Search

Tourism hotspot in Italy attracts attention for selling strange souvenir

Italy’s picturesque region of Lake Como has started selling a unique souvenir, making many people raise their eyebrows. The north Italian tourist hotspot has long been known for being the backdrop of many Hollywood films, while also hosting countless celebrity weddings, with many famous faces owning houses in the region. For those travelling to the stunning Lake Como and wanting to purchase a souvenir to remind them of their travels, you can now forgo the classic keyring or magnet for a more unique souvenir item. Communications company ItalyComunica says it has bottled the very air of Italy’s picturesque Lake Como and is selling these cans for €9.90 ($16 AUD) apiece. Each can is said to contain 400 millilitres of “100% authentic air” collected from Lake Como, with the website stating buyers can “Open it whenever you need a moment of escape, tranquillity, or simply beauty.” In an attempt to capitalise on the ever-growing visitor numbers, marketing specialist Davide Abagnale originally created the e-commerce site to sell dedicated Lake Como posters, before delving into the world of the unique souvenirs. His latest initiative of selling canned air aims to “create a souvenir that could be easily transported in a suitcase for tourists” and “something original, fun and even provocative.” Abagnale told <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/04/travel/lake-como-air-cans-on-sale-intl-scli/index.html">CNN</a>, “It’s not a product, it’s a tangible memory that you carry in your heart,” adding that once tourists are home and have opened the can, they can repurpose it as a souvenir pen holder or plant holder. Not everyone was first onboard with the idea, as Como mayor Alessandro Rapinese said it wouldn’t be his first idea for tourists, and would prefer they take home other souvenirs, like the silk scarves the area is known for. “It’s a novel idea, but not for everyone,” he told CNN. “But as mayor of one of Italy’s most beautiful cities, if someone wants to take some of their air home, that’s fine as long as they also take beautiful memories of this area.” Image credits: ItalyComunica/CNN/Shutterstock

International Travel

"Time for a rest": John Laws retires from radio

Radio veteran John Laws has announced his plans to retire from radio in the coming weeks. The radio host, 89, shocked his loyal listeners on his 2SM show on Tuesday morning, after reading out a letter from a fan who wrote how much they enjoy listening to the show each day. “You’re not going to be hearing it for long, mate,” Laws said in response to the email. “I think it’s time for a rest. “I’ve done it for a very, very, very, very long time,” Laws said about his broadcasting career. “And I think that I’ll just call it a day, and call it a day pretty soon.” Laws said that he will “probably” hang up his headphones at the beginning of November when he celebrates 71 years on air. “I don’t want to be greedy,” he said. “I’ve had 71 fantastic years … and loved almost every minute of it.” He also made clear that after his final show, he will not be returning to radio. “I’m not going to go away and then come back again and say, ‘oh, it was all a mistake,’” he said on 2SM. “It may well be a mistake, but there’ll be no return. That’s it.” Laws then outlined his plans for his long-awaited retirement, saying, “I’ll travel, I’ll sit about, I’ll read more… and I’ll catch up with things that I should have caught up with a long time ago”. The retirement announcement came as a shock to many loyal viewers, as Laws said in an interview in 2023 that he can't picture himself ever stepping back from the coveted radio role. Just last year he told <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/john-laws-reveals-he-doesnt-think-about-retirement-as-he-notches-up-70-years-in-radio/news-story/9ed6d8dad7af5523e6c70bca45f8516d" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-tgev="event119" data-tgev-container="bodylink" data-tgev-order="9ed6d8dad7af5523e6c70bca45f8516d" data-tgev-label="entertainment" data-tgev-metric="ev">The Daily Telegraph</a>, “I don’t think about retirement. I suppose I will have to one day but no, I don’t want to stop, I’d like to be doing it when I am 100.” Image credits: 9News / 2SM

Retirement Life

"20 years to life": Bali's brutal new law

Major changers are coming into effect for foreigners in Bali. Indonesia's Department of Immigration has doubled down on its zero-tolerance approach to unruly tourists, as those found in breach of immigration laws or have overstayed their visas could be sentenced to life behind bars. Crimes that were previously punishable with sentences from six months to one year in prison are increasing to jail-time of up to 20 years, according to The Bali Sun. “Indonesia is a country that upholds the tourism sector, but comfort must be accompanied by order. We want foreign nationals who come to Indonesia to understand and follow the rules and norms that apply in this country,” Director General of Immigration Law and Human Rights Silmy Karim said, according to local newspaper Nusa Bali. “We also try to ensure that those who come are quality tourists, through strengthening intelligence co-operation and information exchange with other countries.” There will also be an increase in immigration checkpoint officers, patrol officers and investigators, and more mobile taskforces. The rules won't affect tourists who apply for temporary visas on arrival and leave with in the mandated 30-day period or extend their visa and leave within 60 days. The Indonesian government has recently cracked down on foreigners overstaying their welcome, deporting more than 400 people this year alone for violating immigration laws. Just last year, a dozen Australians were among more than 200 foreigners kicked out of Bali for abusing the visa system by doing illegal business or working in Bali. This follows the introduction of the tourist tax and the release of their tourist dos and don'ts list, as they attempt to monitor foreigners' activities. Image: AsiaTravel / Shutterstock.com

Legal

Kyle Sandilands' warning about new "right to disconnect" laws

Kyle Sandilands has warned Aussies against "abusing the system" put in place by new 'right to disconnect' laws. As of August 26th, employees of large companies can legally refuse to respond to "unreasonable" after-hours calls from their employer. Discussing the new laws on KIIS FM on Monday morning, Sandilands warned workers about celebrating the laws too soon, as they could come with a catch depending on the leniency of employers. "It doesn't mean they won't railroad you out behind the scenes," the radio host said. Kyle then argued that while it would be illegal under the new legislation for bosses to punish workers for not responding after hours, some devious managers could find ways around the laws. "Don't think for a second: 'Screw that real estate agent boss'," Kyle said. "Because eventually they will find a way to get rid of you to work around the boundaries." Sandilands then urged Aussies not to "abuse the system", saying, "Everyone you can say, 'oh by law, I don't have to respond to that' and they will then go, 'no worries'." "And then they get you for every little tiny infringement. You will go if they want you to go, one way or another. So, don't abuse the system." Jackie O then chimed in on the debate, saying the laws were a direct response to a modern working problem. "I feel like that might happen," Jackie said. "I think it's sometimes because the thing is that work hours now are infinity. When you didn't have email and mobile phones, you never got bothered outside of work hours." Kyle replied, "And nothing got done. It was the late 1970s. The world spun very slowly back then." Image credits: KIIS FM

Legal

“Don’t marry him”: Bride-to-be shares wild altercation with her future in-laws over her wedding dress

A woman has been told to “run” from her fiancé after sharing a wild conversation she had with her future in-laws about her wedding dress. The bride-to-be shared that ever since she was a child, she wanted to wear her mother’s wedding dress on her own big day. However, the woman was then confronted by her soon-to-be in-laws, with drama ensuing over her wedding dress. Taking to Reddit’s “Am I The A**hole?” page, the woman explained, "My mother's wedding dress has been passed down for generations and I remember being a little girl dreaming of walking down the aisle in it." Despite her wishes to wear the family heirloom on her big day, she said things went south at a dinner at her sister-in-law’s (SIL) house when she "tapped her spoon against the glass and said that she had to make a toast." "She then said she would be right back before going into another room and returning with a large plastic bag," the bride continues. "Everyone seemed to be excited but I just felt confused." As she "awkwardly smiled", her SIL opened the bag to reveal her wedding dress from her wedding two years earlier as her in-laws began clapping, as her future sister-in-law announced she wanted the bride to wear her dress at her upcoming nuptials. "I tried to smile but I guess I didn't do a good job of hiding my disappointment and everyone began asking me what was wrong," the bride-to-be continues, adding that she tried to explain that she wanted to wear her mother's wedding dress. At this point, her SIL began to cry and her in-laws began berating her, causing the bride to burst into tears and run outside. "My fiancé didn't even come after me and after crying my eyes out on the steps for what felt like hours, he finally came outside and yelled at me to get into the car," she says. Confused, she got into the car only for her fiancé to berate her for making "such a big scene" leaving him feeling "embarrassed in front of his family." "He sounds so mad and he even said he couldn't believe he chose to marry such a 'bitchy c--t' (his exact words)." The woman tried to explain how important it was to her to wear her mother's dress and that she had already promised her mother she would be wearing it on her big day. "I felt like my fiancé's family planned this and put me on the spot thinking I wouldn't stand up for myself and just agree to wear SIL's dress," she continues. "I don't think I did anything wrong but a part of me thinks I should have just gone along with it and then told SIL in private that I wouldn't be wearing the dress." Hundreds of people were quick to comment on her post, suggesting that she “run” not only from her in-laws, but from her partner as well. "Ma'am you need to leave that whole family behind including your fiancé," one said. "You just had a peek into your future if you carry on with this relationship." "Don't you dare marry that man!!!" another said. "The problem doesn't exist as the wedding shouldn't be happening anymore," another added. One Redditor suggested she "be thankful that he is showing you who he really is before you marry him." "You have just had a glimpse of what your future is going to look like if you go through with your wedding." Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Worried your address, birth date or health data is being sold? You should be – and the law isn’t protecting you

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-kemp-402096">Katharine Kemp</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> Australians don’t know and can’t control how data brokers are spreading their personal information. This is the core finding of a newly <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital-platform-services-inquiry-March-2024-interim-report.pdf">released report</a> from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Consumers wanting to rent a property, get an insurance quote or shop online are not given real choices about whether their personal data is shared for other purposes. This exposes Australians to scams, fraud, manipulation and discrimination. In fact, <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/consumers-lack-visibility-and-choice-over-data-collection-practices">many don’t even know</a> what kind of data has been collected about them and shared or sold by data firms and other third parties. Our privacy laws are due for reform. But Australia’s privacy commissioner <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4224653">should also enforce</a> an existing rule: with very limited exceptions, businesses must not collect information about you from third parties. <h2>What are data brokers?</h2> <a href="https://cprc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CPRC-Singled-Out-Final-Feb-2024.pdf">Data brokers</a> generally make their profits by collecting information about individuals from various sources and sharing this personal data with their many business clients. This can include detailed profiles of a person’s family, health, finances and movements. Data brokers often have no connection with the individual – you may not even recognise the name of a firm that holds vast amounts of information on you. Some of these data brokers are large multinational companies with billions of dollars in revenue. Consumer and privacy advocates provided the ACCC with evidence of highly concerning data broker practices. <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Salinger%20Privacy.pdf">One woman</a> tried to find out how data brokers had got hold of her information after receiving targeted medical advertising. Although she never discovered how they obtained her data, she found out it included her name, date of birth and contact details. It also included inferences about her, such as her retiree status, having no children, not having “high affluence” and being likely to donate to a charity. ACCC found another data broker was reportedly creating lists of individuals who may be experiencing vulnerability. The categories included: <ul> <li>children, teenage girls and teenage boys</li> <li>“financially unsavvy” people</li> <li>elderly people living alone</li> <li>new migrants</li> <li>religious minorities</li> <li>unemployed people</li> <li>people in financial distress</li> <li>new migrants</li> <li>people experiencing pain or who have visited certain medical facilities.</li> </ul> These are all potential vulnerabilities that could be exploited, for example, by scammers or unscrupulous advertisers. <h2>How do they get this information?</h2> The ACCC notes <a href="https://cprc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CPRC-working-paper-Not-a-fair-trade-March-2025.pdf">74% of Australians are uncomfortable</a> with their personal information being shared or sold. Nonetheless, data brokers sell and share Australian consumers’ personal information every day. Businesses we deal with – for example, when we buy a car or search for natural remedies on an online marketplace – both buy data about us from data brokers and provide them with more. The ACCC acknowledges consumers haven’t been given a choice about this. Attempting to read every privacy term is near impossible. The ACCC referred to a recent study which found it would take consumers <a href="https://www.mi-3.com.au/06-11-2023/aussies-face-10-hour-privacy-policy-marathon-finds-study">over 46 hours a month</a> to read every privacy policy they encounter. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/595623/original/file-20240522-23-2zkuc.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/595623/original/file-20240522-23-2zkuc.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/595623/original/file-20240522-23-2zkuc.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=131&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/595623/original/file-20240522-23-2zkuc.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/595623/original/file-20240522-23-2zkuc.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=131&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/595623/original/file-20240522-23-2zkuc.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=165&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/595623/original/file-20240522-23-2zkuc.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=165&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/595623/original/file-20240522-23-2zkuc.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=165&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>The approximate length and time it would take to read an average privacy policy in Australia per month. <a class="source" href="https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/serial-publications/digital-platform-services-inquiry-2020-25-reports/digital-platform-services-inquiry-interim-report-march-2024">ACCC Digital Platform Services Inquiry interim report</a></figcaption></figure> Even if you could read every term, you still wouldn’t get a clear picture. Businesses use <a href="https://cprc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CPRC-Singled-Out-Final-Feb-2024.pdf">vague wording</a> and data descriptions which <a href="https://theconversation.com/70-of-australians-dont-feel-in-control-of-their-data-as-companies-hide-behind-meaningless-privacy-terms-224072">confuse consumers</a> and have no fixed meaning. These include “pseudonymised information”, “hashed email addresses”, “aggregated information” and “advertising ID”. Privacy terms are also presented on a “take it or leave it” basis, even for transactions like applying for a rental property or buying insurance. The ACCC pointed out 41% of Australians feel they have been <a href="https://www.choice.com.au/consumers-and-data/data-collection-and-use/how-your-data-is-used/articles/choice-renttech-report-release">pressured to use “rent tech” platforms</a>. These platforms collect an increasing range of information with questionable connection to renting. <h2>A first for Australian consumers</h2> This is the first time an Australian regulator has made an in-depth report on the consumer data practices of data brokers, which are generally hidden from consumers. It comes <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf">ten years after</a> the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) conducted a similar inquiry into data brokers in the US. The ACCC report examined the data practices of nine data brokers and other “data firms” operating in Australia. (It added the term “data firms” because some companies sharing data about people argue that they are not data brokers.) A big difference between the Australian and the US reports is that the FTC is both the consumer watchdog and the <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2312913">privacy regulator</a>. As our competition and consumer watchdog, the ACCC is meant to focus on competition and consumer issues. We also need our privacy regulator, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), to pay attention to these findings. <h2>There’s a law against that</h2> The ACCC report shows many examples of businesses collecting personal information about us from third parties. For example, you may be a customer of a business that only has your name and email address. But that business can purchase “<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4224653">data enrichment</a>” services from a data broker to find out your age range, income range and family situation. The <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03712/latest/text">current Privacy Act</a> includes <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles/read-the-australian-privacy-principles">a principle</a> that organisations must collect personal information only from the individual (you) unless it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so. “Impracticable” means practically impossible. This is the direct collection rule. Yet there is no reported case of the privacy commissioner enforcing the direct collection rule against a data broker or its business customers. Nor has the OAIC issued any specific guidance in this respect. It should do both. <h2>Time to update our privacy laws</h2> Our privacy law was drafted in 1988, long before this complex web of digital data practices emerged. Privacy laws in places such as California and the European Union provide much stronger protections. The government has <a href="https://ministers.ag.gov.au/media-centre/speeches/privacy-design-awards-2024-02-05-2024">announced</a> it plans to introduce a privacy law reform bill this August. The ACCC report reinforces the need for vital amendments, including a direct right of action for individuals and a rule requiring dealings in personal information to be “fair and reasonable”.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/230540/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katharine-kemp-402096">Katharine Kemp</a>, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414">UNSW Sydney</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/worried-your-address-birth-date-or-health-data-is-being-sold-you-should-be-and-the-law-isnt-protecting-you-230540">original article</a>. </div>

Legal

Grieving dad fights for "ZaZa's Law" after toddler dies in his arms

A grieving father has called for change after his toddler tragically died from choking on a grape. Brian Bwoga, a 44-year-old dad from Perth was at the beach with his two sons, Alessandro, four, and Zaire (ZaZa) 22 months, at the beginning of the year on what seemed like a normal family day out. But what was meant to be an idyllic summer’s day soon turned into any parent’s worst nightmare. “The weather was amazing, the boys were playing and it was just the perfect summer’s day,” Brian, who parents his boys with their mother Claudia, 39, told <a href="https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/perth-toddler-dies-five-minutes-after-being-eating-popular-snack/news-story/0bfb598fe70bb5b47259cdc3b80c60cd" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news.com.au</a>. “I was gathering up our things ready to go home. My older son Alex came up to me and asked if he could play for just five more minutes. I was carrying ZaZa, and I told them both to go and play together with their friends while I finish packing the car." “The next minute ZaZa is just running to me, holding his neck and gasping for air." “I jumped into action and did CPR, I put my fingers inside his throat and got one grape out. I was so relieved, I thought thank god I got it out. But I didn’t know there were four more grapes inside his throat.” The toddler continued to choke on the grapes, and Brian says his eyes started “popping out”. The terrified dad began performing abdominal thrusts to try and dislodge the grapes but to no avail. “I told one of the mothers to call the ambulance. I was terrified,” he recalled. “My older son was scared and asked me why there was blood coming from ZaZa’s mouth. I told him to go with another parent because I didn’t want him to see this. I was holding ZaZa and he was looking at me. I gave him CPR again and I tried so hard to save him." “He gave me this look and died in my arms.” “I left home with a beach bag and left with a body bag. It happened so quick. Within a few minutes he was gone. My son Alex is traumatised. He misses his brother so much and I don’t know how to fix it.” Grapes are a notorious choking hazard for children under the age of 5, as it is often recommended to always cut up grapes when feeding them to young kids. Sadly, Zaza consumed the grapes whole, and although the mistake cost his son his life, he doesn't place the blame on anyone. Instead, he wants to educate the public about the importance of cutting up grapes and is now fighting for <a href="https://www.change.org/p/zaza-s-law?source_location=petitions_browse" target="_blank" rel="noopener">change</a> as he hopes to introduce ‘ZaZa’s Law’ to parliament. This new law would ensure there are choking hazard labels on all grape packets and other food items that could be dangerous for small children. “I would hate for this to happen to anyone else. But I hear so many stories about kids dying from choking,” he said. “Ideally, I would like a warning label on all grapes and small foods to warn people to cut them up. Even a big sign at the supermarket for parents." “Not everyone knows this, but every parent needs to be aware of the dangers of food. I want ZaZa’s Law to come into parliament to get labels on everything." “We buy toys and they come with warning labels for things like batteries or other choking hazards. Why can’t we do the same for food?” The dad also hopes that a new anti-choking device, called LifeVac, might be more widely introduced in Australia and placed in public spaces. “Everywhere you go, shopping centres or beaches, there is a defibrillator on the wall,” he explained. “That is great, but we also need those anti-choking devices. It sucks everything up like a plunger and has saved so many lives." “If we had that at the beach that day, ZaZa might still be here.” Image credits: Courtesy of Brian Bwoga

Caring

6 strange wedding traditions around the world

Every country – indeed, every family – has their own wedding traditions and marriage superstitions. Most of us would be familiar with the rule of the newlyweds-to-be not seeing each other before the wedding and the “something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue” rhyme, but what goes on around the rest of the world? Let’s find out. 1. Greece If you’ve ever attended a Greek wedding, you’ll know it’s a colourful, fun, family-oriented affair – you’ll also probably be familiar with koufeta. They’re sugar-coated almonds given to guests by the newlyweds as a way to secure happiness, health, wealth, children and a long life. How? The white of the almond is said to symbolise purity, the egg shape fertility, the hardness represents the endurance of marriage and the sugar shows the sweetness of married life. 2. Scotland Many modern Scots have done away with this tradition, and we can’t blame them. Essentially, before the big day, the bride (and occasionally the groom) is covered head-to-toe in pungent foods like rotten eggs, curdled milk and fish sauce by her friends. Supposedly, it prepares the couple for the difficulties of marriage and wards away evil spirits. We’d rather give it a miss. 3. South America Pearls might be the jewellery of choice for some woman, but you’re not likely to see a single stone on a South American bride. Many Latin cultures see pearls as “tears of the sea” and believe that wearing them on your wedding day could bring sadness into the new marriage. 4. India It’s traditional for Indian brides to get henna tattoos on their hands and feet for their wedding day, and there’s often a sweet hidden message in them – the groom’s initials. If he is able to find his initials in the elaborate tattoo on the wedding night, it’s believed the couple will have good luck. Lucky for the bride, if he fails, he has to give his new wife a present. Score! 5. Poland Polish brides have to be very careful when it comes to picking out their wedding shoes. According to tradition, open-toed shoes are bad luck since they allow the couple’s future wealth and fortune to escape through the opening. However, there’s also an opportunity for the newlyweds to make a bit of money, too! As they leave the church, their guests shower them with coins, which they then have to collect to secure a happy and prosperous future. 6. Germany If you’re a young German woman, you might want to avoid splashing out on porcelain – come the night before your wedding, it’ll all be destroyed. Yep, “polterabend” is a tradition in which wedding guests arrive at the bride’s home the night before and smash anything made of porcelain they can get their hands on. This is thought to bring good luck, and since it’s up to the couple to clean up the mess, it’s also designed to teach them that married life isn’t always easy – but they can work through any challenges they may face. Image credits: Shutterstock

Relationships

"No-brainer": Call for Jack's law to be introduced nationwide

A Queensland father whose son was stabbed on a night out is pushing for Jack's Law to be introduced nationwide in the wake of the <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/caring/family-of-bondi-killer-break-silence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bondi Junction attack</a> and <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/teenage-boy-in-custody-after-stabbing-at-sydney-church" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wakeley Church stabbing</a>. Brett Beasley is urging NSW premier Chris Minns and other states to introduce the anti-knife law which allows police officers to conduct random searches for knives at public transport hubs and Safe Night precincts using metal detecting wands. “It’s an absolute no-brainer,” he told news.com.au. “It’s absolutely extraordinary how well it’s working here in Queensland. I believe every single police officer Australia-wide should have the same powers.” Beasly and his wife Belinda have spent years campaigning for the law following the tragic death of their son Jack, who was stabbed by a group of teens outside a Surfers Paradise convenience store during a night out in 2019. It's been three years since the law was introduced in Queensland, and since then 55,000 people have been searched, 800 weapons have been confiscated and 1400 people have been charged. “It’s the same as being pulled over for a random breath test, it’s exactly the same and it’s working,” Beasly said. “I can guarantee the NSW government, if they were to adopt Jack’s Law, then they will start finding thousands of weapons. It’s scary to think how many of these young offenders are walking around actually armed and getting away with it.” Beasly, who was “absolutely devastated” after hearing about the Bondi Junction stabbing spree, said that the NSW premier should waste no time introducing the law. “Chris Minns shouldn’t even contemplate it. He should just say, ‘Absolutely. Let’s do this’. “I get thousands of messages from people in New South Wales who say ‘We want Jack’s Law down here, we need it down here’.” “To lose a child in any way is absolutely horrendous, and to lose a child to murder is the worst way possible. Your child’s life is taken from them.” Beasly is keen to meet with Minns to discuss rolling out Jacks law in NSW saying: “if Chris Minns is open to a meeting with me, I’ll be on the next flight to Sydney because this government need to make this happen. It’s as simple as that." A NSW government spokesperson has told news.com.au that they “need to look carefully at our current policies to ensure the public is safe”. “The NSW Sentencing Council is currently undertaking a review of the sentencing laws for firearms, knives and other weapons offences. The NSW Government will also look at knife laws,” they said. “We will await the review findings and consider all recommendations carefully.” Beasly is also planning to meet with the Governor of Western Australia on Monday and hopes that they will also adopt the law. While waiting for other states to adopt the law, Beasly and the Jack Beasley Foundation are delivering free presentations about knife crime in schools. “Let’s work on this together and bond together and make a change and see if we can stop this,” he said. Image: Jerad Williams/ news.com.au

Legal

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

A woman has gone head-to-head with her mother-in-law over the name she has chosen for her unborn child. The pregnant woman took to Reddit to share her unusual predicament, explaining how her mother-in-law has demanded she change the name of her baby. The soon-to-be mum shared how she recently had dinner with her husband’s family, where she decided to reveal the baby’s gender and name. She had been keeping the information secret, but with only a few weeks of her pregnancy left, she decided to share the happy news that she was having a baby boy and had chosen the name Shawn for her son. But not everyone shared her happiness over the moniker, as her mother-in-law went pale with shock and demanded she choose a new name. “My in-laws got quiet for a moment before asking if there were other options we'd considered. Apparently, Shawn is the name of my 17-year-old sister-in-law Ashley's former bully who tormented her [for years],” the pregnant woman explained on Reddit. While she empathised with her in-laws, she didn’t want to change the name as it was the only one her and her husband agreed on for their son. She also explained that she hadn’t known about the family connection when they picked the name, and hadn’t picked it out of any malicious intent. “We took forever to pick a name,” she said. “Shawn is the only one we could agree on.” The dinner party soon ended after the argument began, but the mother-in-law didn’t back down, sending the expecting mum demanding messages. “She texted me and my husband again to ask us to find a new name for Ashley's sake.” “Would I be the a**hole for not wanting to change it? We were only able to agree on it a few weeks ago.” Commenters were torn over the subject, with many rushing to the pregnant woman’s defence, saying she can pick whatever name she wants for her son. “My spouse and sibling have the same name. Somehow, you just compartmentalise it,” one shared. “I feel like if a new baby in my family shared a name with my bully I'd just adapt,” another wrote. “After all, Shawn is a VERY common name, so I can't freak out every time I hear it and survive in this world.” However, a select few sided with the mother-in-law, sharing how stunned they were that the couple couldn't find enough compassion to pick another name. One person said, “I understand the difficulty of finding a name that feels right, but for me, after learning this, Shawn would quickly become another name that didn't work. It's only been decided on it for a few weeks so I'd just go back to the drawing board.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

If you squat in a vacant property, does the law give you the house for free? Well, sort of

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cathy-sherry-466">Cathy Sherry</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> Nothing excites law students like the idea of a free house. Or alternatively, enrages them. It depends on their politics. As a result, academics condemned to teaching property law find it hard to resist the “<a href="https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2011/28.html">doctrine of adverse possession</a>”. The fact that a person can change the locks on someone else’s house, wait 12 years, and claim it as their own, makes students light up in a way that the Strata Schemes Management Act never will. The idea of “squatters’ rights” has received a lot of media attention recently amid the grim reality of the Australian housing market. It fuels commentators such as Jordan van den Berg, who <a href="https://www.instagram.com/purplepingers/">critiques bad landlords</a> on social media. Casting back to his days as a law student, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/jordan-was-fed-up-with-australias-empty-houses-his-proposal-has-led-to-death-threats/stx6rv6fl">he’s promoting</a> the doctrine of adverse possession as a way of making use of vacant properties. As interesting as the doctrine is, it has little relevance in modern Australia. While it is necessary to limit the time someone has to bring legal proceedings to recover land – typically 12 or 15 years, depending on which state you’re in – most people don’t need that long to notice someone else is living in their house. If a family member is occupying a home that someone else has inherited or a tenant refuses to vacate at the end of a lease, owners tend to bring actions to recover their land pronto. So where did this doctrine come from, and what has it meant in practice? <h2>Free house fetching millions</h2> In unusual circumstances, people can lose track of their own land. Just before the second world war, Henry Downie moved out of his house in the Sydney suburb of Ashbury. Downie died a decade later, but his will was never administered. At the time of his death, a Mrs Grimes rented the house and did so for a further 50 years. Downie’s next of kin did not realise they had inherited the house or that they were Grimes’s landlord. Grimes died in 1998 and Bill Gertos, a property developer, saw the house was vacant. He changed the locks, did some repairs, then leased the house and paid the rates for the next 17 years. He then made an application under <a href="https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rpa1900178/s45d.html">NSW property laws</a> to become the registered proprietor. At this point, Downie’s next of kin became aware they may have been entitled to the property and disputed Gertos’s claim. The <a href="https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2018/1629.html">court held</a> Gertos had been “in possession” of the property since the late 1990s. The next of kin had a legal right to eject him, but they had failed to do so within the statutory time limit of 12 years. Gertos had the best claim to the house. He <a href="https://www.domain.com.au/6-malleny-street-ashbury-nsw-2193-2015821514">promptly sold it</a> for A$1.4 million. Outrageous as this may seem, the law encourages caring for land. If you fail to take responsibility for your land, and someone else does, you can lose it. <h2>An old English tradition</h2> Gertos’s jackpot was unusual, and adverse possession has always been more relevant in a country like England. First, for much of English history, many people did not have documentary title (deeds) to their land. People were illiterate, parchment was expensive, and documents could disappear in a puff of smoke in a house fire. The law often had to rely on people’s physical possession of land as proof of ownership. Second, as a result of feudalism, vast swathes of England were owned by the aristocracy. They and their 20th-century successors in title, often local councils, had a habit of forgetting they owned five suburbs in London. In the post second world war housing crisis, thousands of families, and later young people and students, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b017cfv4">squatted in vacant houses</a> owned by public and private landlords who lacked the means or motivation to maintain them. <h2>A sign of the times</h2> In contrast, in Australia, for most of our settler history, governments of all political persuasions actively prevented the emergence of a landed class. But now, courtesy of tax policies that <a href="https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2023/11/the-great-divide">encourage investment</a> in residential real estate, we have a landlord class of Baby Boomer and Gen X investors. That has caused housing market stress as younger people cannot make the natural transition from being renters to homeowners. They are outbid by older, wealthier buyers whose tax benefits from negative gearing increase with every dollar they borrow to buy an investment property. Money flowing into the market then means that landlords’ greatest benefit is capital gain rather than income, and thanks to John Howard, investors pay <a href="https://theconversation.com/stranger-than-fiction-who-labors-capital-gains-tax-changes-will-really-hurt-109657">no tax</a> on half of that gain. Finally, an almost exclusive reliance by government on the <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/for-more-affordable-housing-we-need-more-public-housing/">private sector</a> to provide new homes – which it will only do if it is making a profit – has left many people in deep housing stress. While squatters in Australia are likely to find themselves swiftly subject to court orders for ejection, van den Berg’s rallying cry indicates just how inequitable the housing market has become. Baby Boomers and Gen X should be on notice – young people want their housing back. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/227556/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cathy-sherry-466">Cathy Sherry</a>, Professor in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-you-squat-in-a-vacant-property-does-the-law-give-you-the-house-for-free-well-sort-of-227556">original article</a>.

Legal

"Lincoln's Law": Grandma's important safety crusade after tragic loss

The tragic loss of three-year-old Lincoln in September 2020 has sparked a passionate plea for immediate changes to safety standards in rental properties across Australia. Lincoln's grandmother, Kerrie Shearer, has been relentless in her pursuit of ensuring that no other family suffers the heartache they have endured. Lincoln's untimely death occurred when he became entangled in a blind cord while innocently playing on a windowsill at his Melbourne home. Despite the family's vigilance, the accident claimed the life of their beloved Lincoln, leaving them shattered and grief-stricken. Now, Shearer is determined to turn her pain into action by advocating for legislative changes to prevent similar tragedies. As a renter, Lincoln's family had little control over the safety features of their dwelling. They are now calling for new laws mandating older rental homes to comply with modern blind safety standards. Shearer says that the need to address loose hanging blinds is crucial, labelling them as potential accidents waiting to happen. By campaigning for legislative reforms, she hopes to spare other families from experiencing the same devastation. While guidelines stipulate that window furnishings in homes built after 2010 must adhere to strict safety measures, there are no such regulations for older properties. Shearer finds it astonishing that many people remain unaware of the dangers posed by unsecured blind cords. She recounts her experiences of visiting various accommodations, including Airbnbs and hotels, where she noticed inadequate safety measures and felt compelled to alert the hosts. "I'm constantly amazed how people aren't aware," she told <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/victoria-news-grandmother-warns-of-blind-safety-risk-after-grandson-dies/83accc08-8cf2-463a-8cc7-6f87fa905a5b" target="_blank" rel="noopener">9News</a>. "I go to AirBnBs and hotels now and I'm at them, 'Hey your blinds aren't attached to the wall.'" Shearer's advocacy has gained momentum via her collaboration with Kidsafe, a prominent nonprofit organisation dedicated to preventing unintentional injuries and deaths among children. Together, they aim to broaden safety requirements for older homes, advocating for what Shearer passionately refers to as "Lincoln's law". She insists that any looped or hanging cords present a significant danger to children and must be securely affixed to the wall to prevent entanglement accidents. The impact of Shearer's tireless efforts is already evident, with reports indicating that the state government is considering the introduction of mandatory blind cord safety standards for all rental properties, regardless of their age. This potential development marks a significant step towards ensuring the safety and well-being of children in rental accommodations across the country. In the wake of her family's tragedy, Shearer's determination to effect change not only honours the memory of Lincoln but also holds the potential to prevent countless other families from enduring similar heartbreak – ensuring that his tragic passing was not in vain. Images: 9News

Legal

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gemma-horton-1515949">Gemma Horton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> From court cases to conspiracy theories, the royal family’s right to privacy is, somewhat ironically, nearly always in the spotlight. The latest focus is Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, whose whereabouts have been the subject of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a60008117/kate-middleton-health-speculation-conspiracy-theories-online/">online speculation</a> after it was announced she was undergoing abdominal surgery and would be away from public duties until after Easter. This comes just weeks after King Charles <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68208157">revealed that he is undergoing treatment for cancer</a>, and a legal settlement between Prince Harry and Mirror Group Newspapers over <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68249009">illegal phone hacking</a>. Interest in the personal lives of the royals and other celebrities <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193">is a constant</a>, driving newspaper sales and online clicks for decades. You only needs to consider the media frenzy that followed Princess Diana to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2013.833678">see this</a>, and its potentially devastating consequences. From a legal perspective, the British courts have ruled that everyone – the royal family included – is entitled to a right to privacy. The Human Rights Act incorporates into British law the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights. This includes article 8, which focuses on the right to privacy. In the years after the Human Rights Act came into force, courts ruled on a string of cases from celebrities claiming that the press invaded their privacy. Courts had to balance article 8 of the convention against article 10, the right to freedom of expression. Rulings repeatedly stated that, despite being in and sometimes seeking the limelight, celebrities should still be afforded a right to privacy. Some disagree with this position, such as prominent journalist <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-hacking-piers-morgan-b2336442.html">Piers Morgan, who has criticised</a> the Duke and Duchess of Sussex asking for privacy when they have also released a Netflix documentary, a broadcast interview with Oprah Winfrey and published a memoir. But the courts have made the position clear, as in the case concerning Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas after Hello! Magazine published unauthorised photographs from their wedding. The <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/190559/3/Final%20Edited%20Version%20-%20Celebrity%20Privacy%20and%20Celebrity%20Journalism-%20Has%20anything%20changed%20since%20the%20Leveson%20Inquiry_.pdf">court stated</a> that: “To hold that those who have sought any publicity lose all protection would be to repeal article 8’s application to very many of those who are likely to need it.” There is no universal definition of privacy, but scholars have identified key concepts encompassing what privacy can entail. In my own research, I have argued that the <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/190559/3/Final%20Edited%20Version%20-%20Celebrity%20Privacy%20and%20Celebrity%20Journalism-%20Has%20anything%20changed%20since%20the%20Leveson%20Inquiry_.pdf">notion of choice</a> is one of these. Privacy allows us to control the spread of information about ourselves and disclose information to whom we want. <h2>Privacy and the public interest</h2> There are exceptions to these protections if the person involved had no reasonable expectation of privacy, or if it was in the public interest for this information to be revealed. There is no solid, legal definition of the “public interest”, so this is decided on a case-by-case basis. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2021.1889866">In the past</a>, the public interest defence has been applied because a public figure or official has acted hypocritically and the courts have stated there is a right for a publisher to set the record straight. When it comes to medical records and information concerning health, case law and journalistic <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/">editorial codes of conduct</a> are clear that this information is afforded the utmost protection. Model Naomi Campbell was pictured leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and these images were published by the Daily Mirror. The court found that there had been a public interest in revealing the fact she was attending these meetings, as she had previously denied substance abuse. The House of Lords accepted that there was a public interest in the press “setting the record straight”. Nonetheless, the publication of additional, confidential details, and the photographs of her leaving the meeting were a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/06/mirror.pressandpublishing1">step too far</a>. The House of Lords highlighted the importance of being able to keep medical records and information private. <h2>Royal health</h2> When it comes to the royals, the history of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a23798094/lindo-wing-st-marys-hospital-facts-photos/">publicity</a> around royal births, often posing with the newborn royal baby outside of the hospital, has set a precedent for what the public can expect about the royals’ medical information. When they choose to go against this tradition, it can frustrate both royal-watchers and publishers. King Charles made the choice to openly speak about his enlarged prostate to “assist public understanding”. And, as Prostate Cancer UK noted, this has worked – they noted a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-charles-cancer-statement-treatment-b2494190.html">500% increase in people visiting their website</a>. However, he has chosen to not to divulge information about his cancer diagnosis beyond the fact that he is receiving treatment. This is his right. While revealing further information might stop speculation and rumours about his health, it is not the king’s duty to divulge private, medical information. However, if his health begins to impact his ability to act as monarch, the situation could change. It might be that the press finds more information about his health without his knowledge, but unless they have a genuine public interest in publishing this information, privacy should prevail. You would no doubt want your private medical information kept secret, not shared around your workplace and speculated on unless it was absolutely necessary. It is thanks to these laws and court precedent that you don’t have to worry about this. The royal family, regardless of their position, should expect the same standard. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gemma-horton-1515949">Gemma Horton</a>, Impact Fellow for Centre for Freedom of the Media, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-the-royal-family-have-a-right-to-privacy-what-the-law-says-224881">original article</a>.

Legal

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

A woman has asked for advice on how to navigate her relationship with her sister-in-law, after the woman overheard an inappropriate conversation at her child’s funeral. The grieving mother, a 28-year-old named Melissa, took to Reddit to share the heartbreaking story of how her toddler passed away after a battle with cancer. Melissa described the time as the “hardest in my life”, explaining how she felt she lost “a part of herself” after the funeral. While Melissa expected her toddlers’ memorial service to be difficult, she never predicted a family member would make it even harder. The mother said that when she heard her sister-in-law telling people about her pregnancy, she thought the move was just cruel. “She didn't make a big announcement but more than ten people at the service 'heard' and it's what everyone was talking about. To understate it, I was livid,” Melissa wrote on Reddit. Melissa’s post then asked social media users for advice, as she was unsure how much of a relationship she wanted to have with her sister-in-law after the stunt. The 28-year-old shared that she had fallen pregnant herself, and was facing pressure to have a party in celebration, but she didn’t want her whole family in attendance. “I've been working on who I want to invite, and I really don't want my SIL there,” she said. “Besides what she did, she's a vindictive and mean person and I cannot stand her.” “I mentioned it to my husband and he says he couldn't care less whether she's there or not. But for the sake of saving face, I want opinions before I do this.” She asked the online forum if she would be “an a**hole” for not inviting her, addin that she would still be inviting her husband's other sister and husband's brother's wife. “The original SIL will be the only one not invited,” she clarified. The post was flooded with comments as many backed up Melissa, slamming the sister-in-law for her selfish behaviour. “I wouldn't want someone like that around me. Announcing a pregnancy at a child's funeral is insane,” one said. “Cut her off and ignore everyone close to her. You are right to have nothing to do with her. She's totally classless.” However, others encouraged her to have an adult conversation with her sister-in-law in an attempt to mend their relationship. “Please let it go,” one person began. “This happened on a terrible day during a bad time for you. It's possible that could be clouding how you're looking at this, she may not have been malicious at all.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

A woman has banned her in-laws from seeing her newborn daughter after they “betrayed her trust” and directly went against her wishes. The new mum shared the story to Reddit, as she explained why she was cutting contact with her husband’s parents after they pierced her child’s ears without their knowledge or consent. “My husband is from a culture where it's not uncommon to pierce baby girls' ears and his mother started pestering me about getting my daughter's ears pierced a few days after she was born,” the 32-year-old mum began. “I made it clear that I would not be doing that, and that I'd be waiting until she's old enough to ask for it herself. We live in my country where piercing a baby's ears isn't common at all.” The new mum's world soon came crashing down after the baby spent a weekend with her grandparents, before she went back to her parents red in the face and screaming. “My mother-in-law was looking after her over the weekend and decided to pierce her ears without my knowledge or consent.” “When I saw this I threw a fit. My baby was crying in pain, and I actually took her to the doctor to get their advice on whether or not to take them out.” The doctor advised the parent to take the earrings out as they were irritating the baby, but the issue didn’t end there. “I decided at that moment that my mother-in-law and everyone else on that side of the family (except for my sister-in-law, who's on my side about this) is going to have no alone contact with my daughter ever again - or at least until she's a teenager.” “My worry is that she'll do the same thing again, and to be frank, she's lost my trust entirely. I told her that if she had a problem with that, I'd report what she did to the police.” The husband of the baby girl reluctantly sided with his wife over the issue, despite saying it wasn’t a big deal and suggesting everyone move on from the incident. The story prompted a mixed response online, with some people saying the woman was overreacting and should work towards rebuilding trust with her in-laws. Others, however, had the opposite opinion, with one person saying, “Forget rebuilding trust, I'd be having them charged with assault.” Another person said, “They mutilated a child and they knew it was against the parents wishes. These people have serious problems. Not that I'd press charges, but getting holes poked in someone else's kid is a huge thing.” Image credits: Getty Images

Family & Pets

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

Warning: This story contains graphic content. Mariska Hargitay, who plays Olivia Benson, a character that investigate rapists on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, has revealed that she too is a victim of sexual assault. The actress opened up about her traumatic past in a powerful essay written for <a href="https://people.com/mariska-hargitay-experience-rape-renewal-reckoning-8424247" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People Magazine</a>, where she revealed that she was raped by “a friend" when she was in her thirties. "A man raped me in my thirties," she bravely revealed in the essay. "It wasn’t sexual at all. It was dominance and control. Overpowering control." The actress revealed that he was a friend who "made a unilateral decision" and recalled the fear she felt when the incident occurred. "He grabbed me by the arms and held me down. I was terrified," she said. "I didn’t want it to escalate to violence. I now know it was already sexual violence, but I was afraid he would become physically violent. "I went into freeze mode, a common trauma response when there is no option to escape. I checked out of my body," she recalled. Hargitay, who is the daughter of the late actress Jane Mansfield, said that she never thought of herself as a "survivor", and often "minimised" what happened to her when she talked about it with others. "My husband Peter remembers me saying, “I mean, it wasn’t rape," she wrote. "Then things started shifting in me, and I began talking about it more in earnest with those closest to me. They were the first ones to call it what it was." The actress said that she wants other survivors to feel "no shame" about sexual assault and wants "this violence to end." She added that justice "may look different for each survivor," but for her she wants "an acknowledgment and an apology" after what happened. "This is a painful part of my story. The experience was horrible. But it doesn’t come close to defining me, in the same way that no other single part of my story defines me," she concluded, adding that she feels for all sexual violence survivors. "I’m turning 60, and I’m so deeply grateful for where I am. I’m renewed and I’m flooded with compassion for all of us who have suffered. And I’m still proudly in process." Hargitay started her own foundation, the Joyful Heart Foundation, in 2004 to help survivors of sexual assault. Image: Getty

Caring

John Laws hangs up in disgust on Kyle and Jackie O

The radio waves became a battlefield this morning as the titans of Australian talkback clashed in a dramatic showdown involving corset dresses, colon procedures – and a surprise departure for medical attention. The day kicked off with Jackie O making a grand entrance, albeit a slightly woozy one, having undergone surgery to bid farewell to a cervical polyp. Kyle, ever the supportive co-host, explained to listeners that Jackie was feeling under the weather and experiencing some tingling in her arm. (Because, as you know, corset dresses and surgery recovery are a match made in radio heaven.) "She just stepped out for a lay down. She’s got like a corset dress on and she had an operation yesterday," Kyle explained, giving us all a mental image of a radio host napping in style. But that was just the appetiser. The main course featured none other than radio legend John Laws, who decided to play hardball with the hosts in a dramatic fashion. Scheduled for an interview to celebrate an impressive 70 years on-air, Laws decided he'd had enough after catching wind of Jackie O's surgical – and, let's face it, highly graphic – revelations. Jackie O explained to a bemused Kyle that her surgeon had operated on her “via the colon or the vagina, I’m not sure which... What must I have looked like on the operating table? Nude, shower cap...” Now, let's take a moment to appreciate the delicacy of the situation. Laws, a seasoned broadcaster, chose that exact moment to hang up on the dynamic duo faster than you can say "corset controversy". Apparently, the mere thought of following that "real" a discussion about medical procedures, particularly those involving the nether regions, was way too much for his delicate radio palate. In an unexpected turn of events, Laws' assistant then became the unwilling messenger between the offended radio icon and and the KIISFM hosts. “Is it true he got angry about Jackie’s disgusting story?” Kyle asked. The assistant revealed that Laws "just doesn’t like it, Jackie. He doesn’t like following all that talk about vaginas." A sentiment we're sure many have echoed when trying to enjoy their morning coffee. But the cherry on top was Laws hanging up not once, but twice! Cementing forever his stance on steering clear of on-air discussions involving surgical escapades. Jackie O valiantly defended herself, insisting it wasn't gratuitous and was, in fact, a perfectly normal chat about a medical procedure. Laws, unmoved, made it clear he had no interest in such shenanigans. As if that weren't enough drama for one day, Jackie O had to bow out early due to feeling unwell, prompting Kyle to make a mercy call to Laws on-air to explain the situation. Laws, ever the gentleman, softened his stance, admitting he was just surprised at the talk and muttering a nonchalant "never mind". After that morning of medical misadventures, corset calamities and a radio veteran hanging up, who would have guessed that a discussion about surgery could cause such a ruckus? Images: KIISFM / X

Body

The strange history of these 5 common superstitions

Where superstitions come from You probably engage in many of these superstitions as second nature, but have you ever thought about where they come from? Superstition: Black cats are bad omens The backstory: Despite centuries of royal treatment (Egyptians worshipped them; the Norse goddess Freya rode in a chariot pulled by them), cats took a big hit to their reputation in the 1200s, when Pope Gregory IX, waging a culture war on pagan symbols, damned cats as servants of Satan. As a result, cats – especially black ones – were killed across Europe. One unintended consequence, according to some historians: The cat-deprived continent may have allowed disease-carrying rodents to flourish and spread the bubonic plague of 1348. Rumours that the feline’s fangs and fur were venomous persisted, and by the witch-hunting days of the 1600s, many Puritans believed black cats to be “familiars” – supernatural demons that serve witches – and avoided them (to borrow an apt phrase) like the plague. Superstition: Never walk under a ladder The backstory: Depending on your background, a ladder leaning against a wall can represent an honest day’s work, a textbook geometry problem, or a symbol of the Holy Trinity that, if breached, will damn your soul. That last bit is what some ancient Christians believed – that any triangle represented the Trinity, and disrupting one could summon the Evil One. These days, our under-ladder phobia is a smidge more practical: Avoid it because you might get beaned by falling tools, debris, or an even less lucky human. Superstition: Break a mirror and see seven years of bad luck The backstory: Numerous ancient cultures agree: Your reflection doesn’t just reveal whether you’re having a bad hair day – it also holds a piece of your soul. To break a mirror, then, is to fracture your very essence, leaving you vulnerable to bad luck. So why should the sentence last seven years? Some writers cite the ancient Romans, who are said to have believed that the human body and soul fully regenerate every seven years. Any poor pleb who fractured his or her soul in the looking glass would therefore have to endure the bad karma until the soul renewed again. Superstition: A full moon brings out the crazies The backstory: Ever wonder where the word lunatic came from? Look no further than luna, the Latin word for the moon. Many Greeks knew that the moon and its goddess, Luna, held the tides in their thrall, and Aristotle considered the human brain – the “moistest” organ – particularly susceptible to Luna’s pull. Ancient physician Hippocrates agreed, writing, “One who is seized with terror, fright and madness during the night is being visited by the goddess of the moon.” Today, some emergency room workers still believe the full moon means trouble. Superstition: Say “God bless you” after a sneeze or risk something worse than a cold The backstory: You’ve probably heard the myth that a sneeze stops the heart (it doesn’t) or separates body from soul (science declines to comment there). But to explain the ritual of post-sneeze “blessing,” we can look to another pope. During the first recorded plague pandemic, in the sixth century, severe sneezing often portended sudden death. As a desperate precaution, Pope Gregory I supposedly asked followers to say “God bless you” every time someone sneezed. Today, it’s just polite. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/culture/this-is-the-history-behind-these-5-common-superstitions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader's Digest</a>.

Caring

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-mitchell-1468293">Dale Mitchell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> From Elle Woods in Legally Blonde to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2015.1087367">Jennifer Walters in She-Hulk</a>, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird to Denny Crane in Boston Legal, our popular culture is often where we first see and witness legal practice. Sometimes this comes via the silver screen, other times television. But it would be wrong to think that all we see on legal television shows is accurate – even when it claims to capture reality. Most legal dramas are terrible at capturing the realities of law. <h2>Not accurate: Law(less) and (dis)Order</h2> Law and Order (1990-) innovated television drama by showcasing both the investigation of a crime by police, and then its prosecution in court. With its multiple spin-offs, including Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (1999-) and the shortlived Law and Order: Trial by Jury (2005-2006) (which had the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aolG65V1Dx8">best theme song of all the series</a>), the Law and Order franchise is a televisual legal juggernaut. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aolG65V1Dx8?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> As with most serials, Law and Order presents the criminal justice system as moving quicker than you can say dun dun. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The mean duration of criminal law matters in Australian higher courts was <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release">almost one year</a> (50 weeks) across 2021-22. While <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s5.html">procedural rules in civil matters</a> require courts to facilitate the “just and efficient resolution of disputes at minimum expense”, in criminal law, speed and efficiency must not be prioritised over accuracy: a person’s liberty is at stake. Most criminal matters do not proceed to a full trial as an accused will often plead guilty to the charges. As a result, the matter proceeds to sentencing without prosecutors needing to prove the offence. The rates of this occurring are quite alarming. <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release">Data across 2021-22</a> reveals over 75% of defendants in Australian courts entered a guilty plea, and almost four in five criminal convictions (79%) resulted from a guilty plea. <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1705761/32_1_8.pdf">Research suggests</a> defendants plead guilty for a variety of reasons, including to avoid the cost of a trial and to receive a lesser sentence. <a href="https://theconversation.com/pandemic-pushed-defendants-to-plead-guilty-more-often-including-innocent-people-pleading-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit-165056">Data from the United States</a> suggests the pressures of the pandemic led to innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. If Law and Order was a more accurate reflection of criminal law, matters would proceed immediately to sentencing due to guilty pleas. And should an accused be found guilty, a chunk of their sentence would be reduced by time served awaiting trial. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/60GV5lv8h3o?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Not accurate: Suits</h2> Suits (2011-19) centres around law firm partner Harvey Specter (Gabriel Macht) and his mentorship of Mike Ross (Patrick Adams) – the “lawyer” who never graduated law school and provides legal advice thanks to his photographic memory. This is, obviously, a brutal ethical breach for all involved, and clearly fraud. In Australia, law students who present themselves to be lawyers are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-07/law-graduate-jacob-reichman-fined-posing-solicitor-gold-coast/7824324">subject to sanctions</a> by the Legal Services Commission. They can <a href="https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/35821-fake-lawyer-cops-suspended-jail-sentence">cause harm to clients</a> who have hired their services. And the Legal Admissions Board may <a href="https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2020/11/chief-justice-wants-answers-before-considering-lawyer-impersonators-bid-to-become-legal-practitioner/">deny their entry</a> into the profession. (Spoilers) Ross is eventually sentenced to two years in prison for this fraud, a similar sentence to <a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/1202786675709/">a recent case in the United States</a>, but he only serves three months before solving a crime and earning early release. More unrealistic than this early release is that Ross does fairly quickly thereafter gain admission to the profession, which seems unlikely to occur so soon after such an act of fraud. While Suits has left its mark(le) on the popular imagination of law, it fails to address one of the primary duties of civil litigation: the duty of disclosure. The MacGuffin-ing of law is common in TV serials. It’s the “smoking gun” found on the day of the trial, or for the lawyers in Suits, the random document which shows up during the trial to turn the case - dramatically presented by our protagonists as they flail into court armed with this data sans ethics. This is not quite accurate. In adversarial legal systems like Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, civil litigation rules <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s211.html">require parties</a> to disclose to one another all documents in their possession or control which are directly relevant to a matter in dispute. This is a continuing duty, so if you discover such a document at any time during the case, it must be disclosed. While <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s212.html">exceptions</a> based on various privileges may apply, this essentially means civil litigation must be run in an “all cards on the table” manner. Randomly producing undisclosed material at trial requires the leave of the court and may result in orders of contempt and <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s225.html">cost penalties</a>. It’s not like the lawyers of Suits have ever really been concerned about ethics, though. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wUh9jomHZp4?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Not accurate: How to Get Away with Murder(ing rules of evidence)</h2> While most lawyers would support making it a criminal offence to critique Viola Davis, How to Get Away with Murder (2014-20) presents one of the most common offences within legal dramas: the haphazard approach to rules of evidence. Annalise Keating (Davis) and her ragtag team of morally illiterate law students (although I never see them studying?!?!) manipulate people to obtain evidence and then dramatically prompt witnesses on the stand to read this information into the record, or otherwise “sneak” it into the trial. This is not accurate. And it ignores the basic reality that so much of legal practice is about not just obtaining evidence, but ensuring that evidence is admissible in court. One of the most important rules of evidence deals with <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s59.html">hearsay evidence</a>. A court cannot allow evidence to be considered if its reliability is unable to be interrogated. Witnesses can only present evidence that they saw, heard or perceived themselves. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, such evidence would be inadmissible. Like in Suits, these approaches to presenting evidence may have serious implications. This poor trial management results in <a href="https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/rpp074.pdf">delays to criminal trials.</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rMB_Gw5-T-I?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Accurate: Fisk</h2> Fisk (2021-) follows Helen Tudor-Fisk (Kitty Flanagan), an established contract lawyer whose personal dramas lead her to move to the boutique Melbourne probate law firm of Gruber and Gruber (played by Marty Sheargold and Julia Zamero). Fisk excels in showing the importance of lawyer-client relations and the word-of-mouth that sustains much of small legal practice. It’s the anti-Suits, and Fisk is more powerful for it. The discussions of wills and estates and most basic legal principles in Fisk are mostly sound – and the show doesn’t need to get into “legalese” as matters are resolved out-of-court. This is a distinct reality of law: litigation is a last resort. Forms of <a href="https://www.qls.com.au/Practising-law-in-Qld/ADR/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution/Types-of-Alternative-Dispute-Resolution-(ADR)">alternative dispute resolution</a>, including mediation, negotiation and conciliation, have become the primary way of resolving legal disputes. Fuelled by <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/alternative-dispute-resolution/civil-dispute-resolution-act-2011">legislative changes</a> which require the exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution measures before proceeding to litigation, and a pursuit of reduced costs, the drama of trial is not something anyone should yearn for. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1Qt0Wo1gGo?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Accurate: Rake</h2> Cleaver Greene, a character said to be loosely based on the career of a Sydney barrister, shows us the absolute madness of work as a “<a href="https://nswbar.asn.au/the-bar-association/senior-counsel#:%7E:text=Senior%20counsel%20are%20barristers%20who,a%20QC%20or%20queen's%20counsel.">silk</a>”. Rake excels at showing the reality of law. The show raises interesting and accurate questions of law (yes, it is true there is no <a href="https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/18992/1/2011006119.pdf">explicit offence</a> of cannibalism in New South Wales) and presents Australian court process accurately. Thankfully, there’s not a gavel in sight. <a href="https://www.survivelaw.com/post/941-working-hardly-random-facts-about-the-gavel">Australian courts do not use gavels</a>, and their presence in legal dramas in Australian and UK courts shows a lack of attention to detail. The presence of the gavel as a symbol of justice is <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/1994/17.pdf">an entirely American invention</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qWWI2EdOssk?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Rake is accurate, in part, because the site of drama is rarely the courtroom, but rather Greene’s personal life. The accuracy of that element for law I will leave up to the jury. But with a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13218719.2013.822783">2014 study</a> finding 35% of lawyers engaged in hazardous or harmful drinking and another showing <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/study-finds-high-rates-anxiety-depression-in-legal-profession/11412832">high rates of anxiety and depression</a> in the legal profession, the evidence is compelling.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212880/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-mitchell-1468293">Dale Mitchell</a>, Lecturer in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-gavels-no-hearsay-and-lots-of-drinking-a-law-expert-ranks-legal-dramas-by-their-accuracy-212880">original article</a>.

Legal

Nat Barr debunks the "strange" rumour about her and Kochie

Nat Barr is no stranger to the rumour mill churning out outrageous accusations about her private life and relationships. One such rumour about her relationship with her former Sunrise co-host Kochie has prompted her to speak out and dispel the baseless claim. Chatting candidly with <a href="https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/sunrises-nat-barr-addresses-strange-rumour-about-her-and-kochie-060124836.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yahoo Lifestyle</a>, Nat laughed as she admitted she had seen a rumour that her and Kochie were more than just colleagues. She said, "That I was on with Kochie, we've all been on with Kochie according to the rumour mill!" She continued: "There's lots of weird rumours like that – that we all hate each other, there's lots of rumours that, you know, obviously we must all hate each other. I don't think people believe all that stuff, that whole clickbait thing." While Barr admits she has seen her fair share of strange rumours about herself online, she is not one to complain about them. "[There have been] a few strange ones, but I don't really like to complain about what's written about us, because we have great jobs," she said. "I feel really lucky to have got this job and to still be doing this job, and to be waking up every morning and doing something I love. And to be covering news stories and bringing it to the viewers." She added, "The viewers are the most important people in the room, the people sitting at home, watching and giving us their time every day. That's the most important thing. That's number one in our book." Image credits: Sunrise

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Tourism hotspot in Italy attracts attention for selling strange souvenir

"Time for a rest": John Laws retires from radio

"20 years to life": Bali's brutal new law

Kyle Sandilands' warning about new "right to disconnect" laws

“Don’t marry him”: Bride-to-be shares wild altercation with her future in-laws over her wedding dress

Worried your address, birth date or health data is being sold? You should be – and the law isn’t protecting you

Grieving dad fights for "ZaZa's Law" after toddler dies in his arms

6 strange wedding traditions around the world

"No-brainer": Call for Jack's law to be introduced nationwide

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

If you squat in a vacant property, does the law give you the house for free? Well, sort of

"Lincoln's Law": Grandma's important safety crusade after tragic loss

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

John Laws hangs up in disgust on Kyle and Jackie O

The strange history of these 5 common superstitions

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

Nat Barr debunks the "strange" rumour about her and Kochie

Our Partners