Latest news with #DOGS
The Sun
5 days ago
- Automotive
- The Sun
Best cars for dog owners: In the market for a used motor? Pick with your pooch in mind with models starting from £5K
DOGS are as much a part of the family as kids. So, when you get a new pet you might need to upgrade your car to make sure they're comfy. 1 FIND ON SUN MOTORS Picking the right car is probably harder for a pet than children as dogs come in all shapes and sizes, and there is plenty to factor in. If you've got a big dog, you'll want a big car with a decent-sized boot so it can move around on any journeys. Dogs also get travel sick, so choose a motor with a smooth ride - plus ensure the area you're stowing your pet is well ventilated. Look for cars with anchor points in the boot, plus child locks to stop your mutt making a run for it - those that can be fitted with a dog guard are also worth looking at. And make sure you also pick a car that doesn't have a high load lip in the boot if your dog is only small. If they can't leap up easily, you probably want to look elsewhere. Here's six of the best used cars with prices starting at just £3,299. Mazda CX-5 FIND HERE While the Mazda's SUV might not have room for seven people, it has plenty of boot space for man's best friend. It's one of the best value large SUV's on the market, and is as practical as it is stylish. Perfect for any adventure, you can easily pack in the whole family along with your pup and have room to spare. There are models available on Sun Motors starting from £4,499. Skoda Superb Estate FIND HERE Skoda is not to be overlooked when it comes to dog-friendly cars. The Superb Estate gives you space and practicality at excellent value. Your back can rest easy as the low loading sill allows your pooch to hop into the back with little effort. The 660-litre capacity is perhaps the biggest selling point and there's an added bonus of a four-wheel drive for rural explorers and adventure-seekers. You can find used models on Sun Motors starting from £5,795. Kia Sportage FIND HERE The most popular family SUV from the South Korean manufacturer, the Sportage is most attractive for its interior space. Dog owners can add a trunk sill protector to prevent scratches while their pet enjoys the giant boot. And the simplistic motor tends to hold its value better than most in its category. There are used models currently available on Sun Motors from just £3,989. Dacia Logan MCV FIND HERE Don't let the price of this addition from Dacia fool you, the load area and boot space of this budget option rivals that of a car three or four times the price, with 573 litres of space. The overall equipment may seem fairly basic and the black and grey plastics may not be the most pleasing on the eye, but on a practical level, the ample space and easy to clean interior make this a perfect choice for dog owners on a tight budget. Find used models on Sun Motors starting from £3,299. Skoda Karoq FIND HERE One of the most comfortable drives from Skoda, the Karoq is an update on their Yeti model. It comes with a range of features, and offers a touch of luxury for a great price. A luggage compartment mat and partition net screen can also be added for your dog. Find used models on Sun Motors from £7,495. Citroen C4 Cactus FIND HERE With a somewhat less quirky design than previous versions of the Cactus, Citroen has still managed to create a small family car that delivers when it comes to safety and comfort. The unique rear window design will give dog owners peace of mind as they hinge outwards rather than slide down, meaning owners no longer need to worry about their poodles getting their head stuck out the window. Find used models from £3,495.
The Advertiser
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Envoy's recommendations have put the Prime Minister in a bit of a bind
An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last.
Perth Now
19-05-2025
- Sport
- Perth Now
Teams brace themselves for tricky NRL Origin period
KEY STORYLINES TO WATCH FOR IN ROUND 11 OF THE NRL SEASON CAN DEPLETED DOGS KEEP DELIVERING? Canterbury will have up to 10 players missing for Thursday night's showdown with the Dolphins, through a mix of injury, suspension and State of Origin selection. They keep winning, but the absences mean they won't want to rely on another second-half fightback. HOW WILL TOM TRBOJEVIC RESPOND? Tom Trbojevic was easily the biggest name left out of State of Origin from either side, not picked by NSW even after Jacob Kiraz was ruled out on the wing. He had a rough night in attack against North Queensland, and will surely want to respond against Parramatta. CAN PENRITH'S NEXT MEN UP GET SEASON ON TRACK The State of Origin period has traditionally been tough for Penrith, losing all three matches across 2023 and 2024 when their stars were in NSW camp. The Panthers lose five players again this week against an equally-depleted Newcastle, but their poor start to 2025 means they can barely afford to falter. IS THIS CRONULLA'S TIME TO STRIKE? The Sharks loom as the side most likely to make a run over the next two months, with no State of Origin representatives despite sitting fourth on the ladder. They face a Roosters side missing five NSW and Queensland players on Saturday night. AUCKLAND IS A LONG WAY FROM VEGAS When Canberra dismantled the Warriors in the opening game of the season in Las Vegas, no one paid much attention. When they meet on Sunday the two sides arrive as genuine NRL front-runners, with the winner to take second spot on the ladder.
