‘Heart aches': Tribute one year after Perth brothers murder
Perth brothers Callum, 33, and Jake, 31, and their friend Jack Carter Rhoad, 30, vanished in Mexico near Ensenada in Baja California on April 27 last year.
Their bodies were found a week later near their remote campsite.
In a heartbreaking post on her Instagram page, Callum's girlfriend, Emily Horwath, said she was still 'living on a roller coaster of denial and disbelief' a year on from the tragedy.
'My heart aches beyond words, 365 days of navigating new life in the after; a world less bright full of new perspective,' she said.
'Still living on a roller coaster of denial and disbelief, only to be engulfed by the wave of reality.
'I feel so beyond grateful for our love. A love that changed my life, a love I'd carry this grief for in every lifetime. A tribute posted by Callum's partner Emily Livia. Credit: Instagram / Emily Livia
'To the most uniquely special human, whose energy impacted loved ones all over the world. Your story isn't over, your impact isn't over — as we continue to share your story, spread your love and speak your name.
'Our red string always connected. I will carry you always. Loving you beyond this lifetime.'
The Callum and Jake Robinson Foundation has been set-up in the pair's memory, with their family posting to its social media page: 'We miss you boys beyond words.'
'Please live bigger, shine brighter and love harder today and always in honor of Callum and Jake,' the post said.
In an interview with The West Australian last year, the brothers' parents, Martin and Debra, said they set-up the foundation to keep their memory alive.
'Since this has happened, we've learnt a lot about our kids,' Mrs Robinson said.
'I didn't realise they were so encouraging of other people. This (fund) money we believe should go towards encouraging other people to follow their dreams.'
Among the initiatives focused on by the foundation include fundraising to provide insulin pumps and other devices to diabetic athletes, providing equitable access to lacrosse goals for public use in the US, Australia and South Korea, and coastal clean-ups.
Callum, who had type 1 diabetes, was a professional lacrosse player, while both brothers were passionate about surfing and the ocean.
Mexican authorities claim the men were murdered by thieves trying to steal the tyres from their ute.
Following their deaths, Mr and Mrs Robinson made the awful journey to Mexico to identify the bodies of their boys.
Four people in Mexico were swiftly arrested and charged over their alleged involvement in the disappearances of the three men.
A 31-year-old Ensenada man, known as Angel Jesus 'N', became the fifth person to be arrested in July last year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
5 hours ago
- Perth Now
Rebel Wilson faces new legal threat
The lead actor in Rebel Wilson's film 'The Deb' has accused the Aussie star of damaging her reputation in a series of social media posts, as Ms Wilson faces separate allegations she tried to undermine the film's release. Lawyers for actor Charlotte MacInnes on Thursday filed a concerns notice to Rebel Wilson over a series of social media posts made by the major Aussie star. Court documents, seen by NewsWire, allege Ms Wilson made a series of posts to Instagram which implied Ms MacInnes had changed her story about one of the film's producers, Amanda Ghost, allegedly making unwanted sexual advances towards her. According to the court documents, the posts also allegedly suggested that she got the lead role in one Ms Ghost's productions in return, was given a record label deal, and was paid off by Ms Ghost to lie about a complaint made to Ms Wilson about the alleged sexual harassment. The documents claim the imputations are 'false and seriously defamatory', harming Ms MacInnes' reputation at a critical point in her career. 'The Publications carried seriously defamatory imputations damaging to Ms MacInnes' personal and professional reputation,' the documents state. 'This was her first lead role in a film and you cruelled her professional reputation before she could even enjoy the benefit of the success of the film as the lead actress.' Lawyers from law firm Giles George argue Ms Wilson's alleged statements carry particular weight within the film industry, given her success. Ms MacInnes is seeking damages and a permanent order to stop Ms Wilson from publishing any similar statements in the future. A series of screenshots of the alleged defamatory statements were attached in the lengthy concerns notice and seen by NewsWire. The fresh threat comes as Ms Wilson faces unrelated allegations she tried to undermine the release of her film 'The Deb'. Ms Wilson and the company AI film Production Limited agreed to produce the Aussie film 'The Deb' in 2023. Court documents, also seen by NewsWire, claim Ms Wilson made allegations that producers on the film had engaged in inappropriate conduct towards the film's lead actor, embezzled money, and tried to block the film's release. Rebel Wilson is facing separate allegations that she tried to undermine the film's release. NewsWire / Glenn Campbell Credit: NCA NewsWire The film ultimately premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September 2024, however the documents allege Ms Wilson then 'undermined' efforts to further distribute the film, including by again alleging the company was trying to block the film's release. 'In fact, it was Wilson who was undermining the attempts of the producers and AI Film to secure distribution deals for the Film by continuing to make public and false allegations, and by deliberately undermining the negotiations with potential distributors,' the document claims. Proposals to distribute the film were subsequently withdrawn after Ms Wilson allegedly threatened to get an injunction to prevent its release. Lawyers argue Ms Wilson's alleged actions have damaged the company's reputations and goodwill, undermined the value of the film's rights and led to a loss of distribution revenues. Rebel Wilson's lawyers on Friday sought more time before the matter is next called up in court. Instagram Credit: Supplied The document also claims Ms Wilson's alleged behaviour was in breach of her contract. Lawyers on behalf of AI Film are pushing for damages, statutory compensation, an apology, and corrective advertising. Further, they're seeking an order to prevent the actor from making any statements similar to those alleged in the documents. The matter was heard briefly in the NSW Supreme Court on Friday, where lawyer Sue Chrysanthou argued against a bid by Ms Wilson's lawyers for a delay in the case. 'Your Honour we oppose that, the defendants were served on the day of filing, the day after…(Ms Wilson) went online to her social media and complained about the proceedings and repeated the conduct alleged,' Ms Chrysanthou told the court. Justice Elisabeth Peden ultimately granted a slightly shorter adjournment than Ms Wilson's lawyers were seeking, with the matter to return to court in September.
Perth Now
7 hours ago
- Perth Now
Battle over DV murderer's sentence
A Newcastle man who murdered his former partner when he stabbed her at least 78 times just weeks after being released from jail for domestic violence offences against her should have time added onto his sentence, prosecutors have told a court. Mackenzie Anderson was murdered by Tyrone Thompson during a horrific attack inside her Newcastle home in March 2022. He stabbed her to death just two weeks after he had been released from prison on parole for assaulting, intimidating her and destroying her property. He also senselessly murdered her while subject to an apprehended violence order which was meant to protect the 21-year-old mother. Upon his release from jail, Ms Anderson told friends that she was afraid that Thompson would kill her. Thompson pleaded guilty to her murder and was sentenced to a maximum of 22 years and six months. Mackenzie Anderson. Instagram. Credit: Supplied He will be eligible for release on parole in March 2038 after serving 15 and a half years. The Crown has appealed against the leniency of Thompson's sentence and has taken its fight to have time added onto his sentence to the state's highest court, the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is relying on a lone ground of appeal - that the sentence handed to Thompson by Justice Richard Weinstein in May is 'manifestly inadequate'. Crown prosecutor Monica Millward on Friday told the three-judge panel of Chief Justice Andrew Bell and Justices Belinda Rigg and Sarah Huggett the sentence could become legal precedent if not corrected. She highlighted the lengths Thompson went to contact Ms Anderson, including getting other people to message her on his behalf in an attempt to convince her to drop the AVO. Ms Millward said the principle of general deterrence — which refers to sentences meted out by the courts serving to dissuade others from similar offending — should be given particular weight in cases of serious domestic violence. 'When one looks at all the relevant factors and the significance of them in this case, having regard to the nature of it and the seriousness of it, it is one of the numerous respects in which we say this sentence is demonstrated to be manifestly inadequate,' Ms Millward said. On the night of the killing, Thompson was drinking in Ms Anderson's apartment, along with another man, but was asked to leave. CCTV captured him returning at about 10.10pm and using a ladder to climb onto her balcony. He again left but stole a set of keys, only to return minutes later to murder Ms Anderson. Neighbours heard yelling coming from the apartment and one woman saw Ms Anderson standing at a window with her hands up. Young Newcastle mum Mackenzie Anderson was stabbed to death by her former partner Tyrone Thompson. Instagram. Credit: Supplied The friend, who had previously been at the apartment, returned to find Thompson standing over Ms Anderson, stabbing her repeatedly in a pool of blood. When police arrived, he yelled: 'Help me! She's dead.' Police attempted to revive her and while they were attempting to save her life, Thompson yelled at them to attend to a wound to his hand: 'I'm bleeding out everywhere. Man, can you please help my blood pressure? Officer, can you help my blood pressure, please?' An autopsy found she suffered at least 78 stab wounds to her head, neck, back, chest, abdomen, legs and arms. The hearing continues. More to come. Domestic Violence helplines
The Advertiser
10 hours ago
- The Advertiser
From pocket knives to Instagram, a ban just isn't the answer
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The blade was stuck in my knee. There was no pain at first. Just fear and shock. I'd been given a pocket knife for my 12th birthday and while hurling it about, testing its heft in a menacing fashion, it came loose in my hand, burying itself in my right kneecap. I yanked it free and limped home, leaving a trail of blood on the footpath. The backyard hose cleaned the wound. Bandages and a pair of long pants hid the injury. Fearing my prized knife would be confiscated, I never told a soul. Yet the scar remains half a century later, testament to the carefree risks and vulnerabilities of childhood. Bloody kids. Always putting themselves in danger. Our driving instinct is to protect them, which is why we no longer give children pocket knives or let them bounce on rusty trampolines above gravel driveways. These days their injuries aren't always so visible. They're inflicted by notifications and comment threads. Social media, we are warned, is the latest danger zone. So we're banning it. From December Australian law will prohibit children 16 and under from using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The instinct is understandable. The online world at its worst is cruel and addictive. But at its best it is inclusive, educational and even aspirational, which is why this legislation ranks among the most arbitrary, knee-jerk and hypocritical laws conceived by a government in a long time. We don't teach children water safety by banning them from the swimming pool. We give them lessons. We don't teach road safety by taking away their bikes. We hand them helmets and show them how to navigate streets and obey traffic rules. We educate them as best we can while accepting that learning is a gradual, messy and sometimes painful experience. Social media is no longer just a de facto town square. It's a digital playground, meeting place and classroom. It's where friendships are built and maintained and creativity and identity are explored. It also has its dark places where trolls, bullies and predators lurk, preying on adolescent anxieties. In other words, it's not so different from the real world. Removing young people's access to social media will not blunt their desire for connection or self-expression. Many will find a way around it. We're already seeing a rise in the use of VPNs - Virtual Private Networks - that mask your internet address. Even the government has admitted its move is "messy". Uncertainty surrounds the law's enforcement, with age-verification technologies like facial recognition and ID-uploading systems mired in privacy concerns. "Social media companies have a social responsibility," said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Of course they do. Just like the gambling and alcohol industries, whose socially damaging products we continue to excuse by allowing them to air advertisements with lip-service warnings spoken at an incomprehensibly fast rate. But doesn't society carry the greatest responsibility when it comes to childhood safety? By banning young people from social media we're denying them opportunities to learn how to cope with a world they will have to soon confront anyway. Instead of treating them like passive victims of nasty, all-knowing algorithms, why not equip them with the skills to detect misinformation and abuse? A forward-thinking society should treat living in the digital world as seriously as it does maths and English. Classes devoted to privacy, artificial intelligence, self-esteem and online civility should be mandatory in the national curriculum. Courses should involve parents. Even the tech companies, now profiteering off young people's eyeballs while enjoying minimal transparency, could be made to participate and engage with students. The answer isn't prohibition. It rarely is. The answer is education. It's about teaching our children the difference between friends and followers, between reality and superficiality. Kids don't need less access to social media. They need greater access to adults willing to show them how to use it safely, just like most things in our increasingly complicated world. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should under-16s be banned from social media or should we better educate children on how to use it? Have you experienced the negative side of social media or do you believe it has brought us closer? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Police have announced a $1 million reward for information as they hunt for the criminals behind the alleged gangland murder of Robert Issa in 2023. - Australia has pledged an extra $20 million in humanitarian aid for women and children in war-torn Gaza after more than 100,000 people turned out in protest across the country to protest the suffering in the besieged enclave. - A parrot on the brink of extinction could thwart plans for an open-cut coal mine expansion after records of the bird were discovered to be missing from the key database of species sightings. THEY SAID IT: "Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities." - Narendra Modi. YOU SAID IT: Steve wrote about the entitlement of the rich and some of the appalling behaviour their wealth enables. Deidre wrote: "Powerful stories in your newsletter and your perspective that the entitlement of the rich costs the rest of us, is so true. You wrote - Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? It seems to me that the Australian "fair go" idea is just a handy myth for wealthy to perpetuate. Sadly, I don't see a fair go at play in the latest Close the Gap results." Susan says we tend to be more lenient to the self-made billionaires: "Their offspring, the nepo babies, are the ones being parachuted into serious wealth. Usually with little talent because it doesn't work like that. Have any of the subsequent Rockefellers done anything useful?" Adam wrote about his brother "who ruthlessly chased the almighty dollar in years past. He once told me that he believed in the old saying that 'he who dies with the most toys, wins'. I pointed out to him that he who dies with the most toys is dead, and those that are left get to fight over those toys. We all finish up in the same place one day, so accruing wealth, possessions, and a sense of entitlement will make no difference to our ultimate fate." Arthur looked to the past for a warning: "History reveals we are heading for disaster if we continue to fail to address the problem of the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer. The best example is the French Revolution. We have been warned." What we do with our money was a question of choice for Jan: "Two good teacher incomes and our choice was to buy land and build a holiday house. Contemporaries chose overseas trips. They are left with a diary, photos and memories. We are left with real estate that has increased in value. Both are valuable and both came about by choice." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The blade was stuck in my knee. There was no pain at first. Just fear and shock. I'd been given a pocket knife for my 12th birthday and while hurling it about, testing its heft in a menacing fashion, it came loose in my hand, burying itself in my right kneecap. I yanked it free and limped home, leaving a trail of blood on the footpath. The backyard hose cleaned the wound. Bandages and a pair of long pants hid the injury. Fearing my prized knife would be confiscated, I never told a soul. Yet the scar remains half a century later, testament to the carefree risks and vulnerabilities of childhood. Bloody kids. Always putting themselves in danger. Our driving instinct is to protect them, which is why we no longer give children pocket knives or let them bounce on rusty trampolines above gravel driveways. These days their injuries aren't always so visible. They're inflicted by notifications and comment threads. Social media, we are warned, is the latest danger zone. So we're banning it. From December Australian law will prohibit children 16 and under from using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The instinct is understandable. The online world at its worst is cruel and addictive. But at its best it is inclusive, educational and even aspirational, which is why this legislation ranks among the most arbitrary, knee-jerk and hypocritical laws conceived by a government in a long time. We don't teach children water safety by banning them from the swimming pool. We give them lessons. We don't teach road safety by taking away their bikes. We hand them helmets and show them how to navigate streets and obey traffic rules. We educate them as best we can while accepting that learning is a gradual, messy and sometimes painful experience. Social media is no longer just a de facto town square. It's a digital playground, meeting place and classroom. It's where friendships are built and maintained and creativity and identity are explored. It also has its dark places where trolls, bullies and predators lurk, preying on adolescent anxieties. In other words, it's not so different from the real world. Removing young people's access to social media will not blunt their desire for connection or self-expression. Many will find a way around it. We're already seeing a rise in the use of VPNs - Virtual Private Networks - that mask your internet address. Even the government has admitted its move is "messy". Uncertainty surrounds the law's enforcement, with age-verification technologies like facial recognition and ID-uploading systems mired in privacy concerns. "Social media companies have a social responsibility," said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Of course they do. Just like the gambling and alcohol industries, whose socially damaging products we continue to excuse by allowing them to air advertisements with lip-service warnings spoken at an incomprehensibly fast rate. But doesn't society carry the greatest responsibility when it comes to childhood safety? By banning young people from social media we're denying them opportunities to learn how to cope with a world they will have to soon confront anyway. Instead of treating them like passive victims of nasty, all-knowing algorithms, why not equip them with the skills to detect misinformation and abuse? A forward-thinking society should treat living in the digital world as seriously as it does maths and English. Classes devoted to privacy, artificial intelligence, self-esteem and online civility should be mandatory in the national curriculum. Courses should involve parents. Even the tech companies, now profiteering off young people's eyeballs while enjoying minimal transparency, could be made to participate and engage with students. The answer isn't prohibition. It rarely is. The answer is education. It's about teaching our children the difference between friends and followers, between reality and superficiality. Kids don't need less access to social media. They need greater access to adults willing to show them how to use it safely, just like most things in our increasingly complicated world. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should under-16s be banned from social media or should we better educate children on how to use it? Have you experienced the negative side of social media or do you believe it has brought us closer? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Police have announced a $1 million reward for information as they hunt for the criminals behind the alleged gangland murder of Robert Issa in 2023. - Australia has pledged an extra $20 million in humanitarian aid for women and children in war-torn Gaza after more than 100,000 people turned out in protest across the country to protest the suffering in the besieged enclave. - A parrot on the brink of extinction could thwart plans for an open-cut coal mine expansion after records of the bird were discovered to be missing from the key database of species sightings. THEY SAID IT: "Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities." - Narendra Modi. YOU SAID IT: Steve wrote about the entitlement of the rich and some of the appalling behaviour their wealth enables. Deidre wrote: "Powerful stories in your newsletter and your perspective that the entitlement of the rich costs the rest of us, is so true. You wrote - Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? It seems to me that the Australian "fair go" idea is just a handy myth for wealthy to perpetuate. Sadly, I don't see a fair go at play in the latest Close the Gap results." Susan says we tend to be more lenient to the self-made billionaires: "Their offspring, the nepo babies, are the ones being parachuted into serious wealth. Usually with little talent because it doesn't work like that. Have any of the subsequent Rockefellers done anything useful?" Adam wrote about his brother "who ruthlessly chased the almighty dollar in years past. He once told me that he believed in the old saying that 'he who dies with the most toys, wins'. I pointed out to him that he who dies with the most toys is dead, and those that are left get to fight over those toys. We all finish up in the same place one day, so accruing wealth, possessions, and a sense of entitlement will make no difference to our ultimate fate." Arthur looked to the past for a warning: "History reveals we are heading for disaster if we continue to fail to address the problem of the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer. The best example is the French Revolution. We have been warned." What we do with our money was a question of choice for Jan: "Two good teacher incomes and our choice was to buy land and build a holiday house. Contemporaries chose overseas trips. They are left with a diary, photos and memories. We are left with real estate that has increased in value. Both are valuable and both came about by choice." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The blade was stuck in my knee. There was no pain at first. Just fear and shock. I'd been given a pocket knife for my 12th birthday and while hurling it about, testing its heft in a menacing fashion, it came loose in my hand, burying itself in my right kneecap. I yanked it free and limped home, leaving a trail of blood on the footpath. The backyard hose cleaned the wound. Bandages and a pair of long pants hid the injury. Fearing my prized knife would be confiscated, I never told a soul. Yet the scar remains half a century later, testament to the carefree risks and vulnerabilities of childhood. Bloody kids. Always putting themselves in danger. Our driving instinct is to protect them, which is why we no longer give children pocket knives or let them bounce on rusty trampolines above gravel driveways. These days their injuries aren't always so visible. They're inflicted by notifications and comment threads. Social media, we are warned, is the latest danger zone. So we're banning it. From December Australian law will prohibit children 16 and under from using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The instinct is understandable. The online world at its worst is cruel and addictive. But at its best it is inclusive, educational and even aspirational, which is why this legislation ranks among the most arbitrary, knee-jerk and hypocritical laws conceived by a government in a long time. We don't teach children water safety by banning them from the swimming pool. We give them lessons. We don't teach road safety by taking away their bikes. We hand them helmets and show them how to navigate streets and obey traffic rules. We educate them as best we can while accepting that learning is a gradual, messy and sometimes painful experience. Social media is no longer just a de facto town square. It's a digital playground, meeting place and classroom. It's where friendships are built and maintained and creativity and identity are explored. It also has its dark places where trolls, bullies and predators lurk, preying on adolescent anxieties. In other words, it's not so different from the real world. Removing young people's access to social media will not blunt their desire for connection or self-expression. Many will find a way around it. We're already seeing a rise in the use of VPNs - Virtual Private Networks - that mask your internet address. Even the government has admitted its move is "messy". Uncertainty surrounds the law's enforcement, with age-verification technologies like facial recognition and ID-uploading systems mired in privacy concerns. "Social media companies have a social responsibility," said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Of course they do. Just like the gambling and alcohol industries, whose socially damaging products we continue to excuse by allowing them to air advertisements with lip-service warnings spoken at an incomprehensibly fast rate. But doesn't society carry the greatest responsibility when it comes to childhood safety? By banning young people from social media we're denying them opportunities to learn how to cope with a world they will have to soon confront anyway. Instead of treating them like passive victims of nasty, all-knowing algorithms, why not equip them with the skills to detect misinformation and abuse? A forward-thinking society should treat living in the digital world as seriously as it does maths and English. Classes devoted to privacy, artificial intelligence, self-esteem and online civility should be mandatory in the national curriculum. Courses should involve parents. Even the tech companies, now profiteering off young people's eyeballs while enjoying minimal transparency, could be made to participate and engage with students. The answer isn't prohibition. It rarely is. The answer is education. It's about teaching our children the difference between friends and followers, between reality and superficiality. Kids don't need less access to social media. They need greater access to adults willing to show them how to use it safely, just like most things in our increasingly complicated world. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should under-16s be banned from social media or should we better educate children on how to use it? Have you experienced the negative side of social media or do you believe it has brought us closer? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Police have announced a $1 million reward for information as they hunt for the criminals behind the alleged gangland murder of Robert Issa in 2023. - Australia has pledged an extra $20 million in humanitarian aid for women and children in war-torn Gaza after more than 100,000 people turned out in protest across the country to protest the suffering in the besieged enclave. - A parrot on the brink of extinction could thwart plans for an open-cut coal mine expansion after records of the bird were discovered to be missing from the key database of species sightings. THEY SAID IT: "Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities." - Narendra Modi. YOU SAID IT: Steve wrote about the entitlement of the rich and some of the appalling behaviour their wealth enables. Deidre wrote: "Powerful stories in your newsletter and your perspective that the entitlement of the rich costs the rest of us, is so true. You wrote - Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? It seems to me that the Australian "fair go" idea is just a handy myth for wealthy to perpetuate. Sadly, I don't see a fair go at play in the latest Close the Gap results." Susan says we tend to be more lenient to the self-made billionaires: "Their offspring, the nepo babies, are the ones being parachuted into serious wealth. Usually with little talent because it doesn't work like that. Have any of the subsequent Rockefellers done anything useful?" Adam wrote about his brother "who ruthlessly chased the almighty dollar in years past. He once told me that he believed in the old saying that 'he who dies with the most toys, wins'. I pointed out to him that he who dies with the most toys is dead, and those that are left get to fight over those toys. We all finish up in the same place one day, so accruing wealth, possessions, and a sense of entitlement will make no difference to our ultimate fate." Arthur looked to the past for a warning: "History reveals we are heading for disaster if we continue to fail to address the problem of the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer. The best example is the French Revolution. We have been warned." What we do with our money was a question of choice for Jan: "Two good teacher incomes and our choice was to buy land and build a holiday house. Contemporaries chose overseas trips. They are left with a diary, photos and memories. We are left with real estate that has increased in value. Both are valuable and both came about by choice." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The blade was stuck in my knee. There was no pain at first. Just fear and shock. I'd been given a pocket knife for my 12th birthday and while hurling it about, testing its heft in a menacing fashion, it came loose in my hand, burying itself in my right kneecap. I yanked it free and limped home, leaving a trail of blood on the footpath. The backyard hose cleaned the wound. Bandages and a pair of long pants hid the injury. Fearing my prized knife would be confiscated, I never told a soul. Yet the scar remains half a century later, testament to the carefree risks and vulnerabilities of childhood. Bloody kids. Always putting themselves in danger. Our driving instinct is to protect them, which is why we no longer give children pocket knives or let them bounce on rusty trampolines above gravel driveways. These days their injuries aren't always so visible. They're inflicted by notifications and comment threads. Social media, we are warned, is the latest danger zone. So we're banning it. From December Australian law will prohibit children 16 and under from using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The instinct is understandable. The online world at its worst is cruel and addictive. But at its best it is inclusive, educational and even aspirational, which is why this legislation ranks among the most arbitrary, knee-jerk and hypocritical laws conceived by a government in a long time. We don't teach children water safety by banning them from the swimming pool. We give them lessons. We don't teach road safety by taking away their bikes. We hand them helmets and show them how to navigate streets and obey traffic rules. We educate them as best we can while accepting that learning is a gradual, messy and sometimes painful experience. Social media is no longer just a de facto town square. It's a digital playground, meeting place and classroom. It's where friendships are built and maintained and creativity and identity are explored. It also has its dark places where trolls, bullies and predators lurk, preying on adolescent anxieties. In other words, it's not so different from the real world. Removing young people's access to social media will not blunt their desire for connection or self-expression. Many will find a way around it. We're already seeing a rise in the use of VPNs - Virtual Private Networks - that mask your internet address. Even the government has admitted its move is "messy". Uncertainty surrounds the law's enforcement, with age-verification technologies like facial recognition and ID-uploading systems mired in privacy concerns. "Social media companies have a social responsibility," said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Of course they do. Just like the gambling and alcohol industries, whose socially damaging products we continue to excuse by allowing them to air advertisements with lip-service warnings spoken at an incomprehensibly fast rate. But doesn't society carry the greatest responsibility when it comes to childhood safety? By banning young people from social media we're denying them opportunities to learn how to cope with a world they will have to soon confront anyway. Instead of treating them like passive victims of nasty, all-knowing algorithms, why not equip them with the skills to detect misinformation and abuse? A forward-thinking society should treat living in the digital world as seriously as it does maths and English. Classes devoted to privacy, artificial intelligence, self-esteem and online civility should be mandatory in the national curriculum. Courses should involve parents. Even the tech companies, now profiteering off young people's eyeballs while enjoying minimal transparency, could be made to participate and engage with students. The answer isn't prohibition. It rarely is. The answer is education. It's about teaching our children the difference between friends and followers, between reality and superficiality. Kids don't need less access to social media. They need greater access to adults willing to show them how to use it safely, just like most things in our increasingly complicated world. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should under-16s be banned from social media or should we better educate children on how to use it? Have you experienced the negative side of social media or do you believe it has brought us closer? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Police have announced a $1 million reward for information as they hunt for the criminals behind the alleged gangland murder of Robert Issa in 2023. - Australia has pledged an extra $20 million in humanitarian aid for women and children in war-torn Gaza after more than 100,000 people turned out in protest across the country to protest the suffering in the besieged enclave. - A parrot on the brink of extinction could thwart plans for an open-cut coal mine expansion after records of the bird were discovered to be missing from the key database of species sightings. THEY SAID IT: "Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities." - Narendra Modi. YOU SAID IT: Steve wrote about the entitlement of the rich and some of the appalling behaviour their wealth enables. Deidre wrote: "Powerful stories in your newsletter and your perspective that the entitlement of the rich costs the rest of us, is so true. You wrote - Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? It seems to me that the Australian "fair go" idea is just a handy myth for wealthy to perpetuate. Sadly, I don't see a fair go at play in the latest Close the Gap results." Susan says we tend to be more lenient to the self-made billionaires: "Their offspring, the nepo babies, are the ones being parachuted into serious wealth. Usually with little talent because it doesn't work like that. Have any of the subsequent Rockefellers done anything useful?" Adam wrote about his brother "who ruthlessly chased the almighty dollar in years past. He once told me that he believed in the old saying that 'he who dies with the most toys, wins'. I pointed out to him that he who dies with the most toys is dead, and those that are left get to fight over those toys. We all finish up in the same place one day, so accruing wealth, possessions, and a sense of entitlement will make no difference to our ultimate fate." Arthur looked to the past for a warning: "History reveals we are heading for disaster if we continue to fail to address the problem of the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer. The best example is the French Revolution. We have been warned." What we do with our money was a question of choice for Jan: "Two good teacher incomes and our choice was to buy land and build a holiday house. Contemporaries chose overseas trips. They are left with a diary, photos and memories. We are left with real estate that has increased in value. Both are valuable and both came about by choice."
