An overzealous security guard found himself on the receiving end of a telling off by Adele after he told fans to stop dancing.
Video footage posted on social media2 showed the star jump to the defence of those who wanted to stand during the show at Melbourne’s Ethiad Stadium. After performing her single Water Under The Bridge, Adele told the staff member: “Excuse me sir ? I know you work here but could you stop telling people to sit down ? This is a music show.
Adele gave the security guard a piece of her mind (Photo: Channel 9) The singer halted her performance to chastise the concert worker (Photo: Getty Images AsiaPac)
“If people can’t see then they can stand up.
“If you’re moaning about people dancing, what the f*** have you come to a show for?
“If I see one more person be told to sit down, I swear to God.”
The incident happened on the final show of the singer’s Australian tour (Photo: Getty Images AsiaPac) The crowd at the Etihad Stadium in Melbourne also witnessed a surprise proposal (Photo: Getty Images AsiaPac)
The 77,000-strong crowd also witnessed a surprise proposal when Adele invited a gay couple to join her on stage.
“I had no idea that was going to happen . That wasn’t planned,” Adele said.
The star will compete her tour with three shows in Auckland this week (Photo: Getty Images AsiaPac)
The 28-year-old star will compete her tour of Australia and New Zealand by performing three shows at the Mount Smart Stadium in Auckland this week.
She will perform four sold-out shows at Wembley Stadium between June 28 and July 2.
Just in time for back-to-school this fall, a New York politician is trying to pass a bill that would require Mayor Bill de Blasio to fund the same security in private schools that public schools have access to already.
City Councilman David Greenfield sponsored the bill, known as Intro 65, to address what he saw as an obvious hole in security: Public schools deploy their New York Police Department school-safety agents at the city s expense, while nonpublic schools secular, religious and everything in between must either pay out-of-pocket or forego security personnel and hope for the best.
Unfortunately, over the last few years, the need has grown, said Greenfield, who originally introduced this bill several years ago . According to the U.S . Department of Homeland Security, we ve seen that there are more lone-wolf terror attacks and, unfortunately, schools are soft targets .
Especially in the cases of Jewish and Muslim schools . So if we can harden the targets, that s important.
There has been a rise in shooting sprees at schools at home and abroad in recent years . In 2012, three children were shot dead at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, and that same year, gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut .
In 2014, Taliban terrorists shot 145 people in a modern Islamic school in Peshawar, Pakistan . And that s to say nothing of other soft target attacks like Charlie Hebdo, July s shootings in Chattanooga as well as the recent massacres at a Charleston church and a Colorado movie theater.
This legislation is pretty much common sense, Greenfield said . But de Blasio and Democratic critics didn t agree, at least not when the bill was initially proposed at an April hearing.
Opponents on the left expressed concern that planting security guards in schools would promote what s known as a school-to-prison pipeline the idea that there s a conduit between schools and jails, and that those students who have considerable interaction with the police are more likely to engage in criminal behavior later on.
There were a few high-profile cases and a smattering of incidents in Park Slope, for example that have made the news as a conflict between a student in a public school and an NYPD school-safety officer, leading to the student being arrested or fined, said Jake Adler, New York policy director for New York for the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, a group backing the Intro 65 bill .
So in the council, there is a certain amount of hesitation to put more of these personnel into schools.
Critics from the Muslim community also expressed concerns about NYPD surveillance issues . The NYPD has, in the past, acknowledged its controversial surveillance of Muslim targets . When Intro 65 was first proposed, some members of the Muslim community questioned whether school security was really just another means of enabling NYPD surveillance of Muslims.
The $51 million dollar cost of the project was also a consideration for voters and politicians alike.
Now, four months after Intro 65 was first introduced, the council is working to tweak the language of the bill in a way that may appease opponents and help the legislation pass before the start of the academic year .
The most significant difference between the initial bill and this amended one is simply the uniform: Schools would now employ union security guards instead of the NYPD school-safety agents stationed in public schools.
We did have concerns from folks in different communities who preferred not to have NYPD school-safety agents, and we think that by changing these to union security guards, we address those concerns, Greenfield told the Forward . We guarantee that those are good-paying jobs, and we also limit the cost of the proposal to approximately $39 million per year . So these changes should give us wall-to-wall support within the various communities.
Ninety percent of the council 45 of 50 members already supports Intro 65 .
In fact, there s more support for this legislation than for any other piece of legislation currently in the council, according to Greenfield . And if there continues to be pushback, It s on the mayor to explain why he thinks the safety of schoolchildren isn t important, Greenfield said.
These union security guards would be stationed at the front doors of the schools to monitor who comes in and who goes out . I think it ll be similar to any other private armed security person you d see at a bank or at a mall, Adler said .
But none of the guards would have guns, which raises questions about how much they d actually be able to do in case of an emergency.
We ve heard everything, like What are they going to do, stop a terrorist ? Adler said . But there s a middle ground between expecting our schools to turn into armed encampments like they are in France, with assault or military-style rifles turning our kids into fortress-dwellers and having another person with an extra pair of eyes and ears monitoring the doors and security cameras, and making sure people belong there and if they don t, escorting them out.
Every security expert says that having a security guard in front of an institution will prevent 90 percent of attacks, Greenfield said, adding that while the potential of attack is always very serious, the guards are also meant to monitor crime, theft and incidents of students getting into fights .
There s been debate about this in the community, but the consensus is that we don t want firearms in our schools, and public schools adhere to that as well.
Bills similar to Intro 65 have also been introduced in neighboring states . This past June, Bill A4288, legislation that would provide security funding for private and parochial schools in New Jersey, passed an initial vote before the State Assembly s Education Committee. (The bill, co-sponsored by Assemblyman Gary Schaer, is less about security guards and geared more towards security improvements, like surveillance cameras and stronger locks.) The Orthodox Union, one group backing Intro 65 in New York, is simultaneously pushing for A4288 across the bridge.
Intro 65 also has full support from the UJA Federation of New York, the Archdiocese of New York, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Islamic Schools Association of New York.
This second proposal of the bill is on the agenda for a stated hearing August 20, and the council will vote on the amended legislation . While it s unclear how many schools would ultimately use the funding, if the bill passes, implementation should take roughly 60 to 120 days, according to Adler .
So come October or November, New York City s religious and nonreligious private schools might just have an extra pair of eyes and ears out front.
Contact Alexandra Levine at firstname.lastname@example.org
A typically timid Labour Party has felt unable to properly oppose the latest cuts to welfare benefits being proposed by a smug new Tory government. The Green Party has no such reservations.Green MP Caroline Lucas said, ahead of this week s vote:
Our crumbling social security system is on the brink now is the time to take a stand
Cuts are proposed to Tax Credits and there is a plan to limit all financial support to two children only. The slightly more generous benefits currently paid to those too unwell to work are being abolished.
Young adults (under 21) will no longer be able to claim Housing Benefit at all and those under 25 will not benefit from the introduction of a so called living wage which, when combined with cuts to in work benefits will be nothing of the kind for many low paid workers.
Perhaps the most vicious of the proposed reforms is the lowering of the Benefit Cap from 26,000 to 20,000 ( 23,000 in London). Under the existing cap the families affected are mostly large and living in London and the South East. The cap has had drastic consequences for many of them, forcing them to move away from areas where rents ( and the prospects of a job! ) are highest.
Under the reduced cap almost all families with 3 or more children will be affected, in all parts of the country.
A couple with 3 children living in Brighton in private rented accommodation for instance will only get 50 per week towards a rent which is usually set at least at the Local Housing Allowance level of 230 pw.
This means that 180 has to be found from 334 of benefits ( which are set at a level that even this government believes is the minimum amount required to afford essentials, not including
housing costs) leaving 154 pw for a couple and 3 children to live on, less than half of this minimum amount.
But even in Derbyshire, where rents are lower, the impact is huge, with such a family likely to be contributing up to 100 towards a private sector rent and not even having enough Housing Benefit to cover a council or housing association home , even if they all squeezed into a one bedroom flat!
The Benefit Cap must be strongly opposed on grounds of social justice but also because it makes no economic sense. Families will have to choose between eating and paying the rent, and many are likely to be made homeless as a consequence. They will then become the responsibility of cash strapped local councils to provide emergency accommodation, local councils which will have to implement the cap and are likely to take the blame for something over which they have no
Perhaps such families , who have chosen to feed and cloth their children rather than pay the rent , will be declared intentionally homeless and not entitled to assistance, in which case children will presumably end up in care at even greater expense and often with disastrous outcomes.
The main intention is probably not to save money but rather to scapegoat the unemployed , to divide those in work from those looking for it or not well enough to do so. The whole thing is based on the lie that it is easy to stay on welfare with a higher income than those in work when the reality is that a family of five earning 20,000 a year in employment is also dependent on benefits ( Child
Benefit Tax Credit and Housing Benefit) to survive.
The Green Party is determined to oppose such scapegoating, and is pleased that at least a minority of Labour MP, were prepared to join Caroline and other opposition MPs in voting against the bill , breaking the whip to do so. We will work with members of all parties and of none to oppose this dreadful government, which is anxious to ensure the continued and growing prosperity
of the rich at the expense of the rest of us.
Join us in the fight for the common good.
There is more wealth than ever in this country.
It is just in the wrong hands.