4 ms·

Nothing too see here. This is totally acceptable behaviour globally - if you have money, do whatever you want, then pay. The most popular TV show on the globe i

by atirip 13y ago

Nothing too see here. This is totally acceptable behaviour globally - if you have money, do whatever you want, then pay. The most popular TV show on the globe is Top Gear where 3 middle aged assholes with pockets full of greasy money do exactly that all the time - buy, demolish, destroy, whatever, then pay. And as this is the most popular TV show - we all like such assholic behaviour.

jiggy2011 13y ago
They don't tend to destroy national parks though, just old cars and maybe the odd building that was condemned anyway.
- downandout 13y ago
  Don't worry, because this didn't come remotely close to "destroying a national park". I realize that Northern California is the natural habitat of the insane tree hugger, and that many joints have been smoked while pondering Sean Parker's evil deforestation plot. But that report found no evidence of actual, permanent damage to anything. It asserted that activities of this general nature, carried to extremes, carry the possibility of some amount of damage. His temporary, aesthetic changes did nothing and no fine should have been levied - certainly not $2.5 million that will be used to perpetuate this particular brand of insanity.
  - soofaloofa 13y ago
    I understand your point but no fine should be levied? This kind of behaviour should be discouraged and a fine is entirely appropriate to discourage it.
    - clicks 13y ago
      > This kind of behaviour should be discouraged and a fine is entirely appropriate to discourage it. I would actually go so far as to say that the fine should have been much bigger. This is something that annoys me about tickets being a fixed amount: is it really a true deterrent to bad behavior when the fine is so negligibly small that you basically don't give a damn? The purpose of punishment is to reform bad behavior, bad behavior that is dangerous to others. When you're going 80+ kph above speed limit you're not just putting your own life at danger, you're putting other innocent people in the vicinity at danger too. A ticket should not be $400 at that point when you're a billionaire, it should be $4 million. $400 is likely not enough forceful enough as a corrective measure. In this instance I'd have been happier if the fine Parker incurred was above $25 million.
      - cschmidt 13y ago
        They do that with traffic tickets in Finland and Switzerland. You've probably heard of the $290,000 speeding ticket levied against a wealthy Swiss guy. http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/2012/02/speeding-fines-that-vary-with-income-absolute-vs-relative-risk-aversion-and-public-policy/ http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/2012/02/speeding-fines-t... (The link is an interesting discussion of relative vs absolute risk aversion, with regard to tickets.)
      - craigching 13y ago
        Either that or take something more valuable from them, like their time. Make them do community service!
        tixocloud 13y ago
        I would think that community service with no way of paying your way out of it would be a better deterrent than fines.
        FireBeyond 13y ago
        You would think that. I would think that too. History and celebrities have shown that when the courts think that, these people -still- don't think the rules will apply to them and will either lie about it, do self-serving "community" service, make excuses about how they can't because they are too high profile or busy, or out and out bribe people, either to do the work for them, or to fraudulently attest to their service.
  - peterwwillis 13y ago
    From the findings: "The unpermitted development has thus impacted the existing redwood forest habitat and has likely caused sedimentation of Post Creek." The fact that he brazenly (and illegally) modified land designated for public use is pretty bad as well. Imagine if I decided to shoot a porno right in the lap of the Lincoln Memorial, setting up lights and cheap sets and basically making the whole monument look like a joke, ruining what would have been a solemn and sacred space for the general public. Of course, I would also be shot by the guards there. There's no similar guardian for that particular part of the Redwood forest.
- oliciv 13y ago
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3509191.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3509191.stm
Thrymr 13y ago
Except that they did not receive approval for development as required by the California Coastal Act. Presumably the guys on Top Gear aren't breaking any laws.
namdnay 13y ago
They're not all assholes! James May is a quite a nice guy. And the money they use isn't particularly greasy: it's the taxpayer's :)
joeyyang 13y ago
The difference between Top Gear and this situation though is that the cars they smash up aren't a shared resource. Top Gear smashing up a sweet car doesn't really affect me in any way (in fact, it can be pretty funny). One might argue that by making changes to the natural landscape as Parker did, he affects the shared resource that is the environment, which some find to be less than totally acceptable.
- bigdubs 13y ago
  In a very famous episode of Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson drives a Land Rover to the top of a mountain in Scotland all while chewing up the peat bogs (he then just leaves it there over night). They caught a lot of flack for that segment, but it stands that they do the exact same thing.
  - joeyyang 13y ago
    Valid counterpoint.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Let's be clear, they are well-off because of the success of the show, but the money that funds the show is not theirs. It is well-funded by the BBC, i.e. the taxpayers, precisely because it is so popular. To the best of my knowledge, when it comes to their personal funds, they mostly buy cars. Which is fitting- whether or not they are jerks, they are definitely all car enthusiasts.

by atirip 13y ago

jiggy2011 13y ago

They don't tend to destroy national parks though, just old cars and maybe the odd building that was condemned anyway.

downandout 13y ago
Don't worry, because this didn't come remotely close to "destroying a national park". I realize that Northern California is the natural habitat of the insane tree hugger, and that many joints have been smoked while pondering Sean Parker's evil deforestation plot. But that report found no evidence of actual, permanent damage to anything. It asserted that activities of this general nature, carried to extremes, carry the possibility of some amount of damage. His temporary, aesthetic changes did nothing and no fine should have been levied - certainly not $2.5 million that will be used to perpetuate this particular brand of insanity.
- soofaloofa 13y ago
  I understand your point but no fine should be levied? This kind of behaviour should be discouraged and a fine is entirely appropriate to discourage it.
  - clicks 13y ago
    > This kind of behaviour should be discouraged and a fine is entirely appropriate to discourage it. I would actually go so far as to say that the fine should have been much bigger. This is something that annoys me about tickets being a fixed amount: is it really a true deterrent to bad behavior when the fine is so negligibly small that you basically don't give a damn? The purpose of punishment is to reform bad behavior, bad behavior that is dangerous to others. When you're going 80+ kph above speed limit you're not just putting your own life at danger, you're putting other innocent people in the vicinity at danger too. A ticket should not be $400 at that point when you're a billionaire, it should be $4 million. $400 is likely not enough forceful enough as a corrective measure. In this instance I'd have been happier if the fine Parker incurred was above $25 million.
    - cschmidt 13y ago
      They do that with traffic tickets in Finland and Switzerland. You've probably heard of the $290,000 speeding ticket levied against a wealthy Swiss guy. http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/2012/02/speeding-fines-that-vary-with-income-absolute-vs-relative-risk-aversion-and-public-policy/ http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/2012/02/speeding-fines-t... (The link is an interesting discussion of relative vs absolute risk aversion, with regard to tickets.)
    - craigching 13y ago
      Either that or take something more valuable from them, like their time. Make them do community service!
      - tixocloud 13y ago
        I would think that community service with no way of paying your way out of it would be a better deterrent than fines.
        FireBeyond 13y ago
        You would think that. I would think that too. History and celebrities have shown that when the courts think that, these people -still- don't think the rules will apply to them and will either lie about it, do self-serving "community" service, make excuses about how they can't because they are too high profile or busy, or out and out bribe people, either to do the work for them, or to fraudulently attest to their service.
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  From the findings: "The unpermitted development has thus impacted the existing redwood forest habitat and has likely caused sedimentation of Post Creek." The fact that he brazenly (and illegally) modified land designated for public use is pretty bad as well. Imagine if I decided to shoot a porno right in the lap of the Lincoln Memorial, setting up lights and cheap sets and basically making the whole monument look like a joke, ruining what would have been a solemn and sacred space for the general public. Of course, I would also be shot by the guards there. There's no similar guardian for that particular part of the Redwood forest.
oliciv 13y ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3509191.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3509191.stm

Thrymr 13y ago

Except that they did not receive approval for development as required by the California Coastal Act. Presumably the guys on Top Gear aren't breaking any laws.

namdnay 13y ago

They're not all assholes! James May is a quite a nice guy. And the money they use isn't particularly greasy: it's the taxpayer's :)

joeyyang 13y ago

The difference between Top Gear and this situation though is that the cars they smash up aren't a shared resource. Top Gear smashing up a sweet car doesn't really affect me in any way (in fact, it can be pretty funny). One might argue that by making changes to the natural landscape as Parker did, he affects the shared resource that is the environment, which some find to be less than totally acceptable.

bigdubs 13y ago
In a very famous episode of Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson drives a Land Rover to the top of a mountain in Scotland all while chewing up the peat bogs (he then just leaves it there over night). They caught a lot of flack for that segment, but it stands that they do the exact same thing.
- joeyyang 13y ago
  Valid counterpoint.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Let's be clear, they are well-off because of the success of the show, but the money that funds the show is not theirs. It is well-funded by the BBC, i.e. the taxpayers, precisely because it is so popular. To the best of my knowledge, when it comes to their personal funds, they mostly buy cars. Which is fitting- whether or not they are jerks, they are definitely all car enthusiasts.