Tweet Facebook Mail A motorhome has been clocked speeding at 153km/h by police in regional New South Wales. Officers detected the vehicle driving at the speed at midday last Monday in a signposted 110km/h zone on the Hume Highway at Tumblong, about 390km south-west of Sydney. They pulled over the 23-year-old man driving the Fiat motorhome who was a UK international driving licence holder. READ MORE: Major heatwave to sweep millions this week The motorhome driver was fined and suspended from driving after he was clocked speeding at 153km/h in regional NSW. (NSW Police) There were three passengers in the vehicle. The driver was handed a $1097 infringement notice for exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 kilometres per hour. His driving privileges were immediately suspended for three months. 'Burn that pole': Overly complicated parking sign sparks outrage View Gallery DOWNLOAD THE 9NEWS APP : Stay across all the latest in breaking news, sport, politics and the weather via our news app and get notifications sent straight to your smartphone. Available on the Apple App Store and Google Play .
North Korea, Russia defence treaty comes into forceNone
Impeachment Politics Unlikely To Affect South Korean EconomyPainstaking diplomacy and then anger at the climate talks
MARA Holdings, Inc. Completes $850 Million Offering of Zero-Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due 2031Macquarie inks $300m deal to finance EVs for ride-share drivers
Football clubs ‘alarmed’ by lack of consultation on regulator – Karren BradyNone
Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here . ••• I never liked Joe Biden, but I applaud his giving Ukraine permission to fire American missiles into Russia ( “U.S. approval affects Ukraine’s use of a missile and its mission,” column, Nov. 21). We need NATO leaders to stand up to Vladimir Putin. He’s a Stalinist who wants to recreate the Soviet Union. There will be no ceding Ukrainian land for a peace deal. That will just be an opportunity for Putin to regroup and rearm and attack Ukraine again. He will not stop until all of Ukraine is part of Russia. Then Moldova. It’s predicted Putin within the next 8-10 years will invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Both Finland and Sweden are gearing up for war with Russia. Has everyone forgotten Western Europe’s attempts to appease Adolf Hitler prior to World War II? Hitler invaded the Rhineland in western Germany, then forcibly annexed Austria. Next, he took over the Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia and then Hitler invaded all of Czechoslovakia, then finally Poland. Putin will be in the 21st century like Hitler in the 20th. With Hitler it was “lebensraum,” “room to breathe.” With Putin it’s the new USSR with all of Eastern Europe in it again. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are the 21st century’s axis of evil. Americans want to bury their heads in the sand until China attacks the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea and/or North Korea fires nuclear-armed ICBMs at the continental U.S. It’s looking like this is the age where authoritarian empires rule and democracy fails. What are Americans going to do? Jim Branstrom, Virginia, Minn. ••• In Thursday’s edition the front page has photographs of Mickey’s Diner, a small dining car. Also on Thursday, the front page of the Business section featured a large photograph of Graze food hall, a restaurant. Last Sunday’s paper featured articles on restaurants and instructions on how to stock a home bar (as though those who live to eat and drink alcoholic beverages need instruction on what alcoholic beverages to buy) ( “Raising the bar,” Nov. 17). On Thursday, Biden’s decision to send Ukraine $275 million in new weapons and give them authority to use long-range missiles that will go deep into Russia, which is pushing the envelope, is way back at the bottom of page A4 (“Biden rushes to bolster Kyiv before Jan. 20′′). Why is the Star Tribune so enamored of eating places and watering holes that it treats news about them as more important than national developments that may adversely affect us all? John D. Sens, Savage ••• Regarding the top letter to the editor on Nov. 22, where the writer states in his last sentence, “This [Biden authorizing use of American missiles in Ukraine] is most likely a last-minute effort by Biden to save face for himself as he leaves office, as he has been largely responsible for all the death and suffering in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world.” Were you asleep in English class when the definition of hyperbole came up? Just wondering. Kathy Mattsson, Minnetonka “Big tent” a big joke I fully oppose Ken Martin becoming the chair of the Democratic National Committee ( “DFL Chair Martin seeks DNC top spot,” Nov. 20). He stated that Democrats are the “big-tent party” that includes all factions of political philosophy. Has he looked at the voting map of Minnesota on Nov. 5? It looks like there are a whole lot of red voters around Minnesota that weren’t members of his “big tent.” He has done nothing to foster relationships and understanding in rural Minnesota. He puts all his chips in the metro basket. We have a Minneapolis City Council completely out of step with the majority of its citizens. Several members are aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, and they are pursuing policies that are extreme and destructive such as the creation of a labor standards board, gridlock with the Third Precinct, creating the brouhaha with Lyft and Uber drivers and taking a stance on a foreign policy issue with no relation to city business. Yet these representatives were able to secure endorsement from Martin’s DFL. Martin clearly does not understand the mood of the electorate who is looking for common sense governance. The DNC needs leadership that understands this and Martin is not that person. Judith Bird, Byron, Minn. Next caller, please Good luck to Elena Neuzil as she begins her five-month leave from the Minnesota Star Tribune, and best wishes to Noor Adwan as the interim letters editor. Like Neuzil, I, too, have been reflecting on the content of letters to the editor, but, unlike Neuzil, I find that the letters section is very much similar to a water cooler discussion in that every day you see the same people there, to the point where one is no longer thirsty. There are about a dozen writers whose letters are published and I wonder why? Their views are predictable and repetitive, and the space given to them is space not given to another who may have a different perspective. I hope that in these intervening five months we can stop seeing the same names appearing in this section. Bob Collins, Woodbury Bravo, Michael Brodkorb You, the Cheneys, and a few other prominent Republicans had the fortitude to put country above party in forsaking Donald Trump while so many GOPers bowed to the MAGA cult ( “No regrets from this Republican about endorsing Harris,” Nov. 20). It is heartening to see that there still remain a few members of the party of Arne Carlson, Dave Durenberger, and Tim Pawlenty. Lucyan Mech, Lauderdale ••• If my math is correct, a gentleman who has been a long-term subscriber to the Star Tribune is of similar vintage to me (a decadeslong subscriber). He states that he is not renewing his subscription due to the Star Tribune’s “reprinting of hit pieces on the president-elect by the AP, Washington Post, and New York Times,” which he finds “beyond the pale” ( Readers Write , Nov. 22). I am wondering which statements in these articles he has found to be false or inaccurate? Short of that, these articles are giving their readers a full picture of the man slated to be our 47th president and that is vital to all of us. Theresa J. Lippert, St. Paul Restaurant decline no surprise This is in regards to the article about the reduction of corporate parties held in local restaurants this holiday season ( “Restaurants seek holiday boost,” Nov. 20). This is my point of view as to why things may be slow. I’m of medium means, certain to have enough income to do many things. During all holiday seasons I’ve always gone out at various times with family and friends. However, when I recently went out with my husband and grandson, the price of the meal impeded my enjoyment of the event. For all of us we ordered one cheeseburger, one grilled cheese sandwich, fried fish, onion rings, fries, a root beer and two cocktails. When our waitress, who was very nice and professional, presented me with the bill, it turned out to be $99. With tip it amounted to $125. I can afford to go to these restaurants, but it doesn’t give a very lasting experience. We all want experiences that are memorable. Eating at a nice middle-class restaurant with ordinary food doesn’t give us the same experience as a luxurious restaurant for a very special occasion. The lack of an uptick in restaurant bookings this holiday season may have more to do with how expensive things have become than anything else. Sandi Stein, Minneapolis
Clubs from across the football pyramid are “alarmed” by the lack of consultation on legislation which could “fundamentally affect the future of English football”, West Ham vice-chairwoman Karren Brady has said. The Apprentice star also argued that a lack of clarity from the Government on the ownership test is causing “significant uncertainty” for potential investors. This came as the House of Lords continued its scrutiny of the Football Governance Bill, which seeks to establish an independent regulator for the top five tiers of the men’s game. In the upper chamber, Baroness Brady said: “We are creating legislation which will profoundly affect 160 quite unique institutions, from Premier League clubs through to the National League community clubs, but it is important for everyone to understand that the consultation with these affected businesses by the current Government has been remarkably limited, almost unbelievably so. “Just seven Premier League clubs, I was one of them, was granted a brief half-hour meeting with the Secretary of State over the summer. “And following this cursory engagement, significant decisions were made that could fundamentally affect the future of English football, most notably with the inclusion of parachute payments within the backstop mechanism. “This is particularly concerning given that fundamental issues still remained unresolved, we still lack any clarity on Uefa’s position on state interference, for example, this clearly creates profound uncertainty for clubs competing in or aspiring to European competition, as well as our national teams.” “We don’t know what the ownership test will look like, this causes significant uncertainty for potential investors as to whether they are able to own a club,” she added. Lady Brady continued: “I have spoken to many of my colleagues across all of the football pyramid, we are all alarmed about and puzzled by the lack of discussion on the Bill with ministers. “Would the minister agree that we all want to get the detail of this Bill right? And can she see any downsides to providing meaningful opportunities to hear from all clubs across the football pyramid affected by the legislation?” Prior to this, Tory shadow sports minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay had tabled an amendment which he said would allow clubs to “make their views known on this legislation” by including specific competitions on the face of the Bill. Labour frontbencher Baroness Twycross told the upper chamber: “I don’t think the leagues are confused either on which leagues this legislation will apply to.” She added: “This power is both reasonable and the result of evidence-based consultation with all key stakeholders in the industry. “This power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and ensures the scope of the regime remains relevant.” The peer later said: “Over the past three years there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations.” Lady Brady also raised concerns about the financial distribution backstop, which she said is “clearly designed as a mechanism to gain direct access to, and apportionate Premier League revenue, and no-one else’s”. “I might add the backstop will allow the IFR (Independent Football Regulator) to do this even if it was against the Premier League clubs’ will, or even without the clubs’ agreement, even if it was to have a detrimental effect on the clubs and the overall competition it removes revenue from,” she added. The backstop would allow the new IFR to intervene in the distribution of Premier League broadcast revenue down the leagues as a last resort. It could be triggered by the Premier League, English Football League (EFL) or National League to mediate the fair financial distribution of this revenue if they are not able to come to an agreement. Conservative peers later raised concerns over the cost implications to clubs of establishing the regulator, although they faced claims of “filibustering” – wasting time by making overlong speeches in a bid to delay progress. Watching opposition benches blatantly filibustering to destroy the Football Governance Bill is nothing short of sporting vandalism.Football is broken. Clubs are struggling. Now those seats have been lost, do they no longer care about likes of Reading or Southend? — Niall Couper (@NiallCouper) Labour peer Lord Watson of Invergowrie questioned why Lord Parkinson was showing “confected outrage” at the Bill when the former culture minister would have been defending a similar proposal had the Tories remained in power. Lord Parkinson, in his reply, said: “We want to see this regulator established, we want to see it doing its work and doing so effectively, but we also see before us a Bill that is different because of the election that was called and the result that happened, and we’re interrogating particularly closely the changes that the Government have made to the Bill – of which there are many. “And we have more concerns on these benches than we did before the election from my colleagues behind me about the way we do it.” The Tory peer pointed to Labour frontbenchers fulfilling their duties to “properly scrutinise” then-government legislation when they were on the opposition benches. Lady Twycross, in an intervention, said: “While I agree that (Lord Parkinson) is correct that I would scrutinise legislation when I was sitting on those (opposition) benches, I have never sought to filibuster a Bill to which my party had committed, which my party had laid before Parliament, and intended to filibuster it to the point of getting us stuck in treacle.” Lord Parkinson replied: “That is not what we’re doing.” Niall Couper, chief executive of the campaign group Fair Game, wrote on social media site X: “Watching opposition benches blatantly filibustering to destroy the Football Governance Bill is nothing short of sporting vandalism.”After awards haul, Helldivers 2 devs lament the "dire state" of the games industry: "We need to be there to help each other"
The Apprentice star also argued that a lack of clarity from the Government on the ownership test is causing “significant uncertainty” for potential investors. This came as the House of Lords continued its scrutiny of the Football Governance Bill, which seeks to establish an independent regulator for the top five tiers of the men’s game. In the upper chamber, Baroness Brady said: “We are creating legislation which will profoundly affect 160 quite unique institutions, from Premier League clubs through to the National League community clubs, but it is important for everyone to understand that the consultation with these affected businesses by the current Government has been remarkably limited, almost unbelievably so. “Just seven Premier League clubs, I was one of them, was granted a brief half-hour meeting with the Secretary of State over the summer. “And following this cursory engagement, significant decisions were made that could fundamentally affect the future of English football, most notably with the inclusion of parachute payments within the backstop mechanism. “This is particularly concerning given that fundamental issues still remained unresolved, we still lack any clarity on Uefa’s position on state interference, for example, this clearly creates profound uncertainty for clubs competing in or aspiring to European competition, as well as our national teams.” “We don’t know what the ownership test will look like, this causes significant uncertainty for potential investors as to whether they are able to own a club,” she added. Lady Brady continued: “I have spoken to many of my colleagues across all of the football pyramid, we are all alarmed about and puzzled by the lack of discussion on the Bill with ministers. “Would the minister agree that we all want to get the detail of this Bill right? And can she see any downsides to providing meaningful opportunities to hear from all clubs across the football pyramid affected by the legislation?” Prior to this, Tory shadow sports minister Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay had tabled an amendment which he said would allow clubs to “make their views known on this legislation” by including specific competitions on the face of the Bill. Labour frontbencher Baroness Twycross told the upper chamber: “I don’t think the leagues are confused either on which leagues this legislation will apply to.” She added: “This power is both reasonable and the result of evidence-based consultation with all key stakeholders in the industry. “This power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and ensures the scope of the regime remains relevant.” The peer later said: “Over the past three years there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations.” Lady Brady also raised concerns about the financial distribution backstop, which she said is “clearly designed as a mechanism to gain direct access to, and apportionate Premier League revenue, and no-one else’s”. “I might add the backstop will allow the IFR (Independent Football Regulator) to do this even if it was against the Premier League clubs’ will, or even without the clubs’ agreement, even if it was to have a detrimental effect on the clubs and the overall competition it removes revenue from,” she added. The backstop would allow the new IFR to intervene in the distribution of Premier League broadcast revenue down the leagues as a last resort. It could be triggered by the Premier League, English Football League (EFL) or National League to mediate the fair financial distribution of this revenue if they are not able to come to an agreement. Conservative peers later raised concerns over the cost implications to clubs of establishing the regulator, although they faced claims of “filibustering” – wasting time by making overlong speeches in a bid to delay progress. Labour peer Lord Watson of Invergowrie questioned why Lord Parkinson was showing “confected outrage” at the Bill when the former culture minister would have been defending a similar proposal had the Tories remained in power. Lord Parkinson, in his reply, said: “We want to see this regulator established, we want to see it doing its work and doing so effectively, but we also see before us a Bill that is different because of the election that was called and the result that happened, and we’re interrogating particularly closely the changes that the Government have made to the Bill – of which there are many. “And we have more concerns on these benches than we did before the election from my colleagues behind me about the way we do it.” The Tory peer pointed to Labour frontbenchers fulfilling their duties to “properly scrutinise” then-government legislation when they were on the opposition benches. Lady Twycross, in an intervention, said: “While I agree that (Lord Parkinson) is correct that I would scrutinise legislation when I was sitting on those (opposition) benches, I have never sought to filibuster a Bill to which my party had committed, which my party had laid before Parliament, and intended to filibuster it to the point of getting us stuck in treacle.” Lord Parkinson replied: “That is not what we’re doing.” Niall Couper, chief executive of the campaign group Fair Game, wrote on social media site X: “Watching opposition benches blatantly filibustering to destroy the Football Governance Bill is nothing short of sporting vandalism.”
PM to promise police officer for every community in landmark ‘Plan for Change’
As part of Nintendo's official Black Friday sale, Switch Joy-Con Controllers are available at a big discount. Switch owners can scoop up a pair of Neon Red and Blue Joy-Con Controllers for $60 (was $80) . Multiple major retailers, including Best Buy and Target , are offering the $20 discount. Nintendo's other official controller, the Switch Pro Controller , is also on sale for $20 off for Black Friday. Both of these official controller deals are great add-ons for anyone who purchases one of the Nintendo Switch holiday bundles, which have received massive discounts at Target and Best Buy . The Nintendo Switch OLED with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and one year of Switch Online is on sale for $275 (was $350). The same bundle with the regular Switch is up for grabs for $225 (was $300). Nintendo Black Friday Deals Animal Crossing: New Horizons -- $40 ( $60 ) The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom -- $40 ( $70 ) Kirby and the Forgotten Land -- $40 ( $60 ) Nintendo Switch Sports -- $40 ( $50 ) Pikmin 1 + 2 -- $30 ( $50 ) Pikmin 4 -- $40 ( $60 ) Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury -- $40 ( $60 ) Super Mario Maker 2 -- $40 ( $60 ) Super Mario Odyssey -- $30 ( $60 ) Switch Pro Controller -- $50 ( $70 ) See at Target See at Best Buy Neon Red And Blue Joy-Cons -- $60 ( $80 ) See at Target See at Best Buy Nintendo Switch + Mario Kart 8 Deluxe + 1-Year Switch Online -- $225 ( $300 ) See at Target See at Best Buy Nintendo Switch OLED + Mario Kart 8 Deluxe + 1-Year Switch Online -- $275 ( $350 ) See at Target See at Best Buy Nintendo Switch Lite - Hyule Edition with 12-Month Nintendo Switch + Expansion Pack Online bundle -- $210None
Uruguay's voters choose their next president in a close runoff with low stakes but much suspenseChatfield Public Schools to ask voters for $11 million in February referendum
NoneAfter defeat in LS elections, many lose assembly polls as well