Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Pross said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

coopster_the_1st said:

bompington said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

You really are contemptible.

I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country

Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

I've even paid off my tuition fees.

Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.

What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.

Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.

Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.

Really? He seems to just be someone with his points of view, some I agree with some I don't, that he expresses often and loudly as I'm sure he accepts. It's not like he's advocating revolution and the removal of all privileged, white, heterosexual males from the country is it?

He is openly anti-democratic, and is happy to glorify and support all leftie anarchism that attempts to destabilise the governance of this country.

In a law abiding democratic society that is a virus!

why do you use words when you don't know what they mean?

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It radically calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.

That is exactly what the BLM movement have on their fundraising page.

whereabouts? the only words I could find on their fundraising page were

Fund the Movement



We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.



Donate to fuel our campaigns for justice.

https://uk.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund

pangolin

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Pross said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

coopster_the_1st said:

bompington said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

You really are contemptible.

I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country

Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

I've even paid off my tuition fees.

Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.

What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.

Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.

Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.

Really? He seems to just be someone with his points of view, some I agree with some I don't, that he expresses often and loudly as I'm sure he accepts. It's not like he's advocating revolution and the removal of all privileged, white, heterosexual males from the country is it?

He is openly anti-democratic, and is happy to glorify and support all leftie anarchism that attempts to destabilise the governance of this country.

In a law abiding democratic society that is a virus!

why do you use words when you don't know what they mean?

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It radically calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.

That is exactly what the BLM movement have on their fundraising page.

whereabouts? the only words I could find on their fundraising page were

Fund the Movement



We appreciate your support of the movement and our ongoing fight to end state-sanctioned violence, liberate Black people, and end white supremacy forever.



Donate to fuel our campaigns for justice.

https://uk.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund

Cheers for sharing Coop, good to raise awareness

We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world.

rjsterry

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Pross said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rjsterry said:

coopster_the_1st said:

rick_chasey said:

coopster_the_1st said:

bompington said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Rather ironic that a recent immigrant to the UK is the chief promoter on here for changing British history to suit his view despite him and his family living comfortably off said history, and how said history has shaped Britain into the highly diverse and successful country.

Hmmm, an immigrant! Must be dodgy! Who knows, perhaps he even had a lick of the old tar brush!

You really are contemptible.

I find people 'who bite the hand that feeds them' even more contemptible, especially as his views are intensifying the division in his host country

Hahaha. Which annoys you more, that I was educated in the UK and this is the result of my British education, that I probably pay in more tax than you, or that I have a British passport?

I've even paid off my tuition fees.

Unrelated to you as you wouldn't understand, but the Dutch have a rep for being even worse than the UK when it comes to admitting the ugly bits of their own colonial past.

What annoys me most is that your host country has given you and your family so much opportunity, and will only continue to do so, yet you only criticise and denigrate it.

Your anarchist views are now driving the division in this country and you are not going to like when the country stops being so accommodating and stands up to people like you. And the consequences will be thorough deserved based on what I have viewed of the likes of you in recent days.

Try and stick to the point rather than fixating on one person.

Let me put this in simple terms so that you will understand, as it is particularly relevant to our lives today:

Rick is a virus that is attempting to slowly kill its host.

Really? He seems to just be someone with his points of view, some I agree with some I don't, that he expresses often and loudly as I'm sure he accepts. It's not like he's advocating revolution and the removal of all privileged, white, heterosexual males from the country is it?

He is openly anti-democratic, and is happy to glorify and support all leftie anarchism that attempts to destabilise the governance of this country.

In a law abiding democratic society that is a virus!

why do you use words when you don't know what they mean?

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. It radically calls for the abolition of the state which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.

That is exactly what the BLM movement have on their fundraising page.

Could you post a screen grab so we can see what you mean?

pangolin

Again thanks for the reminder Coop

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Let's just clear a few things up.

People don't put up statues of bad people. Statues are always up there as a celebration.

Ergo, statues of racists are essentially saying we are celebrating a racist.

Nor is history written in statues, else we'd all have forgotten a whole bunch of nasty folk.

Did the concept of racism even exist when the statues were put up? Even in the 19th Century the British Empire were waging war on 'savages' in Africa so the statues were erected to celebrate the achievements of people who did things in accordance with the social norm of the times.

That's not to say the statues shouldn't have been removed in the intervening hundred odd years when the social norm has changed but to say they were put up to celebrate racism isn't really true.

It's about time all those statues of Roman emperors and generals were ripped down and their names deleted from buildings and streets worldwide as they were all slave owners.

Judging the behaviours of the past by today's accepted behaviour is folly. Yes, remove the statues from public spaces or leave them be with educational information rather than glorifying words but ultimately the wealth of the nation has been mainly built on behaviour we would mainly criticise today.

Even now, how many of the companies you count as Clients in the big city meet your high standards of ethics? If they do, were they completely innocent in the way they initially amassed their fortunes? Should we give back all the wealth we plundered from the natural resources of countries that remain impoverished to the current day?

So the racism we’re referring to here came into existence in the 19th Century.

They were put up to celebrate the people who they were statues of. They didn’t care at the time about the whole mass murder bit.

We now do, ergo they need to go.

As for the Romans, as above, they are not specific race issues are they?

As for modern firms - well, most of them didn’t exist until more recently.

I mean, I think it is too far gone and it would be far too complicated to try to work our reparations for people who have since long died. It is too long ago and too entwined.

It’s not practical or feasible. But maybe not having people at the heart of some of the worst practices of colonialism up as statues is a good start.

I think it is a cop out to say “too long ago” why not liquidate everything from Colston and use it for good causes in Zanzibar or Sierra Leone or fund an organisation dedicated to fighting modern slavery.

Pulling down statues and renaming roads and buildings is inexpensive virtue signalling. If people truly gave a censored they would do the hard expensive stuff.

This is the same batshit argument against making environmental changes that says you shouldn't drive a bit less because you aren't vegan.

Am I the vegan or is Rick?

I think you'd be the one driving a 4x4 to the butchers and criticising cyclists for not being vegan. I'm not really sure myself.

I see Rick as putting the recycling out before driving to the airport in a Prius to get on a private jet, ie doing all the painless stuff.

Resources (people) were forcibly removed from Africa and sold in the Americas, ultimately that profit was used to fund Colston school. I am just suggesting that we acknowledge that fact and make a more equitable distribution of the profits.

I am quite surprised this is seen as a radical idea

How would you work it out?

if he paid for a building sell it, if he provided an endowment give it up

harder than changing a name plate but surely more meaningful

I'm not sure that Trustees can unilaterally liquidate a fund. To whom or what would you pay the proceeds. Would this actually achieve your aim?

tailwindhome

The people tearing down the establishment is a bad thing now?
It's hard to keep up.

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

Think I'm going to stop clicking on this thread. It's toxic.

I have a general principle of not engaging with people who think it's acceptable and clever to use derogatory names as a matter of course. I find the rest of this discussion quite interesting, especially as a Bristolian originally myself.

ugo.santalucia

I frankly don't give a shit either way... maybe these statues should have been removed years ago... I am more annoyed that we allow mass gatherings to go ahead during a pandemic without any condemnation from the media, who instead almost endorse them, while at the same time they kick a massive fuss about a 30 mile round trip to Barnard Castle. Go explain NHS workers about your right to protest

rjsterry

ugo.santalucia said:

I frankly don't give a censored either way... maybe these statues should have been removed years ago... I am more annoyed that we allow mass gatherings to go ahead during a pandemic without any condemnation from the media, who instead almost endorse them, while at the same time they kick a massive fuss about a 30 mile round trip to Barnard Castle. Go explain NHS workers about your right to protest

In fairness, where I have seen NHS workers commenting, they don't seem too upset about either. But anyway, that's why I set up a separate thread.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

The practices the UK engaged in in Africa were absolutely rooted in racism. It was racism that formed and shaped the entire interaction with the locals, which was by all accounts, brutal.

Sure, there are many other instances of colonialism and slavery and all the rest, but this specific one, the one Britain had and celebrates, was the basis on which the entire racist discourse entered the UK in the first place.

Genuine request. Can you summarise for us (I am, err, working at the moment so don't have time for a degree course in Colonial Studies) the evidence that there was something qualitatively different in the racism of the British Empire to that of, say, the ancient Greeks or the Chinese (either ancient or modern)?

So in short, the idea of races didn't really exist in the same way until Darwin and evolution turned up. In fact, you can read lots of pre-Darwin literature from Europeans on Africans and if you deconstruct it you see that those racist assumptions aren't there. Academics tend to use literary deconstruction to work out what the underlying assumptions are in any given bit of writing, and lots of them have looked at this, and found the same.

That (theory of evolution) then made the intellectual space for the idea that different groups of people, different *races*, were on different parts of the evolutionary development.

That combined with the interactions of explorers with locals in Africa really cemented that idea. From that you then begin to get justifications for exploitation for things like the civilising mission, the white man burden etc.

As the 19th century goes on, more countries get in on the act and the that process of interacting with the locals keeps reinforcing those racist ideas in some kind of vicious circle. That culminates in some of the most brutal behaviour imaginable by every European power in Africa, but notably Germans in Namibia ) and Belgians in Congo.

There is also a theory which is considered credible (after a lot of initial hostility), that the kind of nazi thinking and behaviour was essentially just Europeans importing the behaviours and thinking they had been practicing and mastering in Africa. (Cards on the table, the guy who marked my dissertation was the guy who came up with this theory).

This doesn't point the finger at Darwin (necessarily) by the way, but in the same way you don't get drink driving without cars, you don't get racism as we know it without the theory of evolution.

Just to go back to your original post Rick - the point is that people were already making very similar justifications for the slave trade along the lines of black Africans being an inferior people long before Darwin was born.

I think without Darwin we do very much get racism as we know it - we'd just have some slightly different bullshit justifications for it - evidenced by the fact these existed pre Darwin and included very similar arguments just without the evolutionary hypothesis.

Yeah quite probably. I would argue it wouldn't be as murderous.

There is a real shift when evolution comes into the equation in terms of how Europeans ran their African colonies - of course, colonialism pre-dates that.

How did native Americans (north and south) do out colonialism? I would argue worse than Africans.

For what it is worth, the problem I have with your opinion is that it only looks at European colonialism in Africa and ignores the rest of the world completely.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

For what it is worth, the problem I have with your opinion is that it only looks at European colonialism in Africa and ignores the rest of the world completely.

Entirely fair. I don't know (that) much about the rest so I can't comment.

DeVlaeminck

Going back to Colston - and similar statues and memorials for slavers - there probably should be some kind of enquiry into the way forwards .

What are the views of black British - I mean whilst many slaves throughout history weren't black the people that tend to be commemorated in the UK for reasons of history were involved in the black slave trade. I'm not saying the views of black British dictate the issue but it'd certainly sway a lot of people if they thought actually a lot of people feel that statue is an insult - or that statue without an explanation of how the money was made is an insult.

It may be that some statues etc have to go, some building names change (I see Liverpool uni will drop the name Gladstone for his opposition to abolition) but maybe other names like street names stay and we use them as a reminder that our cities were built off the lives of the oppressed, enslaved, poor etc . When 99.9% of us are reminded of slavery our reaction is not that the slaver is a great guy for his charity work - it's a reminder of the worst mankind can do - so whatever the original intention we can have some reminders that aren't honouring slavers.

We can talk about how white indentured labour staffed the cotton plantations before black slaves but I doubt anyone in the UK actually feels that personally in 2020 so these other things - the "should we pull down Roman monuments" arguments I've seen elsewhere - are really just a red herring.

coopster_the_1st

Will this enquiry extend to iPhones and Nike trainers?

Asking on behalf of the hypocrites.

shortfall

coopster_the_1st said:

Will this enquiry extend to iPhones and Nike trainers?

Asking on behalf of the hypocrites.

Fair comment which I think was mentioned upthread re a Frankie Boyle joke. Easy to criticise wrongdoing from centuries ago whilst turning a blind eye to modern forms of slavery because being able to get your hands on ethically sourced electronics and fashion is more difficult than doing without it. You can add to that holidays in Dubai which by all accounts is effectively built on slave labour, or so I was told last time I was there.

Jeremy.89

Why does one have to preclude the other?

shortfall

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

kingstongraham

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

So being in favour of leaving the statues would give me a free pass to not care about child labour?

DeVlaeminck

shortfall said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Will this enquiry extend to iPhones and Nike trainers?

Asking on behalf of the hypocrites.

Fair comment which I think was mentioned upthread re a Frankie Boyle joke. Easy to criticise wrongdoing from centuries ago whilst turning a blind eye to modern forms of slavery because being able to get your hands on ethically sourced electronics and fashion is more difficult than doing without it. You can add to that holidays in Dubai which by all accounts is effectively built on slave labour, or so I was told last time I was there.

And of course for all of us that live in a UK city (and probably most decent sized towns) there will be sex workers who have been trafficked to the UK and are held against their will and probably other kind of labourers in a similar situation.

coopster_the_1st

Hugo Boss is an interesting one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Boss

During the Second World War, Hugo Boss employed 140 forced labourers, the majority of them women. In addition to these workers, 40 French prisoners of war also worked for the company briefly between October 1940 – April 1941. According to German historian Henning Kober, the company managers were fervent National Socialists who were all great admirers of Adolf Hitler. In 1945, Hugo Boss had a photograph in his apartment of him with Hitler, taken at the Berghof, Hitler's Obersalzberg retreat.[11][10]

Because of his early NS Party membership, his financial support of the SS and the uniforms delivered to the National Socialist German Workers Party, Boss was considered both an "activist" and a "supporter and beneficiary of National Socialism".


This should work out well - https://www.lewishamilton.com/post/8a217a07-f28f-48d7-815c-041cd5d2dd03/

rjsterry

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

coopster_the_1st

Let's do Mercedes next...

https://www.daimler.com/company/tradition/company-history/1933-1945.html

However, as staff numbers were still too low, Daimler-Benz also used forced labourers. These prisoners of war, abducted civilians and detainees from concentration camps were housed close to the plants. Forced labourers from western Europe lived in guest houses, private accommodation or schools.

Workers from eastern Europe and prisoners of war were interned in barrack camps with poor, prison-like conditions. Concentration camp detainees were monitored by the SS under inhumane conditions.

Should make for an interesting conversation for the wokies when you next see a black man driving a Merc?

Which wokie is going to lead the shutdown of Lewis Hamilton because of his links to these two companies?

rjsterry

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

You seem to have completely misunderstood the issue and indeed where Bristol is.

Jeremy.89

I know time has been going weirdly since lockdown started, but I didn't realise George Floyd was killed centuries ago.

kingstongraham

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Where do you stand on child labour?

shortfall

Jeremy.89 said:

I know time has been going weirdly since lockdown started, but I didn't realise George Floyd was killed centuries ago.

Jeez what's the point? I thought this was about the Colston statue and why it got torn down?

shortfall

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Where do you stand on child labour?

I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses for those that did.

rjsterry

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Where do you stand on child labour?

I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.

I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.

kingstongraham

shortfall said:

kingstongraham said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Where do you stand on child labour?

I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.

It's complex for everyone who has a shred of humanity, because we're all flawed human beings.

The statues, not really so complex.

pangolin

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

Jeremy.89 said:

Why does one have to preclude the other?

If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?

Have another whataboutery sticker.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.

Nobody is suggesting that, who are you arguing with?