How Stupid Are They?

[robert.]

What if they thought she was pulling a gun out of one of her saddle bags. She probably worked for a company that received large government contracts. Maybe in one way she was biting the hand that feeds her.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The guy next door to me works for a large auto parts distributor. They wanted his ebay name. Then told him not to sell any auto parts on ebay or other web sites. If they found him or his household selling their brand name parts he would be fired and forced to pay restitution. They also wanted to see FB. twitter and other sites. One negative statement about the company and your out. He said "they fire 2-3 people a year for negative statements online".

Business as usual in the 21st century.....

[HONDO74]

UCLA basketball players reportedly arrested in China could face months-long legal process
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ucla-baske ... s-vuitton/

Three players on the UCLA men's basketball team are reportedly out on bail after they were arrested in China accused of shoplifting. An ESPN report claims freshman LiAngelo Ball, Cody Riley and Jalen Hill were detained in Hangzhou. They are accused of stealing from a Louis Vuitton store near the team's hotel.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

UCLA basketball players reportedly arrested in China could face months-long legal process.........

Freshmen basketball players.........

[v8vega]

How dumb can you get breaking laws in a foreign country where you have no rights. Especially a Communist country.

[rogruth]

Other countries must not give basketball players the same rights as they have in the the U.S.
Especially if they are not from that country.

[up148]

They also wanted to see FB. twitter and other sites. One negative statement about the company and your out. He said "they fire 2-3 people a year for negative statements online".

I'm really surprised they get away with that in today's business atmosphere. Seems businesses are being sued for almost anything, by their employees, these days. Seems it would be some type of 1st amendment violation. Maybe, it just hasn't evolved that far yet......but it will.

BH

[rogruth]

With the ways that laws are being interpreted today, I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to be in business of any kind.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

They also wanted to see FB. twitter and other sites. One negative statement about the company and your out. He said "they fire 2-3 people a year for negative statements online".

I'm really surprised they get away with that in today's business atmosphere. Seems businesses are being sued for almost anything, by their employees, these days. Seems it would be some type of 1st amendment violation. Maybe, it just hasn't evolved that far yet......but it will.

Not surprising at all - pretty standard stuff. It's almost certainly within their terms of employment that they sign and agree to in order to be employed, but probably never actually read.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

They also wanted to see FB. twitter and other sites. One negative statement about the company and your out. He said "they fire 2-3 people a year for negative statements online".

I'm really surprised they get away with that in today's business atmosphere. Seems businesses are being sued for almost anything, by their employees, these days. Seems it would be some type of 1st amendment violation. Maybe, it just hasn't evolved that far yet......but it will.
BH

I just now saw on the News that a man, who had a large, multi-story, empty warehouse-type building, wanted to tear it down to further his investment by building a large apartment complex in its place. While vacant, the building had been covered stem-to-stern, top to bottom, by large graffiti "art". Once the building was demolished, the "artists" brought suit against him for destroying their creations. They WON the case, and had to be paid significant money, each of them, for the destruction of their individual pieces.

As I heard this news, I wondered. If the man had been forced to not demolish the building because of the presence of the uninvited, unsolicited, unpermitted application of the graffiti upon its exterior surfaces, would the "artists" have been forced to help pay upkeep for the building, such as heating for the winter months.? Eh? Huh? And if any person were injured on the derelict premises, would the artists, who had forced the building not to be demolished, have been held liable, also?

[rogruth]

Now Murph, you know the answers to tose questions don't you?
And you know what the answers should be also.
Oh, Where did this happen?

[up148]

With the ways that laws are being interpreted today, I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to be in business of any kind.

Trust me Roger, my family has been wondering the same thing for the past 11 years. Between Fed and State requirements these days, it's a major PITA. Obama doubled the amount of reports we were required to submit and they were not simple reports to generate.

BH

[up148]

I just now saw on the News that a man, who had a large, multi-story, empty warehouse-type building, wanted to tear it down to further his investment by building a large apartment complex in its place. While vacant, the building had been covered stem-to-stern, top to bottom, by large graffiti "art". Once the building was demolished, the "artists" brought suit against him for destroying their creations. They WON the case, and had to be paid significant money, each of them, for the destruction of their individual pieces.

As I heard this news, I wondered. If the man had been forced to not demolish the building because of the presence of the uninvited, unsolicited, unpermitted application of the graffiti upon its exterior surfaces, would the "artists" have been forced to help pay upkeep for the building, such as heating for the winter months.? Eh? Huh? And if any person were injured on the derelict premises, would the artists, who had forced the building not to be demolished, have been held liable, also?[/quote]

When I hear of cases like this (McDonalds coffee comes to mind) how can judges and attorneys be so ignorant as to allow this to happen? It should have been thrown out. Our tort system is so ***%$#^*)*&^*.

BH

[Rufus T. Firefly]

They also wanted to see FB. twitter and other sites. One negative statement about the company and your out. He said "they fire 2-3 people a year for negative statements online".

I'm really surprised they get away with that in today's business atmosphere. Seems businesses are being sued for almost anything, by their employees, these days. Seems it would be some type of 1st amendment violation. Maybe, it just hasn't evolved that far yet......but it will.
BH

I just now saw on the News that a man, who had a large, multi-story, empty warehouse-type building, wanted to tear it down to further his investment by building a large apartment complex in its place. While vacant, the building had been covered stem-to-stern, top to bottom, by large graffiti "art". Once the building was demolished, the "artists" brought suit against him for destroying their creations. They WON the case, and had to be paid significant money, each of them, for the destruction of their individual pieces.

As I heard this news, I wondered. If the man had been forced to not demolish the building because of the presence of the uninvited, unsolicited, unpermitted application of the graffiti upon its exterior surfaces, would the "artists" have been forced to help pay upkeep for the building, such as heating for the winter months.? Eh? Huh? And if any person were injured on the derelict premises, would the artists, who had forced the building not to be demolished, have been held liable, also?

Not unlike most "news" stories, I'm betting that we're missing the other 1/2 of the story here.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

We're watching, now (3:30-4pm-ish), among our channels 4, 7 & 12, to see if we can catch the news item again, to answer Roger's question about location , and to provide you with more info, Rufus. At 5:00, we will include channel 2 to see if that is where we first caught a portion of that news. Perhaps, I'll get lucky and be able to provide more.

4:27pm: found it! Channel 7:
Place: Long Island,NY
"5POINTZ" complex by real estate developer, who was sued for "illegally destroying street art," by demolishing his own building.