Search

"Enough is enough": Pauline Hanson calls for ban on Welcome to Country

Pauline Hanson has called for a ban on Welcome to Country ceremonies at events, after an unusual version of the acknowledgement was performed at the AFL semi-final on Saturday. Aboriginal Elder Brendan Kerin performed the unique Welcome at Sydney’s Engie Stadium on Saturday night, sparking widespread debate as Kerin tried to explain that the Welcome to Country ceremony is intended to welcome all visitors to the land they have gathered on, rather than welcoming people to Australia itself. He also added other seemingly divisive aspects to his speech, stating the ceremony was not “invented to cater for white people” and Aboriginal people have been conducting the ceremony “for 250,000 years-plus”. After the controversial Welcome, One Nation senator Pauline Hanson took to X to call the ceremonies “racially divisive” and declaring her belief Australians are “sick and tired of them”. “As I have said in the past, these Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country performances are one of the most racially divisive features of modern discourse in Australia,” she began. “Australians are sick and tired of them. They are sick of being told Australia is not their country, which is what these things effectively do. Welcomes and acknowledgements deny the citizenship and sovereignty held equally by all Australians and they need to stop." Hanson concluded her post by stating: “Australians should not be forced to participate in or be subjected to these divisive performances. Enough is enough.” While many of Hanson's followers were quick to agree with her comments, others said that they have often observed the Welcome to Country be respected and applauded, and said Elder Kerin's version of the acknowledgment was "informative" and "really respectful". One person wrote, “This welcome to country will have annoyed all of the right people.” <p style="box-sizing: inherit; border: 0px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-position: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

“Enough is enough”: Albanese to introduce social media ban for children

Australian children could soon be banned from accessing social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok amid growing concerns around its impacts on young minds. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed on Tuesday that his government would introduce landmark legislation to enforce a minimum age limit for access to social media, with the minimum age yet to be determined. This follows similar announcements made from Victoria and South Australia, with SA proposing an outright ban for kids under 13 and parental consent between the ages of 14 and 15, an option that is being considered to be implemented across the country. “We are taking this action because enough is enough,” Albanese said in a statement provided before the announcement. “Parents are worried sick about this. “The safety and mental and physical health of our young people is paramount.” The legislation will be introduced before the end of this year, after an age verification trial, although the age limits and start date have yet to be finalised. The government said the legislation would be worked on in national cabinet and draw on a report by former High Court Chief Justice Robert French commissioned by the SA government and released on Sunday. The report includes a draft bill to ban children under 14 from social media and making mandatory for companies to gain parental consent for 14 and 15-year-olds to use their platforms. On Tuesday morning, Albanese told Sunrise host Natalie Barr that he wanted to see kids “off their devices and on to the footy fields or the netball courts to get them interacting with real people having real experiences." “And we know that social media is doing social harm. “We want to make sure we get it right, but we want to make sure as well that we act which is why we have said we will introduce legislation before the end of this year." When the Sunrise host pointed out that "no country in the world has successfully been able to do this," with young teens finding alternative ways to access adult sites including using a VPN, Albanese replied: “that is why we are doing the trial to get it right”. “If it was easy it would have been done around the world. But just because something is hard doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try. “We want to work with parents to work with companies, to work with state and territory governments to make sure that we act in this area.” Albanese also said that allowing children unfettered access to smartphones and social media have had devastating impacts for some families, including through online bullying and access to material which causes social harm. “The safety and mental and physical health of our young people is paramount,’’ he said. “We are taking this action because enough is enough.” Investigations, trials and negotiations with social media companies are currently ongoing, with Albanese saying the social media giants also needed to take responsibility. “They’re not above everyone else. They can’t just say, ‘We’re a big multinational company. We can do whatever we like’, regardless of the harm that’s being caused,” he said. SA Premier Peter Malinauskas, who led the change to introduce the bans, said his state’s bill would require platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to ensure they took all reasonable steps to prevent children from getting access. “This is a problem that demands swift and decisive leadership, and I thank the Prime Minister for demonstrating it,’’ the SA Premier said. “The evidence shows early access to addictive social media is causing our kids harm. “This is no different to cigarettes or alcohol. When a product or service hurts children, governments must act.” The National Cabinet discussed the issue formally and informally last week, with all jurisdictions committed to tackling the issue. Image: Viktollio / Shutterstock.com

Legal

Lollipop man slapped with ban over "innocent" gesture

A beloved lollipop man in Victoria has been banned from high-fiving children after receiving a complaint from a concerned parent. John Goulden is a much-loved elderly lollipop man at the Mount Dandenong Primary School in Greater Melbourne, and will no longer be able to high five kids as they leave and enter the school grounds. Goulden, who was recently crowned one of Victoria’s top crossing supervisors, was reprimanded by Yarra Ranges Council who warned him against “initiating unnecessary physical contact” with the children. Outraged parents in the community have rallied behind the cherished lollipop man, with one parent, Rohan Bradley, even starting a petition to have the ban removed, saying that Mr Goulden has an “infectious joy that leaves a lasting impression on students and parents”. “His high fives in the morning and afternoon have become a tradition that many children look forward to, a small gesture that symbolises the warmth and friendliness of our unique community,” he said. “Sadly, this tradition is under threat. With our children’s happiness and wellbeing hanging in the balance, we need to take action.” Mr Bradley said it was not just about a simple high five but about “preserving our unique community’s spirit”. “We implore those in charge to let John continue to high-five his students, preserving an act that sparks joy and promotes a more positive learning environment,” he said. The petition has already gained more than 500 signatures as parents and students stand with the “community’s morale booster”. In a statement, Yarra Ranges Council confirmed they had received a complaint from a parent at the school about the crossing supervisor dishing out high fives. “Council’s internal policies and the Victorian Standards clearly states that unacceptable behaviours includes: Exhibiting behaviours with children and young people which may be construed as unnecessarily physical,” they told 9News. “Council has reminded the contractor who is currently supervising children at the Mount Dandenong Primary School of expectations of the role regarding interactions with children.” Image credits: Facebook

Legal

Woman banned for life from airline for bizarre reason

A woman has recalled the moment she was told by a major airline that she has been placed on the no-fly list for a very strange reason. Erin Wright, a 24-year-old from the US, was travelling to her sister's bachelorette party in New Mexico and was preparing to board her flight from New Orleans with American Airlines. When she kept running into errors online as she tried to check into the flight, she headed to the airport to sort out the issue, only to be told she was allegedly banned from the airline for life for “having sexual relations with a man on a flight while intoxicated”. The ban came as a shock for one key reason. “I am a 24-year-old lesbian. You see me. Am I having sexual relations with any man? No,” Erin laughed in her now viral TikTok. <div class="embed" style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; outline: currentcolor !important;"><iframe class="embedly-embed" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; border-style: none; vertical-align: baseline; width: 600px; max-width: 100%; outline: currentcolor !important;" title="tiktok embed" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2Fembed%2Fv2%2F7400894263237610794&display_name=tiktok&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2F%40erin_wright_%2Fvideo%2F7400894263237610794%3Fembed_source%3D121374463%252C121451205%252C121439635%252C121433650%252C121404359%252C121351166%252C121331973%252C120811592%252C120810756%253Bnull%253Bembed_name%26refer%3Dembed%26referer_url%3Dwww.news.com.au%252Ftravel%252Ftravel-updates%252Fincidents%252Fwomans-shock-after-she-was-banned-or-life-by-airline%252Fnews-story%252F98c05daffea9ff538dd05bbbbaca556b%26referer_video_id%3D7401685057980681514&image=https%3A%2F%2Fp19-sign.tiktokcdn-us.com%2Fobj%2Ftos-useast5-p-0068-tx%2FoYgBZAELUrpiZizB94QiB6qSIPFE1CosQNYUi%3Flk3s%3Db59d6b55%26nonce%3D34496%26refresh_token%3D518d47d36cd3175f1d18f1fd75262373%26x-expires%3D1723770000%26x-signature%3DPnErCHWVNghfrjSQPdFIU5OLZu4%253D%26shp%3Db59d6b55%26shcp%3D-&key=59e3ae3acaa649a5a98672932445e203&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=tiktok" width="340" height="700" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div> She said the gate staff couldn’t tell her why she was black-listed and it wasn’t until three weeks later the reason was revealed after several back and forth emails. “I got to the airport an hour and a half early, I went to the kiosk and asked them to check me in and they were really nice,” Erin explained in the clip that's amassed 2.6 million views. The airport staff then spent the next 10 minutes on the phone to try and work out the problem, while Erin was “freaking out” that she was going to miss her flight. “She gets off the phone and looks nervous. She said ‘ma’am I am really sorry to tell you this but you have actually been banned from flying American Airlines’,” Erin claimed. A confused Erin demanded to know the reason but the employee couldn’t disclose the information saying it was an issue of “internal security”, recalling in her video, “I was like, ‘what?’ because I’ve never done anything. ‘What did I get banned for, can you tell me?’” “I realised I am going to miss my [United Airlines] flight and luckily I booked another $1,000 round trip flight to New Orleans [with a different airline].” A few weeks after her trip and after several emails to the airline, they revealed that the reason she was banned, as Erin said, “I get an email from cooperate security telling me I am banned because I had sexual relations with a man on a flight while intoxicated.” “It took 12 days and many emails from me between when I contacted customer relations to when I actually got an email back.” She remained on the no-fly list and had to file an official appeal, as advised by corporate security. “I email them a very serious email, but also somewhat funny, because in it I am like ‘I don’t really know how to prove it wasn’t me except for the fact that I am literally a lesbian’," she said. “I can like get you letters from other people telling you that that’s the truth.” After three months, Erin said she was refunded the money for her flight and was taken off the no-fly list. In a follow up video, Erin said it has been a “super upsetting experience” adding she wasn’t compensated for the extra flight she had to book “because of their error”. Image credits: TikTok / Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

Aussie cancer survivor bags Olympic medal

Australian cyclist Matthew Glaetzer has won his first ever medal at his fourth and final Olympic games. After overcoming injury, heartbreak and even thyroid cancer, the 31-year-old, dubbed by many as cycling's unluckiest man, has finally won a bronze medal. Two years before the Tokyo Olympics, the athlete received a thyroid cancer diagnosis, surgery and treatment. He was then hit by a series of injuries including a torn calf, oblique complaint and bulging disc in his back, but that didn't stop him from competing in Tokyo. While he didn't win any medals, he refused to let a career of near-misses define him and finally achieved bronze in the team sprint alongside Leigh Hoffman and Matt Richardson this year. “It was elation — I was so pumped when I saw that ‘three’ ... on the scoreboard,” Glaetzer said after the race. “It’s very special to finally win an Olympic medal. We were definitely aiming for better — we felt like we could have been in the gold (ride-off).” In the lead-up to the Games, he said that his wife Nikki helped ensure he did not make a rash decision after Tokyo. “I wouldn’t be here without her — I was actually pretty close to giving the sport away after Tokyo,” he said. “For us to be a team together and figure out we have some unfinished business, to push to Paris, has been a feat. “I’m pretty proud to be here.” Image: Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com/ Shutterstock Editorial

Caring

Huge names on board to overturn Hamish and Andy’s Olympic Village ban

Hamish and Andy's lifetime ban from entering the Olympic village could soon be overturned, as high profile supporters sign a petition for their return. Just last week the duo made headlines around the country when Andy revealed that he and Hamish copped the ban from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2012, after they <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/travel/travel-trouble/hilarious-reason-why-hamish-and-andy-are-banned-for-life-from-olympic-village" target="_blank" rel="noopener">broke security protocols</a> at the London Games. The boys, who were invited to the event, could not get into the Olympic village due to a clerical error, so they decided to sneak in with the help of an Aussie who helped them get in through someone else's pass. After telling the hilarious story on air, Triple M's Rush Hour have launched a petition called: “We Urge the IOC to Revoke Hamish and Andy’s Olympic Ban.” Several high profile individuals have since signed the petition including Mark Geyer, Grant Hackett, Tom Rockliffe and Wil Anderson. And now, Queensland premier Steven Miles has also jumped on board. “This does sound like a real injustice to me,” he said on the show on Thursday. “I’ve been hearing about your campaign and I’ve signed the petition.” He also said that he would do whatever he can to convince the IOC to have the ban overturned by the time Brisbane hosts the Olympics in 2032. “I’ll do whatever I can to try to convince the IOC to make changes, and obviously come 2032, we’ll have some say in the arrangements then too,” he said. “Hamish and Andy, they’ve served their time, and it’s time to let them back in.” Image: Triple M

Travel Trouble

Hilarious reason why Hamish and Andy are "banned for life" from Olympic village

It's not easy to get banned from the Olympic village, but somehow Andy Lee and Hamish Blake have managed to do just that. Despite being warned to “not to talk about this ever”, Andy threw caution to the wind during an interview with Triple M's The Rush Hour With Leisel Jones, Liam & Dobbo on Tuesday. He explained that he and Hamish copped the ban from the International Olympic Committee after an incident during the 2012 London games. “Hamish and I were given the honour of speaking to the (Australian) Olympians before it started,” Andy began. “There’s a lot of applications and security you have to fill out to get into the Olympic village … and someone who filled out the forms put my birth date as that day’s date," he continued. Despite that fact that it was clearly an admin error, the authorities refused entry to the duo on the day of the speech. Funnily enough, a quick-thinking Aussie came to the rescue and managed to sneak him in. “I won’t name who, but someone on the team said, ‘Hey, I can bring an outfit out. You look a little bit like one of the high jumpers,’” Andy recalled. “Suddenly I went through on someone else’s (pass) and we snuck in, which was obviously a huge breach of security at a time when they were trying to prove that security was tight.” Hamish and Andy delivered their speech and mingled with all the athletes, but their little lie was called out 90 minutes later, when the security team realised they'd been tricked. “They dragged us and put us in separate rooms and there was a lot of interrogation,” Andy said. “We were … just tight-lipped, and then the head of security came in.” In another stroke of luck, the head of security turned out to be an Aussie, who recognised the duo. “He went, ‘Hamish and Andy, what are you guys doing here?’ We explained, and he was more understanding,” the comedian said. However, because of their actions, the Australian Olympic team was also punished, with some of their visitor passes revoked. “That’s why I wasn’t really proud of what happened,” Andy said. “I hate the fact that some people missed out.” The IOC also made it clear to the duo that they weren't welcome back to the village. “We had to agree to be banned for life,” Andy recalled to the amusement of the Triple M hosts. Liam Flanagan jokingly suggested to Andy: “I think the campaign needs to start here. We need the ban lifted for Brisbane 2032!” To which he replied: “or, (we could try) another sneak in … let’s double down!” Images: Instagram

Travel Trouble

Kyle slaps comedy legends with lifetime ban for "twisted" Trump joke

US comedy-rock duo Tenacious D have found themselves at the centre of a media maelstrom during their current Australian tour. The reason? A blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment during which guitarist Kyle Gass expressed that his birthday wish at their Sydney show was: “Don’t miss Trump next time.” The comment quickly sent shockwaves through the media landscape, and has even managed to ruffle the feathers of the famously unshockable Kyle Sandilands. It all started innocently enough at Sydney’s ICC Theatre. As the band celebrated Kyle Gass' 64th birthday, Tenacious D frontman and star of the big and small screen Jack Black paused the show for the ceremonial blowing out of candles. What better time for Gass to wish for world peace, or perhaps a new guitar? But no: “Don’t miss Trump next time,” he quipped, referring to the failed assassination attempt that very morning on the former US President. As expected, the moment was captured by at least one concertgoer and shared on TikTok, where the comment section swiftly became a battlefield. “As a Tenacious D fan, no. Just no,” lamented one disappointed follower. “Hmm … the left condoning gun violence. Hypocrisy at its finest. Keep showing us your colours,” declared another. However, not everyone was scandalised. “My respect for Tenacious D,” reads the top comment, with another fan chiming in, “Aaand I like them even more.” But the real kicker came when Sandilands, on the Kyle & Jackie O show, took to the airwaves to express his utter dismay. “Someone’s promoting the assassination of another human being? Seriously?” he said. “That’s some serious, twisted s**t. And whoever that is, is banned for life.” Sandilands was especially flabbergasted to learn the comment came from Tenacious D. “See, those two seem like normal people, not unhinged lunatics,” he mused. Images: KIIS FM | TikTok

Music

Plastic Free July is a waste of time if the onus is only on consumers

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bhavna-middha-1061611">Bhavna Middha</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-horne-160543">Ralph Horne</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Every year, the <a href="https://www.plasticfreejuly.org/">Plastic Free July</a> campaign asks us to refuse single-use plastic. The idea is that making a small change in our daily lives will collectively make a big difference. And hopefully, better behaviour will stick and become a habit. The intent is good, but consumers shouldn’t have to bear full responsibility for plastic pollution. Individual sacrifices – particularly temporary ones – <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421509004728">won’t make a significant difference</a>. Governments, manufacturers and retailers need to get serious about tackling this problem. If Plastic Free July put pressure on the supply side of the equation, rather than demand, it could be more successful. Our research spans food packaging including plastics, waste, sustainable consumption and social practices. We know consumer demand is only one part of the picture. Eliminating plastic waste requires broader systemic changes. <h2>The cabbage dilemma</h2> Research shows consumers generally want to do the <a href="https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/news/news-articles/the-conversation-on-sustainability-has-changed">right thing by the environment</a> but find it <a href="https://theconversation.com/households-find-low-waste-living-challenging-heres-what-needs-to-change-197022">challenging</a>. Coming out of a supermarket with no packaging is difficult. There are few unpackaged food items and even when there is a choice, the unpackaged item may be more <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/want-your-fruit-and-veg-without-the-plastic-you-ll-have-to-pay-more-20231107-p5eib4.html">expensive</a>. Have you ever been stuck in the supermarket, choosing between the large head of cabbage you know you won’t finish before it goes bad, or the plastic-wrapped half-cabbage you really need? Consumers should not be forced to choose between food waste (another huge problem) or plastic waste. Maybe there’s another way. For example, why not sell cabbages of different sizes? Why do we need to grow such large heads of cabbage anyway? Both plastic consumption and food waste can be addressed by changing how we produce and distribute certain foods. <h2>Governments, manufacturers and retailers must drive change</h2> The onus for reducing plastic consumption and waste should be placed firmly on those who make plastic and profit from selling their products, as well as those who make and sell products wrapped in plastic packaging. Research has shown just <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/news/All/News/2024/April/Global-study-finds-more-than-half-of-branded-plastic-pollution-linked-to-56-companies?utm_source=pocket_shared">56 companies</a> globally are responsible for more than half of the branded plastic pollution that ends up in the environment. Companies profit from using plastics because it is cheaper to use than changing to alternatives, such as cardboard or compostable materials, or using less packaging. This means companies choosing to avoid using plastics face unfair competition. It’s a tough habit to kick. Industry-led <a href="https://productstewardship.us/what-is-epr/#:%7E:text=Stewardship%20can%20be%20either%20voluntary,product%20stewardship%20required%20by%20law">voluntary schemes</a> are <a href="https://www.insidewaste.com.au/91038-2-product-stewardship-schemes/">limited in terms of both participation and outcomes</a>. Many companies are failing to meet their own <a href="https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/2024-plastic-promises-scorecard">plastic reduction goals</a>. Governments need to step in and force companies to take responsibility for the plastic and packaging they manufacture. In practice, this could involve similar schemes to the container deposit scheme for beverage containers, or returning plastics to stores. Replacing voluntary schemes with mandatory regulations and increased producer responsibility means companies will have to <a href="https://www.insidewaste.com.au/91038-2-product-stewardship-schemes/">invest in long-term changes designed with care</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UnXVU-06ciI?wmode=transparent&start=1" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>What’s Plastic Free July?</figcaption></figure> <h2>Cities are built around plastic</h2> Our previous research has shown plastic performs an essential role in some, <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/geoj.12457">constrained circumstances</a>. We found vulnerable householders often rely on plastic to make life manageable, such as using plastics to cover belongings on the balcony, or using plastic cutlery and plates in student apartments with minimal kitchen space. This includes people with accessibility needs, people relying on public transport to shop for groceries, or people who are financially constrained or living in small high-rise <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-keep-putting-apartment-residents-waste-in-the-too-hard-basket-200545">apartments</a>. Unsustainable lifestyles are not so much a choice as a product of poorly planned cities, housing and regulations. It is all very well if you are mobile and well-located, but if you live in a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-08/food-deserts-have-serious-consequences-for-residents-experts/6605230">poorly serviced</a> distant suburb and <a href="https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/01/are-you-living-in-a-food-desert--these-maps-suggest-it-can-reall">transport groceries or takeaway food</a> or buy things on the go, then plastic is perhaps the only current affordable way to make it work. So campaigns and solutions that do not consider how <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/geoj.12457">everyday lives and economy</a> are intertwined with plastics can <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-024-00149-w">exclude people and spaces</a> who can’t access the alternatives. For example, there are ways to make <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-5871.12464">convenience eating more sustainable</a> in education settings. We have shown how <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-5871.12390">canteens and microwaves</a> in shared spaces can enable people to access affordable food with their friends, as in <a href="https://www.charlesabroad.cz/post/german-university-canteens-why-do-they-beat-the-czech-ones">University Mensa in Germany</a>. Our <a href="https://cur.org.au/project/tackling-food-related-single-use-plastics-in-diverse-consumption-contexts/">new research</a> will explore how single-use food-related plastics and packaging form an integral part of our daily lives, including shopping, work, cooking and storage. Sometimes new policies inadvertently disadvantage certain groups and communities, such as the aged, less mobile, people living in apartments, or low socio-economic groups. Before we roll out new policies and regulations, we need to understand the roles these materials play and the kinds of services and value they provide. We aim to develop a framework to inform policies and strategies that enable a just and inclusive transition to reduced plastic use. <h2>What about after July?</h2> Plastic Free July and similar campaigns are based on idea that making a temporary change will lead to more permanent lifestyle changes. But research shows temporary shifts are <a href="http://www.demand.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DEMAND2016_Full_paper_42-Shove.pdf">very different</a> to <a href="https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/32468813/FULL_TEXT.PDF">structural, permanent shifts</a> in <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315816494-1/introduction-social-practices-intervention-sustainability-beyond-behaviour-change-yolande-strengers-cecily-maller?context=ubx&refId=d608abad-39f9-4bb2-8754-56e9e2000c5e">practices</a>. Supermarkets will still wrap items in plastic and sell single-use plastic, even if we try to buy less during Plastic Free July. Ultimately, the focus should be on designing effective infrastructure and policy solutions for lasting results, considering how demand for plastic is produced in the first place. Some of these changes will require a shift in community expectations and food culture. Rather than pointing the finger at consumers, let’s get to work on redesigning our cities. We need to rethink how everyday practices, manufacturing and distribution systems are structured to eliminate plastic waste.<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/233436/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bhavna-middha-1061611">Bhavna Middha</a>, ARC DECRA and Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-horne-160543">Ralph Horne</a>, Associate Deputy Vice Chancellor, Research & Innovation, College of Design & Social Context, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT 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/plastic-free-july-is-a-waste-of-time-if-the-onus-is-only-on-consumers-233436">original article</a>. </div>

Home & Garden

Do red bags get loaded onto a plane first? Travel hack goes viral

One TikTok user has racked up over 75 million views for their hack which warns travellers against buying red suitcases. The reason behind it? He claims that red suitcases are always loaded onto a plane first - meaning that they will be the last ones to come out at the baggage carousel. The <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@airportlife_/video/7359248989134327072" target="_blank" rel="noopener">viral video</a> showed a plane's cargo being loaded, with all the red bags being loaded first. Many commenters have shared their theories on why this might be the case. "If the red are at the back then they are less likely to get left behind when unloading," one wrote. "So that it's easier to check if there is any bag left at end corner of loading area and prevent missing out black bags at dark corners, maybe," another added. However, a spokesperson for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines has debunked this theory and claimed that the video is "nonsense" and "was made purposefully to mislead or provide false information". They also said that there was simply not enough time for their baggage handlers to sort suitcases out by colour. The question of "Do red bags get loaded onto a plane first?" also made its way to Reddit, after the video went viral, and one user who claimed to be a ramp worker denied the theory. "If we had taken the time and brain power to load bags based on colour I'd still be loading flights from 2015." Image: TikTok

Travel Tips

Why do airlines charge so much for checked bags? This obscure rule helps explain why

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jay-l-zagorsky-152952">Jay L. Zagorsky</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/boston-university-898">Boston University</a> Five out of the six <a href="https://www.oag.com/blog/biggest-airlines-in-the-us">biggest U.S. airlines</a> have <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/05/delta-is-the-latest-airline-to-raise-its-checked-bag-fee.html">raised their checked bag fees</a> since January 2024. Take American Airlines. In 2023, it cost US$30 to check a standard bag in with the airline; <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2024/02/20/american-airlines-bag-fees-mileage-earning/72669245007/">today, as of March 2024, it costs $40</a> at a U.S. airport – a whopping 33% increase. As a <a href="https://www.bu.edu/questrom/">business school</a> <a href="https://www.bu.edu/questrom/profile/jay-zagorsky/">professor who studies travel</a>, I’m often asked why airlines alienate their customers with baggage fees instead of bundling all charges together. <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/4/16/8431465/airlines-carry-on-bags">There are</a> <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/2023/06/21/bag-fees-will-stay-a-while-cruising-altitude/70338849007/">many reasons</a>, but an important, often overlooked cause is buried in the U.S. tax code. <h2>A tax-law loophole</h2> Airlines pay the federal government <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-49/subpart-D">7.5% of the ticket price</a> when <a href="https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/tax/library/aircraft-club-nov-2023-air-transport-excise-tax-rates-for-2024.html">flying people domestically, alongside other fees</a>. The airlines dislike these charges, with their <a href="https://www.airlines.org/dataset/government-imposed-taxes-on-air-transportation/">trade association arguing</a> that they boost the cost to the consumer of a typical air ticket by around one-fifth. However, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-49/subpart-D/section-49.4261-8">specifically excludes baggage</a> from the 7.5% transportation tax as long as “the charge is separable from the payment for the transportation of a person and is shown in the exact amount.” This means if an airline charges a combined $300 to fly you and a bag round-trip within the U.S., it owes $22.50 in tax. If the airline charges $220 to fly you plus separately charges $40 each way for the bag, then your total cost is the same — but the airline only owes the government $16.50 in taxes. Splitting out baggage charges saves the airline $6. Now $6 might not seem like much, but it can add up. Last year, passengers took <a href="https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1">more than 800 million trips on major airlines</a>. Even if only a fraction of them check their bags, that means large savings for the industry. How large? The government has <a href="https://www.bts.dot.gov/topics/airlines-and-airports/baggage-fees-airline-2023">tracked revenue from bag fees</a> for decades. In 2002, airlines charged passengers a total of $180 million to check bags, which worked out to around 33 cents per passenger. Today, as any flyer can attest, bag fees are a lot higher. Airlines collected over 40 times more money in bag fees last year than they did in 2002. When the full data is in for 2023, <a href="https://www.bts.dot.gov/baggage-fees">total bag fees</a> will likely top $7 billion, which is about $9 for the average domestic passenger. <a href="https://viewfromthewing.com/the-real-reason-airlines-charge-checked-bag-fees-and-its-not-what-you-think">By splitting out the cost of bags</a>, airlines avoided paying about half a billion dollars in taxes just last year. In the two decades since 2002, flyers paid a total of about $70 billion in bag fees. This means separately charging for bags saved airlines about $5 billion in taxes. <iframe id="88MYD" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/88MYD/2/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> It seems clear to me that tax savings are one driver of the unbundling of baggage fees because of a quirk in the law. The U.S. government doesn’t apply the 7.5% tax to <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-49/subpart-D/section-49.4261-3">international flights that go more than 225 miles</a> beyond the nation’s borders. Instead, there are fixed <a href="https://www.airlines.org/dataset/government-imposed-taxes-on-air-transportation">international departure and arrival taxes</a>. This is why major airlines charge $35 to $40 <a href="https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/baggage/checked-baggage-policy.jsp">for bags if you’re flying domestically</a>, but don’t charge a bag fee when you’re flying to Europe or Asia. <h2>Do travelers get anything for that money?</h2> This system raises an interesting question: Do baggage fees force airlines to be more careful with bags, since customers who pay more expect better service? To find out, I checked with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which has been <a href="https://www.bts.gov/content/mishandled-baggage-reports-filed-passengers-largest-us-air-carriersa">tracking lost luggage for decades</a>. For many years, it calculated the number of mishandled-baggage reports per thousand airline passengers. The government’s data showed mishandled bags peaked in 2007 with about seven reports of lost or damaged luggage for every thousand passengers. That means you could expect your luggage to go on a different trip than the one you are taking about once every 140 or so flights. By 2018, that estimate had fallen to once every 350 flights. In 2019, the government <a href="https://www.bts.gov/topics/airlines-and-airports/number-30a-technical-directive-mishandled-baggage-amended-effective-jan">changed how it tracks</a> mishandled bags, calculating figures based on the total number of bags checked, rather than the total number of passengers. The new data show about six bags per thousand checked get lost or damaged, which is less than 1% of checked bags. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t show improvement since 2019. Is there anything that you can do about higher bag fees? Complaining to politicians probably won’t help. In 2010, two senators <a href="https://www.nj.com/business/2010/04/us_senators_present_bill_to_ba.html">tried to ban bag fees</a>, and their bill went nowhere. Given that congressional action failed, there’s a simple way to avoid higher bag fees: <a href="https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/packing-expert-travel-world-handbag/index.html">travel light</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/opinion/carry-on-packing-airlines-lost-luggage.html">don’t check any luggage</a>. It may sound tough not to have all your belongings when traveling, but it might be the best option as bag fees take off.<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/225857/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jay-l-zagorsky-152952">Jay L. Zagorsky</a>, Associate Professor of Markets, Public Policy and Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/boston-university-898">Boston University</a> 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/why-do-airlines-charge-so-much-for-checked-bags-this-obscure-rule-helps-explain-why-225857">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Grandma banned from babysitting after ignoring daughter's simple request

A new mum has banned her own mother from babysitting duties, after she blatantly refused to follow a few basic safety instructions. The young mum took to Reddit to share her plight, after moving back home so she could save up to buy a house, which at the time her mum "very enthusiastically agreed to". But, after a few months of living together again, the 23-year-old mum has had more things added onto her plate, as she's constantly worried about her own mum not following her instructions when it comes to her son, who was born in September. She said that her mum has been "constantly checking to see if he has teeth" or pushing them to "stop feeding him milk", or even trying to "give him really complicated food" like candy yams. And whenever she expresses her concerns, her mum nonchalantly responds with: "I did with you and you survived". It reached a peak when her mother gave her baby boy some water, which according to The World Health Organisation, children under six months should not be drinking anything else other than breast milk or formula. This is because babies stomachs are very small and their kidneys are still developing, so they are unable to process water in the same way adults do, plus it puts them at risk of water intoxication and nutrition loss. The grandmother blatantly ignored her daughter's request and gave her grandson water anyways responding with, "See, he's fine. He isn't dead." That was the young mum's breaking point and she immediately took her baby away. "She will no longer be watching the baby alone since she is constantly overstepping my boundaries and doing everything I ask her to not do," she wrote. But she said that things are complicated since they're living together and now her mother isn't speaking to her because she made her "feel like a bad parent and grandparent." The young mum questioned whether she was the bad guy in this scenario, but other Reddit users were quick to defend her for setting her boundaries. "One would hope for a *little* bit more for their kid than "not dead"," one wrote. "This is an incredibly low standard for her to be proud of maintaining", another added. Image: Getty

Family & Pets

Bride sparks feud for banning her niece from her big day

A bride-to-be has sparked a feud for deciding to ban her sister’s “loud and distracting” toddler from her wedding ceremony, with the bride asking social media users for advice. The bride was only weeks away from her intimate destination wedding, which included a guest list of only a few friends and close family. After being met with a difficult decision, the bride took to Reddit to share how a massive family feud had erupted in the weeks before the big day. “My sister is bringing her one-year-old toddler. The child is more than welcome — she’s part of the family and we want her there as part of the day,” she began. “However, as she’s still very young (and very loud at times), I’ve asked that somebody takes her out during the ceremony if she’s being distracting, shouting and babbling loudly.” “I know that this will probably happen as she’s constantly chatting loudly and is never quiet.” “But it’s only for half an hour and she can be as loud as she likes for the rest of the day.” “I just want everybody to be able to focus on the ceremony and I don’t want the distraction.” The bride said she was worried about sounding selfish, but then admitted that she was allowed to be selfish on her big day, and wanted all eyes on her and the groom. “We want everyone to be able to enjoy them and, to be honest, we want the guests’ attention focused on us,” she said. However, after the bride told her sister of the plans, things didn’t go down well. “My sister has told me I’m being an a****** for ‘excluding’ my niece from the ceremony and therefore by default ‘excluding’ my brother-in-law who will be the one to take her out,” the bride said. “She says that I’m asking him and the one-year-old to go all that way just for the evening meal as they will miss the ceremony and that the toddler will most likely miss that too as it will be after bedtime.” “I’ve told her that there’s a whole afternoon of relaxing things going on — photos, cake, a little walk outside and late lunch that they will be part of but apparently she’s still really annoyed with me.” The bride says her sister is now “threatening” to attend the wedding alone, leaving her partner and their daughter at home. “We’ve called her bluff and said if that’s what she wants to do then we understand,” she said. “To be honest, she’s p***ing us off so much that we’d be fine with all three of them not coming at this point.” “I don’t think that I’m asking anything unreasonable.” “All I want is a peaceful, relaxed ceremony where we can all focus on what’s going on without a toddler babbling away. “Also, to be honest, even if this WAS an unreasonable ask, surely as it’s my wedding day then it’s up to me? Isn’t it the one day of my life when I can do literally anything I want?” The post was quickly met with hundreds of comments, with most people flocking to the bride’s defence. One person wrote, “This is basic event etiquette, but it seems like sis cannot be relied on to follow basic etiquette - or even asked to do so without herself acting like a toddler.” Another suggested: “Removing a disruptive baby from a formal event would be normal etiquette, but if you specifically had to ask in advance, I’ll guess she’s got a history of not doing so.” “Your wedding, your rules. You could have gone completely child-free, all you asked was for the common courtesy of taking her outside if she got noisy.” 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

South Australian Government's sprinkles ban sparks outrage

New guidelines for school canteens in South Australia have sparked outrage for "taking all the enjoyment away from children". Sprinkles of any kind, including 100s and 1000s - which are an essential ingredient for the iconic fairy bread - have been categorised as “red 2", meaning that they “should not be promoted or encouraged in schools on any occasion”. The ban comes after processed meats including ham would be limited at canteens in Western Australia, with similar restrictions now in place for South Australian canteens. Processed meats fall into the “red 1” or “amber” categories in South Australia, which means that products featuring them would be limited depending on nutritional criteria. These restrictions mean that children will no longer be able to regularly enjoy Australian staples like ham and cheese toasties and fairy bread at school. “Why are they taking all the enjoyment away from children?” one person told 7News. Dieticians have also questioned the decision, saying that it might only cause further problems in the future. “All your brain wants to do is eat that food, and eventually, you can restrict it for a little bit, until you get to that point where you just give in, you want to eat it, and then you binge,” dietitian Mattea Palombo said. Another expert suggested changing the foods we associate with good times. “Celebration foods aren’t so much about the foods that we have at the time of the celebration, but the friends and family we have around at the time of celebrating,” dietitian Dr Evangeline Mantzioris said. “So I think we probably need to balance it out a bit, so healthy foods are available at those celebrations.” Although the changes impact canteens, parents are still free to pack whatever they want in their kids' lunchboxes. Images: Getty

Food & Wine

“Petty”: Steve Price’s bid to ban Dan Andrews called out

It seems that golf, the sport known for its calm demeanour and leisurely strolls, is continuing to become a battleground for political disagreements. Move over, parliamentary debates; we've got a straight-up fairway feud on our hands. It all started when former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews decided he wanted to swap the political arena for the green one. Little did he know that his membership application to the Portsea Golf Club would turn into a full-blown scandal, complete with threats to <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/travel/travel-trouble/i-ll-quit-steve-price-s-fairway-feud-with-dan-andrews" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tear up memberships</a> and accusations of petty behaviour. The took another turn on a recent episode of The Project, where hosts Waleed Aly and Sam Taunton found themselves caught in the crossfire of their co-star Steve Price's golfing fury. The dispute centres around the fact that more than 100 club members have written a strongly-worded letter, demanding that Andrews be rejected. Price, the self-proclaimed defender of fairways and greens, threatened to "tear up" his Portsea Golf Club membership if Andrews gets the green light. Aly, doing his best to keep the peace, questioned Price about the gravity of the situation. "But why is it a big deal?" he asked Price on the panel. "If he gets admitted, you don’t have to walk around the golf course." Price, however, had a different concern: "I have to go into the bar, and he might be having food." Ah, the horror of sharing a clubhouse with a former premier! Taunton, sensing the absurdity of the situation, almost called the whole debacle "petty" before wisely biting his tongue. But Price, ever the instigator, goaded him to finish his sentence, to which Taunton finally admitted, "No, I was going to say it is petty. It was years ago, and at some point, don’t you move on? Why?" Price, standing firm as the guardian of golfing justice, declared, "No. Because we don’t want him there!" It seems the only thing harder to overcome than a water hazard is a political grudge. In the grand scheme of things, it's a bit bewildering that a golf club membership is causing such a ruckus. You'd be forgiven for thinking they were discussing nuclear disarmament, not whether Andrews should be allowed to practice his swing in peace. As the world anxiously awaits the fate of Andrews' golfing aspirations, we're left to wonder: will he get the coveted membership, or will Price be left tearing up his golf club card like a rejected love letter? Only time will tell if this golfing saga will go down in history as a hole-in-one or just another bogey. Images: Network Ten

Legal

Woman receives lifetime ban from cruise line over "illegal" item

A 42-year-old mother has received a lifetime ban from Carnival Cruise Line voyages, after she attempted to board one of the company's ships with a seemingly innocent item. Melinda Van Veldhuizen, a nurse practitioner and mother of two from Texas, said she was treated "like a criminal" when cruise ship employees found a bag of the CBD “sleep tight” gummies in her luggage while at a port in Miami. Melinda told local news station WPLG she packed the gummies to help her get some sleep on the August trip she had planned to take with her family to celebrate both her 21st wedding anniversary with her husband and her son’s senior year of high school. Ms Van Veldhuizen was taken to a separate area of the security check-in when the discovery was made, and was questioned by Carnival security and police for two and a half hours. The mother was blocked from boarding the ship, and her husband and son also disembarked as they didn’t want to go on the cruise to Aruba, Curaçao and the Dominican Republic without her. The family had spent just under $9,000AUD on their planned vacation, Ms Van Veldhuizen’s attorney Daren Stabinski told the Washington Post. CBD is a compound commonly derived from hemp that doesn’t cause impairment or a “high,” and is different from marijuana's mind-altering substance of THC. CBD is becoming more readily available across the globe, and is used to treat ailments from chronic pain to sleeplessness. In most parts of the US, CBD products that contain no greater than 0.3 per cent of THC are legal. According to WPLG, Ms Van Veldhuizen’s gummies contained less than 0.01 per cent THC. Despite the product being legal in the state Ms Van Veldhuizen was departing from, the hemp product is prohibited by Carnival Cruise Lines. “While certain CBD products used for medicinal purposes may be legal in the US, they are not legal in all the ports we visit and therefore are also considered prohibited items,” its website states. Soon after Ms Van Veldhuizen was forbidden from going on the cruise she paid for, she received a letter from Carnival informing her she was banned from all Carnival ships for life. The letter signed by Captain Rocco Lubrano states that she will “not be permitted to sail on-board any Carnival Cruise Lines vessel in the future.” “This decision was based on your actions on the current cruise, which were a violation of the ship rules, interfered with the safety and/or enjoyment of other guests on the ship or caused harm to Carnival,” Mr Lubrano wrote. Ms Van Veldhuizen said she has taken more than a dozen Carnival cruises over the years and was freaked out by the letter and the whole experience, and was not expecting such a severe reaction. “I thought it was one of those situations where you’re like, ‘Oh shoot, I left a bottle of water in my backpack; you gotta throw it away,’ kind of thing like that happens at TSA,” she said. Ms Van Veldhuizen is pursuing an internal claim with Carnival, but has threatened to sue if her situation isn’t resolved “appropriately” and hired Mr Stabinski to assist her. “Out of all the cases I take, this one was just specifically outrageous,” Mr Stabinski said. Image credits: WPLG

Travel Trouble

Amazing money-saving hack hidden in Coles and Woolies Christmas shopping bags

Woolworths and Coles have released specially designed paper bags ahead of the Christmas period, with many praising their multi-purpose usage. The 25 cent bags feature a Christmas design, and are meant to be cut open and reused as wrapping paper for Christmas presents. Shoppers have been sharing their delight at the discovery on social media, with many praising the supermarket giants for encouraging recycling. A member of the North Shore Mums Facebook group shared the revelation, writing, "PSA: the Christmas woolies bags are designed to be cut open and used as wrapping paper." Both Coles and Woolworths bags include cutting lines to help those planning to use them as wrapping this festive season. They added an edit to the post explaining the bags could also be cut into squares around the decorations and used as gift tags. Other alternatives to pricey wrapping paper include tea towels, paper that has been decorated by children in the family or making the most out of reusable gift bags which can be collected and saved for the next occasion. With many families anxious of excess spending during the festive period in the face of the ongoing cost of living crisis, the reusable bags are set to be a welcome hack for those trying to be money conscious this Christmas. Image credits: 9Honey <p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 16px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: 'Proxima Nova', system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Fira Sans', 'Droid Sans', 'Helvetica Neue'; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 28px; vertical-align: baseline; caret-color: #333333; color: #333333;"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">

Money & Banking

All-girls Catholic school bans same-sex couples from formal

An all-girls Catholic school in the Sydney suburb of Kingsgrove has refused to let same sex couples attend the year 12 formal together, prompting widespread outrage. Students at St Ursula’s College have been vocal in their disapproval of the rule, banding together to form a petition to let same sex dates attend the end of year dance. The petition on <a href="https://www.change.org/p/allow-same-sex-couples-at-st-ursula-s-school-formal?source_location=petitions_browse">Change.org</a> has already racked up thousands of signatures in a matter of weeks, after being created by concerned student Abbie Frankland, who labelled the policy “discriminatory”. In her petition, Ms Frankland expressed the sentiments of the LGBTQ+ community at the school, voicing her concern for the exclusionary rule. “My girlfriend and I, along with many other students at St. Ursula’s in Kingsgrove NSW, Australia, have been eagerly awaiting the school formal for months,” she wrote. “We’ve purchased non-refundable tickets and outfits in anticipation of this event. However, we’ve recently discovered that the school does not allow same-sex couples to attend the formal together.” The policy also ignited a fire within the student body to push for change. “In Australia, 61.6 percent of people voted ‘Yes’ in a national survey on marriage equality, showing widespread support for LGBTQ+ rights across the country,” Ms Frankland added, referencing the Australian Bureau of Statistics. “Yet, despite this clear public sentiment towards inclusivity and acceptance, schools like St Ursula’s continue to uphold discriminatory policies.” The petition, which has racked up over 2,000 signatures so far, calls for the school to realign itself with the broader values of inclusivity and equality. It also calls on the college to allow all students, regardless of sexual orientation, to bring their chosen partner to the school formal at the end of the year. “By signing this petition, you’re standing up against discrimination and supporting equal rights for all students at St Ursula’s School in Kingsgrove, NSW, Australia,” Ms Frankland said. Some parents have also called for the ban to be lifted, noting that the harsh rule has put unnecessary stress on students as they are dealing with their HSC exams. “It’s totally taken the kids’ focus off the HSC,” a concerned mother told Ben Fordham Live on 2GB. The mother said her daughter planned to take another girl to the formal, saying that, “She automatically was upset - crying in the car,” when she found out about the ban. Fordham was quick to point out a flaw in the school’s policy, pointing out that the woman’s 18-year-old daughter could legally marry a woman but not take one to her formal. Another parent also called into the radio show, saying, “It’s 2023 – what’s going on?” Image credits: Google Maps

Legal

Former beauty queen dies after cosmetic surgery

Former beauty queen Jaquelin Carrieri, 48, has sadly passed away following complications from cosmetic surgery. The mother-of-two from Argentina suffered a blood clot and passed away at an unnamed clinic in Los Angeles, California on Sunday October 1st. A post on her Instagram page confirmed the tragic news. "We want to inform our followers today of some sad news," the post began. "Jaquelin Carrieri, who was Queen of Punta del Agua District and Deputy Queen of San Rafael Department in 1996, has passed away. "From Reinas de San Rafael, we want to extend our condolences to her family and friends during this difficult time." According to another statement posted on Facebook the following day, Carrieri passed away from a "stroke" caused by cosmetic surgery. "Jaquelin Carrieri has passed away," the statement began. "She was a woman of great talent, an actress in one of our department’s plays that was being performed at the Roma Theatre until just a few days ago. "Jaquelin also owned a high-end fashion store called Jaquelin Carrieri Boutique, which unfortunately had to close its doors during the pandemic. "She was well known for dressing the San Rafael pageant queens for many years, making their dresses shine during the Vía Blanca and Carrusel Vendimial parades. "In her youth, she was also Deputy Queen of the San Rafael en Vendimia festival. "She passed away in Los Angeles, California, due to a stroke that may have been caused by cosmetic surgery". Carrieri was just days away from celebrating her 49th birthday, and grieving friends have taken to social media to share their heartache. "Dear Jaqui yesterday I sent you a message for your birthday and I was surprised you didn't answer. Today on TV I heard this terrible news. I will always love you and I'm broken. Lots of light and love to you," one friend said. "All of us who had the pleasure of knowing you and sharing moments of our lives with you know what a wonderful person you were, a beautiful woman in every sense, always with your smile and your glamour," her close friend Jorgelina Olivera said. "Honestly your departure has taken me by surprise and I still can’t believe it. "Thank you, a thousand thanks for coming into my life and painting it with so much joy and happiness. "It was a pleasure to share moments with you, and I will be eternally grateful. "May God welcome you into His glory. It’s not a goodbye but a see you soon, my beautiful and dear Jaquelin". Carrieri leaves behind a son, Julian and daughter, Chloe. Images: Instagram

Caring

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Enough is enough": Pauline Hanson calls for ban on Welcome to Country

“Enough is enough”: Albanese to introduce social media ban for children

Lollipop man slapped with ban over "innocent" gesture

Woman banned for life from airline for bizarre reason

Aussie cancer survivor bags Olympic medal

Huge names on board to overturn Hamish and Andy’s Olympic Village ban

Hilarious reason why Hamish and Andy are "banned for life" from Olympic village

Kyle slaps comedy legends with lifetime ban for "twisted" Trump joke

Plastic Free July is a waste of time if the onus is only on consumers

Do red bags get loaded onto a plane first? Travel hack goes viral

Why do airlines charge so much for checked bags? This obscure rule helps explain why

Grandma banned from babysitting after ignoring daughter's simple request

Bride sparks feud for banning her niece from her big day

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

South Australian Government's sprinkles ban sparks outrage

“Petty”: Steve Price’s bid to ban Dan Andrews called out

Woman receives lifetime ban from cruise line over "illegal" item

Amazing money-saving hack hidden in Coles and Woolies Christmas shopping bags

All-girls Catholic school bans same-sex couples from formal

Former beauty queen dies after cosmetic surgery

Our Partners