Search

"20 years to life": Bali's brutal new law

Major changers are coming into effect for foreigners in Bali. Indonesia's Department of Immigration has doubled down on its zero-tolerance approach to unruly tourists, as those found in breach of immigration laws or have overstayed their visas could be sentenced to life behind bars. Crimes that were previously punishable with sentences from six months to one year in prison are increasing to jail-time of up to 20 years, according to The Bali Sun. “Indonesia is a country that upholds the tourism sector, but comfort must be accompanied by order. We want foreign nationals who come to Indonesia to understand and follow the rules and norms that apply in this country,” Director General of Immigration Law and Human Rights Silmy Karim said, according to local newspaper Nusa Bali. “We also try to ensure that those who come are quality tourists, through strengthening intelligence co-operation and information exchange with other countries.” There will also be an increase in immigration checkpoint officers, patrol officers and investigators, and more mobile taskforces. The rules won't affect tourists who apply for temporary visas on arrival and leave with in the mandated 30-day period or extend their visa and leave within 60 days. The Indonesian government has recently cracked down on foreigners overstaying their welcome, deporting more than 400 people this year alone for violating immigration laws. Just last year, a dozen Australians were among more than 200 foreigners kicked out of Bali for abusing the visa system by doing illegal business or working in Bali. This follows the introduction of the tourist tax and the release of their tourist dos and don'ts list, as they attempt to monitor foreigners' activities. Image: AsiaTravel / Shutterstock.com

Legal

200-year-old message in a bottle unearthed

In a discovery that has the archaeology world buzzing (and possibly rolling its ancient eyes), a team of student volunteers in northern France has unearthed something rather unexpected during their dig at a Gaulish village. While they were hoping for the usual – ancient pottery shards, perhaps a coin or two – they instead stumbled upon what can only be described as the 19th-century equivalent of a DM in a bottle. The scene played out like a low-budget historical drama: volunteers painstakingly sifting through centuries-old dirt on the cliff-tops near Dieppe when, voilà! They found an earthenware pot containing a small glass vial, like something you might see in a vintage pharmacy, but with fewer essential oils and more existential surprises. Guillaume Blondel, the team leader and head of the archaeological service for the nearby town of Eu, was immediately intrigued. “It was the kind of vial that women used to wear around their necks containing smelling salts,” he explained, before casually dropping the bombshell: inside the vial was a note. Cue dramatic music. After what we can only assume was a long, suspenseful pause, Blondel and his team opened the note, which turned out to be written by none other than P.J. Féret, a 19th-century intellectual who clearly had a flair for both excavation and theatrics. The note, written with all the panache of a man who had just unearthed Caesar’s salad fork, read: "P.J. Féret, a native of Dieppe, member of various intellectual societies, carried out excavations here in January 1825. He continues his investigations in this vast area known as the Cité de Limes or Caesar’s Camp." Naturally, Blondel was floored. “It was an absolutely magic moment,” he said, no doubt imagining Féret winking at him from the beyond. “We knew there had been excavations here in the past, but to find this message from 200 years ago? It was a total surprise.” Local records confirm that P.J. Féret was indeed the real deal. He wasn’t just a dabbler in dirt – he was a notable dabbler in dirt who had conducted an earlier dig at the site in 1825. In a stroke of irony not lost on Blondel, he mused, “Most archaeologists prefer to think that there won’t be anyone coming after them because they’ve done all the work.” Féret, however, clearly believed in leaving a trail of breadcrumbs – or, in this case, a literal note in a bottle, just to remind future archaeologists that he got there first. Féret: 1, Modern Archaeology: 0. Of course, this whole affair raises some important questions: Did Féret expect someone to find this? Did he laugh to himself as he buried it, imagining Blondel’s reaction? Did Féret know how cliff erosion would eventually turn his humble Gaulish village into a treasure trove for future archaeologists? Or was he simply trolling them from the past? Whatever the case, Féret’s note may not have contained ancient secrets, but it certainly delivered some 19th-century sass. And if we’ve learned anything from this dig, it’s this: archaeology isn’t just about discovering the past – it’s also about being occasionally roasted by it. As Blondel and his team continue their emergency dig (which was ordered due to cliff erosion eating away at the site like a bad buffet), they’ve already uncovered a number of artefacts, mostly pottery, from around 2,000 years ago. But will any of them have the audacity to leave a note for the archaeologists of 2225? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, Féret is probably laughing somewhere in the afterlife, shaking his head and muttering, “Amateurs”. Images: Guillaume Blondel / Facebook

International Travel

Woman “bullied” on plane over budget seating trick

A young woman has recalled a flight from hell when she was “bullied” by a couple who were trying to utilise a seating hack that went viral on TikTok. The solo traveller took to Reddit to recount the story and ask social media users if she was in the wrong for her action. The woman began by saying she usually pays more to select her plane seat ahead of time, but a medical emergency on another plane had her waiting on standby and left with no option other than to sit in a middle seat. When she was finally able to board, she was greeted by a couple who had purchased both the window and aisle seats in a bid to have more space, utilising a travel “trick” that has been popular on TikTok. The method, which has been dubbed the 'poor man's business class', usually leaves travellers with an empty middle seat and more space, and few travellers opt to pick a middle seat. “When I got to my row the man and woman were chatting and sharing a snack... it was obvious they were together. I mentioned to the man that I'm in the middle, and he got up to let me in,” the unsuspecting traveller wrote on Reddit. “I asked them if they would prefer to sit together, I said I was totally okay with that. The woman reacted rudely to this and said ‘you're not supposed to be sitting here anyway’.” After noticing how the plane was full, she offered to show the pair her new ticket with the correct seat number on it. “She flicked her hand at my ticket and made a disgusted sound. I offered again if they wanted to sit together to which she didn't reply, her partner said it's okay and... made some small talk,” she continued. The man’s girlfriend then interrupted their conversation to ask,”'Did you use one of those third party websites to book your flight? It's so frustrating when people cheap out to inconvenience others.” The American woman explained that she had booked her flight directly and she had been placed on standby like everyone else and didn't choose the middle seat - she was assigned it. She then tried to keep the peace by refusing to engage with the furious woman. “I was so done with her attitude, I put my headphones on and attempted to do my own thing,” she explained. But the “entitled” girlfriend wasn't letting it go, as the woman explained, “This woman kept reaching over me and tapping her partner and trying to talk to him in a way that was super intrusive.” “I could tell even her partner was trying to engage her less so that she would hopefully stop, but she didn't.” “I think they tried to pull that tactic where they don't sit together on purpose...hoping no one will sit between them. But on full flights it doesn't work. And even so - it's not the other person's fault.” The traveller's post was met with hundreds of comments slamming the girlfriend’s behaviour, as one person wrote, “It's like a toddler having a tantrum.” “She was disappointed and a total a**hole. Gross entitled people,” another added. Another person applauded the traveller’s level-headed behaviour, writing, “Wow! You are my hero for keeping it classy - I’m afraid I would not have been as kind as you.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

“Don’t marry him”: Bride-to-be shares wild altercation with her future in-laws over her wedding dress

A woman has been told to “run” from her fiancé after sharing a wild conversation she had with her future in-laws about her wedding dress. The bride-to-be shared that ever since she was a child, she wanted to wear her mother’s wedding dress on her own big day. However, the woman was then confronted by her soon-to-be in-laws, with drama ensuing over her wedding dress. Taking to Reddit’s “Am I The A**hole?” page, the woman explained, "My mother's wedding dress has been passed down for generations and I remember being a little girl dreaming of walking down the aisle in it." Despite her wishes to wear the family heirloom on her big day, she said things went south at a dinner at her sister-in-law’s (SIL) house when she "tapped her spoon against the glass and said that she had to make a toast." "She then said she would be right back before going into another room and returning with a large plastic bag," the bride continues. "Everyone seemed to be excited but I just felt confused." As she "awkwardly smiled", her SIL opened the bag to reveal her wedding dress from her wedding two years earlier as her in-laws began clapping, as her future sister-in-law announced she wanted the bride to wear her dress at her upcoming nuptials. "I tried to smile but I guess I didn't do a good job of hiding my disappointment and everyone began asking me what was wrong," the bride-to-be continues, adding that she tried to explain that she wanted to wear her mother's wedding dress. At this point, her SIL began to cry and her in-laws began berating her, causing the bride to burst into tears and run outside. "My fiancé didn't even come after me and after crying my eyes out on the steps for what felt like hours, he finally came outside and yelled at me to get into the car," she says. Confused, she got into the car only for her fiancé to berate her for making "such a big scene" leaving him feeling "embarrassed in front of his family." "He sounds so mad and he even said he couldn't believe he chose to marry such a 'bitchy c--t' (his exact words)." The woman tried to explain how important it was to her to wear her mother's dress and that she had already promised her mother she would be wearing it on her big day. "I felt like my fiancé's family planned this and put me on the spot thinking I wouldn't stand up for myself and just agree to wear SIL's dress," she continues. "I don't think I did anything wrong but a part of me thinks I should have just gone along with it and then told SIL in private that I wouldn't be wearing the dress." Hundreds of people were quick to comment on her post, suggesting that she “run” not only from her in-laws, but from her partner as well. "Ma'am you need to leave that whole family behind including your fiancé," one said. "You just had a peek into your future if you carry on with this relationship." "Don't you dare marry that man!!!" another said. "The problem doesn't exist as the wedding shouldn't be happening anymore," another added. One Redditor suggested she "be thankful that he is showing you who he really is before you marry him." "You have just had a glimpse of what your future is going to look like if you go through with your wedding." Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

A woman has gone head-to-head with her mother-in-law over the name she has chosen for her unborn child. The pregnant woman took to Reddit to share her unusual predicament, explaining how her mother-in-law has demanded she change the name of her baby. The soon-to-be mum shared how she recently had dinner with her husband’s family, where she decided to reveal the baby’s gender and name. She had been keeping the information secret, but with only a few weeks of her pregnancy left, she decided to share the happy news that she was having a baby boy and had chosen the name Shawn for her son. But not everyone shared her happiness over the moniker, as her mother-in-law went pale with shock and demanded she choose a new name. “My in-laws got quiet for a moment before asking if there were other options we'd considered. Apparently, Shawn is the name of my 17-year-old sister-in-law Ashley's former bully who tormented her [for years],” the pregnant woman explained on Reddit. While she empathised with her in-laws, she didn’t want to change the name as it was the only one her and her husband agreed on for their son. She also explained that she hadn’t known about the family connection when they picked the name, and hadn’t picked it out of any malicious intent. “We took forever to pick a name,” she said. “Shawn is the only one we could agree on.” The dinner party soon ended after the argument began, but the mother-in-law didn’t back down, sending the expecting mum demanding messages. “She texted me and my husband again to ask us to find a new name for Ashley's sake.” “Would I be the a**hole for not wanting to change it? We were only able to agree on it a few weeks ago.” Commenters were torn over the subject, with many rushing to the pregnant woman’s defence, saying she can pick whatever name she wants for her son. “My spouse and sibling have the same name. Somehow, you just compartmentalise it,” one shared. “I feel like if a new baby in my family shared a name with my bully I'd just adapt,” another wrote. “After all, Shawn is a VERY common name, so I can't freak out every time I hear it and survive in this world.” However, a select few sided with the mother-in-law, sharing how stunned they were that the couple couldn't find enough compassion to pick another name. One person said, “I understand the difficulty of finding a name that feels right, but for me, after learning this, Shawn would quickly become another name that didn't work. It's only been decided on it for a few weeks so I'd just go back to the drawing board.” Image credits: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gemma-horton-1515949">Gemma Horton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> From court cases to conspiracy theories, the royal family’s right to privacy is, somewhat ironically, nearly always in the spotlight. The latest focus is Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, whose whereabouts have been the subject of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a60008117/kate-middleton-health-speculation-conspiracy-theories-online/">online speculation</a> after it was announced she was undergoing abdominal surgery and would be away from public duties until after Easter. This comes just weeks after King Charles <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68208157">revealed that he is undergoing treatment for cancer</a>, and a legal settlement between Prince Harry and Mirror Group Newspapers over <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68249009">illegal phone hacking</a>. Interest in the personal lives of the royals and other celebrities <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193">is a constant</a>, driving newspaper sales and online clicks for decades. You only needs to consider the media frenzy that followed Princess Diana to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2013.833678">see this</a>, and its potentially devastating consequences. From a legal perspective, the British courts have ruled that everyone – the royal family included – is entitled to a right to privacy. The Human Rights Act incorporates into British law the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights. This includes article 8, which focuses on the right to privacy. In the years after the Human Rights Act came into force, courts ruled on a string of cases from celebrities claiming that the press invaded their privacy. Courts had to balance article 8 of the convention against article 10, the right to freedom of expression. Rulings repeatedly stated that, despite being in and sometimes seeking the limelight, celebrities should still be afforded a right to privacy. Some disagree with this position, such as prominent journalist <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-hacking-piers-morgan-b2336442.html">Piers Morgan, who has criticised</a> the Duke and Duchess of Sussex asking for privacy when they have also released a Netflix documentary, a broadcast interview with Oprah Winfrey and published a memoir. But the courts have made the position clear, as in the case concerning Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas after Hello! Magazine published unauthorised photographs from their wedding. The <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/190559/3/Final%20Edited%20Version%20-%20Celebrity%20Privacy%20and%20Celebrity%20Journalism-%20Has%20anything%20changed%20since%20the%20Leveson%20Inquiry_.pdf">court stated</a> that: “To hold that those who have sought any publicity lose all protection would be to repeal article 8’s application to very many of those who are likely to need it.” There is no universal definition of privacy, but scholars have identified key concepts encompassing what privacy can entail. In my own research, I have argued that the <a href="https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/190559/3/Final%20Edited%20Version%20-%20Celebrity%20Privacy%20and%20Celebrity%20Journalism-%20Has%20anything%20changed%20since%20the%20Leveson%20Inquiry_.pdf">notion of choice</a> is one of these. Privacy allows us to control the spread of information about ourselves and disclose information to whom we want. <h2>Privacy and the public interest</h2> There are exceptions to these protections if the person involved had no reasonable expectation of privacy, or if it was in the public interest for this information to be revealed. There is no solid, legal definition of the “public interest”, so this is decided on a case-by-case basis. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2021.1889866">In the past</a>, the public interest defence has been applied because a public figure or official has acted hypocritically and the courts have stated there is a right for a publisher to set the record straight. When it comes to medical records and information concerning health, case law and journalistic <a href="https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/">editorial codes of conduct</a> are clear that this information is afforded the utmost protection. Model Naomi Campbell was pictured leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and these images were published by the Daily Mirror. The court found that there had been a public interest in revealing the fact she was attending these meetings, as she had previously denied substance abuse. The House of Lords accepted that there was a public interest in the press “setting the record straight”. Nonetheless, the publication of additional, confidential details, and the photographs of her leaving the meeting were a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/06/mirror.pressandpublishing1">step too far</a>. The House of Lords highlighted the importance of being able to keep medical records and information private. <h2>Royal health</h2> When it comes to the royals, the history of <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a23798094/lindo-wing-st-marys-hospital-facts-photos/">publicity</a> around royal births, often posing with the newborn royal baby outside of the hospital, has set a precedent for what the public can expect about the royals’ medical information. When they choose to go against this tradition, it can frustrate both royal-watchers and publishers. King Charles made the choice to openly speak about his enlarged prostate to “assist public understanding”. And, as Prostate Cancer UK noted, this has worked – they noted a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-charles-cancer-statement-treatment-b2494190.html">500% increase in people visiting their website</a>. However, he has chosen to not to divulge information about his cancer diagnosis beyond the fact that he is receiving treatment. This is his right. While revealing further information might stop speculation and rumours about his health, it is not the king’s duty to divulge private, medical information. However, if his health begins to impact his ability to act as monarch, the situation could change. It might be that the press finds more information about his health without his knowledge, but unless they have a genuine public interest in publishing this information, privacy should prevail. You would no doubt want your private medical information kept secret, not shared around your workplace and speculated on unless it was absolutely necessary. It is thanks to these laws and court precedent that you don’t have to worry about this. The royal family, regardless of their position, should expect the same standard. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gemma-horton-1515949">Gemma Horton</a>, Impact Fellow for Centre for Freedom of the Media, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sheffield-1147">University of Sheffield</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-the-royal-family-have-a-right-to-privacy-what-the-law-says-224881">original article</a>.

Legal

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

A woman has asked for advice on how to navigate her relationship with her sister-in-law, after the woman overheard an inappropriate conversation at her child’s funeral. The grieving mother, a 28-year-old named Melissa, took to Reddit to share the heartbreaking story of how her toddler passed away after a battle with cancer. Melissa described the time as the “hardest in my life”, explaining how she felt she lost “a part of herself” after the funeral. While Melissa expected her toddlers’ memorial service to be difficult, she never predicted a family member would make it even harder. The mother said that when she heard her sister-in-law telling people about her pregnancy, she thought the move was just cruel. “She didn't make a big announcement but more than ten people at the service 'heard' and it's what everyone was talking about. To understate it, I was livid,” Melissa wrote on Reddit. Melissa’s post then asked social media users for advice, as she was unsure how much of a relationship she wanted to have with her sister-in-law after the stunt. The 28-year-old shared that she had fallen pregnant herself, and was facing pressure to have a party in celebration, but she didn’t want her whole family in attendance. “I've been working on who I want to invite, and I really don't want my SIL there,” she said. “Besides what she did, she's a vindictive and mean person and I cannot stand her.” “I mentioned it to my husband and he says he couldn't care less whether she's there or not. But for the sake of saving face, I want opinions before I do this.” She asked the online forum if she would be “an a**hole” for not inviting her, addin that she would still be inviting her husband's other sister and husband's brother's wife. “The original SIL will be the only one not invited,” she clarified. The post was flooded with comments as many backed up Melissa, slamming the sister-in-law for her selfish behaviour. “I wouldn't want someone like that around me. Announcing a pregnancy at a child's funeral is insane,” one said. “Cut her off and ignore everyone close to her. You are right to have nothing to do with her. She's totally classless.” However, others encouraged her to have an adult conversation with her sister-in-law in an attempt to mend their relationship. “Please let it go,” one person began. “This happened on a terrible day during a bad time for you. It's possible that could be clouding how you're looking at this, she may not have been malicious at all.” 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

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

Warning: This story contains graphic content. Mariska Hargitay, who plays Olivia Benson, a character that investigate rapists on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, has revealed that she too is a victim of sexual assault. The actress opened up about her traumatic past in a powerful essay written for <a href="https://people.com/mariska-hargitay-experience-rape-renewal-reckoning-8424247" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People Magazine</a>, where she revealed that she was raped by “a friend" when she was in her thirties. "A man raped me in my thirties," she bravely revealed in the essay. "It wasn’t sexual at all. It was dominance and control. Overpowering control." The actress revealed that he was a friend who "made a unilateral decision" and recalled the fear she felt when the incident occurred. "He grabbed me by the arms and held me down. I was terrified," she said. "I didn’t want it to escalate to violence. I now know it was already sexual violence, but I was afraid he would become physically violent. "I went into freeze mode, a common trauma response when there is no option to escape. I checked out of my body," she recalled. Hargitay, who is the daughter of the late actress Jane Mansfield, said that she never thought of herself as a "survivor", and often "minimised" what happened to her when she talked about it with others. "My husband Peter remembers me saying, “I mean, it wasn’t rape," she wrote. "Then things started shifting in me, and I began talking about it more in earnest with those closest to me. They were the first ones to call it what it was." The actress said that she wants other survivors to feel "no shame" about sexual assault and wants "this violence to end." She added that justice "may look different for each survivor," but for her she wants "an acknowledgment and an apology" after what happened. "This is a painful part of my story. The experience was horrible. But it doesn’t come close to defining me, in the same way that no other single part of my story defines me," she concluded, adding that she feels for all sexual violence survivors. "I’m turning 60, and I’m so deeply grateful for where I am. I’m renewed and I’m flooded with compassion for all of us who have suffered. And I’m still proudly in process." Hargitay started her own foundation, the Joyful Heart Foundation, in 2004 to help survivors of sexual assault. Image: Getty

Caring

The sky’s the limit: A brief history of in-flight entertainment

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/olusola-adewumi-john-1490381">Olusola Adewumi John</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-regina-3498">University of Regina</a> As the winter holidays draw near, many of us are already booking flights to see friends and family or vacation in warmer climates. Nowadays, air travel is synonymous with some form of in-flight entertainment, encompassing everything from the reception offered by the aircrew to the food choices and digital content. These services all add value to flying for customers. Passengers are now so familiar with in-flight entertainment that to travel without it is unthinkable. <a href="https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/10/19/2762903/0/en/In-Flight-Entertainment-Connectivity-Market-to-Worth-21-03-Bn-by-2030-Exhibiting-With-a-15-9-CAGR.html">The in-flight entertainment and connectivity market grew to US$5.9 billion as of 2019</a>, a testament to its economic impact on both the airlines and the GDP of countries with airline carriers. In-flight entertainment is so ubiquitous that, even if all other airline services were offered, <a href="https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/19427/will-airlines-compensate-me-if-my-entertainment-system-is-not-working">the airline ensures a refund is made to the passenger affected</a> if television content cannot be accessed. <h2>A brief history</h2> In-flight entertainment has evolved significantly over the years. Before in-flight entertainment media was introduced, passengers entertained themselves by reading books or with food and drink services. The original aim of bringing in-flight entertainment into cabins was to attract more customers, drawing inspiration from a variety of sources, including the theatrical and domestic media environments. It was not initially for the comfort and ease of travelling, as it is today. <a href="https://www.academia.edu/5023683/A_History_of_INFLIGHT_ENTERTAINMENT">Inflight entertainment began as an experiment</a> in 1921, when 11 Aeromarine Airways passengers were shown the film Howdy Chicago! on a screen hung in the cabin during the flight. Four years later, another experiment was carried out in 1925 when 12 passengers on board an Imperial Airlines flight from London were shown the film The Lost World. <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/when-did-inflight-movies-become-standard-on-airlines-180955566/">It wasn’t until the 1960s</a> that in-flight movies became mainstream for airlines. Trans World Airlines became the first carrier to regularly offer feature films during flights, using a unique film system developed by <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1962/06/02/inflight">David Flexer, then-president of Inflight Motion Pictures</a>. Starting in 1964, in-flight entertainment evolved to include various media types like 16-mm film, closed-circuit television, live television broadcasts and magnetic tape. In the 1970s, for example, airplanes might feature a large screen with a 16-mm projector in one part of the plane, while small screens hung overhead in another section. <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/traveller/reviews-and-advice/when-did-airlines-install-seatback-entertainment-20190711-h1g51b.html">Seatback screens were introduced in 1988</a> when Airvision installed 6.9-centimetre screens on the backs of airline seats for Northwest Airlines. They have since morphed into the larger screens we are familiar with today, which are found on nearly every airline. <h2>In-flight entertainment today</h2> Most airlines nowadays have personal televisions for every passenger on long-haul flights. On-demand streaming and internet access are also now the norm. Despite initial concerns about speed and cost, in-flight services are becoming faster and more affordable. In-flight entertainment now includes movies, music, radio talk shows, TV talk shows, documentaries, magazines, stand-up comedy, culinary shows, sports shows and kids’ shows. However, the rise of personal devices, like tablets and smartphones, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/the-weird-and-wonderful-history-of-in-flight-entertainment/">could spell the end for seatback screens</a>. A number of U.S. airlines, including American Airlines, United Airlines and Alaska Air, have <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/airline-seatback-screens-may-soon-become-an-endangered-species">removed seatback screens from their domestic planes</a>. This decline is par for the course. To arrive at the complex system used by aircraft today, in-flight entertainment went through a number of different stages, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0641-1_10">as identified by aviation scholar D.A. Reed</a>. It started with an idea phase, which saw the conception of the idea, followed by an arms race phase where most airlines adopted some form of it. Currently, airlines are facing challenges in the final — and current — phase of evolution, and are dealing with failures linked to business concept flaws or low revenue. Now that most air travellers carry electronic devices, fewer airlines are installing seatback screens. From an economic standpoint, this makes sense for airlines: removing seatback screens <a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/business/airlines-travel-entertainment.html">improves fuel costs</a> and allows airlines to <a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-and-interiors/united-ups-757-density-with-new-slimline-seats/126574.article">install slimmer seats</a>, allowing for more passengers. <h2>More than entertainment</h2> At some point in the evolution of in-flight entertainment, it started to serve as more than just a form of entertainment or comfort. Now, it’s also a competitive tool for airline advertisements, and a form of cultural production. In-flight entertainment has become an economic platform for investors, business people, manufacturers and entertainment providers, especially Hollywood. It also plays a key role in promoting the national culture of destination countries. However, the evolution of in-flight entertainment hasn’t been without its challenges. As a form of cultural production, it often reflects the interests of advertisers, governments and business entities. It also follows that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0641-1_10">certain ideas, products and cultures are sold to passengers</a> via in-flight entertainment. The lucrative practice of capturing and selling passengers’ attention to advertisers was not limited to screens, either. In-flight magazines have always been packed with advertisements, and by the late 1980s, these advertisements had spread to napkins and the audio channels. Despite its shortcomings and precarious future, in-flight entertainment still offers passengers a sense of comfort, alleviating concerns about being suspended over 30,000 feet above sea level. If you end up flying during the holidays, remember your comfort is partly thanks to this innovation.<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;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218996/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/olusola-adewumi-john-1490381">Olusola Adewumi John</a>, Visiting Researcher, Centre for Socially Engaged Theatre, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-regina-3498">University of Regina</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-skys-the-limit-a-brief-history-of-in-flight-entertainment-218996">original article</a>.

Travel Tips

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-mitchell-1468293">Dale Mitchell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> From Elle Woods in Legally Blonde to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2015.1087367">Jennifer Walters in She-Hulk</a>, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird to Denny Crane in Boston Legal, our popular culture is often where we first see and witness legal practice. Sometimes this comes via the silver screen, other times television. But it would be wrong to think that all we see on legal television shows is accurate – even when it claims to capture reality. Most legal dramas are terrible at capturing the realities of law. <h2>Not accurate: Law(less) and (dis)Order</h2> Law and Order (1990-) innovated television drama by showcasing both the investigation of a crime by police, and then its prosecution in court. With its multiple spin-offs, including Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (1999-) and the shortlived Law and Order: Trial by Jury (2005-2006) (which had the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aolG65V1Dx8">best theme song of all the series</a>), the Law and Order franchise is a televisual legal juggernaut. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aolG65V1Dx8?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> As with most serials, Law and Order presents the criminal justice system as moving quicker than you can say dun dun. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The mean duration of criminal law matters in Australian higher courts was <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release">almost one year</a> (50 weeks) across 2021-22. While <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s5.html">procedural rules in civil matters</a> require courts to facilitate the “just and efficient resolution of disputes at minimum expense”, in criminal law, speed and efficiency must not be prioritised over accuracy: a person’s liberty is at stake. Most criminal matters do not proceed to a full trial as an accused will often plead guilty to the charges. As a result, the matter proceeds to sentencing without prosecutors needing to prove the offence. The rates of this occurring are quite alarming. <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/latest-release">Data across 2021-22</a> reveals over 75% of defendants in Australian courts entered a guilty plea, and almost four in five criminal convictions (79%) resulted from a guilty plea. <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1705761/32_1_8.pdf">Research suggests</a> defendants plead guilty for a variety of reasons, including to avoid the cost of a trial and to receive a lesser sentence. <a href="https://theconversation.com/pandemic-pushed-defendants-to-plead-guilty-more-often-including-innocent-people-pleading-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit-165056">Data from the United States</a> suggests the pressures of the pandemic led to innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. If Law and Order was a more accurate reflection of criminal law, matters would proceed immediately to sentencing due to guilty pleas. And should an accused be found guilty, a chunk of their sentence would be reduced by time served awaiting trial. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/60GV5lv8h3o?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Not accurate: Suits</h2> Suits (2011-19) centres around law firm partner Harvey Specter (Gabriel Macht) and his mentorship of Mike Ross (Patrick Adams) – the “lawyer” who never graduated law school and provides legal advice thanks to his photographic memory. This is, obviously, a brutal ethical breach for all involved, and clearly fraud. In Australia, law students who present themselves to be lawyers are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-07/law-graduate-jacob-reichman-fined-posing-solicitor-gold-coast/7824324">subject to sanctions</a> by the Legal Services Commission. They can <a href="https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/35821-fake-lawyer-cops-suspended-jail-sentence">cause harm to clients</a> who have hired their services. And the Legal Admissions Board may <a href="https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2020/11/chief-justice-wants-answers-before-considering-lawyer-impersonators-bid-to-become-legal-practitioner/">deny their entry</a> into the profession. (Spoilers) Ross is eventually sentenced to two years in prison for this fraud, a similar sentence to <a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/1202786675709/">a recent case in the United States</a>, but he only serves three months before solving a crime and earning early release. More unrealistic than this early release is that Ross does fairly quickly thereafter gain admission to the profession, which seems unlikely to occur so soon after such an act of fraud. While Suits has left its mark(le) on the popular imagination of law, it fails to address one of the primary duties of civil litigation: the duty of disclosure. The MacGuffin-ing of law is common in TV serials. It’s the “smoking gun” found on the day of the trial, or for the lawyers in Suits, the random document which shows up during the trial to turn the case - dramatically presented by our protagonists as they flail into court armed with this data sans ethics. This is not quite accurate. In adversarial legal systems like Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, civil litigation rules <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s211.html">require parties</a> to disclose to one another all documents in their possession or control which are directly relevant to a matter in dispute. This is a continuing duty, so if you discover such a document at any time during the case, it must be disclosed. While <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s212.html">exceptions</a> based on various privileges may apply, this essentially means civil litigation must be run in an “all cards on the table” manner. Randomly producing undisclosed material at trial requires the leave of the court and may result in orders of contempt and <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_reg/ucpr1999305/s225.html">cost penalties</a>. It’s not like the lawyers of Suits have ever really been concerned about ethics, though. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wUh9jomHZp4?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Not accurate: How to Get Away with Murder(ing rules of evidence)</h2> While most lawyers would support making it a criminal offence to critique Viola Davis, How to Get Away with Murder (2014-20) presents one of the most common offences within legal dramas: the haphazard approach to rules of evidence. Annalise Keating (Davis) and her ragtag team of morally illiterate law students (although I never see them studying?!?!) manipulate people to obtain evidence and then dramatically prompt witnesses on the stand to read this information into the record, or otherwise “sneak” it into the trial. This is not accurate. And it ignores the basic reality that so much of legal practice is about not just obtaining evidence, but ensuring that evidence is admissible in court. One of the most important rules of evidence deals with <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s59.html">hearsay evidence</a>. A court cannot allow evidence to be considered if its reliability is unable to be interrogated. Witnesses can only present evidence that they saw, heard or perceived themselves. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, such evidence would be inadmissible. Like in Suits, these approaches to presenting evidence may have serious implications. This poor trial management results in <a href="https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/rpp074.pdf">delays to criminal trials.</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rMB_Gw5-T-I?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Accurate: Fisk</h2> Fisk (2021-) follows Helen Tudor-Fisk (Kitty Flanagan), an established contract lawyer whose personal dramas lead her to move to the boutique Melbourne probate law firm of Gruber and Gruber (played by Marty Sheargold and Julia Zamero). Fisk excels in showing the importance of lawyer-client relations and the word-of-mouth that sustains much of small legal practice. It’s the anti-Suits, and Fisk is more powerful for it. The discussions of wills and estates and most basic legal principles in Fisk are mostly sound – and the show doesn’t need to get into “legalese” as matters are resolved out-of-court. This is a distinct reality of law: litigation is a last resort. Forms of <a href="https://www.qls.com.au/Practising-law-in-Qld/ADR/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution/Types-of-Alternative-Dispute-Resolution-(ADR)">alternative dispute resolution</a>, including mediation, negotiation and conciliation, have become the primary way of resolving legal disputes. Fuelled by <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/alternative-dispute-resolution/civil-dispute-resolution-act-2011">legislative changes</a> which require the exhaustion of alternative dispute resolution measures before proceeding to litigation, and a pursuit of reduced costs, the drama of trial is not something anyone should yearn for. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1Qt0Wo1gGo?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Accurate: Rake</h2> Cleaver Greene, a character said to be loosely based on the career of a Sydney barrister, shows us the absolute madness of work as a “<a href="https://nswbar.asn.au/the-bar-association/senior-counsel#:%7E:text=Senior%20counsel%20are%20barristers%20who,a%20QC%20or%20queen's%20counsel.">silk</a>”. Rake excels at showing the reality of law. The show raises interesting and accurate questions of law (yes, it is true there is no <a href="https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/18992/1/2011006119.pdf">explicit offence</a> of cannibalism in New South Wales) and presents Australian court process accurately. Thankfully, there’s not a gavel in sight. <a href="https://www.survivelaw.com/post/941-working-hardly-random-facts-about-the-gavel">Australian courts do not use gavels</a>, and their presence in legal dramas in Australian and UK courts shows a lack of attention to detail. The presence of the gavel as a symbol of justice is <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/1994/17.pdf">an entirely American invention</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qWWI2EdOssk?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Rake is accurate, in part, because the site of drama is rarely the courtroom, but rather Greene’s personal life. The accuracy of that element for law I will leave up to the jury. But with a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13218719.2013.822783">2014 study</a> finding 35% of lawyers engaged in hazardous or harmful drinking and another showing <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/study-finds-high-rates-anxiety-depression-in-legal-profession/11412832">high rates of anxiety and depression</a> in the legal profession, the evidence is compelling.<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;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212880/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dale-mitchell-1468293">Dale Mitchell</a>, Lecturer in Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068">University of the Sunshine Coast</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-gavels-no-hearsay-and-lots-of-drinking-a-law-expert-ranks-legal-dramas-by-their-accuracy-212880">original article</a>.

Legal

5 memorable locations from ‘80s films to check out

Everyone loves a good movie, and everyone loves a holiday, so what do you get when you combine the two? The time of your life! It’s widely known that the ‘80s spawned a whole host of films that went on to become cult classics - from the likes of Heathers to Footloose, Dirty Dancing, and The Terminator - and forged the way for cultural changes that ring true decades later. But did you also know that for many of these iconic films, real-life locations served as the inspiration for many memorable scenes? And while some may have changed slightly in the years since cast and crew flocked to them, some are like stepping into a time capsule - or a stage for you to re-enact the films as you see fit. Lake Lure, North Carolina - Dirty Dancing (1987) Anyone who’s seen Dirty Dancing can tell you that ‘the lift scene’ is one of the film’s most iconic moments. And it - along with a few others from the film - were filmed in North Carolina’s very own Lake Lure. And with the spot boasting its very own Lake Lure Inn & Spa - where, coincidentally, the movie’s stars stayed while working on the project - it could be the perfect getaway location for your next holiday. Guesthouse International Hotel, California - National Lampoon Vacation (1983) For those embarking on their very own National Lampoon Vacation, you’re in luck - the hexagonal pool is near exactly the same as it was when Chevy Chase’s Clark Griswold enjoyed a nighttime swim with Christie Brinkley’s The Girl in the Ferrari. New York Public Library, New York - Ghostbusters (1984) The 1984 film sparked an entire host of sequels, games, parodies, and conventions for avid fans across the globe - as well as one incredibly catchy song. However, for those that would like to go above and beyond just calling their friendly neighbourhood ghostbusters, the New York Public Library’s flagship Stephen A Schwarzman building is the spot where the team had their very first encounter with the film’s ghosts. Griffith Observatory, California - The Terminator (1984) Fans of The Terminator should immediately recognise this site as the one where Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator arrived in the nude, and basked in the glory of LA at night. It’s a popular location, and while a must-see for fans of the film, it also makes for a good afternoon out - the observatory itself boasts free entry, stunning views, and a range of fascinating exhibits inside to entertain the keen mind. The Grand Hotel, Michigan - Somewhere in Time (1980) The Grand Hotel was the primary location for romantic drama Somewhere in Time, and they’re proud of it. In fact, a poster for the film is reportedly even still on display there, and hosts weekends of celebration for the 1980 hit, too. The island the hotel is set on doesn’t allow cars, so anyone hoping to throw themselves back in time and fully immerse themselves in a ‘different world’, this National Historic Landmark may be just the place to do it. Images: Getty, Booking.net

Movies

Why can’t I use my phone or take photos on the airport tarmac? Is it against the law?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/doug-drury-1277871">Doug Drury</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/cquniversity-australia-2140">CQUniversity Australia</a> Mobile phones are not allowed to be used while on a plane because they can interfere with the aeroplane’s navigation instruments and <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-the-real-reason-to-turn-on-aeroplane-mode-when-you-fly-188585">cause various safety and social issues</a>. As soon as the plane lands, we’re permitted to turn off flight mode, but at some airports we can’t get much of a signal. That’s because airports are known as mobile signal “<a href="https://thepointsguy.com/news/slow-connection-airport-tarmacs/">dead zones</a>” due to a lack of mobile towers – they can’t be placed at the airport itself due to height restrictions. Any nearby mobile towers would be located away from the airport’s runway systems to avoid interfering with the aeroplane’s flight path, especially take-off and landing direction. Most airports put up indoor repeater antennas within the airport terminal; these help increase the mobile signal strength coming from the nearest mobile tower somewhere near the airport. But you won’t be allowed to make calls while walking away from the plane, anyway. <h2>Why can’t I use my phone on the tarmac?</h2> As we are taxiing in, the <a href="https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-experience/onboard/communication.html">cabin crew</a> remind us not to smoke outside of designated areas at the terminal and not to use our mobile phones until we are inside the terminal building. If you exit the plane down the rear stairs, why aren’t you allowed to use your phone once away from the aeroplane, if you can get a signal? Surely it won’t affect navigation. The answer is manifold, and regulations aren’t the same across the world. In Australia, a <a href="https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/travel-and-passengers/onboard-safety-and-behaviour/using-your-electronic-devices-flights">government regulation</a> prohibits the use of mobile phones on the tarmac – the aeroplane movement and parking area of the airport. You won’t be fined if you whip your phone out while walking to the terminal, but the airline may admonish you for not following the rules. However, if you decide to (<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/woman-arrested-after-running-onto-tarmac-at-melbourne-airport-20151125-gl7bkq.html">run around on the tarmac</a>, you could get arrested by federal police. The airport tarmac is very busy not just with aircraft, but also baggage carts, catering trucks, aeroplane waste removal trucks, and fuel trucks. Getting passengers off the tarmac and into the terminal building quickly and safely is a priority for the staff. If you are distracted while walking to the terminal building because you’re talking on your phone, it can be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/25/alabama-airport-worker-killed-jet-engine-safety-warnings">highly dangerous and even deadly</a> if you end up too close to an operating plane. An operating jet engine is extremely hot and has a strong exhaust. Additionally, the front of the engine has a low-pressure area called an <a href="https://www.ukfrs.com/guidance/search/aircraft-systems-and-construction">ingestion zone</a> that can suck in a person. Ground staff are trained to stay at least ten metres away from this area. However, this information is not shared with the passengers. <h2>A myth about fuel</h2> You may have heard that mobile phones are a fire hazard near fuel, and aeroplanes are, of course, refuelled on the tarmac. However, the chances of fuel catching fire during this process are extremely low, because the refuelling truck is <a href="https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/safe-aircraft-refuelling/">bonded and “grounded” to the plane</a>: the operator attaches a wire to the aircraft to move built-up static electricity to the ground to prevent any chance of a spark. <figure class="align-right zoomable"><figcaption></figcaption></figure> There have been stories in the press about mobile phones sparking <a href="https://www.verizon.com/about/news/vzw/2014/12/fact-or-fiction-using-a-cell-phone-at-the-gas-station-can-cause-a-fire">fires at petrol stations in Indonesia and Australia</a>, but these turned out to be inaccurate. There is <a href="https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/30A/FI%20-%20NFPA%2030A-2015%20Para%208.3.1%20-%20Attachments%2014-19.2017-04-04.pdf">no evidence a phone can spark a fire at a fuel pump</a>, despite the warning labels you might see. Either way, the chances of a mobile phone causing this on the tarmac with a refuelling truck that is grounded to the aeroplane are extremely low, not least because the passenger permitted areas and refuelling areas are completely separated. <h2>Why are we told not to take photos on the tarmac?</h2> This rule varies from airport to airport depending on their <a href="https://www.tsa.gov/travel/frequently-asked-questions/can-i-film-and-take-photos-security-checkpoint">security processes</a>. Such restrictions are carryovers from the changes to airport security following the <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jlecono50&i=739">September 11 2001 terrorist attacks</a>. The now federalised security teams, TSA (Transportation Security Administration) in the United States and the Department of Home Affairs in Australia, change their processes frequently to prevent having any identifiable patterns that could be used to create a security breach. The increased security measures also mean new technologies were introduced; airport security sections do not want photos taken of how they operate. The airport security process is a major choke point in the flow of passenger movement due to the screening process. If a passenger is perceived to be slowing the process down by taking photos or talking on their phone, they will be reminded to turn off their device and/or stop taking photos of security personnel and equipment. If you refuse to follow the rules of the screening process, you will be <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/travelsecure/passenger-screening">denied entry</a> into the airport terminal gate area and miss your flight. Can you also get arrested for using your phone? Depends on the airport and country. I, for one, do not want to find out.<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;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207926/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/doug-drury-1277871">Doug Drury</a>, Professor/Head of Aviation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/cquniversity-australia-2140">CQUniversity Australia</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-cant-i-use-my-phone-or-take-photos-on-the-airport-tarmac-is-it-against-the-law-207926">original article</a>.

Travel Tips

Wacky pet laws that will make you laugh

There are laws to protect people from harm, animals from cruelty and to keep the animal-human relationship harmonious. But then there are those wacky laws that will make you scratch your head and wonder how they became laws in the first place. 1. In some areas of Oklahoma dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property. 2. In Chicago, you cannot bring your French poodle to the opera. 3. In Berea, Ohio, any pet that goes out after dark must wear a tail light. 4. In Creskill, New York, all outside cats must wear three bells to warn birds of their approach. 5. In Madison, Wisconsin dogs are forbidden from harassing squirrels in the public park next to the capital. 6. In Denver Colorado an animal control officer must notify dogs of any impending impounds three days before it’s due to happen. They do this by posting notices on trees in the public parks and along the road running next to the park. 7. In Memphis, Tennessee, if a frog's croaking keeps you awake at night, you can have that frog arrested. 8. In Turin, Italy owners can be fined up to $650 for not walking their dog at least three times a day. 9. In Reed City, Michigan, you cannot own a pet cat and bird simultaneously. 10. In French Lick Springs, Indiana, all black cats must wear bells on Friday the 13th. 11. In certain areas of Oklahoma it is against the law to make “ugly” or “mean” faces at a dog. 12. In Honolulu, Hawaii, it’s unlawful to annoy birds at any public park. Image credit: Shutterstock

Legal

Advice on dealing with tricky in-laws

From heated discussions to awkward family dinners, your relationship with your in-laws can have a big impact on family time. Here’s how to navigate this sometimes tricky dynamic. There’s nothing worse than heading to a family engagement when you have a son-in-law (or your daughter’s parents-in-law) that you just don’t get along with. Whether there's been a fight that you haven’t been able to move on from, or you simply don’t get along, if you find your in-laws draining or annoying, you may need to change the boundaries. Do you know the old saying, “good fences make good neighbours”? Think of your in-laws like your neighbours – there needs to be really good fences (aka boundaries) in place for the relationship to run smoothly. The best way to go about this is in such a way that you don’t make anyone feel as though you're closing them out, but rather comes off that you are simply focussing on yourself and things you have going on. Once you’ve set boundaries, don’t be afraid to talk to your family and in-laws about them, they’re not as fragile as you think. But do choose your words carefully and keep the focus on you and what your needs are, rather than making any judgements or comments about them or their behaviour. Still not sure how to deal with your son, daughter, sister or brother in-law? Here are some top tips for setting boundaries and dealing with awkward situations: <ol> <li>The person with the primary relationship (for example your daughter, not your son-in-law) should be the one to step in and help fix a problem if it arises. You should never be the messenger or go straight to an in-law. Gently raise the issue or concern with your immediate family member. </li> <li>Decide with your partner, or in your own time if you are single or widowed, what type of role you want your in-law/s to play in your life. If you don’t get along and spending time with them just seems to cause issues, then you might want to limit catch-ups to birthdays and big events. This is ok. Just be gentle if asked to explain. And keep your explanation brief and about you. Something along the lines of, my schedule is quite busy at the moment or I don’t feel up to going out too much, but I am looking forward to the next family get together. </li> <li>Never criticise your family for their relationship with his or her spouse/your in-laws, nor comment on your in-law to your immediate family member – for example don’t criticise your son-in-law to your daughter/his wife. This tends to only lead to complications and awkwardness. And remember, you only know what your daughter tells you and if they come to you everytime they’re upset or angry with their partner or their partner’s extended family, you’re only hearing the problems when your daughter is frustrated and upset. You might not hear all the good things and about when they make up. Don’t take these things on board and stay out of it by reserving any judgement or comments. </li> <li>Don’t get involved. Easier said than done, right? You have to trust that you have brought your children up right and they are responsible enough to navigate their own relationships, treat others respectfully and can stand up for themselves if need be. As such, you should not get involved in their issues, arguments and general day-to-day dealings with their other relationships. Stay on the peripheral, be there for some light guidance if need be, but ultimately you should just help them come to their own opinions, decisions and judgements on things rather than sharing your ones with them. </li> <li>Don’t get pulled into arguments by your child and in-law. You can be supportive and still let the couple handle their own problems. Take a step back and trust that you have raised an adult who has the vision and the courage to resolve the problems that concern his/her own family. Couples need to set boundaries for their own relationships and this can, as I am sure you know, take some time to find the right ones. </li> <li>Think of yourself as a guest. When spending time with family in big groups, and especially when you’re at someone else’s home, it is best to think of yourself as a guest and act accordingly. For example you may not like the way you son’s wife is doing things in her home (child rearing, cooking, cleaning etc), but unfortunately it is not really any of your business. This is between your son and his wife. A good checkpoint is to ask yourself if you have a sense of entitlement and expectancy that is inappropriate. If there are issues that you just can’t stand but can’t let go, then you may need to consider not visiting them.</li> </ol> Image credits: Getty Images

Family & Pets

"Makes me vomit": Richard Dreyfuss slams new Hollywood diversity laws

Richard Dreyfuss has taken a stand against new diversity laws that will come into affect at next year's Oscars, saying the new rules make him "vomit". The legendary actor condemned the change to the standards, claiming the laws are trying to legislate people's feelings. Appearing on PBS show Firing Line with Margaret Hoover, a fired-up Dreyfuss said, “This is an art form. It’s also a form of commerce, and it makes money. But it’s an art.” “And no one should be telling me as an artist that I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is.” Mr Dreyfuss, who famously played Matt Hooper in the 1975 horror film Jaws, went on to say that minorities should not be "catered to" in the arts, but rather awards given based on merit. “What are we risking? Are we really risking hurting people’s feelings? You can’t legislate that. And– you have to let life be life. And I’m sorry, I don’t think that there is a minority or a majority in the country that has to be catered to like that,” he said. With the rules set to come into effect in 2024, a film will have to meet certain diversity and inclusion standards in four different categories set out by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to be considered for “Best Picture” at the Oscars. The categories, each pertaining to different aspects of a movie’s production, would require new diversity measures to be met through “On-screen Representation,” “Creative Leadership and Project Team,” “Industry Access and Opportunities,” and “Audience Advancement.” “On-screen Representation” is classified as at least one lead character from an under-represented racial or ethnic group, which the Academy defines as women, people of colour, people who identify as LGBTQ+ or people with disabilities, with the new standards meant to encourage diversity on and off the screen. Dreyfuss continued his rant about the new standards, saying the rules will limit what roles actors are able to take, and simply described outdated racist ideals as forms of "art". “Am I being told that I will never have a chance to play a black man? Is someone else being told that if they’re not Jewish, they shouldn’t play the Merchant of Venice? Are we crazy? Do we not know that art is art? This is so patronising. It’s so thoughtless, and treating people like children.” Image credits: Getty Images

Movies

7 bizarre laws across the globe

Laws differ from country to country, and many remain unheard of. Here are some of the most outdated and unbelievable laws that still exist across the world. 1. Swiss bomb shelters In Switzerland, every citizen is required by law to have a bomb shelter or at least access to one. 2. Children under 12 banned from using phones In Blue Earth Minnesota, USA, it is illegal for children under 12 years of age to speak on the phone unless they’re accompanied by a parent or guardian. 3. Can’t ride an ugly horse In Wilbur, Washington it is illegal to ride a horse that is deemed to be ugly! Although it is unclear what constitutes an ugly horse. 4. First four firemen get paid In Zeigler, Illinois, USA, only the first four men to make it to the scene will be paid. 5. Failed surgery = no hands In Ancient Egypt, if a surgeon lost a patient while performing an operation on them, the surgeon's hands were cut off. 6. Too scruffy to drive In Athens, a driver can have their licence taken away simply because they are deemed too scruffy or poorly dressed. 7. Criminal birthday offence In Samoa, it is a crime to forget your wife’s birthday. Image credit: Shutterstock

Legal

There’s a growing gap between countries advancing LGBTQ+ rights, and those going backwards

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong joined 50,000 people to march in support of queer rights across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for World Pride in early March. A week earlier, Albanese became the first sitting prime minister to march in Sydney’s Mardi Gras, something he’s done over several decades. And yet at the same time, in another part of the world, Uganda’s parliament passed <a href="https://theconversation.com/ugandas-new-anti-lgbtq-law-could-lead-to-death-penalty-for-same-sex-offences-202376">a string of draconian measures</a> against homosexuality, including possible death sentences for “aggravated homosexuality”. Any “promotion” of homosexuality is also outlawed. Seven years ago, I co-wrote a book with Jonathan Symons called Queer Wars. Back then, we suggested there was <a href="https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/queer-wars-the-new-global-polarization-over-gay-rights">a growing gap</a>between countries in which sexual and gender diversity was becoming more acceptable, and those where repression was increasing. Sadly, that analysis seems even more relevant today. <h2>A growing gap</h2> Some countries have been unwinding criminal sanctions around homosexuality, which are often the legacy of colonialism. This includes, in recent years, former British colonies <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/22/singapore-decriminalize-gay-sex">Singapore</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/indian-supreme-court-decriminalises-homosexuality">India</a>. But others have been imposing new and more vicious penalties for any deviation from stereotypical assumptions of heterosexual masculine superiority (what Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243205278639">terms</a> “hegemonic masculinity”). Anti-gay legislation is currently pending in Ghana, which led US Vice President Kamala Harris to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234">express concerns</a> on a recent visit. These moves echo the deep homophobia of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has <a href="https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/putins-anti-gay-war-on-ukraine/">bizarrely linked</a> intervention in Ukraine to protecting traditional values against LGBTQ+ infiltration. Meanwhile, reports from Afghanistan suggest that anyone identified as “LGBT” is <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/26/afghanistan-taliban-target-lgbt-afghans">in danger of being killed</a>. Indonesia recently passed legislation <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/06/indonesia-passes-legislation-banning-sex-outside-marriage">penalising all sex outside marriage</a>. This follows <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13639811.2022.2038871">years of anti-queer rhetoric</a> from Indonesian leaders and crackdowns in regional areas. And while the Biden administration is supportive of queer rights globally, the extraordinary hysteria <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/07/cpac-anti-trans-rhetoric">around trans issues in the Republican Party</a> reminds us the West has no inherent claim to moral superiority. <h2>Where to next?</h2> Speaking at the World Pride Human Rights Conference, both Wong and Attorney General Mark Dreyfus made it clear Australia would press for recognition of sexuality and gender identity as deserving protection, as part of <a href="https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/speech/sydney-worldpride-human-rights-conference-opening-statement">our commitment to human rights</a>. Wong also announced a <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/213443-wong-announces-international-fund-for-lgbt-rights/">new Inclusion and Equality Fund</a> to support queer community organisations within our region. Australian governments have usually been wary of loud assertions of support for queer rights. This is partly due to a reasonable fear this merely reinforces the perception that such language reflects <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/african-studies-review/article/abs/locating-neocolonialism-tradition-and-human-rights-in-ugandas-gay-death-penalty/33A06F4F33CF586E20E208BE790E71E0">a sense of Western superiority</a>, unwilling to acknowledge other societies may have very different attitudes towards gender and sexuality. Australia is part of the Equal Rights Coalition, an intergovernmental body of 42 countries dedicated to the protection of the rights of LGBTQ+ people, and has supported sexual and gender rights in the <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/australias-second-universal-periodic-review-human-rights">country reviews</a> undertaken by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Australia has a minimal presence in Uganda, and direct representations are unlikely to have much effect. Uganda is a member of the Commonwealth, as are Ghana, Kenya and Zambia, where official homophobia appears to be increasing. But there’s little evidence the Australian government sees this as a significant foreign policy forum, or is prepared to push for sexual rights through its institutions. As persecution on the basis of sexuality and gender identity increases, more people will seek to flee their countries. Queer refugees face double jeopardy: they’re not safe at home, but they’re often equally unsafe in their diasporic communities, which have inherited the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/lgbt-refugees-untold-story/">deep prejudices of their homelands</a>. The UN’s refugee agency <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/lgbtiq-persons.html">reports</a> that most people seeking asylum because of their sexuality are unwilling to disclose this, because of discrimination within their own ethnic communities. This makes it impossible to have accurate numbers. But a clear signal from Australia would be a powerful statement of support – that it understands the situation and welcomes people who need flee because of their sexuality or gender expression. An official Canadian government document <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/canada-role/2slgbtqi-plus.html">states</a>: "Canada has a proud history of providing protection to and helping to resettle the world’s most vulnerable groups. That includes those in the Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional sexually and gender diverse community." Theirs is a model worth following. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-a-growing-gap-between-countries-advancing-lgbtq-rights-and-those-going-backwards-203329" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Caring

Dad left “furious” after mother-in-law rubs whiskey on baby’s gums

A dad has been left “furious” after learning his mother-in-law had rubbed whiskey on his six-month-old daughter’s gums as an “old fashioned” remedy for teething. Some have pointed out that the father’s response is a “red flag”, and perhaps the most concerning part of the story. Posting on Reddit’s “Am I the A**hole” forum, the baby’s 28-year-old first-time mother described the ordeal and asked whether she was in the wrong. She said she was at her mother’s house with her daughter, who is “teething horribly”. “My mum does some old fashion things and she’s really into herbs and natural healing and such, so she wanted to try rubbing whiskey on my daughter’s gums,” she wrote. “She said she did it to me and all three of my siblings. I let her, and it did seem to calm my daughter down a bit.” She told her husband when she got home and said “he was furious”. “He said that’s harmful to our daughter and it does not relieve any pain,” she continued. “He got really upset and said I shouldn’t let my mum do something like that, and told me I couldn’t bring our daughter to my mother’s anymore. “He’s since called the next two days off of work, and is super paranoid watching me every second with our daughter. I feel this is unfair.” While experts emphasise parents should never give whiskey or any other alcohol to teething babies, Reddit users had differing opinions. One wrote, “You’re the a**hole, yeah.” “I mean, you know alcohol is unsafe. It also happens not to work as a topical analgesic – if the baby quietens down, it’s because of the general sedative effect of alcohol. I think it’s hilarious how your mother conflates the use of a well understood but completely inappropriate drug with ‘herbs and natural healing’.” The second most popular reply said the woman was not in the wrong. “A tiny drop of alcohol on someone’s finger is absolutely not sedating a baby and is in no way harmful,” the user wrote. “Alcohol absolutely does have a numbing effect and is used topically for infants and adults with toothache as well. It’s absurd to get up in arms over something so mundane and he’s treating her like she allowed the baby to drink shots or something. I swear this sub is off the rails lately. Is it just solely populated by teenagers now?” A third chimed in, saying she made a “bad judgement call” but it was natural to take her own mother's advice. “It’s natural to look to our elders for guidance and to trust them,” they wrote. “While many mothers (including my own) have used this method, we know a lot more about these older ‘tried and true’ remedies these days … You’re not some monster that’s going to harm your child.” Others expressed that the husband’s reaction was worse than the old-fashioned teething remedy. “Honestly, if this is how your husband is reacting, that’s a red flag,” they said. “He’s right, it doesn’t relieve pain, and if you were to start doing it regularly, yeah, it can be harmful. However, it was a one-time thing that you told him about, and now you know not to do it again. “He shouldn’t be acting like it was a conspiracy to intentionally hurt your daughter.” Another user had the same opinion, writing, “Her husband literally took two days off work to micromanage parenting because of this? That’s excessive. It’s called having a conversation between two adults, saying, ‘We shouldn’t do this again’, and moving on!” A third said, "Your husband’s response is actually the most concerning part of this post … taking off work multiple days to ‘watch over’ your wife over something like this. “This should have been an easy discussion about how that’s not the right way to handle teething and then move on. “This isn’t real a big deal, the damage done to the child was literally zero. If this is how something like this is handled how are things that matter going to handled?” Image credit: Shutterstock

Family & Pets

Oscars slammed for In Memoriam snubs

The Oscars have been slammed for leaving out several big names from the In Memoriam segment, which honours the lives and careers of those who have died in the past year. Among those left out of the annual industry tribute was Six Days, Seven Nights star Anne Heche, beloved comedy actor Leslie Jordan, and Sopranos star Tony Sirico. Notably missing from the list was South African actress Charlbi Dean, 32, who died just weeks before the release of her film Triangle Of Sadness – one of the 10 nominated in the Best Picture category this year. Also left off the list was Goodfellas star Paul Sorvino, as his Oscar-winning daughter, Mira Sorvino, was just one of many who were left baffled by the snub. “It is baffling beyond belief that my beloved father and many other amazing brilliant departed actors were left out. The Oscars forgot about Paul Sorvino, but the rest of us never will!” she wrote on Twitter, after the Oscars segment aired with no mention of her famous father. While Paul was left out of the tribute, his fellow Goodfellas actors James Caan and Ray Liotta, who also passed away in the last year, were mentioned in the segment. An emotional John Travolta introduced the tear-jerking tribute segment, and became choked-up as he <a href="https://www.oversixty.co.nz/health/caring/john-travolta-s-teary-tribute-to-olivia-newton-john" target="_blank" rel="noopener">referenced </a>his late Grease co-star and friend, Olivia Newton-John, who died from cancer last August. “In this industry, we have the rare luxury of getting to do what we love for a living, and sometimes getting to do it with people that we come to love,” Travolta said Beginning with Newton-John, a montage of recently departed actors, directors, producers and other industry figures then played on the screen while singer Lenny Kravitz performed a stripped-down version of his song Calling All Angels. Image credits: Getty Images

Movies

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"20 years to life": Bali's brutal new law

200-year-old message in a bottle unearthed

Woman “bullied” on plane over budget seating trick

“Don’t marry him”: Bride-to-be shares wild altercation with her future in-laws over her wedding dress

Woman baffled by mother-in-law’s insane ask over baby name

Does the royal family have a right to privacy? What the law says

“My sister-in-law announced she was pregnant at my child’s funeral”

Mother bans in-laws from seeing her baby after they go against her wishes

"I was terrified": Law & Order star reveals traumatic past

The sky’s the limit: A brief history of in-flight entertainment

No gavels, no hearsay and lots of drinking: a law expert ranks legal dramas by their accuracy

5 memorable locations from ‘80s films to check out

Why can’t I use my phone or take photos on the airport tarmac? Is it against the law?

Wacky pet laws that will make you laugh

Advice on dealing with tricky in-laws

"Makes me vomit": Richard Dreyfuss slams new Hollywood diversity laws

7 bizarre laws across the globe

There’s a growing gap between countries advancing LGBTQ+ rights, and those going backwards

Dad left “furious” after mother-in-law rubs whiskey on baby’s gums

Oscars slammed for In Memoriam snubs