Search

Fitness influencer gets lifetime ban from NYC marathon for filming content

A Texas social media influencer has been disqualified and banned from future races at the New York City marathon. Last weekend, fitness influencer Matthew Choi ran the race with his camera crew on e-bikes, endangering other runners. He finished the 42.2-kilometre course with a time of 2:57:15, about 50 minutes behind Abdi Nageeye, the winner of the men's race. Choi issued an apology to his 400,000 followers after receiving the lifetime ban. "I have no excuses, full-stop," he said on Wednesday AEDT. "I was selfish on Sunday to have my brother and my videographer follow me around on e-bikes, and it had serious consequences. "We endangered other runners, we impacted people going for PBs, we blocked people from getting water and with the New York City Marathon being about everyone else and the community, I made it about myself. "And for anyone I impacted, I'm sorry." He added that the decision "was 100 per cent on me" as he did not receive pressure to film content from any partners or sponsors. New York Road Runners, the organisers of the race, said in a statement that Choi's actions violated the code of conduct and competition rules. "One of the incidents brought to NYRR's attention was that Choi ran with the assistance of two unauthorised people riding the course on electric bicycles, obstructing runners," the group said. The fitness influencer posted several videos of him running the marathon on social media, which immediately drew backlash. "As a runner, seeing him was amazing. Gave me extra motivation to pass him and make sure I never had to see him and his dumb crew for the rest of the race," wrote one user on Reddit. He has since acknowledged the criticism and has vowed to stop the practice. "It won't happen again. My word is my bond." Images: Instagram

Travel Trouble

Airline bans couple after racist row over reclined seat

Two travellers have been banned from Cathay Pacific flights after an argument over seat etiquette descended into racist insults. The incident occurred on a flight from Hong Kong to London, with a woman documenting her experience in a video posted on Xiaohongshu, China's version of Instagram. The woman, from mainland China, explained, "The lady sitting behind me asked me to put my seat up because it was blocking her husband's view of the TV. I politely declined, and she started stretching her feet onto my armrest, kicking my arm and cursing at me like crazy." A flight attendant stepped in to find a solution to the issue, but when the woman continued to refuse to put her chair up, the situation only escalated. "When (the female passenger) realised my Cantonese wasn't so great, she started throwing around some nasty comments, calling me a 'Mainland girl' and other derogatory stuff," the woman said, explaining how people from Hong Kong speak mainly Cantonese, whereas mainland Chinese mainly speak Mandarin. "Once I started recording, the husband behind me even shoved his hand on my armrest and started shaking it like crazy. I felt my personal space had been completely violated," added the woman, who said other passengers then intervened. In footage of the incident uploaded by the woman, a female voice can be heard saying in Mandarin: "You're old enough — why are you bullying a young girl?" And others can be heard shouting in Cantonese: "You're embarrassing us Hongkongers!" "After some passengers spoke up for me, the flight attendant finally said I could switch seats. I felt it was absurd—what if no one had backed me up? Would I have just been left to deal with it on my own?" the passenger said. "As a major airline, isn't Cathay supposed to know how to handle such disputes? Shouldn't treating passengers differently get some consequences? In a statement released Saturday, Cathay Pacific said it wanted to "sincerely apologise" for the "unpleasant experience," with the airline saying, "We maintain a zero-tolerance policy for any behaviour that violates aviation safety regulations or disrespects the rights of other customers." "We will deny future travel on any Cathay Group flights to the two customers involved in this incident." Image credits: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

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

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

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

5 times movies were banned for the silliest reasons

Sometimes films are banned for poor taste, extreme themes, or literal pornographic content. Other times, films are banned for ridiculous reasons. These are their stories. 1. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial <a href="http://www.ifc.com/shows/the-spoils-before-dying/blog/2015/06/10-movies-that-were-banned-for-crazy-reasons" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Apparently</a>, the governments of Norway, Finland, and Sweden worried that E.T. film portrays adults in such a bad light that if children were allowed to see it, it would provoke a full-scale revolt. The Swedish Board of Film Censorship banned anyone under the age of 12 from seeing the film in cinemas when it was released. 2. Back to the Future The much loved time travel romp is beloved around the world, not least of all because Michael J Fox is just so damn fun to watch. Unless you’re in China, that is, where any kind of time travel plot is outright banned from the country. 3. The Interview Written by Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg (the same guys who wrote comedy hits Superbad, This Is the End, and Pineapple Express) The Interview was always going to be edgy and hilarious. Little did anyone realise just how much trouble the film would prove to be as it neared release. The film is about a TV talk show host and his producer who are recruited by the US government to travel to North Korea and assassinate Kim Jong-un. Strangely, the North Korean dictator and his government didn’t see the humour in the film’s plot, and had hackers break into Sony’s computer networks. The regime also threatened violence against any American movie theatre screening the film, which worried most theatre chain enough that the film was shunted sideways into an unglamorous video-on-demand release. 4. Wonder Woman Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was the superhero 2017 desperately needed, and the worldwide box office and reviews reflected how joyously she was welcomed in just about every corner of the globe. One notable exception to this was Lebanon, where the film was officially banned by the nation’s government. The reason? Because of the war between the two countries, Lebanon bans its residents from having contact with Israel’s people or products. Star Gal Gadot is Israeli, meaning that the film was a no-show. 5. Beauty and the Beast (2017 version) While there are those of us who could have done without this (perfectly fine) remake, some Disney fans (and professional angry-about-everything-ers) balked when director Bill Condon announced that the film would feature Disney’s first “exclusively gay moment” in a feature film. The news was met with mixed reactions from the LGBTQI community (which we won’t go into here), but with pure venom from some conservatives who believe that this constituted a direct attack on their right to see a young white woman fall in love with a violent beast without being exposed to gayness at the same time. As a result, at least one cinema, in Alabama, refused to screen the film when it was released. Image credit: Getty / Instagram

Movies

Dog lovers rejoice after "greedy" serial puppy farmer handed life ban

A serial puppy offender has faced sentencing over 17 charges of animal cruelty, with both a lifetime ban and thousands of dollars in fees included in her punishment. The 51-year-old woman from Bullsbrook, a northern suburb in Perth, had been breeding sick dogs in squalid conditions while charging their potential new owners thousands of dollars, and has now been banned from owning or breeding any more dogs for the rest of her life. For her cruel actions, the Perth Magistrates Court handed her a “10-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, $25,000 in fines and an 18-month Intensive Supervision Order.” Additionally, the repeat offender - who has been in custody since April 14 after breaching the conditions of her bail - was also ordered to pay $24,279.11 in legal costs, as well as care and treatment costs totalling $18,241.01. The charges were in relation to 23 dogs who were seized from her property in June 2020 - with sought-after breeds including the likes of Maltese, shih-tzus, poodles, and cavalier King Charles spaniels among them. It wasn’t her first offence - instead her fourth - but her most recent was in 2014 when the RSPCA found 50 dogs at her former home, with 12 of the animals “hidden in a bunker three metres underground”. This time around, she had been trying to conceal her crimes. As the court heard in December, she has been moving the dogs between three different Bullbrook addresses in a bid to avoid detection. It was a display of “callous disregard or at least wilful blindness,” Magistrate Janie Gibbs said. RSPCA WA had launched their investigation into her after a member of the public reported their concerns - they had been trying to purchase a puppy through Gumtree, and had grown suspicious when they were informed they couldn’t visit the dog at home. From there, RSPCA WA seized 32 dogs from the woman’s property - of which there were four adult males, 19 adult females, and nine puppies - with the majority of them showing signs of being “underweight, unkempt, or unwell”, and nearly all of them suffering from “ear infections and/or dental disease and … matted, overgrown hair”. Two did not survive, and five of them were pregnant, giving birth to 22 more puppies in the weeks to follow. All have been in the foster care of RSPCA WA while the case went on. As RSPCA WA Executive Manager Animal and Enforcement Operations Hannah Dreaver explained, the woman responsible had been operating a profit-driven business, and had been placing her income well above the welfare of the dogs in her care. “This included using several locations to hide this operation from both authorities and potential puppy buyers,” she added. “All were popular breeds selling for thousands of dollars. These dogs were making her a fortune and she was treating them as nothing more than money-making machines, having litter after litter without proper care. “Please, if you want to get a dog, consider adoption from the RSPCA or another reputable rescue organisation first. If you do decide to buy a puppy, never buy online and never buy sight unseen. “Always meet your new puppy and its mum in the home where it’s being raised.” Images: RSPCA WA

Family & Pets

Florida’s plan to ban ‘period talk’

Politicians in Florida are considering a draft law to strengthen state control over sex education in students. This would ban any lessons in schools teaching students about menstrual cycles before high school. The proposal comes after Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature, backed by Governor Ron DeSantis, passed various laws limiting discussion in schools of gender and sexuality, reducing the emphasis on diversity in public schools across the state. The latest proposal came from Republican Stan McClain which would allow instruction "acquired immune deficiency syndrome, sexually transmitted diseases, or health education” only from sixth grade through to 12, typically children aged 12-18. Girls generally have their first period between the ages of 10 and 15, but some do as young as eight. "Imagine a little girl in fourth grade, going to the bathroom and finding blood in her panties and thinking that she is dying," state representative Ashley Gantt, a Democrat, said in a social media post. "She doesn't actually know what's going on. And her teacher does not even have the ability to tell her that this is a part of life.” However, the bill passed the subcommittee by a 13-to-5 vote. Planned Parenthood said the legislation would take "total control from local school districts in approving sex ed curriculum and give it to the State Department of Education", in turn presenting a "reductive and binary view of sex" and stigmatising LGBTQIA+ students. Critics say conservative legislatures in the USA are trying to impose their own views on others, preventing students from having a well-rounded education. Image credit: Shutterstock

Legal

The one food King Charles just banned from all royal residences

King Charles III has banned a classic French delicacy from his royal residence. The ban comes following animal cruelty concerns, PETA have confirmed. The animal rights group said the King removed "foie gras" which is a traditional delacy made from the fattened liver of a duck or goose. It has been off the royal menu for quite some time now, both at Buckingham Palace and all other residences owned by the royal family. The food product was banned around 2008, while Charles was the Prince of Wales. PETA have more recently confirmed the King has issued a blanket ban on the product which was described as “torture in a tin”. The foie gras ban extends to Balmoral, Sandringham, Windsor Castle, Hillsborough Castle and Buckingham Palace, reports claim. "As Prince of Wales, King Charles removed foie gras – a despicable product for which ducks and geese are force-fed until their livers swell up to 10 times their natural size before the animals are slaughtered – from his royal residences," a PETA spokesperson said. The group made public a letter they received from royal officials confirming the ban. "I can confirm that foie gras is not purchased by the Royal Household nor served in Royal Residences, and there are no plans for this policy to change," the letter reads. The letter was signed by the Master of the King's Household, Tony Johnstone-Burt and dated November 10, 2022. Elisa Allen, PETA's vice president, said she hoped Charles' move would encourage other people to ditch foie gras from their diet. There is a ban on the production of foie gras in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. However, it can be imported and sold within those countries. Images: Getty

Food & Wine

James Corden banned from restaurant over "abusive" behaviour

James Corden has been called out by renowned restaurateur Keith McNally for his “abusive” behaviour in a well-known New York restaurant. The talk show host was reportedly “extremely nasty” to staff, with McNally calling Corden a “tiny cretin of a man” over his actions. In a lengthy Instagram post, McNally recounted instances of Corden behaving inappropriately at his former restaurant, Cafe Luxembourg, on several occasions which left one server “shaken”. He started by calling Corden a “hugely gifted comedian”, before ripping into the Tony winner for his unacceptable restaurant behaviours. He said, “James Corden is a Hugely gifted comedian, but a tiny Cretin of a man. And the most abusive customer to my Balthazar servers since the restaurant opened 25 years ago." "I don't often 86 a customer, to today I 86'd Corden. It did not make me laugh.” In two manager's reports, McNally shared that Corden had demanded free drinks, threatened to leave bad reviews, verbally abused staff and berated restaurant chefs. Corden, a big-time foodie, has not yet responded to the allegations. McNally’s post racked up over 18,000 likes in just six hours, as the comment section was flooded with people condemning Corden’s alleged behaviour. One person said, “One can tell the true character of a person based on how they treat their server.” Another commented, “I’m always astounded (and impressed) by the lengths you and your staff go to appease, what I deem to be, extremely high maintenance (and sometimes unreasonable) clientele.” “I’ve often wondered if there’s a limit to that tolerance and appeasement. I’m really glad to see that there is. No staff should be treated like this, no matter how fine an establishment.” Another called out McNally’s allegations, saying, “Come on Keith, you know this isn’t true. James Corden is NOT a ‘hugely gifted’ comedian.” Image credits: Getty Images

Food & Wine

5 actors who are banned from China

China carefully decides which American movies make their way into Chinese mainstream media. While the Chinese Government is more open to American movies now, there are still a few Hollywood stars who have gotten on the government’s bad side. 1. Brad Pitt Brad Pitt featured in the 1997 film Seven Years in Tibet as the 14th Dalai Lama’s tutor. Due to how the film portrayed the Chinese occupation of Tibet, officials took offense to the movie and decided they would bar the main people involved in the film from China. Pitt was banned from the country for 19 years and was only allowed back in 2016. 2. Richard Gere During the 1993 Academy Awards, Richard Gere made an impromptu speech about the human rights abuses that China had inflicted on Tibet. Gere was presenting the award for best art direction but skipped the pre-arranged comments to highlight the issue in Tibet. The Academy Award producers were furious and vowed to ban Gere from any future awards shows. Chinese officials also banned him from the country. Many major studios won’t cast Gere anymore as they want Chinese distribution to increase their profit. Gere has now focused his career on appearing in independent films and has received great reviews for his performances. 3. Sharon Stone In 2008, Sharon Stone commented on the Sichuan Earthquake at the Cannes Film Festival. Stone said she believed the disaster, which killed 90,000 people, was the result of a bad karma built up by the Chinese for oppressing the Dalai Lama. The Chinese government responded to her remarks by banning all her movies from China. It appears as if she didn’t receive an actual ban herself to enter but it’s most likely she wouldn’t be warmly welcomed. 4. Harrison Ford Harrison Ford has been a long-time advocate for human rights and in 1992 he was involved in Tibetan issues. His wife at the time, Melissa Matheson, worked with Martin Scorsese on the script for film Kundun which focused on the story of the 14th Dalai Lama. Ford had the opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama and he became an advocate for Tibet. In 1995, Ford testified before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the need for Tibetan independence and highlighted all of China’s human rights abuses. Ford and Matheson were banned from the country but he still continues to advocate for Tibet. 5. Miley Cyrus The Disney star turned controversial popstar offended the Chinese government when she took a photo of herself imitating Asians by pulling back the skin around her eyes. The Organisation for Chinese Americans had strong words about the photo and the Chinese Foreign Minister said, “Miss Cyrus has made it clear she is no friend of China or anyone of East Asian descent. We have no interest in further polluting our children's minds with her American ignorance." Cyrus apologised and blamed the press for taking things out of context and attacking her and then later apologised again after her first one was criticised for not being genuine. The ban still remains in place. Image credits: Getty Images

Movies

The countries banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral

Three controversial countries have been banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral. A senior British government source confirmed to CNN that dignitaries from Russia, Belarus and Myanmar would be excluded from Her Majesty's funeral, although a final guest list has not been released. In the case of Russia and Belarus, the source said they have been banned due to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which Belarus has supported. The source also claimed that Myanmar's exclusion is because of the treatment of the Rohingya people. The Palace tradition is to send invitations to state funerals on the advice of the government, after members of the civil and diplomatic services have considered the political implications of inviting certain leaders. Palace protocol also stipulates that the guest list of family events is not released until the day, and has not yet commented on the invitees. Typically, every country that the United Kingdom has normal diplomatic relations with would be invited to a state funeral, such as the one which will be held for the late monarch in London on September 19th. Such nations are usually represented by their political leader, head of state, a senior member of the government or their ambassador to the United Kingdom. A second UK government source also told CNN that up to 500 foreign dignitaries are expected to attend the funeral. The UK has been one of the strongest opponents to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, by enforcing sanctions on Russia and sending aid to Ukraine. As for Myanmar, the UK placed sanctions on military officials and businesses over what it has described as the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim group in the country's majority Buddhist state which has suffered decades of persecution. Image credits: Getty Images

International Travel

"Time to ban viagra": Bette Midler gets fired up

Bette Midler has responded to the US Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v Wade in an equally hilarious and furious reaction. The 76-year-old actress took aim at the justices whose decision allowed individual states to decide whether to make abortion illegal. In a fiery post to social media, she said, "Time to ban Viagra. Because if pregnancy is 'God's will', then so is your limp d**k." The post racked up nearly 250,000 likes amid the huge wave of opposition to the controversial SCOTUS ruling. Midler has been vocal with her criticism of the decision since last week, calling Justice Clarence Thomas an "a**hole" and branding Justice Samuel Alito a "villain". In her first reaction to the news, she wrote, "They did it. THEY DID IT TO US! #SCOTUS has overturned #RoevWade, enshrined in the Constitution as settled law for over 50 years." "How dare they? This #SCOTUS is absolutely tone-deaf to the will and even the actual needs of the American people. #WakeUpAmerica." Bette Midler is far from the only celebrity to weigh in on the devastating decision. Many <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">high-profile women</a>, including former First Lady Michelle Obama, have made moving and poignant statements about the controversial ruling which have garnered international attention. In a post on Instagram, Michelle Obama said, "I am heartbroken that we may now be destined to learn the painful lessons of a time before Roe was made law of the land - a time when women risked their lives getting illegal abortions." "That is what our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers lived through, and now we are here again." Image credits: Getty Images

Body

Vietnam bans Hollywood blockbuster

Hollywood’s big movie release Uncharted has been banned from being shown in Vietnam because it shows China’s nine-dash line map. The film, which stars Antonio Banderas, Mark Wahlberg and Tom Holland, has caused controversy in Vietnam over historical claims. The nine-dash line map shows what islands within the South China Sea that China claims to control including Paracel, Spratly, Shongsha and Pratas. Vietnam and the Philippines express consistent and vocal disagreement about the boundary which they say is illegal and endangers the sovereignty of multiple nations with economic zones within the South China Sea. Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei also oppose the nine-dash-line claim but aren’t as vocal about it. “The film was banned from distribution after we watched it and found it contained an illegal image of the infamous nine-dash line,” Vi Kien Thanh, the head of the Department of Cinema told state-run Vietnam News Agency. Image: YouTube

Movies

Why banning men from leaving Ukraine violates their human rights

As Ukraine scrambles to defend itself from Russia’s illegal invasion, men aged 18 to 60 have been <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-24-22-intl/h_4309a4916d57670f85519210a07fb2c9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">banned</a> from leaving the country. The declaration of <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/martial-law-in-ukraine-what-you-need-to-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener">martial law</a> in Ukraine gives the government power to enact this ban, but it is not in keeping with human rights or humanitarian norms. So, what is actually happening in Ukraine and what does the law say? What the Ukrainian government says When Russia invaded last month, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called on Ukrainian civilians to defend their country. As the Ukrainian interior ministry also <a href="https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220225-thousands-of-ukrainians-sign-up-to-fight-for-their-country-as-russia-invasion-continues" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> on Telegram: <blockquote> Today is the moment when every Ukrainian who can protect his home must take up arms. Not just to help our soldiers, but to cleanse Ukraine of the enemy once and for all. </blockquote> But if you are a man between 18 and 60, this call to arms may seem more like a compulsory requirement. As Ukraine’s border guard service <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3ng45/males-banned-from-leaving-ukraine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">explains</a>, the ban on adult men leaving is aimed at guaranteeing “Ukraine’s defence and the organisation of timely mobilisation’”. What does self-defence look like? Given the illegality of Russia’s invasion, Ukraine is entitled to defend itself under the <a href="https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener">United Nations Charter</a>. Of course, a country will rely on all available military resources to exercise this right of self-defence. Ukraine already has a sizeable <a href="https://en.as.com/en/2022/02/27/latest_news/1645988584_607115.html#:%7E:text=Ukraine%20has%20a%20sizeable%20force,and%20paramilitary%20forces%20are%20included." target="_blank" rel="noopener">army</a>, with 200,000 active personnel and 300,000 reservists, as well as paramilitary forces who are now being mobilised under the general mobilisation decree. But Ukraine’s military resources pale in comparison to Russia’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-01/russian-military-remade-itself-modern-deadly-fighting-machine/100868776" target="_blank" rel="noopener">modern, professional</a> army built up through <a href="https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/russias-military-spending-frequently-asked-questions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">massive investment</a> over the past decade. It has about 900,000 active personnel and about two million reservists. Given the obvious <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/25/infographic-military-capabilities-of-russia-and-ukraine-interactive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">imbalance</a>, it is not surprising Ukraine is now desperate to mobilise every eligible individual. But there is an important distinction between people who are conscripted into military service and people who are banned from leaving, but not then formally mobilised or equipped to fight. Conscientious objection With their country facing armed attack by a major military power with the aim of <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/putin-calls-on-ukraine-military-to-overthrow-government-agree-peace-deal/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overthrowing their government</a>, some Ukrainians have felt compelled to stay and potentially fight. Some have enlisted in the wake of Russia’s invasion. These brand new soldiers have been called both <a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/02/26/ukraine-russia-invasion-conscription/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">conscripts</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/ukrainian-volunteers-united-front-against-russia-invasion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">volunteers</a>. Others have felt compelled to leave. The very nature of the conflict puts civilians at risk - it is playing out in densely populated cities, through shelling and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60585603" target="_blank" rel="noopener">aerial bombardment</a>. Already more than <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2022/3/62206a824/news-comment-1-million-refugees-fled-ukraine-week.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one million people</a> have fled. However, for men aged 18 to 60, the ban on leaving Ukraine means they have no choice to flee the attack and the risks they face as civilians in the theatre of war. A New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/01/podcasts/the-daily/ukraine-russia-kyiv-civilian-military.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">podcast</a> tells the story of an animator named Tyhran, who unsuccessfully tried to cross the border into Poland. <blockquote> I can’t imagine myself doing military stuff […] I have no experience in it. I’m afraid of holding a gun […] I cannot imagine myself holding a gun. </blockquote> Tyhran says he was shamed at the border by guards and others seeking to cross, but may try again to cross illegally. <blockquote> They are bombing and people are dying. Everyone is running […] They are not going to stop. They just want to destroy. </blockquote> Meanwhile, there are <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-03-03/lgbt-ukrainians-are-terrified-of-a-life-under-russia-where-homophobia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> LGBTQI+ Ukrainians are terrified of being targeted, given Russia’s <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/12/12/no-support/russias-gay-propaganda-law-imperils-lgbt-youth" target="_blank" rel="noopener">program</a> of <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/article/dismantling-lgbt-rights-means-control-russia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discrimination</a> against gay and transgender people in Russia. What international law says The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/ConscientiousObjection.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">guarantees</a> freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. Although it does not specifically guarantee a right to conscientious objection to military service, the UN Human Rights Committee has <a href="https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4&Lang=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confirmed</a> this right derives from the protection under the convention. This means that if a person’s conscience, religion or beliefs conflict with an obligation to use lethal force against other people, their right to conscientious objection to military service must be protected. Some human rights <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1323238X.2021.1995123?journalCode=rjhu20#.YfsmG3scCLA.twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">can be suspended or limited</a> during a public emergency. But the right to freedom of conscience is specifically <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-thought-conscience-and-religion-or-belief#can-the-right-to-freedom-of-thought-conscience-and-religion-or-belief-be-limited" target="_blank" rel="noopener">excluded</a> from this category. What should Ukraine do? The government of Ukraine should cancel its ban on men leaving the country. To maintain it will violate the freedom of conscience of any man who wishes to flee due to a conscientious objection to killing others. In relation to LGBTQI+ people, the ban could also be regarded as preventing people with a well founded fear of persecution from fleeing to seek <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/3b66c2aa10" target="_blank" rel="noopener">refuge</a> outside Ukraine. More broadly, repealing the departure ban would protect Ukraine from allegations it is failing to <a href="https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/protected-persons/civilians/overview-civilians-protected.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">protect civilians</a>, as required by international humanitarian law. It is one thing to conscript men into military service, providing training and appropriate equipment (although, even in that case, a right to conscientious objection must be respected). It is another thing entirely to prevent civilians from escaping a war zone. The international context Ukraine must also consider how its actions reflect on parallel efforts to hold Russia accountable for its illegal aggression and potential violations of human rights. For example, Ukraine has requested the <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/182" target="_blank" rel="noopener">International Court of Justice</a> to intervene with the international law equivalent of an injunction against Russia. Ukraine alleges Russia is using false accusations of genocide to justify an illegal invasion that is, in turn, inflicting human rights violations on the people of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor has initiated an investigation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The prosecutor has identified a reasonable basis to believe that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/06/leave-no-stone-unturned-how-investigators-gather-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-ukraine" target="_blank" rel="noopener">alleged war crimes</a> and crimes against humanity are underway in Ukraine. In this context, Ukraine must remain mindful of the legality of its own practice. The ban on men leaving Ukraine ought to be lifted, because it is legally and ethically wrong to force civilians to stay in harm’s way when they have the opportunity and desire to escape.<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/178411/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amy Maguire</a>, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of Newcastle</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-banning-men-from-leaving-ukraine-violates-their-human-rights-178411" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

E-cigarettes are less effective at helping smokers to quit

<div><div class="copy">Sales of <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/society/twelve-myths-about-e-cigarettes/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">e-cigarettes</a> – particularly those with high nicotine content, similar to traditional cigarettes – skyrocketed in the US in 2017. Proponents of e-cigarettes say this jump in sales should lead to a jump in those quitting smoking, pointing to some clinical trials as evidence of this.Unfortunately, this didn’t work out in practice. According to a new <a href="https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056901" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">paper</a> in BMJ Tobacco Control, e-cigarettes were linked to lower success rates for those who tried to quit smoking, and they weren’t any better at preventing relapses.The study examines data from a US national long-term study on smoking. The researchers looked specifically at data from 2017-2019, on 3,578 established smokers who’d recently tried to quit and 1,323 recent former smokers.“We found little evidence that smokers took part in the 2017 surge in e-cigarette sales, which was associated with the introduction of the high-nicotine JUUL e-cigarette,” says co-author Professor John Pierce, a researcher at UC San Diego and UC San Diego Moores Cancer Centre, US.“This is the first survey in which e-cigarettes were less popular as a smoking cessation aid than FDA-approved pharmaceutical aids. Not only were e-cigarettes not as popular, but they were associated with less successful quitting.”In 2017, over 12% of recent quitters reported using e-cigarettes to quit – either by themselves or with other aids. About 2.5% used other tobacco products, and 21% used pharmaceutical aids or <a href="https://www.cancer.org/healthy/stay-away-from-tobacco/guide-quitting-smoking/nicotine-replacement-therapy.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nicotine</a><a href="https://www.cancer.org/healthy/stay-away-from-tobacco/guide-quitting-smoking/nicotine-replacement-therapy.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> replacement therapy</a>. Almost two-thirds of respondents (64%) didn’t use anything.By 2019, those who had used e-cigarettes were less likely to have successfully quit than those who’d gone cold-turkey – 10% versus 19%. In this study, “successful quitting” was defined as having gone 12 months without using tobacco products.However, the number of respondents who were using or planning to use e-cigarettes to quit had nearly doubled – to 22% of all respondents.The researchers stress that their study is observational – this data can’t show that e-cigarettes are the cause for these failed quitting attempts. But they do point out that their real-world data sits in contrast to other randomised clinical trials, which tend to slightly favour e-cigarettes over other quitting methods.“RCTs [randomised clinical trials] are usually conducted under optimal conditions, which means that they may not translate to the effectiveness of the product in community settings,” point out the authors in their paper.Image credits: Getty Images <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="height: 1px!important;width: 1px!important;border: 0!important" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=181614&title=E-cigarettes+are+less+effective+at+helping+smokers+to+quit" width="1" height="1" data-spai-target="src" data-spai-orig="" data-spai-exclude="nocdn" /> </div><div id="contributors">This article was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/body-and-mind/e-cigarettes-us-study-less-effective/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Ellen Phiddian. </div></div>

Mind

Health experts call for government ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products

Image: Getty Australia’s state governments must set an end date for the sale of cigarettes through retailers including supermarkets, according to public health experts. In an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday, researchers from the University of Queensland said anti-smoking measures such as plain-packaging laws and health warnings were no longer enough, insisting Australia now needed to address the supply side of tobacco consumption. The researchers said a product as harmful as cigarettes should not be available for purchase in supermarkets. “Despite tobacco’s legal status, it fails to meet consumer safety standards,” the authors wrote. “Consumer and drug regulatory systems would prohibit the sale of cigarettes as a new consumer product today. “Governments should set target end dates for tobacco sales and support retailers to transition to a smoke‐free society.” Lead author of the article and tobacco health expert Coral Gartner said Australia’s state governments were falling behind the general public in anti-smoking sentiment. “Most international governments, including Australia, are lagging behind the significant public support for ending tobacco retailing,” Dr Gartner said. “Research shows half of all adults in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and Hong Kong want tobacco sales phased out.” Last November, the Netherlands passed laws preventing supermarkets from selling cigarettes from 2024 and in April, the New Zealand government proposed several new measures that would significantly reduce the number of tobacco retail outlets. Dr Gartner said that setting a specific date for when the sale of cigarettes would end in Australian would provide tobacco retailers with certainty and assistance in future planning, make it easier for people to quit smoking, and assist the government to plan for reductions in tobacco tax revenue.

Caring

"Doctor" banned after claims he can reverse autism

A health practitioner in Sydney's eastern suburb has been permanently banned for prescribing medication that he believed could reverse autism. Bondi-based Rama Prasad prescribed pills that contained elevated levels of mercury, lead and arsenic to a three-year-old, which quantities are unacceptable by Australian standards. The Health Care Complaints Commission has found there was no evidence for this treatment. It's also said that he has misrepresented being a doctor as a "non-health practitioner". Mr Prasad provided the "care" to the toddler without the necessary qualifications, and prescribed Ayurvedic medicine for his own financial gain without disclosing his motives. Ayurveda is a pseudoscientific alternative medical system with roots in India. "Sadly, this is not uncommon, there are a lot of these types of quack practitioners out there that are really preying of families, particularly of young children who have just been diagnosed with autism," Nicole Rogerson, CEO of Autism Awareness Australia said. The Commission has deemed that Mr Prasad "poses a risk to the health and safety of members of the public". Mr Prasad has now "permanently prohibited from providing, or causing to be provided, any health services, either in paid employment or voluntarily, to any member of the public". Image credits: Nine News

Legal

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Fitness influencer gets lifetime ban from NYC marathon for filming content

Airline bans couple after racist row over reclined seat

Woman banned for life from airline for bizarre reason

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

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

5 times movies were banned for the silliest reasons

Dog lovers rejoice after "greedy" serial puppy farmer handed life ban

Florida’s plan to ban ‘period talk’

The one food King Charles just banned from all royal residences

James Corden banned from restaurant over "abusive" behaviour

5 actors who are banned from China

The countries banned from attending Queen Elizabeth's funeral

"Time to ban viagra": Bette Midler gets fired up

Vietnam bans Hollywood blockbuster

Why banning men from leaving Ukraine violates their human rights

E-cigarettes are less effective at helping smokers to quit

Health experts call for government ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products

"Doctor" banned after claims he can reverse autism