LOL! I identified the empirical reality: using even a mildly restrictive measure of poverty, less than 1/3 of British homeowners are poor. Proving you lied. Oh, and I am enjoying watching you squirm, Reiver. I'm lovin' it. Nope. I already proved that is merely a fabricated artefact of redefining poverty to delete the actual defining characteristic of poverty: lack of assets. But I invite you to keep squirming. LOL! I'm the one who QUOTED from it, dumpling, while you have been confined to making unsupported claims -- and even claiming support from quotes that self-evidently don't support your claims. ROTFL!! Too funny! That table flat-out PROVES YOU LIED. You claimed the 50%-of-poor-are-homeowners relation was robust across poverty measures -- do you want me to increase your humiliation and discomfort by quoting you, to make you squirm even more? -- and the table flat-out PROVES YOU LIED, as only 32% are homeowners when even the most mildly restrictive poverty measure is used. Remember? Here's Burrows again, proving you lied: "We can also note that, as the definition of poverty becomes more and more restricted, the proportion of those in poverty who are home owners the focus of our concern here decreases." I gave the sources you requested, and I am not going to fall for your time-wasting no-source-is-ever-good-enough trick. Try it on someone who isn't onto you. Which you somehow fail to identify.... <yawn> Speaking of putting feet in it... I'm still waiting for you to provide some support for your claim that half of British homeowners are poor. And waiting, and waiting... Squirm, little boy, squirm. You again brazenly lie about what I have plainly written. Either provide a direct, verbatim, in-context quote where I say owner occupiers are worse than thieves, or admit you are just lying again, as usual. Failure to do the first will constitute doing the second. And you will not be doing the first.