1. There’s reportedly been a rise in the number of women around the world who say they are giving birth “pain free.” According to news sources it’s a trend called ‘hynobirthing’ and it centres around hypnosis and the theory that labor pain is caused by fear. The technique has made headlines this week because Kate Middleton is reportedly considering it for the July birth of her first baby.
Critics of hypnobirthing however say the practice could lead to women thinking they’ve failed if they experience pain and that complications can still occur.
2. Bookmaker Tom Waterhouse says he plans to dramatically cut back his advertising on Channel 9, after Julia Gillard urged internet, radio and TV broadcasters to agree to a ban on the promotion of betting odds during live sports matches. In a piece for The Daily Telegraph today, Waterhouse wrote that he was sorry. “The public has spoken and you will see less of me on TV,” he said.
3. The ACT Government has signed up to the Federal Government’s Gonski school funding reforms. Under the plan, the SCT will receive an extra $190 million over six years. NSW has already signed up to the deal, but Victorian Education Minister Martin Dixon says his state will not sign.
4. Police have reportedly spoken to South Sydney player Ben Te’o after he was accused of assaulting a woman after a night out in Brisbane in April. Twenty-two-year-old Katie Lewis told Channel 9 news last week that Te’o had punched her in the face and left her bruised. This week she filed a formal complaint with police. Last week, Te’o denied the allegations, saying: “I am able to refute entirely any suggestion that I acted improperly.” “On the night in question, I found myself in unfortunate circumstances that were not caused by me and I acted appropriately to deal with a difficult situation.”
PM: Israel Launches Missiles At Iran, Male Violence A Priority Says Attorney-General
The Quicky
Taylor Swift & The Birthday Card Relationship Test
Mamamia Out Loud17-Year-Old Fletcher Crowley Became Paraplegic Six Months Ago
No Filter
Top Comments
i had a superb hypnobirth. not entirely painfree but a lot less painful than my first birth and also a lot quicker. it makes sense that the baby will descend more easily if you're body is relaxed. good on kate for considering it.
I'm a bit torn about Tom Waterhouse. I've spent time with him on several occasions so when the public outrage first started I was a bit defensive as one can be when someone you know is attacked. I know the challenges he's facing by trying to compete with the much larger overseas betting companies which are compounded by him entering the market much later than the others. But then recently in a short space of time my child added two new words to his vocabulary: Sportsbet and TAB. To say I was shocked is an understatement as our son's never even been in a pub with a TAB attached and neither his father nor I really gamble. Finally we realised that the only thing that had changed was that footy had started and if we were home on a weekend afternoon we'd have it on tv so even though we'd learned to zone out all the betting references during the broadcast obviously a 3yo's brain was soaking it all in. So while I feel for Tom that as an Aussie company trying to capture a piece of the market he's now become the face of the public's frustration with how betting has infiltrated sport as this was going on long before him and will be even if he left the market tomorrow, he did saturate our TVs in such a way to allow him to be that face. I'm not sure how he's going to compete now with these other companies or whether his previous marketing strategy was even working for him but I also don't think I should have to completely ban a sport from our house that my son loves to watch simply because there's no escaping betting during broadcasts not just from Tom but the others as well. Not sure what the answer is.
Balanced, as always, Beans.
I don't know Tom or his family personally and I'm not into the races or betting but I do admire him and I feel for him. He has been nothing but gracious, despite some commentary that has (predictably) descended into an assassination of his and his family's character.
Having said that, there is no place for betting in my lounge room.
Balanced, as always, Beans.
I don't know Tom or his family personally and I'm not into the races or betting but I do admire him and I feel for him. He has been nothing but gracious, despite some commentary that has (predictably) descended into an assassination of his and his family's character.
Having said that, there is no place for betting in my lounge room.
I have to say he's a pretty cool guy once you get over how bloody young he looks. I had to force myself to stop from staring at him like a freak because he just looks like a baby. For personal reasons I guess I get offended when people start attacking him based on his family because it's not like any of us have a choice in that. We know better than to trash someone who happened to be born to less advantaged parents so I don't feel comfortable when people trash him because his family isn't. It's not a like a person can pick or choose who they're born to so that stuff seems irrelevant to me.
The gambling thing is so hard for me to figure out though. When I first moved here - actually it still happens now - I have people in the US telling me how smart Australia is for allowing online gambling, regulating and taxing it, etc. It protects the country, kids (as you need heaps of documentation to collect online here) and it gives people the freedom to gamble. Whereas in the US if they don't live in Vegas and want to bet on sport they send their money to Costa Rica or the UK. No benefit to the economy via taxation and US jobs and no protection when dodgy companies cut and run.
So I think the Aussie model is a great one. In fact it's the focus of a lecture I'm attending in Dayton, Ohio in January tied in with my own industry in a purely complimentary way and it's actually used worldwide as a tell all on how to accept gambling in a culture while still providing maximum benefit to those citizens who don't gamble (ie via the taxes those regulated companies pay).
And yet... is it like smoking? We reap the tax revenue from smoking but then pay out a lot in health costs as well. Some would say the former is more equal to the latter as those people would get sick or die from something else anyway and now that we've banned cigarette advertising they're exercising their right to smoke and pay $20 a pack or whatever it is now. I know I don't want my kid being the one to go to school and talk about Sportsbet or TAB or even know what odds are on a game. I copped enough from ex MIL when she was in the car and heard his TAB revelation so I could only imagine what other parents would say. BUt then should all gambling advertising be banned ie those banners in the stadium, on the scoreboard, etc? I'm pretty sure Tom wasn't on AFL here in Melb so that's why my son didn't learn his name but he learned the others. And then if we ban all gambling adverts do we do the same with booze? Booze not only destroys finances and families but you can kill someone with drunk driving. Or do we expect everyone to take personal responsibility for themselves? If so, why are smoking adverts banned? Seriously this sets my mind in a whirl. I don't want my kid learning any more gambling names but then I don't believe in infringing on the rights who enjoy smoking, drinking, gambling. They all have legal ages for a reason... after that you're assumed to know better from worse and make decisions for yourself. So what's the right answer?