Placeholder Content Image

Abandoned family hit with huge fine by cruise line

<p>A family of nine has been charged a whopping $13,000 for failing to return to their cruise ship after an excursion in Alaska, leaving them stranded by Norwegian Cruise Lines to find their own way home. </p> <p>The Gault family, from Tulsa in Oklahoma, were travelling with six young kids and a 78-year-old grandmother when they disembarked from the Norwegian Encore in Katchikan, a small town in a string of south Alaskan islands, so they could watch a lumberjack show together.</p> <p>All was going well until they went to board a bus back to the ship, when the local tour operator transporting passengers to and from the vessel miscounted and told the family there was no room and that they had to wait for the next bus. </p> <p>“We see the chaos getting onto the buses. We go to get on the bus and one of the attendees is like, ‘The bus is full, and you know you got to wait for the next bus,’” Joshua Gault told <em>2 News</em>.</p> <p>However, the next bus never came, and as the family found other means to rush back to the port, they arrived to see the ship sailing away with all their belongings, including passports and medications, onboard.</p> <p>“Six kids on board, minor children, and a 78-year-old mother-in-law, all on medication. We all had to quit cold turkey medication these last few days because it was all on the cruise ship,” Mr Gault said.</p> <p>From there, things only got worse for the Gault family, who had already spent about $44,500 on the trip, as they were immediately hit an almost $13,000 charge from the cruise line — $1,400 per passenger — for missing the boat.</p> <p>That fee stemmed from the US Customs and Border Protection’s Passenger Vessel Services Act, which they violated by not visiting a foreign port before they returned to the US, as their itinerary planned.</p> <p>Unable to rejoin the ship in Canada, the family decided to cut their losses and head home, arranging new accommodation and flights, making their costs continue to pile up. </p> <p>After days of travel - which included stops in numerous cities, cancelled flights, and more than one overnight airport stay — the family finally arrived home, feeling strung out, tired, and having picked up Covid along the way.</p> <p>“So yeah, we’re beat down right now. We’re unhealthy and beaten down,” Mr Gault said.</p> <p>The family is still working with the cruise line to rectify the situation, as Cailyn Gault said Norwegian Cruises keeps telling them, "We’re still looking into it, we haven’t forgotten about you."</p> <p>“And I was like, ‘No, we feel like you pretty much forgot about us when you left us in port and told us to go figure it out,’” Ms Gault added.</p> <p>Norwegian Cruise Lines told The Post it has begun the process of refunding the Gaults the nearly $13,000 in fees they were charged, and will reimburse them for all their travel expenses once receipts have been received.</p> <p>The cruise line also said it tried to contact the Gaults after they missed their bus due to “a misstep by a local tour operator,” and when they were unable to reach them, worked with the local port authority to help the family arrange lodging for the night before they were able to make a flight to Seattle the next day.</p> <p>“In addition, these guests will be receiving a pro-rated refund for the two cruise days they missed,” a Norwegian Cruise Line representative said.</p> <p>“As a gesture of goodwill, the company will also be providing each of the nine guests with a Future Cruise Credit in the form of a 20 per cent discount of their cruise fare that can be used towards their next voyage,” Norwegian added.</p> <p><em>Image credits: Facebook</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

"Ruined our trip": Mum shell-shocked by $130k fine

<p>A mother has been slapped with a hefty fine after her children were caught in a seemingly innocent act while on a beach holiday. </p> <p>Charlotte Russ took her five kids on a trip to Pismo Beach in California, where her children started enthusiastically collecting what they thought were ordinary seashells. </p> <p>"My kids they thought they were collecting seashells, but they were actually collecting clams, 72 to be exact,"  Russ told local news outlet <em><a href="https://abc7.com/post/fresno-woman-fined-88k-after-kids-collect-clams/14859295/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener">ABC 7</a></em>.</p> <p>Clamming is highly regulated in California, meaning if you don't have a fishing license, you cannot catch the small sea creatures. </p> <p>She received a citation right there on the beach and was later notified she has to pay close to $89,000, or $133,000 AUD, for her kids' seemingly innocent treasure hunt. </p> <p>"It made me really sad and depressed, and it kind of ruined our trip," said Russ.</p> <p>Department of Fish and Wildlife's Lieutenant Matthew Gil defended the fine, saying there are rules in place for a reason. </p> <p>"The reason we got it we have these regulations is because we have to let them get to 4 and a half inches so they can spawn so they can have they can have offspring every year, and they have juvenile clams," said Lt. Gil.</p> <p>Russ said her kids have learned their lesson, saying, "They know now at the beach don't touch anything, but they know now what a clam is, compared to what a seashell is now, I've had to explain that to them."</p> <p>The mother was able to plead her case with a San Luis Obispo County Judge, who reduced her fine to $500 dollars, and after she "won" her case, Russ got a shellfish tattoo to commemorate the incident.</p> <p>"It was definitely one expensive trip to Pismo, unforgettable," said Russ.</p> <p><em>Image credits: ABC 7</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Woman fined after paid car park gets set up around her parked vehicle

<p>Josephine Williams had been leaving her car in a gravel clearing at Westgate in Auckland, alongside other commuters to catch the bus into the city for months. </p> <p>The New Zealand woman was left with a "nasty surprise" when she returned from work on Monday to find a NZ $85 ($77) fine sitting on her windshield. </p> <p>"To my unfortunate surprise - and many others - I was greeted by an $85 parking ticket for a breach and a flyer from Wilson Parking saying paid parking had started that day," Williams told <em>Stuff</em>.</p> <p>"But what breach exactly was made? How was I supposed to know paid parking started that day when there was nothing at all displayed anywhere in the car park?"</p> <p>Williams claimed that the Wilson Parking car park had been set up around her already parked car, even providing dash cam footage that showed her pulling into the gravel clearing at 7.45am, with no paid parking signs or Wilson branding in sight. </p> <p>By 6pm, a large red and white Wilson sign had been put up at the entrance, with "12 hours for $4" written on it. </p> <p>"Wilson deliberately put their sign up sometime after 9am and then took it upon themselves to fine every single car that was already parked there from the morning," Williams said.</p> <p>"$85 is a lot of money - it would have been two weeks' worth of grocery shopping for me," she added. </p> <p>"I'm lucky that I know the law and my rights, but some other people might not. What about students or the elderly or people who don't know English well?"</p> <p>She estimated that there was usually around 50 and 100 cars in the gravel clearing. </p> <p>Wilson argued that the carpark was always there and they had just added more signage, but have since waived Williams' fine after she lodged a request to have it reviewed by Parking Enforcement Services. </p> <p>Wilson Parking also said that they had started to set up the car park and installed a "clear signage" on April 22. </p> <p>"It was not set up around parked cars on 29 April as suggested," a Wilson spokesperson said.</p> <p>"Several payments were made by customers via the Parkmate app from 22 April proving that signage on the site was clear and effective," they said.</p> <p>They added that on April 29 more signs were added to all entry points of the car park. </p> <p>"In acknowledgment of the increased signage added on the 29th at the entry we've made the decision to refund all payments made until 30 April and waive any breach notices issued up to this date."</p> <p>They also denied issuing any breach notices before the signs were put up.</p> <p>"Payment options were available and signed from 22 April - but no infringement notices were issued prior to the 29th."</p> <p><em>Images: Stuff</em></p> <p> </p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Djokovic hit with record fine after Wimbledon loss

<p>Novak Djokovic has been fined a whopping £6,100 ($11,700) for smashing his racquet in frustration against the net post during the men's singles final at Wimbledon.</p> <p>The Serbian player, who suffered a five-set defeat against Carlos Alcaraz, marking his first loss on Centre Court in a decade, was penalised for "racquet abuse" when he was crucially broken in the deciding set.</p> <p>Acknowledging the fine, the world No. 2, who earned $2.3 million as the runner-up, stated, “It was frustration in the moment. He played amazing to break my serve, which was enough to win the fifth set.”</p> <p>The final match garnered a peak audience of 11.3 million viewers on the BBC, representing the highest viewership since Andy Murray's victory in 2016, which attracted 13.3 million viewers.</p> <p>The incident where Djokovic smashed his racquet was not the only time he tested the umpire's patience during the tense final.</p> <p>A fortunate spectator managed to acquire the now iconic broken racquet after the match.</p> <p>Furthermore, Djokovic received a time violation for exceeding the allotted time during his serve in the second set. As a result, the umpire issued a warning for his behaviour.</p> <p>Although never a crowd favourite at SW19, Djokovic faced boos from the Wimbledon audience due to his outburst that resulted in the destruction of his racquet.</p> <p>The £6,100 fine imposed on Djokovic stands as the highest individual fine given during this year's tournament, setting a record in 2023.</p> <p>Similarly, Mirra Andreeva also incurred two fines totalling £6,100 during the tournament.</p> <p>The 16-year-old Russian player struggled to control her temper throughout the event and was observed angrily striking herself during the early rounds.</p> <p>She was eliminated in the round of 16 after unintentionally handing a match point to Maddison Keys.</p> <p>Keys was awarded the point when Andreeva was deemed to have thrown her racquet to the ground after slipping, as confirmed by the umpire.</p> <p>This incident marked the second time Andreeva had been involved in a racquet-related episode, as she had received a warning earlier in the match for tossing her racquet across the grass.</p> <p>After her defeat to Keys, Andreeva declined to shake hands with the umpire.</p> <p>For her conduct in the round of 16, she received two fines of A$5,860 each.</p> <p><em>Image: YouTube</em></p>

Money & Banking

Placeholder Content Image

Tourist faces $10k fine for jumping into iconic harbour

<p>Footage surfaced online of the man leaping from Opera Bar, just a few metres away from the Opera House.</p> <p>While his jump was certainly surprising, what shocked viewers was the hefty fine the tourist could be slapped with following his return from the water.</p> <p>Security helped the man back over the harbour ledge before telling him the risky stunt could see him $10,000 poorer.</p> <p><iframe title="tiktok embed" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2Fembed%2Fv2%2F7235491102143401234&amp;display_name=tiktok&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2F%40futuretravellers23%2Fvideo%2F7235491102143401234%3Flang%3Den&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fp16-sign-sg.tiktokcdn.com%2Fobj%2Ftos-alisg-p-0037%2Fo03m1enFIeAeQNC0aCDgjQIXDXzvbjDTIIabA4%3Fx-expires%3D1686200400%26x-signature%3DoWRm%252BIslhOfB81xvrV77sRxfWog%253D&amp;key=5b465a7e134d4f09b4e6901220de11f0&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=tiktok" width="340" height="700" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p> <p>“Well there's a very good reason why you've never seen anyone jump into the sea from the Opera House... I'll show you why,' Future Travellers said in a TikTok clip.</p> <p>In a second TikTok, the young man is seen talking to a group of police officers.<iframe title="tiktok embed" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2Fembed%2Fv2%2F7239141948261534984&amp;display_name=tiktok&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2F%40futuretravellers23%2Fvideo%2F7239141948261534984%3Flang%3Den&amp;image=https%3A%2F%2Fp16-sign-sg.tiktokcdn.com%2Fobj%2Ftos-alisg-p-0037%2Fbc76967996de4cefb23cfe5e6930fddc_1685494092%3Fx-expires%3D1686200400%26x-signature%3DSY8QPztxLxbP%252FPfYm4itGUmYloE%253D&amp;key=5b465a7e134d4f09b4e6901220de11f0&amp;type=text%2Fhtml&amp;schema=tiktok" width="340" height="700" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p> <p>However, a number of viewers commenting about the eye-watering fine also noted it was the least of the swimmer’s worries.</p> <p>"I'm a Sydney gal and it's not the $10,000 that scares me, it's the huge bull sharks that lurk in those waters,' one person wrote.</p> <p>“It’s a busy shipping lane and if it was full of floating tourists the ferries couldn't run,” another said.</p> <p>“I'm sure if he got run over by ferry his family would be suing NSW government for compensation,” a third added.</p> <p>Others were skeptical of the large fine.</p> <p>The official fine for swimming around the Opera House is a maximum of $1,100 with the law stating a person must not “swim to and enter on any part of the Opera House premises or swim from any part of those premises”.</p> <p>Several others were impressed by the young man’s jump and slammed NSW for being a “nanny state”.</p> <p>“Welcome to Sydney, please do not do anything,” one person remarked.</p> <p>“This guy is an absolute legend,” another wrote.</p> <p>'Only $10,000 per dip? It's probably cheaper to live in the harbour than some apartments. Sign me up,' a third joked.</p> <p>“Australia has a fine for everything,” another claimed.</p> <p>Earlier footage of the risky trick was shared alongside a montage of the tourist showing his British mum around Australia.</p> <p>The first video left viewers astounded with one writing, “In all my life living in Sydney I've never seen anyone jump in at the opera house!”</p> <p><em>Image credit: TikTok</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Man fined over $5000 for senseless cruelty against his own dog

<p>An Australian dog owner has been issued fines totalling more than $5000 after leaving his canine companion trapped inside of his car in Perth’s scorching summer temperatures. </p> <p>While it’s unknown exactly how long Tipsy the fox-terrier cross spent within the vehicle until help arrived, bodycam footage has revealed the exact moment she was freed from the 29 degree prison.</p> <p>RSPCA WA were made aware of Tipsy’s dire situation at around 10 in the morning, and an inspector found her in the vehicle shortly after, noting that the dog had no access to water. </p> <p>According to an update on the organisation's official site and social media, the inspector reported witnessing Tipsy “panting excessively, becoming restless, and showing other signs of stress”.</p> <p>It wasn’t long before she chose to seize Tipsy, suspecting offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2002. From there, Tipsy was taken to an emergency vet, and it was confirmed that the dog was suffering from dehydration while displaying signs of heat stress. </p> <p>Footage was uploaded of Tipsy gulping down water for close to 30 seconds, with one of her supervisors even asking “is it okay for her just to keep drinking like that?” </p> <p>Luckily, after an overnight stay for monitoring and some IV therapy to combat her dehydration, Tipsy made a full recovery under the care of RSPCA WA. </p> <p>According to Inspector Manager Kylie Green, “the maximum temperature on the day we seized Tipsy reached over 33C.</p> <p>“In those conditions, a dog can die in just six minutes. I’m so grateful we were alerted to Tipsy in time.</p> <p>“Last summer [in 2021], RSPCA WA received over 200 calls about dogs in hot cars.</p> <p>“It’s heart-wrenching that–despite repeated warnings–people continue to put their pets at risk.</p> <p>“If you love your dog, leave them at home with plenty of shade and water. It's better to leave them at home for a short time, than to risk losing them forever.”</p> <p>For his senseless act, Tipsy’s owner was sentenced, and the court decreed that Tipsy had been confined “in a manner likely to cause harm and was not provided with sufficient water.”</p> <p>The 32-year-old was found guilty in Perth Magistrates Court, and was fined $3000. However, there was more to come, with the man also receiving a ban from having contact with pets for two years, as well as an additional fee of $2246.16 to cover court and care costs. </p> <p><em>Images: RSPCA WA</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Family fined $143 over bizarre pet rule

<p dir="ltr">A man was fined $143 while holidaying at a popular Queensland tourist spot because of his pet dog. </p> <p dir="ltr">One pet owner was fined and others “fled in vessels” after they were intercepted by rangers on K’gari, Fraser Island, with their domestic dogs.</p> <p dir="ltr">Domestic dogs are banned on the island and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) and the Butchulla Aboriginal Corporation have a zero-tolerance policy against people who break the rules, Linda Behrendorff, acting senior ranger said. </p> <p dir="ltr">“The safety of our staff and visitors to K’gari is our number one priority, and rangers make no apology for holding people to account who bring their dogs onto the island,” Behrendorff said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Since 2015, QPWS rangers have issued 20 on-the-spot Penalty Infringement Notices to visitors who have broken the no-dog rules.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Dogs have been long banned on the Island, Behrendorff said, and the rule protects both native and domestic animals. </p> <p dir="ltr">“In 1991, QPWS banned domestic dogs from the World Heritage area, and the Fraser Coast Regional Council supported QPWS by banning dogs in residential areas,” she said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“These bans were implemented to protect the wongari (dingo) population from diseases and viruses, and also to protect domestic dogs from being attacked.</p> <p dir="ltr">“This is not a recent change in legislation, and rangers are frustrated each time a person unlawfully brings a dog onto the island.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The only dogs permitted are certified support dogs or assistant animals, both which much wear an identifying coat or harness and have an approved badge or tag. </p> <p dir="ltr">The person who received the fine told rangers that their pet was a “comfort dog”, which is not categorised as a permitted animal on the island. </p> <p dir="ltr">Certified support dogs must stay on a lead at all times and owners need to provide authorised paperwork. </p> <p dir="ltr">“As for the people who brought dogs onto the island and fled before being fined, it was clear to rangers that they knew they were breaking the rules,” Behrendorff said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Visitors should be aware that K’gari is considered a high-risk area for domestic dogs due to the presence of wongari.”<span id="docs-internal-guid-aaf88912-7fff-c9e6-cdc3-9071babb6548"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image credit: Getty</em></p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Mourners at Archie Roach’s funeral hit with hefty fines

<p dir="ltr">Mourners who were hit with traffic fines during the funeral procession for Indigenous singer Archie Roach won’t see penalties dropped, Victoria Police has confirmed.</p> <p dir="ltr">Seven infringements were issued to people who were part of the funeral cortege and ran red lights during the procession from Melbourne to Gunditjmara country, where Roach was laid to rest in a private ceremony.</p> <p dir="ltr">The driver of the hearse carrying Roach’s body was among those fined.</p> <p dir="ltr">"Disobeying a red light signal is considered a serious traffic offence," a police spokeswoman said in a statement.</p> <p dir="ltr">"It poses a significant safety risk both to the driver and other road users. Seven infringements were issued for disobeying a traffic control signal in relation to this matter."</p> <p dir="ltr">After reviewing three of the fines, Victoria Police didn’t overturn them due to what they called the seriousness of the offence, per the <em><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-09/archie-roach-funeral-procession-fined-victoria-police/101753002" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABC</a></em>.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-65ff09d4-7fff-eb96-765d-bf555d6b76e9"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">It’s understood that the fines were $462 each.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ArchieRoach?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ArchieRoach</a> Community members gathered in the streets of Melbourne this morning as Uncle Archie Roach took a final journey through Collingwood, Fitzroy and St Kilda as part of a walking service 🖤💛❤️<br />The cortege continues to Warrnambool ahead of the funeral tomorrow. <a href="https://t.co/iF7NoLrL5x">pic.twitter.com/iF7NoLrL5x</a></p> <p>— Madre Swift Justice - Cave Dweller (@JayStill4) <a href="https://twitter.com/JayStill4/status/1561591323651899393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 22, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p dir="ltr">The Gunditjmara and Bundjalung musician was farewelled in August, two weeks after he died aged 66 from a long illness.</p> <p dir="ltr">His hearse was flanked by members of Indigenous motorcycle club the Southern Warriors, with members of the public lining the streets of Fitzroy and Collingwood to pay their respects.</p> <p dir="ltr">In a statement, Victoria Police said its offer to assist with the funeral cortege’s movement through Melbourne was declined by funeral organisers.</p> <p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5934d18b-7fff-5726-2dcc-afb0ec34a3f1"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Twitter</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Airlines to cough up millions in refunds and fines over delays and cancellations

<p dir="ltr">Frustrated travellers subject to major delays or cancellations to their US flights could be entitled to a portion of $US 600 million ($NZ 978 million) in refunds from six airlines forced to refund their customers.</p> <p dir="ltr">The airlines have been ordered to pay back customers by the US Department of Transport as part of “historic enforcement actions”.</p> <p dir="ltr">Under US law, customers must be refunded by airlines or ticket agents if the airline cancels or significantly changes a flight to, from or within the US and they don’t want to accept the alternate offer.</p> <p dir="ltr">The department also ordered the airlines to pay a total of $US 7.25 million ($NZ 11.83 millIon) in fines for “extreme delays in providing refunds”.</p> <p dir="ltr">“When a flight gets cancelled, passengers seeking refunds should be paid back promptly. Whenever that doesn’t happen, we will act to hold airlines accountable on behalf of American travellers and get passengers their money back.” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/more-600-million-refunds-returned-airline-passengers-under-dot-rules-backed-new" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a press release</a> shared on Monday.</p> <p dir="ltr">“A flight cancellation is frustrating enough, and you shouldn’t also have to haggle or wait months to get your refund.”</p> <p dir="ltr">According to 7News.com.au, the refunds apply to both US and international travellers.</p> <p dir="ltr">The fines and refunds vary from airline to airline, with the affected airlines including: </p> <ul> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">Frontier Airlines - ordered to refund $US 222 million ($NZ 362.2 million) and pay $US 2.2 million ($NZ 3.6 million) in fines</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">Air India - to pay back $US 121.5 million ($NZ million) and fined $US 1.4 ($NZ 2.3 million)</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">TAP Portugal - with refunds totalling $US 126.5 million ($NZ 206.3 million) and fines of $US 1.1 million ($NZ 1.8 million)</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">Aeromexico - to refund $US 13.6 million ($NZ 22.1 million) and pay $900,000 ($NZ 1.4 million) in fines</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">El Al - due to pay $US 61.9 million ($NZ 100 million) in refunds and $900,000 ($$NZ 1.4 million) in fines</p> </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> <p dir="ltr" role="presentation">Avianca - with total refunds of $US 76.8 million ($NZ 125.2 million) and a fine of $US 750,000 ($NZ 1.2 million)</p> </li> </ul> <p dir="ltr">Most of the fines will be paid to the Treasury Department, with the remainder to be credited based on airlines paying customers beyond the legal requirement.</p> <p dir="ltr">According to Blane Workie, the assistant general counsel for the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection DOT, the refunds have either already been made or customers should have been informed of them.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-fdbaa05c-7fff-7d0d-8da4-81e90c75a489"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

International Travel

Placeholder Content Image

Man cops library fine after returning book 84 years late

<p>After making it through 84 years, several generations and the bombing of an English family home, a classic novel has been returned to the library where it belongs. </p> <p>Paddy Riordan found the copy of Richard Jefferies' Red Deer while he was cleaning out his mother's home late last year, and decided against throwing the tattered book away. </p> <p>Instead, he discovered it was a library book that had been taken out on a load, and decided to return it a mere 30,695 days late.</p> <p>The father-of-two popped back into the Earlsdon Carnegie Community Library with the outrageously overdue book to hand it back to its rightful home. </p> <p>But being a numbers man, Paddy wasn't content to simply return the book, as he also whipped up a spreadsheet to work out how much he owed for the overdue fee. </p> <p>Luckily for him, the tardiness penalty was set at one penny per day, a weightier sum at the time but which when converted into decimal currency came to a grand total of just £18.27 ($32.68), which he donated to the library.</p> <p>"I've seen one or two people who've worked out that at the current rate of fines, if I was paying at the current rate, it should be over £7000 that I would be paying," he jokes.</p> <p>"So I may need to be careful not to visit Coventry for a number of years hence."</p> <p>He thinks the book must have been hired for his mother, Anne, who was just six on October 11, 1938, when it was first checked out, but has no idea what "nefarious reasons" his grandfather, Captain William Southey-Harrison, may have had for not returning the book.</p> <p>"I'm not too sure why my grandfather didn't return the book but in 1940, during one night of the Blitz, the family lost the house," he tells <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/world/library-books-overdue-man-returns-book-84-years-late-and-pays-the-fine/e9c197c5-7fe5-4060-9286-674b74354777" target="_blank" rel="noopener">9news.com.au</a>.</p> <p>"But somehow in the rubble (they) clearly found the book, which has remained sort of with family possessions ever since."</p> <p>Lucy Winter, the library's community engagement coordinator, is just as surprised by the enthusiasm her quick Facebook post has generated.</p> <p>"Here's something you don't see every day... a copy of Red Deer by Richard Jefferies has been returned to us - a mere 84 years and two weeks overdue!" she wrote.</p> <p>"How wonderful that the book has finally made its way home!"</p> <p><em>Image credits: Earlsdon Carnegie Community Library</em></p>

Books

Placeholder Content Image

Why this man was lucky to ONLY be fined $2300

<p dir="ltr">A man has been slapped with a fine after feeding a wild dingo some biscuits. </p> <p dir="ltr">The 23-year-old was on Fraser Island, about 250km north of Brisbane, and was photographed by a local feeding the dingo - known as wongari in the local Indigenous dialect - back in April. </p> <p dir="ltr">The images were sent to Queensland’s Department of Environment and Sciences (DES) who issued the man a $2,300 fine. </p> <p dir="ltr">“A member of the public told rangers the man was at the front of the vehicle line while he was waiting for the ferry at Hook Point back in April,” DES compliance manager Mike Devery said in a statement.</p> <p dir="ltr">“The person said the man was ‘brazenly’ feeding the wongari, and given his place at the front of the queue, his offending was witnessed by multiple people.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Thankfully, the member of the public was able to take photos of the man as he fed the wongari, and they provided them to rangers.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Mr Devery confirmed that after being questioned, the man admitted to feeding the dingo. </p> <p dir="ltr">“The man told compliance officers that he threw biscuits in the sand to the wongari when he was cleaning out his vehicle.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The man was lucky to be only fined $2,300 as a court can fine a whopping $11,500 for humans feeding the wild animal. </p> <p dir="ltr">With around 400,000 people visiting the island, Mr Devery said the rules were in place to help protect both people and animals. </p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Queensland Department of Environment and Sciences</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

“Overbearing idiots” fined for surfing through Venice’s Grand Canal

<p dir="ltr">Two “overbearing idiots” who were caught surfing through Venice's Grand Canal have been identified and had their boards confiscated.</p> <p dir="ltr">A furious Mayor Luigi Brugnaro shared footage of the pair calling for them to be found and punished for “making a mockery of the city”. </p> <p dir="ltr">“Here are two overbearing idiots who make a mockery of the City,” his translated tweet read.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I ask everyone to help us identify them to punish them even if our weapons are really blunt... we urgently need more powers for the Mayors in terms of public safety!</p> <p dir="ltr">“To those who spot them, I offer a dinner!”</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="it">Ecco due imbecilli prepotenti che si fanno beffa della Città… chiedo a tutti di aiutarci a individuarli per punirli anche se le nostre armi sono davvero spuntate… servono urgentemente più poteri ai Sindaci in tema di sicurezza pubblica!<br />A chi li individua offro una cena! <a href="https://t.co/DV2ONO3hUs">pic.twitter.com/DV2ONO3hUs</a></p> <p>— Luigi Brugnaro (@LuigiBrugnaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/LuigiBrugnaro/status/1559808148843765760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 17, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p dir="ltr">In a later post, the Mayor Brugnaro announced that the pair were caught and fined. </p> <p dir="ltr">“Speaking of the two “heroes” of this morning, we have identified them!” he updated his followers.</p> <p dir="ltr">He did not disclose how much their fine was but thanked everyone for their cooperation on catching the two. </p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Twitter</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Traveller slapped $2,664 fine for sandwich

<p dir="ltr">An Aussie traveller has been slapped a hefty $2,664 fine for failing to declare ingredients in her sandwich. </p> <p dir="ltr">Jessica Lee purchased a footlong Subway sandwich while waiting at Singapore Airport and had half, saving the other half for the flight. </p> <p dir="ltr">The 19-year-old boarded her flight but did not eat the rest of her sandwich. </p> <p dir="ltr">As they neared landing in Perth, passengers were asked to declare items and Jessica did not think to mention her sandwich. </p> <p dir="ltr">Walking through customs, Jessica was then given a $2,664 fine because she failed to declare two ingredients - chicken and lettuce. </p> <p dir="ltr">“Probably will cry. Basically just paid $2,664 for my Subway just from Singapore,” Jessica said in a TikTok video.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It is my mistake but basically I bought a foot long Subway at Singapore airport because I was a hungry girl after my 11-hour flight.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I ate six inches before my second flight and then saved the other six inches for my flight, which they [cabin crew] were more than happy with, they were fine with that.”</p> <p dir="ltr">She said it was an “expensive rookie mistake” and was hit with a double whammy because she quit her job before heading off to Europe. </p> <p dir="ltr">“I am very aware this is my mistake and I do take ownership, I am paying the fine,” she said, urging everyone to not make the same mistake she did. </p> <p dir="ltr">Under the Biosecurity Act, any travellers arriving in Australia are required to declare certain foods, plant material and animal products. </p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Images: TikTok</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Man fined thousands for unsolicited pruning in neighbourly dispute

<p dir="ltr">When one New Zealand man’s quest for extra sunshine in his bedroom saw him turn his neighbour’s line of trees into stumps, he didn’t expect that it would come with an eyewatering fine.</p> <p dir="ltr">The devastated neighbour took the imprudent gardener to small claims court, where it was found the man, referred to as HL, had trespassed on his neighbours property.</p> <p dir="ltr">The recently released Disputes Tribunal decision said HL had “practically removed” seven Ake Ake trees and several Elaegnus shrubs from his neighbours’ property, the <em><a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/man-ordered-to-pay-neighbours-7k-for-cutting-their-trees-without-permission/ZFSMBS3EUKKE7AEMEWQKQCQO4I/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NZ Herald</a></em> reported.</p> <p dir="ltr">HL was ordered to pay his neighbours, referred to as LG and KG, a hefty $NZD 7478 to replace the trees and cover legal costs.</p> <p dir="ltr">The man admitted he cut the trees but claimed he did it after he and LG agreed they needed to be topped, adding that LG had picked the height at which HL should cut.</p> <p dir="ltr">But LG strongly denied the exchange, stating he had only acknowledged that the trees were hanging over HL’s property and needed trimming.</p> <p dir="ltr">“LG said there was a discussion about how they were to do it, that HL had a chainsaw and that LG would help him trim the overhanging branches and pay the tip fees,” the court decision said.</p> <p dir="ltr">Instead, the tribunal found that HL cut the trees and shrubs without the permission of LG and KG, and did so while they were away from their property for about 45 minutes.</p> <p dir="ltr">With HL unable to prove his version of events, the tribunal accepted LG’s evidence that he only discussed trimming back the overhanging branches with HL.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It does not make sense that LG would agree to taking height off the top of the trees, as that would result in a loss of privacy for him and his wife. THe only party who benefitted from the trees being topped was HL.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Photographs were also submitted to the tribunal, which said that it was impossible for the trees to have simply been topped based on the images.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Topping denotes the removal of the top part of the trees, but implies that some, or perhaps most, of the tree is left to grow. The pictures show that in some cases there are only stumps left, while other trees show some longer level of trunk with trimmed branches.</p> <p dir="ltr">“The pictures do not show that the trees have been trimmed, but rather practically removed.”</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-9876db2c-7fff-77d1-15d5-cc49fb0bb326"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

"I'm so angry": Man fumes after threatened with fine for sleeping in his van

<p dir="ltr">A Queensland man has taken to social media to share his fury at the local council after he was issued a move-on directive while sleeping in his van.</p><p dir="ltr">Mark Pemberton shared his story on the Facebook page Van Life Australia, recounting how council workers shone a torch into the window of his van which was parked on a suburban street.</p><p dir="ltr">“I’m so angry,” he wrote.</p><p dir="ltr">“Last night (Tuesday) I parked in a very quiet spot at around 8pm. (Gold Coast) 10.50pm, council came around and knock (sic) on the door.</p><p dir="ltr">“They were very nice, but told me it was a $680 fine for sleeping in the street in a van and I had to move.”</p><p dir="ltr">He then questioned why he had been approached while countless other people who were sleeping rough in Surfers Paradise were left alone by Gold Coast Council workers.</p><p><span id="docs-internal-guid-f1a56598-7fff-40d2-045f-87002713a08f"></span></p><p dir="ltr">“Now the thing is, I live in a unit in Surfers Paradise. I was in the van for various reasons,” he continued.</p><p dir="ltr"><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/02/53992333-10492397-His_Facebook_post_on_the_page_Van_Life_generated_plenty_of_discu-m-1_1644461096527.jpg" alt="" width="634" height="476" /></p><p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Daily Mail Australia</em></p><p dir="ltr">“I see the homeless drunk, swearing, begging and sleeping in the street on a daily basis in the middle of Surfers.</p><p dir="ltr">“I also see a guy who I won’t name, but is semi-famous and walks around in a bikini, sleeps in the street cuddling a teddy.”</p><p dir="ltr">Mr Pemberton questioned why the council thought it was acceptable to let that individual walk around in public in front of kids, when he wasn’t allowed to sleep “down a dark street in a registered vehicle”.</p><p dir="ltr">“This is ridiculous. This is not about an individual, this is about the stupidity of the Council,” he concluded.</p><p dir="ltr">Though his post generated plenty of discussion, it has since been deleted by page administrators.</p><p dir="ltr">The former business executive who once earned a $200,000 salary is now unemployed, with the pandemic and other personal circumstances seeing him “lose everything”.</p><p dir="ltr">“My van is registered and roadworthy and was also legally parked on a street in Paradise Point,” he told <em><a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10492397/How-fined-sleeping-car-Australia.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Daily Mail Australia</a></em>.</p><p dir="ltr">He recalled being almost asleep when two council workers shone a torch into his van.<br />“I explained my situation and I will say they were sympathetic, but I was told I had to move on elsewhere,” he told the publication.</p><p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-db484a14-7fff-7861-ba0b-4bff38319252"></span></p><p dir="ltr">“I understand they are doing their job, but surely the council could focus on other issues at hand?”</p><p dir="ltr"><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/02/217397376_1146034059251748_5444362758567874310_n.jpg" alt="" width="652" height="960" /></p><p dir="ltr"><em>Mark Pemberton was inspired to take up living the van life after his travels through Europe. Image: Herc the Merc (Facebook)</em></p><p dir="ltr">Mr Pemberton said the council should focus on addressing issues such as “homelessness and mental health”, rather than “people minding their own business in a registered van”.</p><p dir="ltr">Having lived out of a van during his previous travels through Europe, Mr Pemberton is convinced it is the lifestyle for him.</p><p dir="ltr">“After my personal dramas, van life was great for mental health,” he said.</p><p dir="ltr">“I understand it isn’t for everyone, but in my eyes it is a great opportunity to see the world differently.”</p><p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-d2975602-7fff-9d1a-883f-ac905eb8c719"></span></p><p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Mark J Pemberton (Facebook)</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

The 3 problems with fines for not reporting positive COVID tests

<p>The NSW government this week decreed that anyone returning a positive COVID-19 reading using a rapid antigen test must report their result (through the Service NSW app or <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/register-positive-rapid-antigen-test-result" target="_blank">website</a>). Failing to do so can result in a $1,000 fine.</p> <p>The new rule came into effect on January 12 (there will be a one-week grace period). In the first 24 hours more than 80,000 people registered positive tests (recorded since January 1). In one sense that’s a lot. But since we have no idea of the total number of tests taken – let alone the number with a positive result – it’s hard to calibrate.</p> <p>The fine threat raises a number of questions, with the first being how will the government know if you test positive and don’t record it? On Wednesday, NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet admitted that it would be a hard law to enforce, <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/massive-surge-spike-in-covid-cases-as-nsw-records-rapid-tests-20220112-p59nq2.html" target="_blank">saying</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>there are obviously areas right across the state where there are laws that are harder to enforce than others, this is clearly one that will be harder to enforce, there’s no doubt about it.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Given this, it’s hard to know what the point of the announced penalty is. Indeed, both the economic theory and behavioural research research suggests it will achieve the opposite of its intention.</p> <p><strong>1. Fines act as a disincentive</strong></p> <p>Economists view these rules through the lens of the field of “contract theory”.</p> <p>Rules create incentives that encourage or discourage certain behaviours. In this case, suppose you test positive. If you self-isolate as result, because that’s the right thing to do even without rules, then truthfully reporting the result is of no consequence to you (as long as it’s easy to do, which it is for most people).</p> <p>But if you wouldn’t isolate, then truthfully reporting the results is of consequence. In NSW you face a $5,000 fine for failing to comply with <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/stay-safe/rules/legislation-penalties" target="_blank">obligations to self-isolate</a> when diagnosed with COVID-19. Your choice is the low probability of a $1,000 fine for not reporting the result or the higher probability of a $5,000 fine for failing to isolate.</p> <p>So there’s an individual disincentive to even taking the test at all – which is, after all, optional for most. This means fewer tests will be taken, the opposite of what authorities want.</p> <p>From the perspective of contract theory, therefore, this $1,000 fine is likely to reduce tests by those who are not willing or not able (perhaps because they have to work for financial reasons) to voluntarily isolate.</p> <p>So you can bet that these folks will be calculating the odds of getting caught. This is the way some people think about parking fines, or thieves think about stealing bicycles. It’s a calculation involving the size of the penalty and the probability of getting caught.</p> <p><strong>2. Fines can turn off good behaviour</strong></p> <p>Some scholars, such as Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel, argue the very act of putting a dollar value on things causes people to think of them in a transactional way. It’s no longer “wrong” to park in a no-standing zone, there’s just a kind of fee for it. In other words, fines can destroy civic virtue.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GvDpYHyBlgc?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>A classic example of this comes from <a rel="noopener" href="https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/fine.pdf" target="_blank">a study</a> by behavioural economists Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini on ways to encourage parents to pick up their children from child-care centres on time.</p> <p>Parents being late meant staff had to stay behind. The study involved some centres introducing fines to deter late pickups. But the fines actually led to more late pickups. Parents no longer felt so guilty. Being on time was no longer a social norm but a transaction. They could pay to disregard the expectation.</p> <p>So, too, it might be with this week’s $1,000 fine rule. In the unlikely event of getting caught, some might see the fine as just “the cost of doing business”.</p> <p><strong>3. Fines can make a mockery of the law</strong></p> <p>A final consideration about the $1,000 fine for failing to report a positive RAT tests concerns the problem of laws that cannot be enforced. The NSW government concede the new rule will hard to police and is mostly about <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-13/sydney-news-rapid-covid-test-fines-hard-to-police-minister-says/100753328" target="_blank">messaging</a>.</p> <p>“If we didn’t put a fine on it then people would say you’re not taking it seriously,” the minister for customer service said. But this is just turning a law into a bit of a joke. Laws being openly “mocked” damage the rule of law itself.</p> <p><strong>Getting rules right</strong></p> <p>These three complementary perspectives all point to the $1,000 fine for failing to report a positive rapid antigen test being a bad idea.</p> <p>It’s good to make it convenient for people to do the right thing (that’s what the Service NSW app does). It’s good to encourage people to do the right thing. It would be really good if there were lots of RATs available (ideally for free or close to it) so people can have the information to empower and protect themselves, their families and their communities.</p> <p>This does none of these things. It’s bad to enact a rule that makes a mockery of the law and likely to be counterproductive.</p> <p><!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-holden-118107" target="_blank">Richard Holden</a>, Professor of Economics, <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-the-3-problems-with-fines-for-not-reporting-positive-covid-tests-174774" target="_blank">original article</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Money & Banking

Placeholder Content Image

High Court decision on $125 million fine for Volkswagen is a warning to all greenwashers

<p>The High Court of Australia has today refused to hear Volkswagen’s appeal against the record A$125 million fine imposed on it for deliberately deceiving regulators and customers about the environmental performance of its cars.</p> <p>The $125 million fine is the largest penalty ever imposed on a company in Australia for misleading consumers. It relates to the so-called “dieselgate” scandal, by which the German car company used secret software to beat emissions standards and tests in multiple countries.</p> <p>This is a significant win for the <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/high-court-denies-volkswagen-leave-to-appeal-125-million-penalty" target="_blank">Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a> in its ongoing battle against “greenwash”, by which companies make false environmental claims to mislead consumers.</p> <p><a rel="noopener" href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1050651919874105" target="_blank">Research shows</a> greenwashing harms the market for environmentally friendly products. Without being able to distinguish between genuine and dubious claims, consumer cynicism about all claims increases.</p> <p>The <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/legislation/provisions/acl18.html" target="_blank">Australian Consumer Law</a> adequately prohibits greenwashing claims through its provisions covering false and misleading practices. But this evidence the consumer watchdog is enforcing these laws, and that the courts are upholding them, will build confidence that environmental claims can be trusted.</p> <p><strong>Background to the ‘dieselgate’ case</strong></p> <p>The ACCC initiated Federal Court proceedings against Volkswagen in September 2016, a year after the US Environmental Protection Agency revealed the car company had used “defeat” software in diesel vehicles since 2009 to produce lower greenhouse gas emissions during “laboratory” tests.</p> <p>This software shut off during road use, meaning the cars performed better, but then produced nitrogen oxide pollution <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772" target="_blank">up to 40 times that permitted</a> by US law.</p> <p><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431640/original/file-20211112-19-bb47po.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="Volkswagen's software ensured cars produced lower nitrogen oxide emissions when being tested." /> <em><span class="caption">Volkswagen’s software ensured cars produced lower nitrogen oxide emissions when being tested.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></em></p> <p>Volkswagen had used its software globally. The ACCC alleged the car maker sold 57,000 cars with these defeat devices in Australia between 2011 and 2015.</p> <p>Volkswagen initially fought the case by the ACCC, but <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/judge-warns-that-vw-fine-will-be-multiples-of-75m-imposed-by-accc-20191016-p531be.html" target="_blank">in 2019 agreed to settle</a> for a fine of $75 million (and $4 million in court costs).</p> <p>When this was taken to the Federal Court for ratification (approval) the judge, Justice Lindsay Foster, rejected the deal as “outrageous”. He called the “agreed statement of facts” about the harm caused “<a rel="noopener" href="https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/outrageous-judge-slams-accc-over-vw-deal-20191016-p5313c" target="_blank">a bunch of weasel words</a>”. In his ruling in <a rel="noopener" href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2019/2166.html" target="_blank">December 2019</a> he doubled the penalty to $125 million.</p> <p>Volkswagen appealed this judgement to the full bench of the Federal Court (the equivalent of a court of appeal), arguing it was manifestly excessive. In its ruling (in April 2021) the full bench disagreed and <a rel="noopener" href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2021/49.html" target="_blank">upheld the A$125 million penalty</a>.</p> <p>This led to Volkswagen appealing to the High Court (Australia’s ultimate court of appeal). Today it refused “special leave” (permission to bring the whole case) to challenge the ruling and the large penalty. Which means the A$125 million fine stands.</p> <p><strong>This sends a strong message</strong></p> <p>This decision will send a very strong message to other manufacturers and sellers of products making environmental claims.</p> <p>The Australian Consumer Law’s provisions against greenwashing are contained in <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/legislation/provisions/acl18.html" target="_blank">Section 18</a> of the act, dealing with misleading or deceptive conduct.</p> <p>As the market for “green products” has expanded over the past few decades, so too has the temptation for unsavoury producers and marketers to make misleading statements.</p> <p>In response, some consumer groups and activists have demanded new laws to prevent greenwash. But <a rel="noopener" href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BondLRev/2012/2.pdf" target="_blank">my research</a> with Marina Nehme (now associate professor of corporate law at UNSW) led us to to the view the existing laws actually cover all the relevant situations.</p> <p>The High Court decision today demonstrates this. There are hundreds of examples of the consumer watchdog successfully pursuing greenwashers, but the size of the fine in this case will stand out and serve to deter others.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><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; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171733/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-adams-18149" target="_blank">Michael Adams</a>, Professor of Corporate Law &amp; Head UNE Law School, <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-new-england-919" target="_blank">University of New England</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/high-court-decision-on-125-million-fine-for-volkswagen-is-a-warning-to-all-greenwashers-171733" target="_blank">original article</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Money & Banking

Placeholder Content Image

Tourists fined for “just having a beer” in Colosseum

<p dir="ltr">Two tourists have received a hefty $1200 fine after breaking into the Colosseum in Rome and having a beer after it was closed.</p> <p dir="ltr">The pair, aged 24 and 25 according to<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/nov/17/us-tourists-fined-800-for-breaking-into-colosseum-for-beer" target="_blank"><em>The Guardian</em></a>, climbed to the second tier of the tourist attraction in the early hours on Monday (local time).</p> <p dir="ltr">They<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/tourist-fined-1200-illegal-act-colosseum-rome-200613025.html" target="_blank">reportedly</a><span> </span>chatted over some beers while the amphitheatre was closed to the public.</p> <p dir="ltr">The American tourists climbed over high railings, walked to the second level, and settled at a spot overlooking the city,<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/tourists-rome-colosseum-beer/index.html" target="_blank"><em>CNN</em></a><span> </span>reported.</p> <p dir="ltr">However, they were spotted by a member of the public at about 5.30 am who alerted the police.</p> <p dir="ltr">They told police they were “just having a beer”, the Italian press reported, but were then fined by police for illegally entering the Colosseum.</p> <p dir="ltr">According to the<span> </span><em>BBC</em>, the pair were fined a total of 800 Euros, or $NZD 1290.</p> <p dir="ltr">But, this isn’t the first time tourists have broken the rules at the Colosseum.</p> <p dir="ltr">In 2015, two California women left their tour group and etched their initials into the structure, an action which is strictly forbidden.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Woman jailed after walking on natural wonder in US national park

<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">A woman has received a jail sentence and hefty fine after walking directly on dangerous thermal features at Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">26-year-old Madeline Casey from Connecticut pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour offence and served seven days in jail. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">"Although a criminal prosecution and jail time may seem harsh, it's better than spending time in a hospital's burn unit," acting US Attorney Bob Murray said.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In July, Madeline and a friend ignored safety signs and left the protective walkway to walk directly on the ground. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">"The ground is fragile and thin and scalding water just below the surface can cause severe or fatal burns.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“More than 20 people have died from burns suffered after they entered or fell into Yellowstone's hot springs," park spokesperson Morgan Warthin said in the statement.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The judge ordered Madeline to pay US$2040 in fines, fees and community service as well as her week-long jail stint. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /></span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">She is also banned from re-entering Yellowstone National Park during her two year probation. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">This incident has prompted park officials to stress the importance of adhering to safety signs through the park. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Madeline is just one of many people who have ignored safety signs at the park and landed themselves in trouble. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">In May last year, a woman was burned after falling into a thermal feature at Yellowstone when it was closed due to the coronavirus pandemic.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">She told park rangers she was moving back to get photos when she fell in the hot thermals. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Two men last year were caught trespassing on the cone of Old Faithful, which is a closed thermal area. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">They were sentenced to 10 days in jail and five years of probation, as well being ordered to pay $738 restitution and banned from the park for five years.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Park Chief Ranger Sarah Davis said, “Visitors must realise that walking on thermal features is dangerous, damages the resource, and illegal."</span></p> <p><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Image credit: Getty Images</span></em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

I thought it was a parking fine!

<p>When a Melbourne mother finished her shopping at her local supermarket and went to her car, she found what looked like a parking fine on her windshield.</p> <p>But when she opened it she found a stranger had left an envelope with $20 and a note inside.</p> <p>“I looked at the parking sign which was 1.5hours and I knew that I was less than an hour,” she posted on the Facebook group - <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/515507852491119">The Kindness Pandemic.</a></p> <p>“I picked up the envelope and looked inside to find the most beautiful act of kindness,” she added.</p> <p>Alongside the $20 note was a message which read: “Times are tough right now.”</p> <p>“Please treat yourself to something small to help with your or your children’s mental health. You’re not alone. Lifeline: 13 11 14.”</p> <p>The mother was touched by this act of kindness and she added to her Facebook post: “Whoever you are out there: you made my day! Thank you #somuchgratitude.”</p> <p>Dozens of others applauded the stranger for their genuine act of kindness with one posting: “angels do walk amongst us.”</p> <p>Another person wrote: “Oh wow, this made me cry! Such a beautiful kind thing to do. Thank you to whoever put the note...this could save someone’s life.”</p> <p><strong>Melbourne COVID lockdown update</strong></p> <p>Melbourne is a little over two weeks into its sixth lockdown, which has been extended until September 2.</p> <p>The city passed the ‘200 days in lockdown’ milestone on Thursday this week.</p> <p><em>Photos: Facebook</em></p>

Caring