Latest news with #December2023

NEWS OF THE WEEK: Nicki Minaj shares 'real reason' she won't release new music

Yahoo

a day ago

Entertainment
Yahoo

NEWS OF THE WEEK: Nicki Minaj shares 'real reason' she won't release new music

The Super Freaky Girl hitmaker dropped her fifth studio album, Pink Friday 2, in December 2023. Taking to X over the weekend, Nicki posted a string of messages in which she claimed she was facing a "distraction" at the moment. 'Needing the Barbz is @ an all time high for every distraction.' "So let me start talking about what I've found out. About them. Real juicy. Confirmations. #MakeABaby #BannedFromNO #PaidMoles Order in the court.' Nicki went on to allege that someone was trying to break up her family. The rapper shares a four-year-old son with husband Kenneth Petty.

Antoinette Lattouf's 18-month legal saga is over – but the crisis at the heart of it still hasn't been resolved

The Guardian

4 days ago

Politics
The Guardian

Antoinette Lattouf's 18-month legal saga is over – but the crisis at the heart of it still hasn't been resolved

In the end, Antoinette Lattouf found out she had won her case against the ABC not from the judge who decided in her favour, but from her junior barrister Philip Boncardo. Boncardo – and all the lawyers for both Lattouf and the ABC – were handed Justice Darryl Rangiah's written reasons for the judgment at the start of proceedings on Wednesday, as he started speaking to the packed courtroom. While Rangiah was still laying out the context and background of the case, the lawyers were frantically riffling through the pages to find out what the judge had decided. It took Boncardo less than a minute to find the crucial paragraphs. He turned in his chair and nodded to Lattouf smiling. 'We won,' he mouthed. Lattouf looked incredulous. She turned to her husband, sitting in the public gallery behind her, smiled and nodded. Then she turned to hug the two lawyers sitting beside her, bowed her head and sobbed. Over the next 30 minutes in courtroom 18A of the federal court in Sydney, Rangiah went on to lay out how the ABC had acted unlawfully when it terminated Lattouf, three days into a five-day casual presenting contract on ABC Radio Sydney in December 2023. He ordered the broadcaster to pay Lattouf damages of $70,000 and said it could face further financial penalties, which will be the subject of a future hearing. Rangiah concluded that despite its arguments to the contrary, the ABC had terminated Lattouf for reasons including that she held a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, and in doing so breached the Fair Work Act. Lattouf was removed from the ABC program after she shared an Instagram post from Human Rights Watch that said Israel had used starvation as a 'weapon of war' in Gaza – and Rangiah found that was 'bound to be controversial'. He said it was 'ill-advised and inconsiderate of her employer', in light of previous advice she had been given by a manager to refrain from posting anything controversial on social media during the term of her contract – but that taking her off air as a result was unlawful. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Rangiah also found the ABC contravened its own enterprise agreement by failing to follow its own procedures – by not informing Lattouf of the allegation of misconduct made against her, or allowing her a reasonable opportunity to defend herself. The decision marked the end of an 18-month-long legal saga which, despite hanging on detailed points of industrial relations laws and editorial policy and protocol, had garnered huge amounts of attention. But the costs of the case – financial and reputational for the ABC, and emotional and professional for Lattouf – are likely to reverberate for a long time. Financially, the ABC's legal fees have run to more than $1m, something that Lattouf's lawyer Josh Bornstein was scathing about as he addressed media outside the court. Bornstein said the ABC rejected a settlement offer from Lattouf's team of $85,000 last July. 'The amount of money spent on a case it could've settled for $85,000 is self-evidently ludicrous, and has been in aid of nothing except to discredit the ABC,' he said. Hugh Marks, the ABC's managing director, who took the role from David Anderson – one of the key figures and witnesses in the Lattouf case – said after the decision that the case was 'certainly not a good use of our funds' and reiterated the apology issued by the ABC in the wake of the judgment. It is, one imagines, convenient for the ABC today that none of the three ABC bosses at the heart of this case are still employed at the broadcaster. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Ita Buttrose had already announced she would not seek another term as chair of the broadcaster before the Lattouf drama happened; but the Lattouf case was believed to be a factor in David Anderson resigning a year into his second five-year contract, and Chris Oliver-Taylor resigning after his role was substantially downgraded by the new ABC chair, Kim Williams. The events at the heart of the case happened at a critical political moment – just two months after the October 7 attack in Israel and two months into the bombardment of Gaza – as community tensions in Australia escalated and instances of antisemitic and Islamophobic violence were reported across the country in increasing numbers. The judge found that Oliver-Taylor had taken the decision to remove Lattouf from her on-air role in part 'to appease the pro-Israel lobbyists who would inevitably escalate their complaints about the ABC employing a presenter they perceived to have antisemitic and anti-Israel opinions'. Rangiah said that complaints to the broadcaster about Lattouf from when she first started broadcasting 'were an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists' which 'caused great consternation amongst the senior management of the ABC'. Lattouf's termination, and the subsequent peek-behind-the-curtains afforded by the court case, went to the heart of a question being asked across Australia: who is allowed to speak on Israel-Gaza, and whether the ABC has the right to dismiss a contractor for expressing an opinion on the matter. Lattouf has previously had much to say about freedom of the press and the huge emotional toll the case had taken on her. On the last day of court proceedings in February, an emotional Lattouf addressed the media, composure cracking: 'I could not have done this alone. There were days I could barely get out of bed. The public's unwavering support kept me standing … From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. You gave me strength when I felt that I was drowning from the weight of this.' But on Wednesday, speaking outside the court, she barely mentioned the case, and didn't mention freedom of the press or the personal cost of the case. Instead, she ended in the same place this whole saga began – by talking about the suffering of the people of Gaza. 'In December 2023, I shared a Human Rights Watch post,' she said. 'This Human Rights Watch post found that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza. It is now June 2025, and Palestinian children are still being starved. We see their images every day, emaciated, still lethal, scavenging through the rubble of scraps.'

Nicki Minaj shares ‘real reason' she won't release new music

News.com.au

6 days ago

Entertainment
News.com.au

Nicki Minaj shares ‘real reason' she won't release new music

Supermarket cleared of discrimination in row over paying for groceries with 10c and 20c coins

Irish Times

20-06-2025

Business
Irish Times

Supermarket cleared of discrimination in row over paying for groceries with 10c and 20c coins

A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had 'anything larger' when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins. The children's father filed a complaint accusing the unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on December 22nd, 2023, because they were members of the Travelling Community. The claim was ruled 'not well-founded' by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in a decision published on Friday, which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors. The tribunal heard that at about 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for a girl and boy whose father was outside the premises in a car. READ MORE The cashier's evidence was that she counted out €26.80 comprising €1 and €2 coins and 20c and 10c pieces. '[It] took some time to count,' she told the WRC at a remote hearing last month. When she asked the children for the rest of the sum due, the young girl produced a purse with 'a large amount of 10- and 20-cent coins inside', she told the WRC. The cashier then asked the children whether they had 'anything larger to pay with'. She explained that there was 'a large queue building up' at her till. The children said they did not and left to fetch their father, the cashier said. She said he asked her why she was not taking their money, and that she found him 'very confrontational'. She told the WRC she 'made it clear to him that she was not refusing to take his money' and had only asked for notes because it was 'a very busy day'. There were 'a lot more than 50 coins involved'. The supermarket owner came to the till and intervened, the tribunal heard. The owner gave evidence that the father showed her he had banknotes, but told her he 'wished to pay in full using coins'. The owner then proposed that the father could count out the exact amount owed in coins, or count it out in batches of €5-€10, she said. The father replied: 'You are refusing to accept our payment.' She said she was 'trying to find a solution' and even offered coin bags to count out the loose change, but the father 'turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation'. The father gave evidence that the children told him at the car that they 'were not being served' and that he went in to find out why. He told the WRC he 'supported what [his wife] had said about the event' in presenting the claim. The family's position, as presented by the children's mother at last month's hearing, was that the children were 'refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community'. 'The children suffered embarrassment in the shop with locals present, and suffered embarrassment with their friends because of the incident.' The supermarket's solicitors, Sweeney McGann, submitted that the business offered an apology to the children's mother for the 'misunderstanding' in a bid to de-escalate the situation, as well as a voucher as a goodwill gesture, which was refused. Adjudicator Peter O'Brien wrote in a decision published on Friday that it was 'not prejudicial' for the cashier to ask the children if they had 'larger-value coins or notes to complete their purchases'. He noted that by law, 'no entity other than the Central Bank or such persons as ordered by the Minister [for Finance] shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins denominated in euro or in cent in a single transaction'. He noted that the only person who had given direct evidence to him about the initial incident was the cashier, as anything the children had told their parents was 'hearsay'. The cashier's evidence was that she 'never refused to complete the purchase' but simply asked the children whether there was 'a more convenient way to pay', he wrote. 'The request to pay with larger-value notes or coins could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling Community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day,' he wrote. He concluded the cashier's actions were reasonable and that she 'did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct', and dismissed the complaint.

UK Retail Sales Plunge 2.7% in Worrying Sign for Economic Growth

Bloomberg