Senor Tron posted:

Those long forgotten days of the 1990's when parts of Australia still had homosexuality as illegal.

Senor Tron posted:

starkebn posted:

If we can just stop the religious indoctrination of kids the problem would probably go away in one generation.

Lid posted:

"It's a long time, thank God, since gay people have been discriminated against and just about everyone old enough to remember that time is invariably embarrassed at the intolerance that was once common. Already, indeed, same sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married."

Senor Tron posted:

Those long forgotten days of the 1990's when parts of Australia still had homosexuality as illegal.

quote:

A teenager who attempted suicide after being repeatedly bullied at school for being gay is suing Victoria's education department, and alleges the emotional trauma he suffered impaired his learning capacity.

Nathan Whitmore claims in a Supreme Court writ he was subjected to constant bullying, harassment, taunting and homophobic insults as a student at Somerville Secondary College between 2013 and 2015, before he left in Year 9.

Nathan claims he complained to the school's principal, assistant principal, five teachers and the student wellbeing officer about bullying, but nothing was done. His mother, Cathilee, alleges the school also never acted on her complaints and emails.

Nathan was 15 when he told The Age last year he was repeatedly the target of homophobic slurs from a boy in his class, while another bully threatened to kill him.

'Go kill yourself, human being': School 'not safe' for bullied gay teen
The bullying only stopped when Nathan reported it to police and Ms Whitmore was granted an intervention order against the ringleader.

"He would say, 'You're a gay human being who everyone hates, just go kill yourself and get it over with, everyone would be happy and better off'," Nathan said last year.

By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media's terms and conditions and privacy policy .
"In Year 7 it was mostly verbal but when I got to Year 8 he started pushing me around and kicking me until it got to the point where he bashed me with a skateboard. That's when we went to the police and got the restraining order."

Nathan left the Somerville school to move to Elisabeth Murdoch College in Langwarrin, where he felt happy and accepted. But he is currently not at school as he struggles with a major depressive disorder.

The Supreme Court writ, filed earlier this month, states that on top of the depressive disorder, Nathan had also been suicidal, suffered weight loss and anorexia, had sleep problems and anxiety and was socially withdrawn.

He is suing the Department of Education and Training for an undisclosed sum that would cover the thousands of dollars Ms Whitmore spent in counselling and other medical expenses for her son, and for pain and suffering.

The writ says a psychiatrist last year found Nathan had suffered a learning impairment through the result of his emotional injuries and chronic post-traumatic stress, and would not reach his educational potential.

The emotional injuries would therefore limit his future employment options and earning capacity, the psychiatrist found.

Nathan and his mother claim the Somerville school failed to provide adequate supervision and protect him from the bullying students, failed to discipline the bullies, failed to take heed of the complaints and did not provide the teenager with counselling.

Somerville Secondary College principal Christopher Lloyd declined to comment on Tuesday. He has previously acknowledged there was bullying and that Nathan had been physically and verbally "harassed, bullied and intimidated" by a boy who recruited other students to abuse Nathan.

A spokesman for the Department of Education and Training said the department could not comment because the case was before the court.

Nathan has spent time in hospital after attempts on his own life and still self-harms as a way to deal with the emotional pain.

He says he has aspirations to study nursing and counsel other victims of bullying.

Shine lawyers general manager Stuart Le Grand said the impact of the bullying had been devastating for Nathan and his family, and had reduced his enjoyment and quality of life.

Mr Le Grand said it was imperative schools provided a safe and supportive environment for their students.

"Schools owe their students a duty of care and where this is breached, they may be held liable for the damage and may be compelled to compensate those who've been harmed," he said.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

lol, Labor just voted against reregulating power costs.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

lol, Labor just voted against reregulating power costs.

open24hours posted:

Wait, what?

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

https://twitter.com/AdamBandt/status/907499738324361216

Anidav posted:

Uh sir my shower has rats.

*dumps BBQ on driveway*

Recoome posted:

well renters are basically sub-human filth anyway right guys

Anidav posted:

MEANWHILE IN THE FREE MARKET

It's a tenant's worst nightmare; after complaining for more than six months about a leaking tap in their bathroom shower, Ella Gleeson and Morgan Russell finally had a plumber turn up.

But it was no easy fix. The repair job wound up exposing them to potentially deadly asbestos-laden dust for a week.

It was the beginning of a four-month battle to get compensation, and a stark reminder of huge gaps in the law in some states when it comes to protecting tenants from potentially hazardous risks.

The 26-year-old students didn't suspect anything when the plumber finished his work on April 20.

"I just assumed he knew what he was doing," Ms Gleeson said.

"When he was finished, the hole he had cut in the tiles above the bathtub was still there.

"He was like, 'that's for the handyman to fix'. There was just a giant hole in the wall. There was dust everywhere."

Ms Russell added: "I saw a hole in our shower wall. I saw dust all over."

They waited — but no handyman came to seal up the wall. After three days, they decided to clean up the mess.

"The dust just spread around the house," Ms Gleeson said.

On the fourth day her brother, a carpenter, visited.

"I showed him and his face dropped. 'That's asbestos'. So then we just panicked," Ms Gleeson said.

Asbestos confirmed, but clearance certificate later issued.

The women say they were initially dismissed by the property manager. The manager denies that.

But all agree it took a further 48 hours for a test for asbestos to be carried out.

The results were what they feared: asbestos.

The women were told not to re-enter the house and removalists were called in.

"The house was locked down, [there was] tape over it saying 'asbestos, do not enter'. Bags of our stuff were out the front of our house," Ms Russell said.

After receiving alternative accommodation at a hotel, the women were told a clearance certificate had been issued.

It declared the areas that had been inspected were safe for re-occupation. They could move back in.

But there was one problem: work on the shower hadn't finished.

"There was a giant hole in the wall, and they just expected us to go back. And when we questioned them with that, they dumped a portaloo shower in our driveway," Ms Gleeson said.

The tenants didn't feel safe returning to the house. They questioned the clearance certificate, which was only based on air monitoring in three rooms.

They knew dust from the work in the bathroom had spread throughout the property.

'A merry-go-round of talking to different agencies'

They went to Victoria's Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to force the landlord to do more testing, and remove carpets they say had been covered in asbestos dust. They lost.

To challenge the clearance certificate, they would have had to pay up to $500 to hire their own expert.

"Tenants are really on the back foot with that," said Mark O'Brien, CEO of Tenants Victoria.

"If you want to establish your own evidence, quite often you've got to pay a specialist to come and give you a report. And those kinds of expert reports can be very expensive."

When the legal challenge failed, the women donned their own suits and respirators to salvage what they could from the share house. Furniture and appliances that had been exposed to dust were written off.

All the while, the women received contradictory advice from government departments.

Because the asbestos exposure happened while work was underway, the house was classified a worksite.

The agency that regulates asbestos on worksites, WorkSafe Victoria, did visit the premises — but by that stage, it told the women in an email it did not have authority because work had finished.

The tenants also contacted Consumer Affairs Victoria. It told the women it was responsible for landlord and tenant issues — but not asbestos.

"It was just a merry-go-round of talking to different agencies," Ms Russell said.

"They all didn't have any clear picture of whose jurisdiction this was. No-one knew anything really about asbestos."

Consumer Affairs Minister says case will be reviewed

Victoria's Minister of Consumer Affairs Marlene Kairouz told the ABC in a statement it was "a very concerning case and I understand the frustration and anxiety of the tenants involved in this incident".

"I have instructed my department to review this case and we'll actively consider any changes needed to better protect tenants against exposure to this dangerous material," she said.

In June, the women launched a second claim to recover rent and money for some of the possessions they'd lost.

They received a settlement offer that included a clause asking them to release the landlord and contractors from all claims arising from the discovery of asbestos.

Fearing they were now at risk of the deadly disease mesothelioma, they refused to sign.

"Potentially it prevents the girls in the future from bringing a claim if, God forbid, anything happens to them," said Tracy Madden, one of the country's leading asbestos lawyers.

"The difficulty with asbestos-related conditions is they often don't turn up for decades.

"I would always urge people to get these sort of releases looked at to make sure they're not inadvertently giving away rights."

'We just decided to fight'

Eventually, the women accepted a settlement offer they received just days before their compensation hearing.

The new settlement means they don't have to give up any future asbestos claims.

"They really underestimated that we had nothing left to lose," Ms Gleeson said.

"So we just decided to fight instead."

Both tenants said they were worried about what might happen to the next tenants who rent their former house.

In some states, landlords are required to inform potential tenants about hazards like asbestos in a property. But not in Victoria.

"At the moment in the tenancy law there's no obligation for anybody to disclose to the tenant a past situation in the rented premises," Mr O'Brien said.

"So this is a very significant gap in the tenancy law that needs to be addressed."

Ms Madden said tenants deserved to be protected.

"It all comes down to: would you want your family living there? You need to be safe in your own home," she said.

Solemn Sloth posted:

Thanks for giving me a heads up of what work looks like tomorrow.

At least it's not cladding I guess

Don Dongington posted:

So apparently Murdoch Jnr is trying to fight the CBS takeover bid of the 10 network

MikeJF posted:

On what grounds? Waaaah I want it more?

gay picnic defence posted:

Something to do with unsecured creditors like the Murdochs not getting enough from the sale to CBS I think.

That was the beauty of the whole thing. Not only would Lachlan miss out on his very own right wing free to air station, Rupes would lose millions in unsecured credit as well.

gay picnic defence posted:

It's probably all just a delaying tactic in the hope that the media laws change quick enough for the Murdochs to get a rival bid for the company in because they can't do poo poo until the 2 out of 3 rules changes iirc

The administrators have two offers, one from CBS that can go ahead straight away and the other from Murdoch which is conditional on the laws changing which is not guaranteed at all and best case for them is probably drawn out for a year while the details are argued over in parliament. Clearly it is better for the secured creditors if the deal goes through straight away and really they are the only ones the administrators give a gently caress about. Everyone else is getting back 2 cents to the dollar or something pathetic like that. Sucks for anyone who had their super in Ten but it also fucks Gina Reinhart among others

Anidav posted:

drat Apple.

DancingShade posted:

I wonder if that price is finally going to be the "gently caress this" straw that breaks the regular phone upgrader backs.

Doesn't even come with an avocado. Shameful.

gay picnic defence posted:

It's probably all just a delaying tactic in the hope that the media laws change quick enough for the Murdochs to get a rival bid for the company in because they can't do poo poo until the 2 out of 3 rules changes iirc

The administrators have two offers, one from CBS that can go ahead straight away and the other from Murdoch which is conditional on the laws changing which is not guaranteed at all and best case for them is probably drawn out for a year while the details are argued over in parliament. Clearly it is better for the secured creditors if the deal goes through straight away and really they are the only ones the administrators give a gently caress about. Everyone else is getting back 2 cents to the dollar or something pathetic like that. Sucks for anyone who had their super in Ten but it also fucks Gina Reinhart among others

Anidav posted:

drat Queensland