I completely agree with Arj, the baby shouldn’t have been there. Life changes when you have an infant and sometimes you have to miss out on something like an over 15’s comedy show because your baby should mean more to you than going out and being social. From what I have read elsewhere the mother took the baby to other comedy shows so it’s not like this was a one off opportunity for her to go out. 

Way too many of these lack size inclusivity. It’s disappointing to see that so many brands just don’t want their clothes on larger bodies. 

Looks like Paradise Cove trailer park. A fixer-upper there starts around $2m so this with the work done makes it an expensive little place to take dogs to the beach. It’s stunning though and if I had the money I’d probably get my dog a place like this too 

While I applaud her choice I do see the different way this is portrayed compared to when a man made the same decision on the Bachelor a couple of years ago. The scandal that was made out to be was vastly different to this and perhaps it comes down to the emotional intelligence that Paige demonstrated when announcing her decision and the way the producers handled it compared to the way the Bachelor was clearly set up to deliver the scandal when no contestant was chosen. 

Maybe we've grown a little as a society in the years between the two. 

Body types are not a “fashion” and accepting how people look isn’t either. And to the people worried about low rise jeans, just don’t wear them. We don’t have to follow fashion like slaves, develop your own personal sense of style and you will never need to buy or follow fast fashion and you will be contributing to a better environment and your own well-being. 

@snorks do you believe the government shouldn’t have made high vis clothing and protective garments a requirement in industrial and construction settings? That’s essentially the same thing. The government has the right to enforce an order when it is in the interest of protecting public health. So yes, it would absolutely hold up in court. 

@guest2 I feel that you are using the incorrect nomenclature in your comment. I personally have enough savings to maintain my current lifestyle for an extended period and never said that I didn’t or that I may need government support so I am not sure why you are directing this comment at me by use of the term “you” throughout. If a person is a low income earner with dependants they may not have enough savings to cover their living costs for two weeks. I’m not sure what ideological utopia you live in where everyone has enough income to meet their living expenses and save money in order to cover their expenses for two weeks should they suffer a loss of income but it’s not where the rest of us exist.   

@guest2 yes, he has introduced an allowance for those forced to stay home where they lose work. It’s a one off payment so those that are home for two weeks and unable to work don’t have to go through the waiting periods they do when signing up for unemployment benefits. It probably is the best thing he could have done considering people are going to work after being tested because they need the money. Maybe do some research before adding a snarky comment. Seriously. And yes, those in breach should be fined but the government don’t fine them, the police do and they’re pretty busy at the moment dealing with increased domestic violence calls and needing to police people who breach gathering laws to protest.