After the Oliver Twist poorhouse became luxury housing with a segregated playground, London bans segregated play-areas

Originally published at:


See, I don’t even understand why the Chinese money launderers who own half the apartments but who will never rent them out nor step foot in them would care if the playground is segregated or not…


This reminds me of the Miriam Toews novel, Summer of my Amazing Luck, about single moms in a housing project who band together to help each other through poverty. Single mothers know what’s what & where it’s at.




Granted, she lived nowhere near London, but it’s so delicious…


London is known to have the least restrictive banking laws in the West. It is a hub of oligarchical madness, much more so than NYC.


I guess it’s a quibble, but I take issue with, “the rule of law that they have helped to dismantle at home …” If you mean Russia, China, or Gulf states, there was never what we would regard as “rule of law”. Rule of law requires an independent judiciary, which is anathema to all those entities. Independent from Islam? Independent from the Communist regime? Impossible.


A crucial secondary function of separating the poors from the rich is to prevent the little richlings from being exposed to ideas that would make them sympathetic to the plight of the proles.


They call this the “poor door”. They may also not have access to many of the building’s amenities.


Thank god the furniture designers are fighting back with same weapons:
Only the rich doesn’t realise they are buying their own torture devices.

Now that ASBOs are no longer a thing; I suppose we’ll see if attempted play above one’s station is grounds for an ‘acceptable behavior contract’ or ‘injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance’.

1 Like

“The foundational belief of right-wing thought is that some people are intrinsically superior to othersand that God tells you who the best people are (by giving them white skin, or penises, or a lot of money).”

No, the foundational belief of right-wing thought is that the strong survive and the weak perish, that it is better to survive than to perish, and that therefore those with power should do their damnedest to protect it. The “inherently superior” dreck inevitably turns out to be propaganda, confabulation, or trolling deployed in support of that goal, which is to say that it is incidental rather than foundational.


One of the partially hidden drivers for Brexit, and reason so many non-dom billionaire have been funding Pro-Brexit activities is this drive from the EU.


Couldn’t they just move to France like The Rolling Stones did in 1971, along with Rod Stewart and David Bowie, instead of wrecking the whole goddamned country?

It always comes down to someone’s money, eh?

Or by “non-dom” do you mean those already “non-domiciled?”

Yes, already non-domiciled (Barclays Bros, Daily Mail Group, James Dyson etc) so not paying UK tax, but wanting to keep London as a centre for managing their money.


Because the rules are a joke.

1 Like

here’s one definition of rule of law.

Then there is Question 12: What is the “rule of law”?
I showed it to lawyers and law professors. They were stumped.
There are four acceptable answers: “Everyone must follow the law”; “Leaders must obey the law”; “Government must obey the law”; “No one is above the law.”
Judge Richard Posner, the constitutional scholar who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, was unhappy. “These are all incorrect,” he wrote me. “The rule of law means that judges decide cases ‘without respect of persons,’ that is, without considering the social status, attractiveness, etc. of the parties or their lawyers.”

You might be tempted to accept or reject this definition based on what you might know of Posner’s legal writings. But would that be judging the facts with or without respect of persons?


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.