- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3280 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
176 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 90725
>Mr Johnson also channeled the spirit of Thatcher's 1980s revolution by pledging to save the dream of home ownership for a new generation, with the government underwriting 95 per cent mortgages for around two million first-time buyers.
>The government has yet to give details, but it seems some of the 'stress test' rules imposed on banks after the 2008 financial crisis could be relaxed to facilitate long-term fixed rate mortgages at 95 per cent of a property's value. The government could instead accept some of the risk through a guarantee scheme - although this would leave the taxpayer on the hook for potentially huge sums.
https://www.If I post a link to this website again I will be banned..co.uk/news/article-8810043/Boris-Johnson-sets-vision-post-Covid-Britain.html
Let's overheat the housing market further by softening the measures brought in as a result of the financial crisis. What could possibly go wrong?
|>>|| No. 90726
Do people in power benefit greatly from ridiculous house prices?
|>>|| No. 90728
Lots of politicians are landlords. A lot of donations to the Tory party come from property developers. Fuck knows how much has been lent out via Help to Buy, which has a vested interest in property prices rising.
|>>|| No. 90729
As long as you aren't in the South East raising the deposit amount isn't that difficult. The fact that most houses cost far more than 4.5x your salary is. This scheme does nothing.
|>>|| No. 90730
Sub-prime mortgage crisis 2: Conservative boogaloo except this time the government bankrupts itself or the taxpayer? NICE.
|>>|| No. 90731
As someone looking to buy a home in April-ish, I'm intrigued. Although my understanding is the banks aren't giving mortgages at even 10% deposit at the moment, it would have to be awfully generous.
Oh, and green-top for life. The proper milk to have in your tea, I've noticed that full-fat fans are all not really milk drinkers.
>If I post a link to this website again I will be banned
Not him but this is silly. We get it 2007, the Daily Mail is a rag but this is a thread where we have a cunt-off over the correct milk.
|>>|| No. 90732
As far as I'm aware blue milk is only encouraged for very small children.
|>>|| No. 90734
I might be an outlier because I'm the kind of decadent bastard who could drink cream out of the pot, but nothing beats blue milk in a coffee or on cereal.
It's not for hydration, it's for flavour. If you want something watery drink water.
|>>|| No. 90735
I wish the government would just hurry up and build council houses with a view to immediately selling them off. Everyone's happy that way (well, except cunts with investment properties, but if the government would stop culling badgers and start culling them I wouldn't complain.)
The government could actually turn a profit if it manages to build the houses at reasonable rates, since prices are so obscene that selling a house at half it's market value would still leave you with a lot of money to build the house. (And you could either have the government notionally retain ownership of the underlying land, or [ab]use its power to buy up land cheaply.) People would be able to actually afford houses again. Some of the houses could still go into the general social housing stock rather than being sold. It's a win for both Tory and Labour principles. The problem with right to buy was never that people would buy up all the houses: It's that councils weren't allowed to build more. Drop the dogmatic opposition to social housing that Thatcher had and it's actually not a bad way of boosting home ownership.
|>>|| No. 90737
Blue milk in tea is too creamy, it overwhelms the flavour of the brew.
The government is willing to do anything to make home ownership more affordable, so long as it doesn't bring down house prices. Baby Boomers have treated housing as an infallible store of value rather than somewhere for people to live and they substantially outnumber the young people who are stuck in shitty buy-to-let rents. At some point in the last couple of decades, being a slum lord became a respectable middle-class pursuit.
|>>|| No. 90738
>At some point in the last couple of decades, being a slum lord became a respectable middle-class pursuit.
Tonty Blair is behind this. Under New Labour it became a lot easier to obtain a buy-to-let mortgage, which led to a campaign to push being a landlord as acceptable and remove the stigma associated with it. The dot.com bubble happened so people became wary of stockmarket investing and pumped their money into property due to the continually rising prices and the reassurance of it being a tangible asset. Whilst this was going on there was continual property porn on the telly thanks to the likes of Kirstie Allsopp, Sarah Beeny and Kevin McCloud. Labour left housebuilding down to the market, but it turned out they'd rather limit supply and push prices up.
This is without even mentioning population growth. What is often overlooked in the housing crisis is that a lot of family homes have been converted into HMOs thanks to both the boom in the student population and the rise in net migration, which has cut the supply even further.
|>>|| No. 90740
>>90737 The government is willing to do anything to make home ownership more affordable, so long as it doesn't bring down house prices.
Inflation used to do that. Remember inflation? It's been a while...
|>>|| No. 91692
Don’t pay your mortgage, urge climate activists
Extinction Rebellion has called for supporters to stop making mortgage payments and take out loans with no intention of paying them back in an attempt to force the government and banks to take further action towards reducing carbon emissions.
The environmental campaign group, which has urged the government to declare a climate and ecological emergency, called for people to engage in “financial disobedience” by refusing to pay debts including credit cards and payday loans. It even suggests taking out loans or opening bank accounts to run up a “small” overdraft with no intention to pay it back. The lobbyists said that the campaign, which is called “Money rebellion”, would aim to donate the money saved by refusing to pay back loans and mortgage repayments to support those worst hit by the negative impacts of climate change.
Whatever will those ker-azy krusties think up next?
|>>|| No. 91693
What could possibly go wrong with that?
Other than bankruptcy, homelessness and the worst credit record ever. Seems legit.
|>>|| No. 91694
Well, I suppose it eliminates the problem of middle class hippies if they're all living in debt slavery. Extinction Rebellion gets activists who never grow up, landlords get lifetime renters and I'm sure people under crushing debt are easier for the police to control. Everyone's a winner.
|>>|| No. 91695
It would work if they got a critical mass of people to do it, but I can't imagine that happening.
This is basically the background plot to Fight Club but with tweets instead of bombs.
|>>|| No. 91696
One of the cofounders of XR has said of it:
>I hope that this campaign is embraced by everyone who is a reasonable person who’s willing to have a conversation.
They're like PETA. People agree with the underlying cause but they have a habit of turning people against them with stunts like this - no wonder she's also bemoaning that they're seen as out of touch lefties.
|>>|| No. 91698
That;s the crux of the matter isn;t it. If enough people did it it'd be devastatingly effective- the same way we could leave Jeff Bezos penniless within the week if we just all decided one day to stop buying things on Amazon. You could say it about an incredible number of things. If the entire NHS had gone on strike earlier this year, the PPE thing would have been solved within hours and they'd all have a nice payrise- They couldn't afford to sack any of them in March, they could have taken the government fucking hostage.
But people are never collective enough. When was the last time a large enough group of people acted coherently to force something like this? It certainly wasn't within my lifetime, and this set of bloody posturing dickheads think they'll get the whole country to stop paying its mortgage?
Of course, they don't think that at all, they're just doing it for the controversy publicity. I don't know if I hate that even more cynically, but I do feel a bit sorry for the naive student types who'll take out massive loans and bury themselves in debt because Twitter told them to.
|>>|| No. 91699
I don't see how not paying off a secured loan hurts anyone except the one not paying it.
|>>|| No. 91700
If you stop paying your mortgage, it's your problem. If everyone stops paying their mortgage, it's the bank's problem. Which by extension is your problem, because it'd cause a financial crash worse than the great depression.
|>>|| No. 91701
I think the problem they will immediately run into is that banks will cotton on pretty quickly to a surge of new applications (even if they didn't announce it and possibly before staff suffer a nervous breakdown). Any surge of demand will see tightening of lending requirements and fees which would hurt real people fighting over limited credit thanks to piss-takers.
The proper solution from my mind would be to engage in shareholder activism which already happens under ESG criteria. It wouldn't even be hard to pass a collection plate and use monies to collectively invest to this end as a kind of fund which has the side benefit of educating your membership. Then again, I imagine suggesting that would get you put in the wicker man.
|>>|| No. 91702
Does taking out an overdraft and not paying it off even hurt the bank that much?
I assume the money is supposed to grow into a giant glob of unpaid debt over time, and then the bank will write that on their balance sheet as money that they expect to receive in future until for one reason or another they've got to recognize they're never getting it. But I can't decide if our banking system is weird enough that such a "loss" is considered an actual loss, considering all that was actually lost was the initial small sum.
I suppose if everyone does it it's supposed to dry up credit or something, but I'm more interested in that narrow effect.
|>>|| No. 91703
But it's a mortgage, not rent. They'll just foreclose to get their money.
|>>|| No. 91705
>the bank will write that on their balance sheet as money that they expect to receive in future until for one reason or another they've got to recognize they're never getting it
The process is a little bit more precise than that. The 2008 crisis was triggered by people defaulting on their mortgages, so banks are now required by the Basel Accords to report detailed information on delinquency and defaults to their national regulator. An increase in the default rate triggers a sequence of increasingly stark interventions to prevent another Northern Rock.
The estimated probability of loss and loss given default are baked in to the cost of credit, which is why some people can get 0% on their credit cards and some people pay 399% APR to QuickQuid; the big systemic issues occur when banks have under-estimated the PD and/or LGD for a significant proportion of their lending.
It costs money to repossess a house, it costs money to sell it and if a lot of people default at the same time you're selling into a depressed market. Defaults are a cost of doing business for any lender, but the banks would very much prefer that you keep paying your mortgage.
|>>|| No. 91707
But if enough people do this, who are they going to sell these houses to?
|>>|| No. 91708
It looks like they're also advocating tax evasion:
The Government continues to pour our taxes into fossil fuel subsidies, condition-free bailouts for polluting industries, and HS2, an aviation shuttle service that is destroying nature. It continues to judge the success of our economy by growth in GDP, instead of growth in the social and environmental measures that a majority of UK citizens want.
The government isn’t using our taxes to keep us safe. So small business owners are holding some back – and donating it to those that are showing the government how it’s done.
|>>|| No. 91709
I'm starting to think they've been compromised by MI5 and this is all a plan to get everyone who follows them bankrupt and/or thrown in jail.
|>>|| No. 91711
Any environmental group opposed to HS2 is well sus. The railway south of Rugby is full. Literally. There's no room to put more services or lay more track. The only way to get more passenger trains on that route is to run fewer freight services, which means moving more cargo by road. A significant length of HS2 is being built along disused alignments, particularly the GCR north of Amersham.
In short, anyone that doesn't want HS2 implicitly accepts more polluting traffic on the roads.
|>>|| No. 91712
You are wrong.png
Me and probably multinational investors seeing as how property in this country is safe as, well, houses. All those idiots are going to need to rent somewhere so we'll live like feudal lords. I can certainly also see businesses getting quickly snapped up at auction by chains should owners try and pull a fast one on this.
Imagine getting a prime location bakery on the cheap and having a constant stream of cinnamon swirls and hot sausage rolls.
|>>|| No. 91713
Point taken, though you couldn't pay me to run a bakery, what a living nightmare that is.
|>>|| No. 91716
Why don't they just build a normal railway if that's the case, and not one that's a mile wide? If you think we need more travel capacity there and the only answers you give are a false binary of more cars or cutting a mile wide swath through the country then your reasoning is "well sus".
|>>|| No. 91718
That would approximately double travel times and make the resulting railway far less useful. People commute by time, not distance.
I'm also quite skeptical of the mile wide figure.
|>>|| No. 91720
>That would approximately double travel times
How does 20 minutes faster translate to double?
>I'm also quite skeptical of the mile wide figure.
I'm quite sceptical of how well informed you are on the matter.
|>>|| No. 91722
Do you think they're just going to leave it like that when they're finished?
|>>|| No. 91727
It's funny that a commercial forestry block becomes a sacred ancient site after a couple of hundred years. I've got furniture older than most of the trees people are bleating about.
Britain is a giant factory farm and has been for nearly a millennium. We don't have any "natural sites" and anyone who says otherwise is sadly misinformed. If you're sentimentally attached to certain remnants of old commercial agriculture then that's your prerogative, but don't pretend it has anything to do with the environment.
|>>|| No. 91729
"Don't pretend that the few bits of forest we have left have anything to do with the environment if they aren't as arbitrarily old or natural as I decide. We've been slowly destroying our nature for nearly a millennium, how dare anyone suggest this isn't a good thing?"
|>>|| No. 91730
>How does 20 minutes faster translate to double?
By taking the figure for London-Manchester rather than London-Birmingham
|>>|| No. 91735
Seeing trees cut down makes me sad. Perhaps we should scrap the whole thing and build something less harmful to the environment. I propose using aeroplanes for our intercity travel needs, which won't involve cutting down any trees or any other forms of environmental damage like ugly, nasty trains.
|>>|| No. 91737
It's not as though people can travel less and work from home more. No! Infinite growth! Progress! I am a cartoon character wearing a top hat and smoking a cigar!
|>>|| No. 91738
Every job is an office job.
I am a different cartoon character, wearing blinkers.
|>>|| No. 91739
Enough are that it's more or less irrelevant. It's okay, though. You just keep reciting HS2 Ltd's lines, I'm sure they're more trustworthy than those sus protesters who know far more about it than you, they must have ulterior motives. Anyone who claims to be doing good must be; you'd know.
It's not as though HS2 Ltd have anything to gain by misleading you.
|>>|| No. 91740
Shit's got to move. People have the option of moving or not moving. Stuff does not - it has to move no matter what. Do you want that moving on rails, hauled by electric engines drawing power from an increasingly decarbonised grid? Or on the roads, hauled by diesel tractor units?
The spec is 22m for two tracks with safe access. Here's what 22m for two tracks with an access path looks like.
|>>|| No. 91741
For fuck's sake mate. We're in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens to wipe out most of the East Coast of England by the end of the century and render most of Africa and the Middle East uninhabitable. A bunch of NIMBYs are trying to block a major piece of green infrastructure because they like pretty trees.
Cutting down those trees is carbon-negative, because they're being replaced with a far greater number of faster-growing trees that sequester more carbon. Even if we weren't building a big electrically-powered railway that will prevent millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions, cutting down those trees and replacing them is good for the climate.
They aren't dogooders, they're dobadders. They're actively trying to make the world worse for everyone but themselves, because they prefer pretty trees to human lives. Their proposed alternatives aren't alternatives at all, they're just the environmental equivalent of Qu'ils mangent de la brioche - if everyone just eked out the most meagre existence possible, we could save the climate without cutting down any pretty trees or building any ugly wind turbines and scary nuclear reactors.
I was there at Newbury, I drank Merrydown with the Dongas, I shifted spoil for Disco Dave. I was wrong then and they're wrong now. We can't afford to be parochial or sentimental, we can't leave any option off the table; we need massive infrastructural and technological change to survive this crisis. We need a positive vision for a zero-carbon future, otherwise our species will see our final generations slaughtered in resource wars over the last dregs of drinkable water and the last scraps of arable land.
|>>|| No. 91742
First XR, now HS2. All we need is someone to bring up trannies and we have the trifecta.
|>>|| No. 91743
Is this Nimbyism? I can't tell any more. The lines are all blurred. Anyway, I'm all for better transport links in this country. I don't think we have it as good as continental Europe or Japan.
Those Nimby twats were protesting outside the council before lockdown, because some houses were being built. Where are you even meant to build if everywhere is protected? We can't all just become forest elves.
I was hoping Boris would make it easier, just to shit on these Nimby twats.
|>>|| No. 91744
Ah, yes, fucking NIMBYs.
>We need more housing, now!
>No, not there, somewhere else!
|>>|| No. 91746
>Cutting down those trees is carbon-negative, because they're being replaced with a far greater number of faster-growing trees that sequester more carbon. Even if we weren't building a big electrically-powered railway that will prevent millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions, cutting down those trees and replacing them is good for the climate.
Are you lying or just thick? Those trees won't sequester anything like that much carbon in time, particularly if they just die and get replaced every year because that's cheaper than watering -
although at the time of writing they haven't actually even been replaced. Not to mention the equal threat of biodiversity loss which just planting a load of saplings can't replace.
Nothing else in your post warrants a response.
|>>|| No. 91747
“The summer of 2018 was the hottest on record in England, with an average of just 35.4mm of rain falling in June, half the usual amount.
“We estimate it would have cost around £2m to water the trees during the drought, so replacing these plants is a much more cost-effective solution, as well as a more ethical use of resources during unprecedented conditions at the height of summer.”
Jog on m8.
|>>|| No. 91748
Biodiversity? In England? Didn't the sheep-farmers kill everything already? England is just a massive park.
|>>|| No. 92434
>Rishi Sunak is preparing to extend the stamp duty holiday by three months until the end of June in an attempt to keep the property market firing as Britain emerges from lockdown.
>In July last year the government exempted most buyers from the levy if they completed their purchase before March 31, 2021. The holiday enables people to save up to £15,000 in tax. The chancellor has faced pressure to extend the deadline amid concerns that it would create a “cliff-edge”, jeopardising hundreds of thousands of sales.
>The Times has been told that Sunak will use his budget on March 3 to move it to the end of June, bringing it into line with the easing of lockdown restrictions. The extension to the policy, which covers sales of properties worth up to £500,000, could cost about £1 billion.
|>>|| No. 92435
I'm sick of this communist government and its efforts to abolish private property ownership. There are many people like me who are now able to buy a first home due to forced saving but have seen house prices rise to prop up the rich shits who can easily afford the 2.5k tax.
|>>|| No. 92436
Heres hoping Sunak cans SDLT permanently and replaces it with a land value tax.
|>>|| No. 92446
>A new mortgage guarantee scheme to help people with small deposits get on the property ladder is set to be announced at next week's Budget. The government will offer incentives to lenders, bringing back 95% mortgages which have "virtually disappeared" during the pandemic, the Treasury said.
>The coronavirus pandemic has meant there are few low-deposit mortgages available, the Treasury said, with just eight on the market in January. Low-deposit mortgages are often seen as riskier by banks as they are more vulnerable to negative changes in property prices - meaning people hold more debt than their home is worth. Under the new scheme, which will launch across the UK in April, the government will offer to take on some of this risk. It is not restricted to first-time buyers or new-build homes, but there will be a £600,000 limit.
What we've been crying out for is the government to underwrite mortgages for those with an income of ~£125k so they can get a house worth £600k with a deposit of about £30k.
|>>|| No. 92447
I hate this shit. Deposit is not the issue. I have just under £30k saved but 4.5x my salary gets me nothing.
|>>|| No. 92448
It's almost as if the government are propping up the property market for the benefit of boomer BtL scum.
|>>|| No. 92449
I'm not sure having banks lend more, with the resulting rise in interest, would be a good idea. The 5% mortgage and Help to Buy are mental enough and will no doubt cause problems in a rising interest rate scenario while bumping house prices.
I'm in a similar situation living in London but have found that if you go outside of the South-East it's not so bad. If the government had instead stumped up on making these places viable by encouraging employers to offer a guaranteed option of living in the provinces then it would be much more sustainable.
I don't see how this would help BtL. These programmes are for first-time buyers.
|>>|| No. 92450
>It is not restricted to first-time buyers or new-build homes, but there will be a £600,000 limit.
|>>|| No. 92451
Why wouldn't they? Many politicians are landlords, the Tories get a substantial amount of donations from property developers and the higher property prices go up, the more the government will be paid back by people who took out Help to Buy mortgages.
|>>|| No. 92562
kornheiser two fingers.png
I got banned from 4chan (I plan to appeal) and now I'm looking for somewhere else to post. Sorry if this post is awful. Anyway: I just want you to know that I am in the exact same position as you. Like, exactly. It used to be 4.75x your salary that you could borrow, which would net me a comfy 160-grand house in the ghetto right by my work. I could walk home each lunchtime. When I started this job four years ago, houses were £120-£140,000.
Of course, homeowners tend to vote Conservative, so the blue boys don't want us to afford a house because house prices must be high, and the red boys don't want us to afford a house because then we'll stop voting for them. There is a universal consensus against us.
There's also the issue of muh family values. If I had a wife, we could pool our incomes and get the mortgage. But I don't, and therefore I am like Shamima Begum to them.
|>>|| No. 92563
>if you go outside of the South-East it's not so bad
But then your salary goes down accordingly. I looked up my job on job websites a year or two ago, to see what other companies pay. In Andover, my exact job, identical in every way, pays 40-60 grand a year. In Manchester, I get paid 20-30 grand for it. So I could literally double my salary overnight just by moving, but I couldn't buy a house still because the houses are suddenly 400 grand.
I have been advised that I could buy a cheaper house somewhere remote, and just drive 40 miles to work each day. And house prices will of course go up. But they'll go up everywhere, so I won't get any richer By the time I can afford 160 grand, houses closer to my work will be 250 grand. It's some of the worst advice I have ever heard.
|>>|| No. 92564
Buy a house in one place and pay it off while living in another place but renting the house in the first place out to make up the difference?
|>>|| No. 92569
I have thought that I could do that, because the profits from being a slum lord would increase my income and qualify me for better mortgages, allowing me to expand my property empire. It's not good and it's not right, and it would of course rob me of my deposit and make me rent for a load more years, but it would technically work.
I'm 33 years old, by the way. If I retire at 65, which I obviously won't but the banks still assume I will, I don't have many years left before it's too late to get another mortgage.
|>>|| No. 92573
>I have been advised that I could buy a cheaper house somewhere remote, and just drive 40 miles to work each day. And house prices will of course go up. But they'll go up everywhere, so I won't get any richer By the time I can afford 160 grand, houses closer to my work will be 250 grand. It's some of the worst advice I have ever heard.
You're missing the real kicker which is that prices will rise unevenly so that your shack on the outskirts of Milton Keynes will hardly appreciate compared to the prices in the cities. Then there is the fact that transportation costs are already ruinously expensive if you need a season ticket and that seems unlikely to change.
Still, I suppose you'd better buy now before property becomes completely unaffordable. It doesn't seem like the bubble will ever be allowed to burst.
|>>|| No. 92808
They're at it again.
>Extinction Rebellion is planning to step up its campaign against the banking system with a series of direct action protests and debt strikes in the coming weeks aimed at highlighting the financial sector’s role in the escalating climate crisis.
>Last week the group targeted Barclays Bank’s headquarters in London and the Bank of England as well as high street branches across the UK as part of its Money Rebellion protest. One of XR’s founders, Gail Bradbrook, broke the windows of the Barclays branch in her home town of Stroud to kickstart the campaign. “This is an escalation in tactics,” she said. “As the suffragettes said, better broken windows than broken promises. What do we need to do to shake the system, to change the system that is killing us … I literally do not know what else to do.”
>XR said more direct action protests were planned for this week as part of a campaign that will also involve debt, tax and mortgage strikes. One group of activists have taken out loans totalling £4,000 from Barclays that they are refusing to repay and have instead donated the money to the human rights group Survival International. Later this month XR is planning to launch a tax strike during which campaigners will withhold a percentage of theirs – about 3.5% from business or income tax. The money, which the group has calculated is the percentage the government spends on “harming the planet”, will be withheld for a year, and if by that time ministers have not met the group’s demands – including telling the truth about the climate emergency and cancelling “destructive projects” – the money will be donated to Wilderlands, a project to support nature in the UK.
|>>|| No. 92823
> £4,000 from Barclays that they are refusing to repay
They won't know what hit 'em!
|>>|| No. 92825
>One of XR’s founders, Gail Bradbrook, broke the windows of the Barclays branch in her home town of Stroud to kickstart the campaign. “This is an escalation in tactics,” she said. “As the suffragettes said, better broken windows than broken promises. What do we need to do to shake the system, to change the system that is killing us … I literally do not know what else to do.”
Why must they be so insufferable? Would though.
|>>|| No. 92828
does fanny look like an armpit?
does armpit look like a fanny?
|>>|| No. 92838
Banks are insufferable too, though. "Ooh, look at me, I make millions just from holding onto money that isn't even mine. Ooh, no, don't come to me on a Saturday when you have free time; I'll be closed then. Look at me, I'm so big, I'm too big to fail." Wankers. Fuck their windows.
|>>|| No. 92839
I know what I said. Don't try and gaslight me on who I would have sexual relations with. And that goes double for insufferable hippy chicks. How I suffer the curse of wanting to bone that which I cannot stand.
|>>|| No. 92840
I'm pretty sure there are photos in circulation of her baps from the Shire Hall protest, but I think you might be disappointed.
|>>|| No. 92947
Feels weird to have been on .gs/Britchan for the best part of a decade and only now has my quaint home county of Gloucestershire come up because of some angry hippies
|>>|| No. 92971
That looks like a Knog Frog, they're decent enough as "be seen" lights. The more concerning part is:
It's a lovely place where the stink of champagne socialism almost covers up the smell of no-poo soap free natural body care.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]