If you haven't seen this Brit before, you've missed it. He is serious when he is funny and he is funny when he is serious. This is his latest ....now with subtitles. Take a look !!
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Allen Henson, Photographer, Sued Over Topless Photos Atop Empire State Building
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The management of the Empire State Building on Monday filed a $1 million lawsuit against a photographer who shot topless pictures of a model atop its iconic 86th floor observatory.
Last August, a model climbed to the crowded observation deck and took her top off as 30-year-old photographer Allen Henson captured the image on his cell phone.
The photo quickly went viral on the internet and angered the owners of the Empire State Building, one of the most popular tourist attractions in New York City, who said the observation deck was full of tourists, including children, at the time the photo was taken.
"We were doing a social experiment," said Henson, adding he has been photographing fashion models for three years and also shot photos of topless women in Central Park and in Manhattan's Peninsula Hotel.
Henson began taking the series of photos after becoming aware of a May 2013, New York City memorandum that prevents police officers from arresting women who expose their breasts in public.
Henson said he wanted to test the social implications of the rule, but added that the pictures atop the Empire State Building were not taken in a professional capacity.
"I am a professional photographer, but that doesn't mean that every time I touch a device with a camera on it I must be conducting a photo shoot," he said.
Management of the Empire State Building charged in the suit the pictures were produced "for his own commercial purpose" and damaged the landmark's "reputation as a safe and secure family friendly tourist attraction."
Every year more than four million visitors from around the world pay to view the city from the Empire State Building's observatory, over 1,000 feet above ground.
Representatives for the Empire State Building did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Henson said the building's guards did not react to the shoot or attempt to remove him from the premises.
"On a side note," he said, "she had wonderful breasts."
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
We Need Support on our Support the Second Amendment FB Page
Please take a moment to visit our Support the Second Amendment Facebook and "Like" the page we need all the support we can get on this page.
Click the link below and hit the "LIKE" button .... Thank You !
Click the link below and hit the "LIKE" button .... Thank You !
Federal judge rules Chicago ban on gun sales unconstitutional
CHICAGO (AP) — A federal judge on Monday overturned Chicago’s ban on the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city’s ordinances aimed at reducing gun violence are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.
The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s long-standing gun ban. And last year, Illinois legislators were forced by a federal appeals court to adopt a law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons in Illinois, the only state that still banned the practice.
The resulting state law largely stripped city and officials of surrounding Cook County of their authority to regulate guns, which especially irked officials in Chicago, where residents had to apply for concealed-carry permits through the police chief.
Business with ‘gun-free zone’ signs may be tagged with legal liability
From BizPac Review....
A Mississippi shooting Friday night illustrates perfectly not only the ineffectiveness of “gun-free” zones, but also the fact that the posting on “no firearms allowed” signs can put a storeowner in legal jeopardy.
A man was shot outside a Jackson, Miss., convenience store where the proprietor had posted a “no firearms allowed” sign.
The unidentified victim was shot in the leg during an altercation in which multiple shots were fired. He was later taken to the hospital in an ambulance where he was treated, according to MSNewsNow.
David Butts, a Tupelo, Miss. attorney, noted the incident on the Firearm Freedom Day Facebook page and added his own personal observations:
A report of a shooting outside a convenience store in Jackson today, which had a “no firearms” sign posted at the entrance, brings to mind one obvious observation and one not so obvious question. First, it is obvious that criminals have no regard whatsoever for “no firearms” signs and that, in fact, the presence of such a sign may even encourage a criminal to enter a business to commit a criminal act (robbery, etc.) since, presumably, no one (except possibly the business owner) would have a firearm.
The not-so-obvious question is “what is the responsibility of the business owner to protect his/her customers if they post a ‘no firearms’ sign at their place of business?” It is already the law in MS that a business owner must exercise “reasonable care” to protect a customer from injury. One sees this a lot in “slip and fall” cases (wet floors, owner has duty to warn of danger).
But what about the situation where a customer, legally armed, either openly or with a concealed carry permit, disarms themselves to do business in the “no firearms” business and is injured or killed by some gun-wielding thug intent on committing a crime? What does the owner’s duty of “reasonable care” to protect the customer mean in those circumstances?
There have already been several cases in MS where business owners have been held responsible for injuries to their patrons or residents where they failed to provided adequate security (for robbery, rape, assault, etc.). In the case in Jackson, the shooting occurred outside the place of business, but what if it had happened inside? And what if the person who was shot had disarmed themselves because of the sign in order to go in and do business? It may be just a matter of time before just such a case happens. Just my guess, but at a minimum business owners who post such “no firearms” signs may be put to the expense of metal detectors and/or armed guards inside their places of business. More cost which is usually passed on to the customer.
A Mississippi shooting Friday night illustrates perfectly not only the ineffectiveness of “gun-free” zones, but also the fact that the posting on “no firearms allowed” signs can put a storeowner in legal jeopardy.
A man was shot outside a Jackson, Miss., convenience store where the proprietor had posted a “no firearms allowed” sign.
The unidentified victim was shot in the leg during an altercation in which multiple shots were fired. He was later taken to the hospital in an ambulance where he was treated, according to MSNewsNow.
David Butts, a Tupelo, Miss. attorney, noted the incident on the Firearm Freedom Day Facebook page and added his own personal observations:
A report of a shooting outside a convenience store in Jackson today, which had a “no firearms” sign posted at the entrance, brings to mind one obvious observation and one not so obvious question. First, it is obvious that criminals have no regard whatsoever for “no firearms” signs and that, in fact, the presence of such a sign may even encourage a criminal to enter a business to commit a criminal act (robbery, etc.) since, presumably, no one (except possibly the business owner) would have a firearm.
The not-so-obvious question is “what is the responsibility of the business owner to protect his/her customers if they post a ‘no firearms’ sign at their place of business?” It is already the law in MS that a business owner must exercise “reasonable care” to protect a customer from injury. One sees this a lot in “slip and fall” cases (wet floors, owner has duty to warn of danger).
But what about the situation where a customer, legally armed, either openly or with a concealed carry permit, disarms themselves to do business in the “no firearms” business and is injured or killed by some gun-wielding thug intent on committing a crime? What does the owner’s duty of “reasonable care” to protect the customer mean in those circumstances?
There have already been several cases in MS where business owners have been held responsible for injuries to their patrons or residents where they failed to provided adequate security (for robbery, rape, assault, etc.). In the case in Jackson, the shooting occurred outside the place of business, but what if it had happened inside? And what if the person who was shot had disarmed themselves because of the sign in order to go in and do business? It may be just a matter of time before just such a case happens. Just my guess, but at a minimum business owners who post such “no firearms” signs may be put to the expense of metal detectors and/or armed guards inside their places of business. More cost which is usually passed on to the customer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)