Exclusive Brethren plans new members-only supermarket in Melbourne's north-east
The secretive Exclusive Brethren religious sect has moved to expand its sprawling business empire with a new supermarket planned in Melbourne's north-east to serve only church followers.
A company directed by members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (PBCC) bought 25-31 Sherbourne Road in Briar Hill for $6.3 million and settled in January, property records show.
Another company, also linked to the PBCC, has submitted an application to Banyule City Council to carry out building works at the site. The plan, which is now advertised online, reveals designs for a supermarket.
The applicant, Killarney Enterprises Vic Pty Ltd, trades as Campus&Co, which the PBCC website describes as 'a global chain of stores, which are run by local volunteers from the church'.
The PBCC is a closed conservative Christian sect that preaches a 'hatred' for those outside it. This doctrine of separation has led members to develop what the church calls a 'community ecosystem', which includes entities to serve just the Brethren community.
The new owners of the former Purdys Furniture showroom in Briar Hill want to 'essentially relocate' a Campus&Co supermarket that operated from a OneSchool Global campus on Ironbark Road in nearby Yarrambat, according to planning documents.
The Exclusive Brethren established the OneSchool Global network in the 1990s to educate their children.
Sydney-based 'Man of God' Bruce D. Hales leads the global church, which exerts control over much of members' lives, barring them from socialising with outsiders aside from business dealings.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Getty argues its UK copyright case does not threaten AI
Getty Images' landmark copyright lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI has begun at London's High Court, with Getty rejecting Stability AI's contention the case poses a threat to the generative AI industry. Seattle-based Getty, which produces editorial content and creative stock images and video, accuses Stability AI of using its images to "train" its Stable Diffusion system which can generate images from text inputs. Getty, which is bringing a parallel lawsuit against Stability AI in the United States, says Stability AI unlawfully scraped millions of images from its websites and used them to train and develop Stable Diffusion. Stability AI - which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and in March announced investment by the world's largest advertising company, WPP - is fighting the case and denies infringing any of Getty's rights. Before the trial began on Monday, Stability AI's spokesperson said "the wider dispute is about technological innovation and freedom of ideas". "Artists using our tools are producing works built upon collective human knowledge, which is at the core of fair use and freedom of expression," the spokesperson said. In court filings, Stability AI lawyer Hugo Cuddigan said Getty's lawsuit posed "an overt threat to Stability's whole business and the wider generative AI industry". Getty's lawyers said that argument was incorrect and their case was about upholding intellectual property rights. "It is not a battle between creatives and technology, where a win for Getty Images means the end of AI," Getty's lawyer Lindsay Lane told the court. She added: "The two industries can exist in synergistic harmony because copyright works and database rights are critical to the advancement and success of AI ... the problem is when AI companies such as Stability want to use those works without payment." Getty's case is one of several lawsuits brought in the United Kingdom, the US and elsewhere over the use of copyright-protected material to train AI models, after ChatGPT and other AI tools became widely available more than two years ago. Creative industries are grappling with the legal and ethical implications of AI models that can produce their own work after being trained on existing material. Prominent figures including Elton John have called for greater protections for artists. Lawyers say Getty's case will have a major effect on the law, as well as potentially informing government policy on copyright protections relating to AI. "Legally, we're in uncharted territory. This case will be pivotal in setting the boundaries of the monopoly granted by UK copyright in the age of AI," Rebecca Newman, a lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, who is not involved in the case, said. Cerys Wyn Davies, from the law firm Pinsent Masons, said the High Court's ruling "could have a major bearing on market practice and the UK's attractiveness as a jurisdiction for AI development".
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Getty argues its UK copyright case does not threaten AI
Getty Images' landmark copyright lawsuit against artificial intelligence company Stability AI has begun at London's High Court, with Getty rejecting Stability AI's contention the case poses a threat to the generative AI industry. Seattle-based Getty, which produces editorial content and creative stock images and video, accuses Stability AI of using its images to "train" its Stable Diffusion system which can generate images from text inputs. Getty, which is bringing a parallel lawsuit against Stability AI in the United States, says Stability AI unlawfully scraped millions of images from its websites and used them to train and develop Stable Diffusion. Stability AI - which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and in March announced investment by the world's largest advertising company, WPP - is fighting the case and denies infringing any of Getty's rights. Before the trial began on Monday, Stability AI's spokesperson said "the wider dispute is about technological innovation and freedom of ideas". "Artists using our tools are producing works built upon collective human knowledge, which is at the core of fair use and freedom of expression," the spokesperson said. In court filings, Stability AI lawyer Hugo Cuddigan said Getty's lawsuit posed "an overt threat to Stability's whole business and the wider generative AI industry". Getty's lawyers said that argument was incorrect and their case was about upholding intellectual property rights. "It is not a battle between creatives and technology, where a win for Getty Images means the end of AI," Getty's lawyer Lindsay Lane told the court. She added: "The two industries can exist in synergistic harmony because copyright works and database rights are critical to the advancement and success of AI ... the problem is when AI companies such as Stability want to use those works without payment." Getty's case is one of several lawsuits brought in the United Kingdom, the US and elsewhere over the use of copyright-protected material to train AI models, after ChatGPT and other AI tools became widely available more than two years ago. Creative industries are grappling with the legal and ethical implications of AI models that can produce their own work after being trained on existing material. Prominent figures including Elton John have called for greater protections for artists. Lawyers say Getty's case will have a major effect on the law, as well as potentially informing government policy on copyright protections relating to AI. "Legally, we're in uncharted territory. This case will be pivotal in setting the boundaries of the monopoly granted by UK copyright in the age of AI," Rebecca Newman, a lawyer at Addleshaw Goddard, who is not involved in the case, said. Cerys Wyn Davies, from the law firm Pinsent Masons, said the High Court's ruling "could have a major bearing on market practice and the UK's attractiveness as a jurisdiction for AI development".
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Genuine emergency': Sydney's unwanted honour in housing affordability report
Sydney now 'stands alone' as the most expensive city in the world for housing after prices rose to a record median mark last month. It's no secret that the Harbour City is one of the most unaffordable places to live on the planet – but new data suggests it may have officially overtaken its perennial rival for the top spot. The median price for a dwelling – including both houses and apartments – in Sydney hit $1.2 million in May, rising 0.5 per cent in one month. As explained by ABC's finance guru Alan Kohler on Sunday night, that figure is 14.7 times the median NSW wage (which would equate to about $81,000). This would surpass the most recent score for Hong Kong – which had previously kept Sydney in second place – with a ratio of 14.4, according to research by California's Chapman University. 'Hong Kong's house prices are coming down, so Sydney now stands alone,' Mr Kohler said. 'Now it doesn't really matter how this happened and whose fault it is – it's a genuine emergency. 'Having the most expensive housing in the world can't go on.' One city rising, the other falling Chapman University's Center for Demographics and Policy publishes its Demographia International Housing Affordability study each year. It calculates its unaffordability ratio by dividing a city's median dwelling prices by median by the median pay of its residents. Its latest international housing affordability report, released in May, put Sydney at 13.8, but that was calculated before the most recent jump in dwelling values. 'Sydney has had the first, second or third least affordable housing of any major market in 16 of the last 17 years,' the report states. Hong Kong, meanwhile, has been on the opposite trajectory since the Covid-19 pandemic. 'Hong Kong has been the least affordable market in Demographia International Housing Affordability, for the 14 years since its inclusion,' Demographia researchers found. 'However, in recent years there are been material improvement. The 2024 Hong Kong median multiple of 14.4, improved from 16.7 in 2023. 'This is an even greater improvement Hong Kong's pre-pandemic 20.8 in 2019.' The 2024 UBS Global Real Estate Bubble Index explained the decline, which had brought prices down to 2012 levels. 'High interest rates, anemic population growth, and a lack of buyer optimism all contributed to weak housing demand,' it said. 'Impossibly unaffordable' Anything over a score of nine is deemed 'impossibly unaffordable' by Demographia's researchers. Its latest report lays out the dire situation for prospective Australian buyers, with the nation's overall score sitting at 9.7. Researchers went as far to call the situation in some Australian capitals as 'remarkable' when compared to global powerhouses such as London or New York. 'Even the smallest Australian market, Adelaide endures an impossibly unaffordable median multiple of 10.9, ranked 90th among the 95 markets,' the report reads. 'Melbourne, with impossibly unaffordable median multiple of 9.7, is the 87th least affordable. Brisbane was an impossibly unaffordable 9.3 and ranked 85th out of 95. 'Perth at 8.3, was the 82nd least unaffordable market. 'It is remarkable that these markets are less affordable than widely recognized world cities like New York, London, or Chicago.' Australia's change Controversy abounds when discussing house prices in Australia over time, with each generation arguing they faced tough conditions. The Demographia report stated, however, that Australian property was considered 'affordable' in the early 1990s and sat at a score of 2.8. 'As late as about 1990, national price-to-income ratios were 'affordable', at 3.0 or less in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States,' the report states. Mr Kohler cited data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to show that only two Australian capital cities had seen housing become more affordable relative to incomes over the past decade. Those were Melbourne and Darwin, where wage growth has outstripped rises in property prices. 'But everywhere else, affordability has worsened,' Mr Kohler said. 'And the cruellest is Adelaide, where housing costs have risen three times as much as incomes. 'Nationally, it's close to double.'
