that support its preconceptions is trolling then a troll I must be. I suppose it's because of the scientific training I received that I change my mind when the facts I can ascertain change.

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "26/06/2017 - 11:34":

Yes, he said requisition. The difference between that and expropriation is only a question of how long the owner survives.

If properties are requisitioned to house the homeless they will be given back as soon as
no-one is homeless, i.e. never. Corbyn’s intention was to remove them from the control of the owners, thus revealing his communist attitude to private property.

He was trying to make it seem normal to seize other people’s property. And he was trying to whip up the Socialist Workers who had already attempted to break into the council offices.

John McDonnell was trying to whip up the mob when he made the ludicrous accusation that the Grenfell victims were murdered, i.e. killed deliberately.

These utterances should be a dreadful warning. If these two rabble-rousing Marxists ever win an election - by promising even more bribes to the electorate - they will reduce the UK to a second-world republic. Instead of rent caps we will get labour camps, to be built after the glorious revolution when the useful idiots in the PLP have been purged and all other parties have been banned.

Reply to the comment left by "Luk Udav" at "18/06/2017 - 14:49":

You are not affected by S 24 but claim that you support our campaign against it. However, you stated ”there isn’t a hope in hell of S.24 being undone in the medium term”. That is the sort of support we can do without.

And in the meantime - Gidiot gets another (voluntary) job - from Manchester University:
http://www.cityam.com/267547/george-osborne-has-another-new-job?
How anyone there and elsewhere can benefit from anything he may be able to deliver I really do not know.
I wonder if the students know how they are scr--ed up by his S24?

Reply to the comment left by "Whiteskifreak Surrey" at "29/06/2017 - 12:21":

"The former chancellor has been appointed as an honorary professor of economics at the University of Manchester, the Financial Times reported."

They have got to be having a laugh! What GO knows about economics wouldn't fill the back of a postage stamp.