Apparently a Moroccan NGO filed a lawsuit saying that the photos “deeply affect Moroccan education and culture, and upset people’s feelings.” The arrest has sparked a social media backlash, with many young people posting similar pictures and calling for a “giant kiss-in” on Wednesday.
2. Australian of the Year Ita Buttrose has backed calls to increase the legal drinking age to 21. “A lot of Australians drink more than is good for them, and long term that is not good for their health… Whether raising the drinking age to 21 would work or not, I don’t know,” Buttrose said.
Buttrose said it was worth trailing an increase in the drinking age to see whether it has any affect on alcohol-fueled violence.
3. An 18-month-old toddler has sustained third-degree burns after falling into a campfire on the banks of the Macquarie River in NSW. The toddler’s parents reportedly doused their son in water before waiting for an ambulance to arrive. The boy was taken to Westmead Hospital in Sydney, suffering injuries to his face and arm.
4. Tony Abbott reportedly claimed $600 to attend Peter Slipper’s wedding in 2006. He made the admission while in Bali for the APEC conference. It comes in the wake of revelations that Coalition MP’s Barnaby Joyce, Julie Bishop and Teresa Gambaro ‘collectively claimed more than $12,000 in “overseas study” allowances when they attended an Indian billionaire’s wedding with Gina Rinehart in 2011 and that Attorney-General George Brandis has spent $1700 of taxpayer money to go to the wedding of radio DJ Michael Smith.
The Prime Minister has defended his use of the funds saying: “When the controversy arose after the Michael Smith wedding, I remembered that some seven years ago I had been to a couple of weddings and so I went back and I checked.” He said the entitlement was unclear.
Quicky News Headlines: Thursday April 25th 2024
The Quicky
5 Things Jessie Learnt About Marriage In The First Year
Mamamia Out LoudWhat Happened When Marian Keyes Couldn’t Write
No Filter
Top Comments
5 - having mixed feelings about this idea but mostly this simply isn't fair. I had wonderful, loving parents who dealt out punishment in a fair and (what I can now see) reasonable way but it didn't make 1 iota of difference to my brother when he went through a short yet destructive teenage phase. I am supportive of personal responsibility all the way.
1. Poor teens - I feel so helpless in this world when others can't enjoy even a simple thing in life. I know this isn't even touching on the issues of restrictive religions but it just shi*s me!
8. Hooray! I don't feed into the Aus vs NZ carry on but I have one NZ friend that loves rubbing it in whenever NZ has a success so might be off to fb post this one tee hee..
"to my brother when he went through a short yet destructive teenage phase". The part that strikes me is TEENAGE. Under the age of 18 parents have full responsibility, and if your brother was destructive, especially to public or indeed other people's private property, you parents should absolutely be held responsible as they had the power to make sure he wasn't there to be destructive in the first place through grounding, curfews or other methods. They signed their responsibility for 18 years when they created him. I would absolutely feel accountable if my son or daughter became a nuisance to others or their property, and I would absolutely expect to pay my dues. Handballing responsibility is becoming (has become?) an ugly trend in Australia. Love, look after, but above all guide your kids, and discipline when necessary. It will make for a better generation of Australians.
Yes - In a perfect family world Edward. I can assure you there were indeed curfews, discipline, boundaries & groundings in our family but I can't help but smirk at these 'helpful suggestions' to those that have clearly not experienced true rebellion from someone under 18 years old. Aside from physical restraint you couldn't have kept him in the house - or is this what you refer to in your mysterious 'other methods'?
You come across as a little preachy & hysterical so please let me assure you there was no major damage only small disturbances of the peace or being around those causing other issues. Since you put forth assumptions I feel the need to defend my brother who today is a wonderful man & contributor to society.
For the record, his rebellion for that short time was acting out due to a horrific family tragedy. This and his resulting behaviour was something we overcame as a family through love & guidance. Perhaps instead of preaching and giving 'text-book' examples to those that aren't as perfect as you and your children you could spend more time in the community doing your part to help those that may not have parents able to guide them.
Firstly let me assure you I am not hysterical. I can understand you find me "preachy" (is that even a word? It's ok, I know what you mean), but even re-reading my comment, hysterical is absolutely not something I can read in my comment. Your reaction is in fact closer to hysteria than my original comment, but be that as it may, I'm not here to personally attack anyone. This comments section is here for OPINION and I feel free to comment in that regard.
As for my ASSUMPTIONS, YOU originally wrote "he went through a short yet destructive teenage phase". DESTRUCTIVE. In the above you changed that to "there was no major damage only small disturbances of the peace or being around those causing other issues". I think my assumption is based on YOUR writing of the word destructive. If it was just small disturbances of the peace as you now say, of course my view on that is completely different. I may have not even commented at all, but as the original post was in relation to a parent's responsibility to pay for CRIMINAL actions, and you piped up to say you didn't agree as your brother went through a small destructive phase, I piped up to say yes, I think if there are criminal costs to be paid caused by anyone under 18 I absolutely think parents should pay it, AND I would expect to pay for my children's wrong doings. You're saying it's not fair - everybody else (taxpayers) or the victims should pay for it? Well, what is it? Someone has to pay right? Just as long as it's NOT the parent/guardian directly responsible for the under 18 year old? Really? Now that you've downgraded "destructive" to "disturbance of the peace" with I assume no cost to society or victim involved I agree with you, but don't pipe up at me based on an assumption I made on something you said, when it's still there in black and white above.
As for me being perfect, that is your opinion. Wish I was. My kids certainly are not which is exactly my point, but who knows why you seem focused on that. I think it's anger talking there. Fine, if you need to vent by mocking me and my opinion that way go for it if it makes you feel better.
As for serving my community if only you knew what I do. You presume far too much, but I'll leave that be also. As for helping people that may not have parents ABLE to guide them, of course I would and of course I feel for them. But this article wasn't about able, it was about willing.
Tim Mathison spent four grand of tax payers money being driven around while he flogged hair products! Where's the outrage?
As a one-time staffer, I can tell you that all pollie's trips are booked then the staff go through the account later to determine what's what. There's nothing to see here people. Abbott and the rest aren't deliberately routing. This is a media beat up in the proud tradition of Abbott bashing.
"Nothing to see here"? MPs of any political persuasion charging the tax payer to attend a wedding party is something to see. It is not OK and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that it isn't a bill that should be passed onto the tax payer. I expect our MPs to be paid well and to be reimbursed for work-related expenses. But I also expect them not to dip their hands into the public purse for private expenditure.