Lammy… again!

Yes, Purgatory. It was a big FY to women. Well we're nothing real anyway as any male can just be fitted out with synthetic hormones and surgery and voila, apparently.

Would DL be so 'magic thinking' about it if a male Rachel Dolezal said that a regular UV treatment and some surgical hair extensions made them the same as DL. Doubt it somehow.

Certainly when women bodies function differently from men's. The difference is very real, not just an outward appearance.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Funny (peculiar) double-standard I just noticed.

Because women have historically been oppressed as a class, we are seen as morally obliged to listen and provide solidarity to any other class experiencing oppression. You see this in claims that feminism must centre transwomen, f'r instance.

Now, look at David Lammy again. He is arguing that because he belongs to a class that has historically been oppressed, he doesn't have to listen or provide solidarity to any other class experiencing oppression.

Strange how that works.

It is not a competition between racism and misogyny. It was something Lammy used as a cheap shot to shut down a woman asking him questions and highlighting his misogyny and ignorance. All the while he was trying to pretend he was an expert on women's bodies being nowt much as you can grow the bits just as easily as be born with them. And women's rights and safety wasn't important to anyone really. Wasn't one of the important subjects he had self id's as much more important. By doing so, he cheapened and badly misused the issue of racism.

I wonder would he still have tried to do it if the presenter had been a black woman. I think my immediate response would have been that I wasn't going to take lectures from a man on how other males could become women. Especially when he was talking such unadulterated shite.

As I alluded to elsewhere, at the time Lammy was born, Afro-Carribbeans were in total control of Guyanese politics at the expense of the more numerous Asians (brought over to work the sugar cane fields in place of the Africans.) The indiginous Amerindians meanwhile, continue to be treated like wildlife rather than people.

I should add that the Slavery Abolition Act was promulgated in 1833 - almost two hundred years ago. Let's play Oppression Olympics regarding women's rights, shall we? Let's see who is more oppressed, Mr Lammy.

Your move, Mr Lammy.

Furthermore, Britain led the way in the anti-slavery movement and the current anti-modern slavery Act (can't recall the exact name) was the work of a white woman in a Conservative government.

Too bad Mr Lammy didn't learn history in his expensive school or at SOAS.

Isn’t it both brothers with new names OhHolyJesus?

Just had to share this.

(PS The Matrix Director has a new name 🧐)

Camilla Long in today's Times;
MP David Lammy basically said he’d heard a rumour that a cervix is something “you can have following hormone treatment and all the rest”. You just thought: has he ever been near one? And these are the people who make our laws.

David Lammy's trumpcard seems to be what his ancestors went through. (Whether he realises that 50% of them were women, and that their sex would have added an extra dimension to what they were subjected to, is an open question.)

David Lammy was also born in 1972. Let's think about some rights women didn't have until after he was born.

Women being able to drink without a male chaperone in pubs? 1982.

What else?

Keep it up, Labour! Maybe you'll get elected in the 22nd century!

Maybe.

Thanks, @PurgatoryOfPotholes. DL is even stupider than I had originally thought. Because my ancestors were slaves I'm not going to listen to anyone else's opinions on rights? I am not someone who swears but if I did I would have some choice words for that whiny ignorant self-pitying arrogant bottomfeeder.

Perhaps he's just really bad at communication, Alfonso? Bit unfortunate in a cabinet/shadow cabinet minister, really.

Jane Clare Jones transcribed the whole thing here
twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1443288464804532225?s=19

Here is the most salient parts. Her notations are in red.

He has lived one of the most privilidged lives immaginable, unlike women who end up in prison who have terrible rates of abuse against them.
This man is UTTERLLY DISCUSTING.

He's desperate. Using the race card to cover the fact he oppresses women. The man discusts me. Is it possible to get any lower?

Yes, no doubt the application ticked all necessary boxes to go through.

Yes, DL did oppose conversion of these good-sized family homes into flat when he lived in the area.

Having upgraded his address for schools, his pov seems to have changed.

Just to say this is all public information on Harringay's planning section. Along with the letters of objection from the neighbours. No private information here.

So the loophole that Haringey are allowing is that if one of the flats in house conversion contains three bedrooms, it is regarded as a little house and consequently there is no net loss of a family sized home.

Just looking at the planning decision. It was to convert a house into two flats. House is situated in a Conservation Area.

From the Decision Report by the Planning Inspector in Harringay.

The host property is located within a conservation area, but is located within the Family Housing Protection Zone as designated by DM16 of the Development Management DPD.

6.5 DPD Policy DM16 states that to maintain a supply of larger family homes to meet Haringey’s housing need, the Council will only permit the conversion of a larger home(s) to small self-contained homes (Class C3) where the gross original internal floor space of the existing dwelling is greater than 120m2;

6.6 Conversions within the Family Housing Protection Zone will only be considered acceptable where they comply with criteria above and result in no net loss in the number of family sized units. The Development Management DPD defines family sized units as those having 3 or more bedrooms.

So, while they don't advocate the conversion of a family home into smaller units whereby it would result in a net loss of a family sized home, they also state that there is a target to increases the provision of homes (which covers the area) and this has not been reached. Also, DL's property seems to be just within the large enough 120M square, and resulting with three bedrooms being included in one of the new flats.

There were 6 objections and the decision was made using delegated powers, not going to the Planning Committee. One objection was moot as it was about a house of multiple occupancy (which the two flats in one house are not).One of the flats will have three bedrooms, which enters out into the garden. As three bedrooms is the minimum for something to be classified as a family home, then there is theoretically no net loss of family homes resulting from the conversion of the house into two smaller flats. The new 3 bedroomed flat will obviously be roughly half the size of the original family home, but in theory classed as no net loss.

I have read a comment that DL fought against the conversion of the houses into flats when he lived in the area. I don't know if this is true or not. He has happily moved away in any case, so it wouldn't bother him in his new abode.

The application was by an agent but the applicant appears to be down under his wife's name.

So, on the face of it, it seems to be straightforward enough. I don't know if there would be a less generous interpretation of policies towards converting a Conservation Area family homes in Haringey, in the case on another applicant. I'd imagine future applicants will kick up a fuss if there were more rigid interpretations in the spirit of protecting the character of the area going forward. However, it seems there were no Councillor involvement (put into writing to the planning section anyway). There was a pre-application meeting with the Planning section.