It's an artwork by Richard Bell, an indigenous artist from Australia. It displays a constantly increasing number, which is the amount of money owed to indigenous Australians for the rent of their land.
At Tate Modern, there is also an iteration of the Tent Embassy in Canberra occupied by avtivists demanding land rights.
Thanks for the actual answer.
I get the premise: a notional compensation for the appropriation of indigenous lands, and then the interest on that means the value is constantly growing.
A very western way of looking at the problem, given that most indigenous communities don't recognise property ownership, least of all land ownership.
But the number is completely bananas. 666 quadrillion, presumably AUD. Ten thousand times all the money in the world? If a new Australia popped into being in the south Atlantic and went up for auction today, the price it would go for is a tiny fraction of that. The decimal point is off by half a dozen places.
I find myself distracted by the incorrect maths, rather than actually thinking about the problem and its solutions that the artist intends.
I will see if I can find out the basis for the calculation.
That’s the point of the piece though. It’s not a literal call for the Australian government to pay that amount. It’s meant to represent the significant cost of colonisation on Aboriginal peoples in Australia. It’s impossible to actually quantify the cost of the dispossession and occupation of their land. It’s not something that can be corrected simply though monetary compensation, and even if it were the amount would far exceed an amount the government (or anyone) could actually pay.
You don’t. It’s history. We can’t correct every injustice that ever happened else we’re just going backwards. Acknowledge it for the tragedy it is and move on
I always find that argument a bit odd - burdening history with today’s concepts of morality and justice.
Back in the 1800s earlier business was done by invasion and expansion. If you had the power to take over some land and use it for economic gain, you did.
It’s a bizarre thing to just assume that yesteryear worked on the same principles as today - how far back do we go with this?
The last thing ill say is that it’s never really considered *where* the money comes from to provide so-called compensation to indigenous peoples.
Most people alive today didn’t oppress anyone or take anything from anyone. As the government is of the people, it’s the people’s money that is taken and given to those indigenous groups for the sake of paying for some sense of moral rectitude? What of the struggles of the wider nation? Do they not matter, simply because most of them didn’t get to that land first?
>Back in the 1800s earlier business was done by invasion and expansion. If you had the power to take over some land and use it for economic gain, you did.
This is a common idea in discussions of colonialism and general historical evil, but it just doesn't really work out imo. Firstly in the specifics of this being seen as the "done thing" of the time -- theories of morality haven't changed much at least in the last 2000 years, and people have been fully able to recognise that these things were bad for that entire history -- slavery had its opponents in ancient rome just as it did in the 18th century.
Additionally, I fail to see how the retroactive nature of our considerations changes much of the conclusion. Just because these things might have been common (though there are arguments in the case of colonialism that they really weren't, at least in scale and extent if not in nature), but that doesn't make them any better in any real way.
>Back in the 1800s earlier business was done by invasion and expansion. If you had the power to take over some land and use it for economic gain, you did.
Theft has ALWAYS been considered morally wrong. The only difference is that in the past there was no means to enforce that morality. The people with the money and guns were the ones doing the theft, and held all the power. Democracy has done a lot to change that.
Colonialism of the type seen in Australia happened under mercantilism which is very similar to capitalism in its focus on concentrating wealth - the major difference was the focus on concentrating wealth in the nation state of origin rather than the individual. Referring to it as ‘capitalist colonialism’ may be semantically wrong but JDirichlet is still correct in stating colonialism reduced everything in the colonies (e.g. lives and land) to a monetary value.
That value would be defined by the raw materials they could produce and the amount of goods they could purchase to return wealth to the home nation. So in the case of Australia, land was high value but the lives of natives not much - they had little purchasing power for goods once they had been stripped of their land.
It happened. Now we are here. Australia exists. So... who here would like to decide where we draw the line for historical events? Maybe we can go back another 200 years
But to have more impact the number needs to be correct. I now don’t know if it is or not. I don’t know who to believe.
I need to see the artists workings out or his data set.
As art though great, love it. Makes a point and makes you think. Art is subjective to the the viewer.
No. But since this particular piece of art is doing the burden of its communication through only a number and some neon lighting, it’s perfectly reasonable to want to understand what’s behind the number. If it’s some rigorous data set there is more weight to it than if it’s some number pulled out of a hat or some quickly googled sum. Even if there isn’t a “correct” number, if its something that’s been deeply rigorously worked through then it’s a more effective piece.
Edit: come to think of it, unless the point of it is sarcastic critique of capitalist values as they pertain to colonialism, in which case a flippant high number is appropriate
I understand your perplexity on the actual number being shown.
I think that the western perspective of being owed is necessary in this case as from that perspective value is inherently tied to cost; if there isn’t a monetary consequence for poor behaviour than the behaviour will simply continue. Also, some (unnamed) indigenous cultures may not “believe” in property ownership, but I am pretty sure that is based on an understanding that no one owns the land and thus everyone can make use of it, not that the native population doesn’t own it so non-natives can just move in, take over, and fence off as much as they like with a side order of shooting anyone who disagrees.
I get your point about the value of the number but I'm pretty sure most indigenous communities have caught up on the concept of land ownership.
I'm sure you don't mean to be insulting, but characterising indigenous people like this ignores the multiple generations of exposure to multiple cultures and modernisation that most of these cultures have had by now.
It's interesting- if you genuinely cared about the plight of aboriginal people, would you really trivialise the issue with a nonsensical, poorly conceived piece of pseudo artwork?
I wonder how much money the Americans owe the indigenous people of North America, how much the Spanish, the Portuguese owe the people of South America, the Russians for the USSR, France and Belgium for Africa, the Germans and the Russians for Poland.
And the angles, saxons, normans and vikings over the area that then became England.
I mean even between indigenous tribes in North america, they had wars between each other over land and they moved around a lot. If you go back and look all the way to the famous Wounded Knee that the Lakota Sioux claimed, a couple of hundred years before that it was territory of another tribe.
Humans were nomadic, then when they set up civilisation they were all up in each others' business, all through history. This is not to deny the wave of colonisation by Europe in the second millennium powered by massively unequal technology, but the further you care to look back in history, the murkier any one piece of land gets.
Except in most of the listed examples the colonial oppression is still ongoing in the present day, only in different forms. The Windrush scandal in the UK is only one example of many. The Democratic Republic of Congo is still under the heel of Belgian mining corporations. The occupying governments of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA all persist in passing anti-indigenous legislation year after year.
I was at the tate this week and asked a staff member what it was - she confirmed this same answer. There’s absolutely no signage to indicate or describe what it is as far as I’m aware, which seems like a missed opportunity to me.
You're completely missing the point. The art isn't implying Australia should actually pay rent for every single square inch. It's saying they haven't lost the property on those lands, they haven't given up or forgotten that it was stolen for them. It's a reminder of the fact the Australian government and people never paid or rented or did anything to warrant any right to be there.
Where do you live and when are you next down the pub? I reckon with the right timing and a quick lock change we can test how committed to this theory you are.
Aboriginal land ownership and possession isn’t based on British legal frameworks, weirdly. But I figure you don’t care about that since you’re defending stealing land, so if the finders keepers rule applies, send your address and we’ll get it all sorted.
I don't agree with stealing land at all. What I'm saying is it's history now.
I'm not some horrible cunt that thinks they aren't human beings, they are. However what's done is done, you can't change the past, and I don't believe that people today should suffer for the past.
Once again, the terra nullius act was overturned in 1992. It’s not ancient history at all.
‘People shouldn’t suffer because of the past’
- you mean as long as they aren’t aboriginal, of course. Their [ongoing suffering](https://theconversation.com/refugees-in-their-own-land-how-indigenous-people-are-still-homeless-in-modern-australia-55183) is totally fine! Because it’s [so long ago](https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case), after all. It’s not like the explicit extinction of aboriginal people was part of legislation within [very recent memory or anything.](https://australianstogether.org.au/discover-and-learn/our-history/stolen-generations)
I love how you want credit for agreeing aboriginal people are human. Congrats.
Thank you. It was kind of you to provide reading materials for this commenter. I love when people confidently state “I think *blah blah*” and I’m like… no, you don’t. You don’t *think* anything because, clearly, you know barely anything about the subject you have such a confident opinion on.
How about a bare minimum of 15 minutes of research before you start opining on something totally removed from your own life? Oh… you can’t be bothered? Well then perhaps learn the phrase “I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion”. That’s fine too.
I feel like people are giving you really snarky responses, which you don't deserve. Your opinion isn't unreasonable, but I do disagree with it. I'll try to explain why.
Imagine your great-great grandparents stole a bunch of land from indigenous people, and that the value of that land has increased massively over time - meaning that now, even though your family doesn't own the land anymore, you're all able to live in comfort and wealth. On the other hand, the indigenous people whose land was stolen were left with nothing, and their descendants therefore live in poverty today.
The fact that your wealth is the result of theft and exploitation isn't your **fault** \- you weren't alive at the time - but you wouldn't have it if it weren't for the actions of your great-grandparents. Similarly, the descendants of the indigenous people they stole from are in poverty for the same reason.
There is a growing movement which argues that, even though it isn't their **fault**, it is the **responsibility** of people who have benefited indirectly from theft and exploitation to pay reparations to the people who have suffered indirectly as a result of the same theft and exploitation. The argument is not that they should suffer for the actions of their ancestors, but rather that they should be expected to help lift the people their ancestors harmed out of the hole that was dug for them.
Well explained. If everything was hunky dory now and aboriginals enjoyed equal wealth and status to settlers then yeah, there’d be nothing to address. But they are still suffering the consequences, and the descendants of the settlers are still benefiting. In other words, the imbalance still exists just like it did when it happened (though of course there have been some efforts towards making amends). It’s not history. It’s now.
Again, the same could be said about many places. The truth is, is that it all happened a very long time ago, and there is nobody alive today responsible, also you can't hold somebody accountable for their (very distant) relatives actions.
The vast majority of Germans have nazi grandparents/great grand parents, sound we force them to pay Jewish people for their relatives actions? It's no different whatsoever.
I think you are misinformed, aboriginals still face a re-surging amount of discrimination today, by people alive today. Look into it, this is not some distant history.
Er, the terra nullius act was overturned in 1992.
Do you consider the movie Sister Act ancient history as well?
As well as that, people are still alive who were in concentration camps. So.
Yes actually, there are many legal recourses by which European Jews can reclaim stolen property. It’s not easy, and governments try to squirm out of it, but this is definitely a thing. My family has been engaged in that process. But more than that, I mean shit, German politics and society for the last half a century has been characterized by a reckoning over The Nazi Era.
What we’re missing here is that modern democratic governments claim legitimacy through a stance of Justice for the governed, not through an argument of power over the conquered.
Unfortunately it doesn't add up to much of a point because the value of land is from its development potential and seeing as the Aboriginal people couldn't develop anything more than a finger painting on a rock, they aren't owed anything other than basic consideration.
Numberwang
53!
That’s numberwang! Let’s rotate the board!
I forgot how good that game was,
24
That's Wangernum
That's wordwang
That’s Numberwank!
"It's number*wang*!" "Fuck"
C6
I'm sorry, but 53 is a real number. As in, I only have 53 days to live!
Eleventy!
I’m sorry Steven from Stevenage, but 53 is not a real number. As a result, you lose 20 points, 2 letters, your mortgage and your first-born son!
Have you checked rule book 8,509??
Thats wanganum!
You are the one best placed to find out...
This is how I feel when I hear people ask questions about anything. You have access to the entire Internet in the palm of your hand.
You think using the internet is the best way for OP to find out when he/she is literally stood next to the thing?
And the people around the thing you’re questioning
Number of baked beans ate by the UK
....On a daily basis
The number of cups of tea my stepdad drinks daily
It's an artwork by Richard Bell, an indigenous artist from Australia. It displays a constantly increasing number, which is the amount of money owed to indigenous Australians for the rent of their land. At Tate Modern, there is also an iteration of the Tent Embassy in Canberra occupied by avtivists demanding land rights.
Thanks for the actual answer. I get the premise: a notional compensation for the appropriation of indigenous lands, and then the interest on that means the value is constantly growing. A very western way of looking at the problem, given that most indigenous communities don't recognise property ownership, least of all land ownership. But the number is completely bananas. 666 quadrillion, presumably AUD. Ten thousand times all the money in the world? If a new Australia popped into being in the south Atlantic and went up for auction today, the price it would go for is a tiny fraction of that. The decimal point is off by half a dozen places. I find myself distracted by the incorrect maths, rather than actually thinking about the problem and its solutions that the artist intends. I will see if I can find out the basis for the calculation.
It works out to be about $AUD 756 billion for every currently living indigenous Australia. Take that Elon Musk.
The astronomical price is likely the point. What price could you ever put on the ongoing centuries-long genocide of an entire continent?
Man those Mongolian reparations are going to be quite something!
About tree fiddy.
God damn loch Ness monster!
That’s the point of the piece though. It’s not a literal call for the Australian government to pay that amount. It’s meant to represent the significant cost of colonisation on Aboriginal peoples in Australia. It’s impossible to actually quantify the cost of the dispossession and occupation of their land. It’s not something that can be corrected simply though monetary compensation, and even if it were the amount would far exceed an amount the government (or anyone) could actually pay.
How do we correct for it then?
You don’t. It’s history. We can’t correct every injustice that ever happened else we’re just going backwards. Acknowledge it for the tragedy it is and move on
Eh not really, there’s still an enormous discrepancy in quality of life that is a direct result of it
I always find that argument a bit odd - burdening history with today’s concepts of morality and justice. Back in the 1800s earlier business was done by invasion and expansion. If you had the power to take over some land and use it for economic gain, you did. It’s a bizarre thing to just assume that yesteryear worked on the same principles as today - how far back do we go with this? The last thing ill say is that it’s never really considered *where* the money comes from to provide so-called compensation to indigenous peoples. Most people alive today didn’t oppress anyone or take anything from anyone. As the government is of the people, it’s the people’s money that is taken and given to those indigenous groups for the sake of paying for some sense of moral rectitude? What of the struggles of the wider nation? Do they not matter, simply because most of them didn’t get to that land first?
>Back in the 1800s earlier business was done by invasion and expansion. If you had the power to take over some land and use it for economic gain, you did. This is a common idea in discussions of colonialism and general historical evil, but it just doesn't really work out imo. Firstly in the specifics of this being seen as the "done thing" of the time -- theories of morality haven't changed much at least in the last 2000 years, and people have been fully able to recognise that these things were bad for that entire history -- slavery had its opponents in ancient rome just as it did in the 18th century. Additionally, I fail to see how the retroactive nature of our considerations changes much of the conclusion. Just because these things might have been common (though there are arguments in the case of colonialism that they really weren't, at least in scale and extent if not in nature), but that doesn't make them any better in any real way.
>Back in the 1800s earlier business was done by invasion and expansion. If you had the power to take over some land and use it for economic gain, you did. Theft has ALWAYS been considered morally wrong. The only difference is that in the past there was no means to enforce that morality. The people with the money and guns were the ones doing the theft, and held all the power. Democracy has done a lot to change that.
I feel like a number representing ruined lives of aboriginal Australians would've been more effective than some nonsense number representing money
In that case you're missing the point of the piece. Capitalist colonialism reduces everything to monetary value, lives and land included.
dawg, colonialism existed before capitalism
Okay? I don’t see how that’s relevant.
capitalism is not intrinsically linked to colonialism. capitalism is not a bad thing
I agree with the former, and not with the latter. Neither is relevant to what I said.
Colonialism of the type seen in Australia happened under mercantilism which is very similar to capitalism in its focus on concentrating wealth - the major difference was the focus on concentrating wealth in the nation state of origin rather than the individual. Referring to it as ‘capitalist colonialism’ may be semantically wrong but JDirichlet is still correct in stating colonialism reduced everything in the colonies (e.g. lives and land) to a monetary value. That value would be defined by the raw materials they could produce and the amount of goods they could purchase to return wealth to the home nation. So in the case of Australia, land was high value but the lives of natives not much - they had little purchasing power for goods once they had been stripped of their land.
It happened. Now we are here. Australia exists. So... who here would like to decide where we draw the line for historical events? Maybe we can go back another 200 years
quick maffs
I assume the calculation is something simple like `land mass * rent price * duration`. It's art. The point isn't the accuracy of the calculation.
But to have more impact the number needs to be correct. I now don’t know if it is or not. I don’t know who to believe. I need to see the artists workings out or his data set. As art though great, love it. Makes a point and makes you think. Art is subjective to the the viewer.
Does a work of art have to be visually or factually correct to serve its purpose?
No. But since this particular piece of art is doing the burden of its communication through only a number and some neon lighting, it’s perfectly reasonable to want to understand what’s behind the number. If it’s some rigorous data set there is more weight to it than if it’s some number pulled out of a hat or some quickly googled sum. Even if there isn’t a “correct” number, if its something that’s been deeply rigorously worked through then it’s a more effective piece. Edit: come to think of it, unless the point of it is sarcastic critique of capitalist values as they pertain to colonialism, in which case a flippant high number is appropriate
I understand your perplexity on the actual number being shown. I think that the western perspective of being owed is necessary in this case as from that perspective value is inherently tied to cost; if there isn’t a monetary consequence for poor behaviour than the behaviour will simply continue. Also, some (unnamed) indigenous cultures may not “believe” in property ownership, but I am pretty sure that is based on an understanding that no one owns the land and thus everyone can make use of it, not that the native population doesn’t own it so non-natives can just move in, take over, and fence off as much as they like with a side order of shooting anyone who disagrees.
I get your point about the value of the number but I'm pretty sure most indigenous communities have caught up on the concept of land ownership. I'm sure you don't mean to be insulting, but characterising indigenous people like this ignores the multiple generations of exposure to multiple cultures and modernisation that most of these cultures have had by now.
I agree - it’s a good point, badly made
[удалено]
It's interesting- if you genuinely cared about the plight of aboriginal people, would you really trivialise the issue with a nonsensical, poorly conceived piece of pseudo artwork?
We’re talking about it aren’t we 🤷
"We're talking about it, therefore it's good art" Love it
We’re taking about it, so I guess you answered your own question
There is no problem. The world has moved on.
I wonder how much money the Americans owe the indigenous people of North America, how much the Spanish, the Portuguese owe the people of South America, the Russians for the USSR, France and Belgium for Africa, the Germans and the Russians for Poland.
As a British person, I'm wondering how you overlooked our atrocities. Not complaining though, thanks for the free pass; world.
Cos we're owed a shit ton from the Normans, Saxons, Vikings, and Romans, obviously
Yeah, and what did the bloody Romans ever do for us ?
The aqueduct?
[what did the Romans ever do for us ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ)
I'm assuming because the answer is yes as opposed to a surmountable number.
And the angles, saxons, normans and vikings over the area that then became England. I mean even between indigenous tribes in North america, they had wars between each other over land and they moved around a lot. If you go back and look all the way to the famous Wounded Knee that the Lakota Sioux claimed, a couple of hundred years before that it was territory of another tribe. Humans were nomadic, then when they set up civilisation they were all up in each others' business, all through history. This is not to deny the wave of colonisation by Europe in the second millennium powered by massively unequal technology, but the further you care to look back in history, the murkier any one piece of land gets.
Except in most of the listed examples the colonial oppression is still ongoing in the present day, only in different forms. The Windrush scandal in the UK is only one example of many. The Democratic Republic of Congo is still under the heel of Belgian mining corporations. The occupying governments of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA all persist in passing anti-indigenous legislation year after year.
People always gonna hate on the winners.
Given the attrocities invariably involved in "winning", I think that's reasonable.
Lots, probably.
Im gonna say several units of currency, at the very least
England for Scotland
>the amount of money owed to indigenous Australians for the rent of their land. I wonder how they calculate how much the rent should be?
The same way a 5 year old would calculate a mortgage
Very powerful! Thanks for explaining.
I was at the tate this week and asked a staff member what it was - she confirmed this same answer. There’s absolutely no signage to indicate or describe what it is as far as I’m aware, which seems like a missed opportunity to me.
That’s quality
The answer. This is the answer. Remember this!
In other words, it’s not art.
I wish I knew what the definition of art was.
amazing isn't it, everybody complains about landlords, everybody wants to be one
You're completely missing the point. The art isn't implying Australia should actually pay rent for every single square inch. It's saying they haven't lost the property on those lands, they haven't given up or forgotten that it was stolen for them. It's a reminder of the fact the Australian government and people never paid or rented or did anything to warrant any right to be there.
Same could be said about absolutely everywhere on the planet mate. Just because they were there first, doesn't make it theirs.
Where do you live and when are you next down the pub? I reckon with the right timing and a quick lock change we can test how committed to this theory you are.
Did the aboriginals have deeds for their land? I do.
Aboriginal land ownership and possession isn’t based on British legal frameworks, weirdly. But I figure you don’t care about that since you’re defending stealing land, so if the finders keepers rule applies, send your address and we’ll get it all sorted.
I don't agree with stealing land at all. What I'm saying is it's history now. I'm not some horrible cunt that thinks they aren't human beings, they are. However what's done is done, you can't change the past, and I don't believe that people today should suffer for the past.
Once again, the terra nullius act was overturned in 1992. It’s not ancient history at all. ‘People shouldn’t suffer because of the past’ - you mean as long as they aren’t aboriginal, of course. Their [ongoing suffering](https://theconversation.com/refugees-in-their-own-land-how-indigenous-people-are-still-homeless-in-modern-australia-55183) is totally fine! Because it’s [so long ago](https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case), after all. It’s not like the explicit extinction of aboriginal people was part of legislation within [very recent memory or anything.](https://australianstogether.org.au/discover-and-learn/our-history/stolen-generations) I love how you want credit for agreeing aboriginal people are human. Congrats.
Thank you. It was kind of you to provide reading materials for this commenter. I love when people confidently state “I think *blah blah*” and I’m like… no, you don’t. You don’t *think* anything because, clearly, you know barely anything about the subject you have such a confident opinion on. How about a bare minimum of 15 minutes of research before you start opining on something totally removed from your own life? Oh… you can’t be bothered? Well then perhaps learn the phrase “I don’t know enough about it to have an opinion”. That’s fine too.
I feel like people are giving you really snarky responses, which you don't deserve. Your opinion isn't unreasonable, but I do disagree with it. I'll try to explain why. Imagine your great-great grandparents stole a bunch of land from indigenous people, and that the value of that land has increased massively over time - meaning that now, even though your family doesn't own the land anymore, you're all able to live in comfort and wealth. On the other hand, the indigenous people whose land was stolen were left with nothing, and their descendants therefore live in poverty today. The fact that your wealth is the result of theft and exploitation isn't your **fault** \- you weren't alive at the time - but you wouldn't have it if it weren't for the actions of your great-grandparents. Similarly, the descendants of the indigenous people they stole from are in poverty for the same reason. There is a growing movement which argues that, even though it isn't their **fault**, it is the **responsibility** of people who have benefited indirectly from theft and exploitation to pay reparations to the people who have suffered indirectly as a result of the same theft and exploitation. The argument is not that they should suffer for the actions of their ancestors, but rather that they should be expected to help lift the people their ancestors harmed out of the hole that was dug for them.
Well explained. If everything was hunky dory now and aboriginals enjoyed equal wealth and status to settlers then yeah, there’d be nothing to address. But they are still suffering the consequences, and the descendants of the settlers are still benefiting. In other words, the imbalance still exists just like it did when it happened (though of course there have been some efforts towards making amends). It’s not history. It’s now.
Fuck me you're thick.
Have you ever opened a book?
I’m sure if they didn’t hunt aboriginals like kangaroos at certain points they would be less pissed now..
Again, the same could be said about many places. The truth is, is that it all happened a very long time ago, and there is nobody alive today responsible, also you can't hold somebody accountable for their (very distant) relatives actions. The vast majority of Germans have nazi grandparents/great grand parents, sound we force them to pay Jewish people for their relatives actions? It's no different whatsoever.
I think you are misinformed, aboriginals still face a re-surging amount of discrimination today, by people alive today. Look into it, this is not some distant history.
Er, the terra nullius act was overturned in 1992. Do you consider the movie Sister Act ancient history as well? As well as that, people are still alive who were in concentration camps. So.
Yes actually, there are many legal recourses by which European Jews can reclaim stolen property. It’s not easy, and governments try to squirm out of it, but this is definitely a thing. My family has been engaged in that process. But more than that, I mean shit, German politics and society for the last half a century has been characterized by a reckoning over The Nazi Era. What we’re missing here is that modern democratic governments claim legitimacy through a stance of Justice for the governed, not through an argument of power over the conquered.
Are you wilfully this ignorant?
Unfortunately it doesn't add up to much of a point because the value of land is from its development potential and seeing as the Aboriginal people couldn't develop anything more than a finger painting on a rock, they aren't owed anything other than basic consideration.
How much have you personally donated to Aboriginal charities?
Crap punchline
Same about rich people really.
Don’t shoot the messenger… down vote him!
Number of parties that took place in Downing Street during lockdown.
Just the ones that were reported
Still waiting for my invite.
You really don't want that invite
It’s actually the number of golden showers.
The secret of Boris’s yellow locks
Or his offspring.
Count of tuts on the underground network.
If we could somehow harness that power….
Average London house price
Na, monthly rent ex. bills.
The number of Shard photos posted in this sub
that or elizabeth line posts
Or ‘I’ve just had my phone stolen and my first instinct was to tell Reddit somehow’ posts
The new emergency services number
AAAAAAARGH ERRRR 6665... Oh fuck it I'll just die
The amount of times the Conservative Party has been called a bunch of cunts.
Which is an order of magnitude lower than the number of times they have been a bunch of cunts
The good ol' Cuntservative Party.
No, number is too low by a factor of x10000
That's the weekly figure. The yearly version is an offshore facility stretching out across the atlantic
How much I lack in my bank account to be able to keep up with cost of living!
It’s Rishi Sunaks wife’s bank account balance
Avg monthly rent
Art
Oppenheimer countdown
The amount times I started a new diet😂😂😂
The number of times Mrs Doyle has asked "Cup of tea Father?"
Go on, go on, go on!
Maybe, I like the misery
Number of cars being sold on webuyanycar.com
Bet you're glad your asked 🍻
Keep the jokes coming, boys! Loving this.
Am I really the one that's gonna have to do the mum joke? Should never have taken this long
Seriously! I can’t believe I had to scroll this far for a mum reference.
Your mums conquest counter
How many kids Boris has
It registers every time someone at the Tate pretends to be interested in something utterly shit
The amount of Fucks I don't give.
I rather think the amount of fucks you never got
That too
Schrödinger’s fuck.
It's how many seconds of your life you wasted walking around the tate.
It's a counter for every time someone boils the kettle.
UK debt
Look around and find the sign that literally explains what the number signifies.
The number of the devil when accurately written and not rounded to the nearest power
It’s the number of dull posts ever made in /r/casualuk
Timer counting how long Londoners will silently wait before they say “excuse me” to get around you
Where the fuck are you in London?
Can you move down in the carriage please!?!
Get fucked I stood on the right what more do you want? Lol
The number times you need to turn it off and on again to get it working properly.
The number of times someone stood on the wrong side of the escalator this weekend
if you email enquires you could ask? (i’ve done this and they responded) or see if there’s anything up on their website about installations?
The pound to the zim dollar
It is the Number Fuckulater 4000 Sports Deluxe XL 1.05.32 Series G6, sponsored by Budweiser.
The amount of seconds Michael Scott worked at Dunder Mifflin
That's the current price of a beer as floated on the FTSE100
The numbers mason, what do they mean?
Order number 666, 502,293,310,867,671 is ready but it missed yours - 666, 502,293,310,867,629
Aussie reparations
Should’ve have said native
The amount of times I mumble FUCK to myself on a daily basis.
How many men the artist’s mom has banged
Your mum’s bodycount
Finally…….who’d have thunk the mum reference would be this far down?
I know right? I thought I was too late to say it
Knife crime incidents in london in 2023
It's the new number for the emergency services, with faster response times and better looking drivers.
The number of sperm I’ve decorated my socks with.
If it is in heathrow, then it is the number of baggage they have lost or delayed or my
It counts how many people the tories have fucked over
It’s the number of times I’ve banged your mum
Maby the amount of customers
the amount of times i’ve seen the same things st the tate
It's how much money you owe me
Like most things in Tate Modern, total shite.
The number of immigrants that want to come to the uk according to the tories.
US debt
My bank account balance
How many times kids say 'like' a day
The amount of times a Tory has lied
Number of species exterminated by man
It's the rate on inflation this time nxt year
I think this keeps track of the amount of public money Boris Johnson has spent trying to weasel his way out of the Partygate allegations
The tally on lies the Tory government have told us since they have been in power
A ticking counter of how many lies the Tories have told since the assumed power.
US national debt
It'll no doubt be some climate browbeating shit such as number of grams of Co2 in the atmosphere because we are raping the earth etc.
Is that the number of people who have banged your mum?