Kind of ridiculous to try to put a price on something like that. It's not about the cubic centimeters of tree stem. The article notes this, in fairness, but the exercise is still carried out.
Arnt · 13h ago
It makes sense to have a rule that the punishment for vandalism depends in part on the monetary value of the damaged/destroyed object. If you have such a rule, why should you make an exception for some objects, e.g. the most famous few? What's the justification for an exception?
"The estimated price is high and very imprecise" strikes me as poor. A famous object really is valuable (in a cultural sense) and if the monetary estimate is high, that seems much more appropriate to me than not having an estimate.
baggy_trough · 13h ago
It is a ridiculous process. The cubic centimeters of tree stem have nothing to do with it. So why take that number and multiply it by some other arbitrary number to come up with an arbitrary value? The cubic centimeters of tree stem can provide some idea of a minimum value, but for famous objects, the material value is not the primary issue.
The cultural / heritage value is inestimable, but certainly much greater than the given figure by orders of magnitude.
123yawaworht456 · 15h ago
more than most of the child rapists from the grooming gangs have got.
https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/environment/for...
"The estimated price is high and very imprecise" strikes me as poor. A famous object really is valuable (in a cultural sense) and if the monetary estimate is high, that seems much more appropriate to me than not having an estimate.
The cultural / heritage value is inestimable, but certainly much greater than the given figure by orders of magnitude.