Quite right. We're only teasing ... Be interesting to see what HMRC do re selling of the place. They honestly take NO hostages where back tax is concerned, the house will have to go, one way or another. Spare a sympathetic thought for the neighbours in the next place she moves to.

Meanwhile, any inside info about The Baker, The Wedding ...? May is almost halfway through and I thought the nuptials were scheduled for this month. All those individually hand-painted 'Save The Day' cards ....oh, the pity, the pity of it all.

Still, knowing Liz, there may still be a 'rabbit out of the hat' moment ... when it ALL COMES RIGHT AND HAPPY EVER AFTER. For a bit.

Sorry, Bellagio, wiser counsels here have prevailed - I've kept the £1 postal order - will spend it on a down-payment on a MacDonald's cheesy beefy baconey vegan line-caught organic burger.

aw man, so we can't send a DS delegate to check the place out? I suppose you're right. However, if someone wished to do it off their own bat, there is nothing anyone could do to prevent that...

Liz is a Marie Antoinette of the countryside

She has this fantasy idea or rural living derived from glossy magazines where life is all designer products, AGAs, fluffy lambs and cats fed on M&S prawns - she seems to have little idea of rural life and especially farming on a day to day basis.

Islington is her natural habitat but she will never get back there post IVA unless she can find a cut-price bed in a shed.

She does not seen to realise that the tax office does not care about her neighbour problems - they will just force an auction of her property for whatever they can get and someone will snap it up although it seems to need major work to put it back into good condition.

However like Marie she seems to be living in her own reality and fails to realise that even Garnier Fructis is out of her budget unless bought at Poundland.

I wonder what the state of the house is? From the estate agency's photos, it looks OK from the outside. Inside, while the décor and furnishings are not that great, it doesn't look dilapidated. Of course, hard to tell what the grounds are like. I suppose if you've got three incontinent dogs and seventeen cats running around inside the house, it doesn't help keep the place up to scratch(!). (By the way, I still don't believe the 'seventeen cats' claim, though I do believe that the catnapped Prudence exists).

A number of different sources in Dulverton said she wrecked the house and for all her claims of having OCD it was messy and straight out dirty.

The house looked a lot cosier and better maintained when she bought it - probably in part to having carpet and better furnishings. The "work" that Liz has done looks cheap and has led to the house looking tired and in need of rennovation not to mention her "home styling" issues - for example the cheap fairy lights and paper ripped off the living room wall. This is not a well presented house - given the money she is asking. It no longer really works as a family house (the main amrket) with her strange decision to move the kitchen from the ground floor to the basement. Parents are not going to run between the kitchen/dning room on different floors. She also lost a bedroom.

Here is Liz marketing the house as a 3 bed house
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-53214913.html

And here is the brochure from when she bought it as a 4 bed house
http://media.rightmove.co.uk/46k/459...OC_00_0000.pdf

Didn't she move the kitchen downstairs so the dogs could use it ? Struck me at the time as not very sanitary! The fourth bedroom was evidently pinched for the Master Bathroom. Pity, when there is adequate space inside the master bedroom (at 16 x 16) for a smallish bathroom.

Her furnishings are awful, as is the flooring. Walking around that house must be as noisy as thunder and the boards are not the sort you usually leave exposed. So odd, as it looked quite a nice place when she bought it!

Very odd, all of it and, although I was interested by Knowledgepower's post, I'm not sure I believed all of it

She seems to have bought that horrible Knole armchair in the lounge off the previous owner. All that bare plaster doesn't look good either, and a few coats of Dulux's finest wouldn't have gone amiss. The 'library' - though I'm not sure how you can make a library out of 1000's of back copies of Vogue - appears to have been converted from the old kitchen.

Her furniture choices are really strange - there is not a lot of furniture but not in a cool Scandi minimalist design way - but more in a student accomodation furnished from charity shops sort of way. Even the bedroom has dog bowls plonked on the floor

I think the (former kitchen) "library" must be her home office - perhaps she gets inspired surrounded by back issues of Vogue? - but as someone who writes from home it feels very claustrophobic and I wonder why there is no printer/scanner etc. I suspect that the new owners will put back a kitchen/diner there

Lizard that is not a library, that is an archive. A rather pointless one at that since surely Vogue has its own. You have never managed to look either fashionable or stylish, let alone both, so it was an almighty waste of time, effort and money.

And just because I'm in a bad mood, the late (and very likeable) Sally Brampton worked for Vogue after winning their talent competition, so it can be done. But then she had talent and studied the subjects and that sort of thing.

I think the bathrooms are the same - the fourth bedroom was the one on the lower ground floor that was sacrificed for the new kitchen.

Didn't she move the kitchen downstairs so the dogs could use it ?

That's really daft. Dogs can't cook.

Oh no, BellaFiga, 'Sam' (the dog also known as 'Michael') can do ALL SORTS of things. As well as bringing home the bacon .. OK, mutton ..., in the form of mauled to death sheep, he is a HEARING DOG, don't you know? He goes to the opera with Jones and not only explains the plot, but hums the tunes too ... So of course, cooking is a doggy doddle. And hasn't Jones described him, in the past, as her 'husband'? Er ... not going there, sorry.

Hearing dog, one of her top 10 most offensive to actual hearing impaired people throwaway comments.

I imagine that people in the village are well aware of what she's been writing about the place and the locals, and Liz has pointed to DS as a place where she's talked about, so I suppose the chances of one of them wanting to have a say isn't that unlikely. Can I ask, what don't you believe?

I don't know why you all take her so seriously. She has admitted that her column isn't based on the real her and its pretty much all made up, The real Liz Jones is not the one she portrays in her articles.

The real Liz Jones wrote the Joanna Yeates piece and had those horrible photos of her with her poor sick mother published. Slagging off the diary is fun, that stuff isn't.

She calls herself a 'confessional journalist' so why is what she writes untrue?

It's just the way the message from Knowledgepower reads that I find a little odd. Nearly all the information in it is already common knowledge, so what is the purpose of it? We aren't people who will have any sort of effect on what happens, so why tell us?

A couple of examples - Jamie seen driving around looking for the horses. If he still (as Liz says) has a crush on Nicola, wouldn't he be looking for her? Stalkers can carry on for years and years. How does this person know Jamie is going nowhere except on his own farm? I am not a believer of Liz in general, but her side of this sounds more likely - "walking up and down with a map"?

She is making so many people miserable. She mentions very few other people in her columns. Also, there are local people who would buy the house for the right price. Why would we want to know that? Go and ask the estate agent or whoever is dealing with her financial affairs.

I just feel as if there is a hidden agenda here.

When it comes to the idea that a person's house is dirty and ruined, well I think that can be a judgment call. Many people would say my house was a tip and filthy since I moved in, because I am messy and not a particularly diligent housekeeper, and I work a lot and like to relax when I'm not working and can't afford a cleaner. Liz' house looks threadbare and student flatlike more than anything. It doesn't look filthy or whatever. It does look as though the changes she's made are very urban and they won't necessarily win hearts and minds of country-minded folk. It's almost as if she hasn't lived in a large house before.

But when it comes to deliberately seeking to make it hard to sell, that I can see. To be honest, it's not that the house would NOT be sold anyway. It's her knowing that the house will make the bank less money than it might, thereby allowing her to enact a small amount of revenge.

Why does she not declare bankruptcy? I would if I were her.

Gosh. I'm surprised Liz is not listed among these celebrities:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...nkies-out.html

You'd have thought Uri Geller, at least, would know how much he could realistically get for his house.

The making it likely to sell for less only damages her. The bank will offset any monies against their profits and Liz will get even less - I assume her whole debt isn't owed to the bank as credit cards are different companies for a start.

I can understand the wish to take it out on someone though!

Well only a month or so ago she was describing herself as "resolutely single" so I'm not surprised the wedding doesn't seem to be on. If it were going ahead she probably wouldn't have complained so much about how this time last year everything was perfect and she was ordering in the hand-painted invitations, counting the Louboutin miles to the church, having her "hen night" at a luxury spa nine months in advance ...

Hasn't her main debt been caused by unpaid income taxes - she may end up with very little after her main assets have been sold. I don't know how it works with tax debts but she may still be liable